English, gender and God

quote:

---

The most I can say for myself is that I don't use those terms in speech, only in print. Which is probably worse than the other way around, come to think of it - but I guess it just goes to show that one's speech and one's writing are different dialects.

---

My lecturer in English language used to say that as a rule of thumb We write the way our parents talked. As a rough guide it seems to describe what goes on pretty well.

quote:

---

We write the way our parents talked.

---

Wow... not even close in my case. It is an interesting comment though, perhaps a reference to writing styles typically being more formal than spoken English? Or, even better, to the fact that spoken slang outstrips written styles?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

perhaps a reference to writing styles typically being more formal than spoken English? Or, even better, to the fact that spoken slang outstrips written styles?

---

Both, I think. Of course, as he said himself, he wasn't referring to James Joyce, and it wasn't intended as a fully descriptive rule.Sadly, the old guy is dead now, but he was talking in the late 70s when he himself was in his 60s. In the last 25-30 years we have seen very informal writing becoming much more common, on the internet of course, but also in the public prints. Interestingly, though, it doesn't follow speech, but has its own diction and phrasing. Blogs are fascinating to mine for the patterns in informal writing and there is a lot of good work being done on the linguistics of blogs, internet chat and SMS messaging.

John responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Hold it right there.

---

​

Calm down.

---

I am calm. You're the one that's overreacting.

quote:

---

I said up front that it wasn't clear to what you were getting at.

---

And I was simply stopping you at the moment you went astray. Since false premises can lead to any conclusion, it is important to point them out lest we spend a lot of time going down an unjustified path.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I am saying it isn't but instead it can be used in a biased manner.

---

​

Why not the possibility that the use of 'he' as a neuter is biased, but can be, and these days probably always is, used in an unbiased way?

---

I don't understand your statement.

quote:

---

quote:

---

So if I understand that definition and I am clear in my usage that that is the meaning I intend by that usage, by what justification is there for someone else to come along and say that I am being biased?

---

​

I don't think anyone has accused you of personally being biased.

---

Nor did I say they were. As you put it, "calm down." I was simply using myself as a rhetorical device.

quote:

---

It is nonetheless possible to have a bias in the language you use.

---

How? If the definition is clear and the majority of speakers recognize the defintion and the context made it clear which definition was intended, where is the bias?

quote:

---

quote:

---

I am saying that the language isn't biased, but the person is and will use the language accordingly.

---

​

How do you use 'he' and 'she' 'accordingly?'

---

In appropriate contexts. That's where usage comes in.

quote:

---

There isn't much wiggle room in English.

---

That should make it even more apparent that there isn't any bias.

quote:

---

Obviously female things, like females, are refered to as 'she.' Everything else is 'he' with a few exceptions-- ships, sports cars, that sort of thing.

---

From a line used in a Litte Rascals episode put it, "Things of beauty, grace, and speed are often referred to in a feminine manner."Let's not forget the countries are often referred to as "she"...the "motherland" is more common than the "fatherland." "God bless America/Land that I love/Stand beside her/And guide her/Through the night/With the light/From above."Certain other inanimate objects are referred to as male, however, such as mountains.

quote:

---

It is precisely this usage pattern that can be considered a bias.

---

But is it? There is a difference between perception and reality.

quote:

---

quote:

---

But you're assuming that the language is biased to begin with.

---

​

I am assuming that the language embodies certain patterns reflecting the thoughts of its past speakers in its vocabulary and syntax.

---

But that leads us back to my question:So if I understand that definition and I am clear in my usage that that is the meaning I intend by that usage, by what justification is there for someone else to come along and say that I am being biased?

quote:

---

quote:

---

What if it isn't?

---

​

How can it not be?

---

Because if the language makes a distinction, I understand that distintion, and you understand that distinction, how can there be any bias if we all agree that what was said was what was actually meant?

quote:

---

Bias is just a reflection of the language's history. Whether a moral judgement is made about that history is another thing altogether.

---

But what is bias if not a moral judgement?There is a difference between the concept that a woman can't be a surgeon and a man can't be a nurse and the concept that the language prevents one from saying that a surgeon is female and a nurse is male.That is, just because many people find it difficult to talk of nursing without using feminine pronouns doesn't mean the language is forcing you to use feminine pronouns. If there were a linguistic rule of nurses being "she," then we might have a claim of "bias in the language." But as there isn't, it ain't.

quote:

---

quote:

---

What if the language understands the difference between "he" in the neuter and "he" in the masculine?

---

​

How can the language 'understand' anything?

---

Because the language is not tied to any one person. In a sense, the language exists outside of its speakers. It's a very Platonist attitude, I admit, but I am a Platonist at heart (too much mathematics). While I definitely agree that dictionaries are descriptive, not proscriptive, that is only as a primary point. There are many times when a dictionary is proscriptive.As Inigo said to Vizzini: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."That is, there are times when a person is simply wrong in what was said. While the person may think that what was said is indicative of what was meant, there are times when it simply doesn't.In my own writing habits, for example, I often lose my nots. That is, I have often found when going over something that I have written that I have said something like, "I do like anchovies," when what I really meant to say was, "I do not like anchovies." Where the "not" went, I don't know. I meant to type it...it just didn't seem to manage to get out of my fingers. But the simple fact of the matter is that it doesn't matter how much I understood what I was saying nor how sincere I was in my statement: English insists that negation requires a "not" or a derivative in there somewhere. The fact that I am the user of the language and the language follows usage doesn't wash in this particular instance. No negation in the structure of the utterance, no negation in the meaning of the utterance.There is a structure of the language that exists outside its speakers. It is not something that is forever set, never to change, but it is there.

quote:

---

The understanding is in the brains which created it and which use it, but the structure of a language is robust enough that patterns of thought get passed along for quite some time.

---

But what are those patterns? I am saying those patterns exist, even if only in the abstract: We all agree that those are the rules and that if you break them, you aren't saying what you mean to say.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Does the mere fact that the same word is used for both inherently mean bias?

---

​

Well... yeah, in a sense. The brain works a lot more by association than by logic.

---

But we're not talking about the brain. We're talking about the language.Are you saying the language is forcing you to think in a certain way? Or is it you are forcing the language to behave in a certain way?

quote:

---

Things named with the same word are associated. Not very long ago a poster here objected to the term 'apologetic.' I pointed out that it comes from a word meaning 'to defend publically' and that it does not derive from the English 'apologize.' The two were associated because of the similarity in the terms. It isn't logical. It isn't historically accurate. But there you go. The association was made. That's the way brains work.

---

But here's the thing: You were right. It doesn't matter how much a person may complain that he thinks the word is derived from "apologize." He's wrong. It doesn't mean that. No matter how much he can complain about the usage, he's wrong.There are wrong answers in the world.

quote:

---

quote:

---

But only if you assume there is salt in the water to begin with.

---

​

There is always salt in the water.

---

No, there isn't. That's a pretty big claim you've made there, that everybody is incapable of understanding the difference between a general concept and a specific concept.

quote:

---

That salt is the history of the language. This is quite a justified assumption.

---

And when the history of the language is that there is a clear distinction between a word used in a generalized context and a word used in a specific context, why the complaint when someone actually goes by that history?Why is it we don't hear people complaining nearly as much about the need for a "you, general" pronoun to contrast with the "you, specific" pronoun? People often write in the second person as a generalized concept, and yet we (and here I'm using the first person as a generalized concept) rarely get confused as to which is which. And if there is confusion, a clarification is requested and made and we move on without people making accusations of "getting personal."

quote:

---

quote:

---

And if the history of the language isn't that, what then?

---

​

History is bias.

---

There's that assumption, again.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

quote:

---

Since false premises can lead to any conclusion, it is important to point them out lest we spend a lot of time going down an unjustified path.

---

Ar you sure you meant to say that? False premises lead nowhere on their own. Only arguments move from one proposition to another.

quote:

---

There is a difference between the concept that a woman can't be a surgeon and a man can't be a nurse and the concept that the language prevents one from saying that a surgeon is female and a nurse is male.
That is, just because many people find it difficult to talk of nursing without using feminine pronouns doesn't mean the language is forcing you to use feminine pronouns. If there were a linguistic rule of nurses being "she," then we might have a claim of "bias in the language." But as there isn't, it ain't.

---

That's true. Except that you seemed to think earlier that words have a certain meaning in reality which is separate from usage. In which case, does not nurse mean in reality a woman who gives suck to a child? Of course, one may argue that usage has removed that bias and moved on from that meaning, with which I would agree. I would argue, then, that just as usage has removed the bias from this term, so usage has ingrained a bias in the use of he.

quote:

---

There are many times when a dictionary is proscriptive.

---

Not in English. Maybe in French, where the Academie attempts to rule what constitutes correct French. Doctor Johnson wished his Dictionary to "fix the language" but admitted eventually that it could not be done. The Oxford has never pretended to more than description.

quote:

---

... there are times when a person is simply wrong in what was said. While the person may think that what was said is indicative of what was meant, there are times when it simply doesn't.

---

But your examples, reasonable as they are, are of individual usages, not of usages shared amongst a community of users.

quote:

---

English insists that negation requires a "not" or a derivative in there somewhere ... No negation in the structure of the utterance, no negation in the meaning of the utterance.

---

I like anchovies? I like them like s**t.

quote:

---

There is a structure of the language that exists outside its speakers.

---

In what does it exist? What is its mode? How is it manifested?

quote:

---

I am saying those patterns exist, even if only in the abstract: We all agree that those are the rules and that if you break them, you aren't saying what you mean to say.

---

But you also seem to saying that these patterns can change. I am sure no one would disagree with that. The issue at hand is how users should react to usages which are in flux or appear to be in flux. How are we to know, for example, whether a usage is wrong (as you might say) or whether it is simply shifting its meaning. Perhaps Vizzini's overworked inconceivable is taking on a meaning which Inigo is powerless to prevent? How are we to decide if it is Inigo or Vizzini who is wrong?

quote:

---

But here's the thing: You were right. It doesn't matter how much a person may complain that he thinks the word is derived from "apologize." He's wrong. It doesn't mean that. No matter how much he can complain about the usage, he's wrong.

---

Now you seem to be confusing etymology and meaning - an oversight? Or do you think nurse really means a breastfeeding woman.

quote:

---

Why is it we don't hear people complaining nearly as much about the need for a "you, general" pronoun to contrast with the "you, specific" pronoun?

---

Because they can use forms such as y'all or youse? Or because they can use simple circumlocutions - such as all of you.

quote:

---

People often write in the second person as a generalized concept, and yet we (and here I'm using the first person as a generalized concept) rarely get confused as to which is which. And if there is confusion, a clarification is requested and made and we move on without people making accusations of "getting personal."

---

Yes I agree. Paul should have done exactly that - sought clarification and we could have moved on.

Mister Pamboli responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

What pronoun would you suggest one use to refer to Mr. Einstein?
I keep asking this over and over, but nobody seems to answer it.
...
But nobody actually gives me the specific word that ought to be used.

---

​

This is priceless.

---

Indeed, it is. You still don't answer it. You've seen my request, what I am specifically looking for, and despite the fact that I responded exactly as I would have liked you to have done for me, you once again refuse to give me the respect of a similar answer.What does it take? Flowers? Dinner?I want to see the word. What specific pronoun would you suggest one use to refer to Mr. Einstein?

quote:

---

Later in the post I asked what pronoun Rh would use to describe an apparent transgender character in a movie. His answer was ...

​

If the person sees the character as male since the character has a penis, then the pronoun is "he." If the person sees the character as female since the character lives as a woman despite having a penis or is perceived as a woman, then the pronoun is "she."
See how simple that was? You asked for a pronoun and I gave you the specific ones.

---

And notice you still don't have the decency to respond in kind!I gave you specific words.Why can't you give them to me?

quote:

---

Note the specific ones.

---

Yes.Why can't you return the favor? What does it take?

quote:

---

Rh's answer is basically the same as an earlier one I gave in post 19 about the pronoun one would use for God: I think they should use the pronoun they prefer.

---

But that doesn't answer the question.I'm looking for a specific word. Feel free to give details on context if there are reasons why it might vary, but I want to see the specific words.I did it for you when you asked me.Why can't you return the favor?

quote:

---

So the answer to all these questions is that one should use, not one specific pronoun, but the pronoun one thinks appropriate.

---

Which is?Be specific.

quote:

---

I cannot suggest that one use a specific pronoun about Einstein unless I want to comment on Einstein's gender.

---

Bingo!So please do me the favor of making that comment and then get around to answering the question:What pronoun would you suggest one use to refer to Mr. Einstein?

quote:

---

The question is in fact an example of a many questions construction - because the real issue would be better phrased as What gender do you believe Einstein to have been, and, given that gender, what pronoun would you suggest one use to refer to him?

---

So are you saying that the honorific "Mr." is ambiguous?What pronoun would you suggest one use to refer to Mr. Einstein?

quote:

---

Thus, Rh's claim that we are avoiding his straightforward question is disingenuous - we are avoiding his misleadingly straightforward question, which hides the issue which is really under discussion. That's what I am getting at.

---

It is hardly disingenuous. It is an attempt to get you to recognize that there is somebody else in this discussion other than you:Paul.Why the complaint about Paul's usage as if Paul's opinion had no relevance?What pronoun would you suggest one use to refer to Mr. Einstein?

quote:

---

quote:

---

I really want to know. What pronoun would you suggest one use to describe Mr. Einstein?

---

​

If one sees Einstein

---

No...not "Einstein." "Mr. Einstein."What pronoun would you suggest one use to describe Mr. Einstein?

quote:

---

If one sees Einstein as male for whatever reason then the pronoun I would recommend is he. If the person sees Einstein as female for whatever reason, or example this writer http://members.cts.com/king/n/ndanger/980428/einstein.htm, then the pronoun I would recommend is she.

---

Thank you.Now, what does it seem Paul thinks of god? Is god a Mr. or a Ms.? Or something else? Remember, this isn't about what you think or what I think or what anybody else thinks other than what we can reasonably infer from Paul's writings.If it is the case that Paul thinks of god as male, then how can there be a claim of "sexism," especially a claim attached to the language, by the use of the word "he" in referring to god?That is, the question of sexism in the formulation of god as male such as the idea that god being female or even having a feminine aspect is somehow demeaning to god is separate from the question of what to call god once we have made a determination of how gender relates to god.In essence, wouldn't you say the language doesn't care if god has a sex, transcends questions of sex, is the embodiment of both sexes, or some other possibility not mentioned? The language has ways of dealing with all such possibilities and thus does not force an opinion? Rather, the person using the language is the one that decides what his conception of god is and will therefore use the language to articulate that conception?

quote:

---

See how simple that was? You asked for a pronoun and I gave you the specific ones.

---

After how many instances of me asking the same question?When you asked me, I answered immediately. I had to beat you over the head with the same question for a week before I got an answer.Seems to me that it isn't simple at all.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Um, I'm looking at post 19 and it's by crashfrog, not you.

---

​

Look again.

---

You're right. I don't know what post 19 I thought I was looking at, but it wasn't the actual post 19.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I don't recall you giving me a word. I'm asking you for a word. A single word.

---

​

No single word, a choice of words depending on the speaker's view of Einstein's gender - just as in your answer, an approach I commend.

---

But you will note that each instance resulted in a single word.That said, your question leaves me confused:I didn't ask about "Einstein." I asked about "Mr. Einstein."Are you saying that one could logically call Mr. Einstein "she"? That the honorific "Mr." is somehow ambiguous?

quote:

---

quote:

---

... you haven't demonstrated, at least not to my satisfaction, that the question is irrelevant. I find it very relevant. So relevant, in fact, that I wonder why you are doing everything you can to avoid answering it directly.

---

​

I wish I knew why you find it relevant.

---

Considering that I have given all of my reasons for why I find it relevant, I am at a loss to explain it any further. Let me try again:The conversation seemed to go something like this:1) Paul makes a comment about god.
2) You respond using "she" in reference to god.
3) Paul rolls his eyes.
4) schrafinator makes a claim of sexism "ingrained" in the language that Paul is insisting on using "he" for god.The point I am making is that schraf's comment is ill-placed. If we take it as a given, which I think is a reasonable thing to do, that Paul thinks of god as male, then the use of "he" for god is only right and there can be no sexism involved. It may be sexism that is bringing Paul to the conclusion that god is male, but once one has reached the conclusion that god is male, then it would seem to be the case that one would use "he" in reference to god. After all, by analogy, what pronoun is suggested to be used to refer to Mr. Einstein?Yes, there may be a question as to whether the honorific should be not "Mr." but rather "Ms." (or even something else entirely) but given that for the specific question at hand it is "Mr." and not "Ms.," that question is irrelevant. Given that the speaker said, "Mr. Einstein," what prounoun would one suggest one use?

quote:

---

I'm at a loss to see how one can extrapolate from a usage about Einstein to a usage in a case where a gender pronoun is actually being called into question.

---

Because you're completely dismissing Paul's opinion as irrelevant.The accusation is that there is something wrong with the language as evidenced by somebody insisting that god is male. That makes no sense. Why can't god be male? I easily agree that there are people who think that god isn't male and can put forth a case to justify their position, but we seem to have somebody in our midst who does indeed think that god is male. And given the existence of that person, would we not expect that person to refer to god as "he"? And given the existence of that person, would we not expect that person to react to those that would call god "she"? And if so, how can it be an example of "ingrained" sexism in the language to do so?Again, the specific reaction of Paul rolling his eyes is not being defended here. While one would hope that Paul would do something else like ignore the use of "she" and simply consistently call god "he" or perhaps spawn another thread concerning the theological underpinnings for the sex of god and why one would conclude that it is male, the fact that he had a reaction is not unexpected, is it? Wouldn't we expect someone who has some certainty, even if it is only in his own mind, about the subject to resist assertions that god isn't male?If so, how can it be a fault of sexism in the language?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Argumentum ad populum.

---

​

No - this was not an argumentum ad populum.

---

Yes, it was. Here is your precise statement that had me respond: Tell me...how is it that "no one but you thinks [this]" is not an argument by appeal to numbers? "Everybody else thinks this, therefore it is right."

quote:

---

An argumentum ad populum would be to claim the truth of the proposition on the basis of the population supporting it.

---

And how is that not what is being said by "no one but you thinks [this]"?

quote:

---

You may be right and we may be wrong - our numbers have nothing to do with it.

---

Then why make an argument of "no one but you thinks [this]"?

quote:

---

But the fact that none of us on this thread, except you, believes your question about Einstein to be relevant, explains why no one is answering it.

---

Ah, but the question wasn't why nobody was answering it. The question was whether or not it is relevant. Obviously, the people who don't think it is relevant will not be answering it. But just because somebody thinks it is irrelevant doesn't mean it actually is.Here is your complete statement: The point was not about that you and crash and schraf, in specific, are of the opinion that my question is irrelevant. You were declaring that it is, indeed, irrelevant, justified by the fact that you and crash and schraf have all refused to answer it.

quote:

---

It was answering your question about Einstein that was the subject of that point, not the more general proposition about appropriate pronouns.

---

But the question about Mr. Einstein has direct relevance. If you can tell me what pronoun you would suggest one use to refer to Mr. Einstein, you will have your answer as to what pronoun you would suggest one use to refer to a male god.Let me see if I can tie it up in a more complex question:If it is not sexist to refer to Mr. Einstein as "he;" that is, there is no "ingrained" sexism in the language to refer to Mr. Einstein as "he;" then how can it be sexist to refer to a male god as "he;" that is, how can it be an example of "ingrained" sexism in the language to refer to a male god as "he"?

quote:

---

quote:

---

And in over 60 posts, the three of you have failed to persuade me that it isn't.
But surely you aren't arguing that because it's three against one that makes it true, are you?

---

​

Absolutely not. Never would. But it does explain why the discussion is going the way it is.

---

So why not try a different tack, consider the possibility that the question is relevant, and answer it to see where it leads?

quote:

---

quote:

---

When was it determined that the gender is at issue?

---

​

When Paul eye-rolled the word She used of God.

---

And that is completely unexpected of a person who thinks god is male?It may be a rude response, yes, but is it unexpected given the stance of god being male? Is it indicative of sexism in the language to have such a response? Or perhaps might it be indicative of something else? Indeed, there may be sexism involved in the response, but is the sexism rooted in the language or might it be rooted elsewhere? Perhaps in the process that led to the conclusion that god is male?False premises can lead to false conclusions, but that doesn't mean that the steps involved in getting to that false conclusion are illogical. When you perform an indirect proof, you deliberately start with something that you are going to eventually show to be wrong. However, every step along the way from those false premises is a logically valid step given those premises. When we reach the contradiction at the end, we do not fault any of the intermediate steps of the proof. Instead, we fault the premises.You can argue all you want that god is not strictly male and that there is sexism involved in the conclusion that god is male, but given the premise that god is male, it is logical that one would use "he" to refer to god.After all, what pronoun would you suggest one use to refer to Mr. Einstein?

quote:

---

quote:

---

And if you don't know, who are you to tell him that his pronoun is wrong?

---

​

Actually, he implied my pronoun was wrong.

---

Not "wrong" as in misspoken..."wrong" as in "sexist." The claim from schraf is that this was an example of an "ingrained" sexism in the language.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

crashfrog responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

You seem to think that I am trying to defend Paul.

---

​

It's pretty easy to arrive at that conclusion when you consistently defend his pronoun use,

---

So you're saying it is impossible to defend the logical progresson of an argument without defending the premises upon which that progression is based?This is why I keep asking the same question over and over again:What pronoun would you suggest one use to refer to Mr. Einstein?There is, indeed, an assumption being made in that question. But, the question is not about the assumption but about the conclusion given the assumption.Since you seem to be having this problem separating premises from progression given the premises, try to remind yourself: I am not defending the premises. I am defending the progression given the premises.

quote:

---

dispite than being not at all relevant to the issue.

---

I would say they are fundamental to the issue.It would appear that schrafinator is saying that it is sexist to refer to god as male, even though god is male. Remember, I am not defending the premise that god is male. I am defending the progression that says one would use "he" to refer to god given the premise that god is male.After all, what pronoun would you suggest one use to refer to Mr. Einstein?

quote:

---

quote:

---

To cry sexism because of that response is to jump to conclusions.

---

​

Yeah, to jump to the conclusion that Paul, while he might be otherwise a great guy, for some reason feels it's ok to disparage an identification of supreme cosmic authority with a female rather than male gender.

---

But god is male, isn't he?Remember, schraf didn't say Paul was sexist in the premise that god is male. She said that Paul is sexist in using "he" to refer to god, which Paul is of the opinion that said god is male.In other words, it seems that schraf is saying that it is sexist language to refer to males as "he."Well, what pronoun would you suggest one use to refer to Mr. Einstein?Once again, you are dismissing Paul's opinion as irrelevant. Paul may have been rude in his reaction to MP's referral to god as "she," but what linguistic term do you expect from someone who thinks that god is male?What pronoun would you suggest one use to refer to Mr. Einstein?Paul may have been engaging in some form of sexism in his conclusion that god is male but given that conclusion of god being male, what pronoun would you suggest one use? Remember, schraf's comments were that it was an example of "ingrained" sexism in the language.Really?It's sexist to refer to males as "he"? In the language?What pronoun would you suggest one use to refer to Mr. Einstein?

quote:

---

When people do this we usually call it sexist, because it is.

---

It's sexist to refer to males as "he"?What pronoun would you suggest one use to refer to Mr. Einstein?

quote:

---

So, Paul's comment was sexist.

---

Why? Why is it sexist to refer to a male as "he"? Why is it sexist to react to someone referring to a male as "she"?What pronoun would you suggest one use to refer to Mr. Einstein?You seem to think that because you or schraf or MP don't particularly like the idea of god being male, that has some bearing on Paul's conceptualization of god and thus he should defer to your opinion and change his pronouns used in reference of god.Why? Why should Paul, who it would appear thinks that god is male, change his pronouns? How is it sexist to refer to a male as "he"?If you want to argue with him that god is something other than strictly male, go right ahead. But to claim he is guilty of sexist language because he referred to what he considers a male as "he" and reacts to those who refer to that male as "she" is simply illogical.What pronoun would you suggest one use to refer to Mr. Einstein?

quote:

---

Therefore the question is, is Paul sexist?

---

Irrelevant.Whether or not it is sexist to conclude that god is male (and it is by no means agreed that it is), it is most certainly not sexist to refer to a male god as "he," either in the person using "he" or in the language that came up with the word "he" in the first place.What pronoun would you suggest one use to refer to Mr. Einstein?

quote:

---

Or did he just use sexist language without thinking about its implications?

---

Or perhaps schraf saw sexism where none existed and you and MP fell into the same trap?

quote:

---

Actually the question is "which one of those does Schraf think?" I think she's given her answer.

---

But this isn't about what schraf thinks (at least, not as a basis). It's about what Paul thinks.You all forget about him. It's his conceptualization of god that he uses as a basis for his usage...not yours, not MP's, not schraf's. Given that he thinks god is male, how is it sexist for him to then refer to god as "he" and react to those who call god "she"?And even more importantly, given the specifics of schraf's accusation, how is it sexist in the language for a person to refer to a male as "he"?

quote:

---

Clearly she wasn't at all "surprised" by Paul's response - her comments have suggested that she encounters it all the time, as have I - but that doesn't mean such a response should escape without comment.

---

Even when she's wrong?She claimed that it was sexist in the language to refer to god as "he"? Really? Even when god is male?What pronoun would you suggest one use to refer to Mr. Einstein?

quote:

---

Einstien's gender is not germaine.

---

So why does every train of thought come back to it as an examplar?

quote:

---

That's the third time I've personally answered the question

---

No, that isn't an answer. It's a response, but it isn't an answer.If I ask you what 2 + 2 is and you say that you don't care, that isn't an answer to the question. An answer to the question would be either a number or an indication that the question is undecideable. But saying that you don't care about the question isn't an answer. It simply means that you aren't going to give one.

quote:

---

so your repeated claims that no one is answering is beginning to look a little hollow.

---

Strange...I was going to say that your repeated claims that you did answer the question were beginning to look at little desperate.

quote:

---

We're not giving you the answer you clearly want, because we're not idiots.

---

That doesn't make any sense. Answering an honest question asked sincerely is a sign of idiocy?Just because you don't like the question doesn't mean it is inappropriate. Why not try taking a different tack, answering the question, and seeing where it leads?We seem to be stuck at this point. This thread is going nowhere and it is specifically because I refuse to let this question go unanswered. So either we can just let it drop or you can answer the question and see where it goes.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

crashfrog responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

You, yourself, used "man" in the neuter. That would appear to me, at least, that you have some sort of understanding that words like "he" and "man" have neuter meanings, that context is an indicator of when those words are being used in the neuter and when they are being used in the masculine, and that other people are aware of those meanings and distinctions.

---

​

Actually it's a sexist habit that I'm not proud of, but habits are hard to change since they're not deliberate.

---

So you're saying that when you said that "science leads great men behind" (or words to that effect...I'm too lazy to go look it up), you were actually thinking of males and not of all scientists including the likes of Marie Curie and Rosalind Franklin? I don't deny your wish to be as clear as possible in your speech that you do mean everybody who works in science regardless of sex, but my personal default opinion of you is that you have internalized that attitude (scientists come in all sexes) and thus your use of "men" in the above statement was a use of it in the neuter, which is a recognized definition, though one that is falling out of favor.

quote:

---

I have an understanding that, while "he" and "man" may have a neuter usage on the surface, they rarely communicate a neuter meaning

---

Even though you meant such a neuter meaning and I picked that meaning up without even considering the possibility that you meant something else?

quote:

---

Sometimes, however, I'm typing so fast it's a pain to go back and fix my own usage. Not much of an excuse but there it is.

---

But I'm saying you don't need an excuse. You understood what you meant, I understood what you meant. How can there be a claim of sexism when you and I both had an image of all scientists regardless of sex?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Whether or not you believe him is irrelevant. Paul has his beliefs and we should expect him to behave in accordance with those beliefs.

---

​

But isn't it reasonable to expect him to at the very least entertain beliefs different than his own?

---

No. Not when it comes to something that he thinks he knows for certain.By this logic, it is "reasonable...to at the ery least entertain" intelligent design in a science class simply because there are people who think it's science. Well, no, it isn't reasonable. It is reasonable to talk about it in a different kind of discussion (What is science? Do the processes involved in intelligent design meet the criteria of science?), but given a premise as to what science is, it is insufficient to accept intelligent design as equivalent to evolution just because somebody says so.If you want to debate the relation of god and gender and the process by which Paul concluded that god is male, go right ahead.But to insist that Paul accept your conclusion simply because you have a conclusion that differs from his is beyond the pale.Instead, the onus is on you to recognize the fact that Paul's opinion differs from yours and react accordingly.And that means not fling charges of sexism at the language simply because Paul is insisting on "he" to refer to god.As I mentioned elsewhere: When you do an indirect proof, you start with a premise that you are eventually going to show to be false. When you reach the contradiction, you don't fault any of the intervening steps between the premise and the conclusion. Why? Because all the intervening steps are logical. Instead, it is the premise that is considered at fault. You don't whine about how the intervening steps should have considered this other premise. They shouldn't have because that other premise is irrelevant.Paul seems to think that god is male. While we might wish that he be polite about his reactions to people who disagree with him, it is unreasonable to insist he change his manner of expression in order to accomodate those other opinions, especially when his manner of expression is perfectly logical given his personal opinion.

quote:

---

Instead of rejecting them without argument?

---

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying you've misplaced the argument. The problem is not that Paul is being sexist by using "he" to refer to god. And it certainly isn't a problem with the language that Paul used "he" to refer to god.If there is a problem, it has to do with the conclusion Paul has made that god is male. Given that Paul thinks god is male, we should expect him to use "he" to refer to god and to react in some manner to those who use "she" to refer to god. I am not defending the specifics of Paul's reaction. I am simply saying there is no evidence that it was sexist.If someone were to use "she" to refer to Mr. Einstein, would it be inappropriate to react to it? Should we defer to that person's opinion and simply accept that "all opinions are valid"?Or is it possible that some opinions are simply wrong?

quote:

---

Or, as Schraf did, articulate the possibility that his beliefs are not concious choices but simply habits ingrained in language?

---

In other words, Paul is a lazy thinker. Paul doesn't know what he really thinks about god. Rather than engage him in a discussion about why he is concluding that god is male, simply jump to the end and refuse to listen to his justification since you know he has none.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Mister Pamboli responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

What I am saying is that given Paul's opinion that god is male, then it is not unusual to hear him refer to god as "he" nor is it sexist for him to do so.

---

​

Actually, there was no objection whatsoever to Paul's use of a pronoun - it was Paul's objection to my use that was commented on.

---

And what pronoun would you suggest one use to refer to Mr. Einstein?I don't recall seeing anywhere in any of the responses to Paul any sort of theological commentary about the nature of god, why Paul's specific path toward theological knowledge is flawed, and how that specifically resulted in a flawed conclusion that god is male.It was simply asserted that there was sexism involved. And not only that, but that the sexism was in the language...as if to refer to males as "he" is a sexist thing to do.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I continually ask and never get an answer, what pronoun would you suggest one use to refer to Mr. Einstein?

---

​

You have been answered fully and in some detail by me, at least. It is still beside the point.

---

Only because you don't like where the question leads.If it isn't sexist to refer to Mr. Einstein as "he," how can it be sexist to refer to Mr. God as "he"?

quote:

---

The relevant questions would be more like If it is clear that two people hold different views about Einstein's gender,

---

There is some ambiguity in "Mr. Einstein" being something other than male?

quote:

---

what should the reaction of one of them be to the other's usage,

---

And where does sexism enter into it?Are you saying that it is impossible to have a theological argument that concludes that god is male? Every single theology no matter what necessarily results in the conclusion that god is something other than strictly male?Again, this isn't saying Paul wasn't rude in rolling his eyes.This is questioning the determination of sexism given absolutely no investigation into Paul's theology.

quote:

---

and, if that reaction should be critical, how should the other party, in turn, react.

---

By accusing sexism?You really can't seem to understand the concept of "sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander" in this instance, can you?Did you think it was rude of Paul to roll his eyes?Why? What sort of signals were you inferring from his action? I gave one possible one: He thought you were playing games. But rather than do some sort of investigation as to your motives behind using "she" to refer to god, he jumped to a conclusion and ended up behaving poorly.Now then, what did you think would be the response to an accusation of sexism in return?Again, there is no investigaton as to Paul's motives behind rolling his eyes. Schrafinator merely jumped to a conclusion and she, too, ended up behaving poorly.Paul made an assumption about your motives. Schraf made an assumption about Paul's motives.Is there any wonder that there is a problem here?And even more importantly, isn't schraf's mistake just as inappropriate as Paul's? Paul can't possibly have a logical reason to conclude that god is, indeed, male...it must be sexism, right?

quote:

---

I appreciate you might prefer to tackle a reduced subset of these, but unfortunately the tack you are taking is simplistic rather than simplified.

---

No, the problem is not a simplistic attitude on my part.Instead, it is a hypocritical attitude on your part. Schraf bears no responsibility for her assumption into Paul's motives, but Paul is completely guilty for his assumption into yours. And why? Because you disagree with Paul's conclusion. Not that you have provided any indication as to why Paul is wrong, he just is and therefore he deserves to be chastised.But Paul and schraf both screwed up in precisely the same way. Paul owes you an apology and schraf owes Paul one, too.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I am simply pointing out that we should not be surprised by a person who thinks of god as male having some sort of reaction to seeing god referred to as "she."

---

​

I'm sure crash, schraf and I were not surprised.

---

So why the charge of sexism?What pronoun would you suggest one use to refer to Mr. Einstein?

quote:

---

We kinda expect it due to the ingrained sexism of the language,

---

It's sexist to refer to males as "he"? Really?Then what pronoun would you suggest one use to refer to Mr. Einstein?

quote:

---

as we see it's effects,

---

What effect is there in referring to males as "he"?Be specific.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Mister Pamboli responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Paul thinks god is male. Therefore, where is the sexism in then calling god "he"?

---

​

No sexism in that - but sexism in criticising my usage of She

---

Why? God is male, right? Remember, Paul thinks god is male.Therefore, what pronoun would you suggest one use to refer to Mr. Einstein?Since when is it sexist to point out that "she" is the wrong pronoun to use to refer to males?

quote:

---

quote:

---

How is it sexist to refer to males as "he"? And to react when those refer to males as "she"?

---

​

It depends on the reaction, and it depends on the extent to which the user of he is confident of the maleness of the referent, or aware of differing views of the gender of the referrent.

---

Why? If something is male, how can it be sexist to correct people who refer to the male as "she"?Oh, I handily admit that one can be rude in that correction, but if something actually is male, by what criteria is there a claim of sexism?You haven't offered any reasoning as to why Paul's theological conclusion is wrong. Therefore, why on earth should he accomodate you when you are, in his mind, so clearly wrong?We don't accept intelligent design as science, correct? Those who advocate for intelligent design haven't shown us any justification as to why ID should be considered a science, correct? Then why on earth should we accomodate it as a science when, in our minds, it is so clearly wrong to do so?Oh, we might be rude in our explanation as to why ID isn't a science, but if our justification is specifically grounded in argumentation such as "Science is defined by traits a, b, and c, processes x, y, and z, etc. and ID fails to have trait b and processes x and z, ergo it is not a science," then our response is valid and we do not have to entertain those who simply retort, "You atheist." They need to do more than that. They either need to show how our definition of science is insufficient or they need to show how our analysis of ID as not meeting the criteria of science is flawed. Simply accusing us of being atheists doesn't cut it.

quote:

---

If the reaction was It's interesting that you say She. Can you tell me why? there would be no issue.

---

So you're saying the problem isn't that Paul was being sexist. It's that he was being rude.Do I need to remind you yet again that I'm not defending Paul's behaviour?

quote:

---

Let's rephrase your question: How is it sexist to refer to what you believe to be males as "he"? And to react negatively when others refer to what you believe to be male as "she"? Doesn't appear quite so reasonable now does it?

---

Actually, it appears just as reasonable. It is not sexist to refer to what you believe to be male as "he" nor is it sexist to react negatively when others refer to what you believe to be male as "she."What else would you have one do?If you truly, without a shadow of a doubt, know that it's male and someone else comes along and calls it "she," where is the sexism in pointing out the error?Oh, one can be rude in pointing out the error, such as by assuming the person calling it "she" is playing some sort of game, but where is the sexism in it?

quote:

---

And then, of course, there is the chosen form of criticism: an eye-roll.

---

That's being rude.How is it being sexist?

quote:

---

There is no OED of body language, but I would be surprised if many here disagreed that an eye-roll in the context it was used implies a prior knowledge of the issue under contention, and it's contentiousness.

---

But does that necessarily indicate it to be sexist?Are you saying it is impossible to have a theological certainty that god is male?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Oh, and by the way...I did answer the question. Mister Pamboli asked me a very similar question quite directly and I gave him a direct answer, indicating the specific pronouns to be used.

---

​

PronounS.

---

SPECIFICThat's the problem that we're having. You're hung up on the fact that I gave you two.I'm hung up on the fact that you haven't given me anything specific.I'm looking for a specific word. You responded with a "whatever is preferred," but that doesn't tell us what is preferred.I gave you specifics.Please do me the courtesy of responding in kind.Be specific.What pronoun would you suggest one use to refer to Mr. Einstein?

quote:

---

You couldn't answer with one, but had to contextualise the response. Now why was that?

---

As I mentioned in my response, it is because I am of the opinion that the question lies in the person's perception and without a clear indication as to what that perception is, there will be multiple answers.However, you will note that my answers resulted in a single pronoun for each perception and actually included the actual pronoun. I didn't wimp out with "whatever is preferred." I took a stand and named names. I used the actual words I had in mind.Now, will you please do me the favor and respond in kind?What pronoun would you suggest one use to refer to Mr. Einstein.No, not "Einstein." "Mr. Einstein."

quote:

---

Lack of honesty? Lack of integrity? Lack of courage? Or was it not appropriate to give a single pronoun? Perhaps the example could not be reduced to the simplistic level of your Einstein example?

---

That last one.But seeing as my example is quite simple, or so I seem to think, perhaps you could do me the favor of answering it.Be specific. If you think that more than one pronoun is being used, then by all means explain why, but I want to know what the pronouns are...unless you are of the opinion that it is ok to use any combination of syllables, including what would generally be considered nonsense by most speakers of English. For example, you would suggest one use "beetaratagang" as the pronoun if one so desired.

quote:

---

You are still trying to reduce this to a simplistic issue.

---

And you are still refusing to answer the question.Why not let me drive and see where we go?

quote:

---

Crashfrog, at the very least, has the intellectual integrity not to oversimplify an issue, nor to be browbeaten into taking a position that could be used to mislead others who may not follow the thread closely.

---

No, you and crashfrog lack the integrity to answer an honest question sincerely asked.Is there a question you have asked that I didn't answer? If there is, please let me know what it is so that I can rectify the situation. I have no problems letting you direct your points.Why do you refuse to extend me the same courtesy?Why not let me drive and see where we go?What pronoun would you suggest one use to refer to Mr. Einstein?No, not "Einstein." "Mr. Einstein."

quote:

---

quote:

---

Rhhain: where is the sexism in his statement that refers to god as "he" and finds the use of "she" to be incorrect?
crash: The sexism is in his refusal to grant a difference of opinion about god's gender anything more than a summary dismissal via eye-rolling.
Rhhain: You mean cries of sexism are to be honored above reality? We really ought to refer to Mr. Einstein as "he or she"?

---

​

I cannot follow your reasoning here. What do you mean by honored above reality?

---

Would you agree or disagree that Paul is certain in his beliefs about god?If it is agreed that Paul is certain in his beliefs, would that not necessarily mean that, in Paul's mind, it is a reality that god is male?Therefore, Paul should sublimate reality to your potential for being offended?Two and two equals four, not five. You can whine and moan all you want about it, claim that you have an alternative mathematics that allows it to be five, but you know what, you're wrong. You're simply wrong. Reality trumps your opinion and in reality, two and two are four. If you're going to make a claim otherwise, you had better show it in reality rather than just assert it because reality is not beholden to your whim.That is the respect that I am giving to Paul: He is sincere in his beliefs and knows precisely what they are.Therefore, it is insufficient to simply declare him to be wrong without evidence.And it is extremely rude to make a claim of sexism simply because he is sincere in those beliefs.Similarly, I have the same respect for you: You are sincere in your beliefs and know precisely what they are.Therefore, it is insufficient to simply declare you to be wrong without evidence.And it is extremely rude to make a claim of game-playing simply because you are sincere in those beliefs.Why? Because nobody has actually given any justification as to why the other is wrong. It's simply been declared to be so as if it were obvious.

quote:

---

What is the reality above which crash is honouring a cry of sexism?

---

That god is male.Where is your evidence that Paul is wrong? No, not that you are right...that Paul is wrong.

quote:

---

What on earth has your Einstein example to do with this?

---

Einstein is male, is he not? If not, why not?God is male, is he not? If not, why not?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

I think we need to step back and make clear what would constitute sexism.For instance, if you referred to god as female, and I responded with something like "You're an idiot, of course god is male because only males should be in authority", you would agree that is sexist, right? No matter how earnestly I might hold that belief?Quite frankly I'm of the opinion that Paul's conception of a male god, which obviously he holds to the point of ridicule of opposing positions, amounts to a continuation of a legacy of sexism. No matter how much he may believe that god's gender is male, it's simply the result of ingrained male-centeredness in his religious traditions.Schraf and Mr. P may disagree; I admit it's an extreme position. But I just thought I'd lay my cards out on the table. Now, do you see why I don't think Einstein's gender is germaine? It's one thing to know the gender of a person (especially by their own report). It's quite another to infer their gender from their actions and qualities. It would be sexist if I assumed Einstein (in the absence of any other information about him) was male simply because he was a great scientist. I think that's what Paul is doing with god - assuming masculinity not from god's own words but from god's actions and position of authority.So I guess the question is not "What pronoun would I use for Mr. Einstein?" but rather "why would I use that pronoun?" If I'm inferring gender from evidence that has nothing to do with gender (beyond our stereotypes), that's sexism.

Mister Pamboli responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Since false premises can lead to any conclusion, it is important to point them out lest we spend a lot of time going down an unjustified path.

---

​

Ar you sure you meant to say that? False premises lead nowhere on their own. Only arguments move from one proposition to another.

---

Yes, I am sure I meant to say that. Are you simply being obstinate? You see, a premise is something that has a path coming off it, otherwise it is simply a statement. That path goes somewhere. Therefore, since the premise is at the lead, it "leads" to where the path goes. It is the metaphor that is used to describe the process of going from premise to conclusion: The premise "leads" the way.If you're going to be saying that the logic process by which one walks the path from the premise to the conclusion is not the same as the premise, itself, I will agree with you, but I will wonder if you are playing games.Are you?

quote:

---

quote:

---

There is a difference between the concept that a woman can't be a surgeon and a man can't be a nurse and the concept that the language prevents one from saying that a surgeon is female and a nurse is male.
That is, just because many people find it difficult to talk of nursing without using feminine pronouns doesn't mean the language is forcing you to use feminine pronouns. If there were a linguistic rule of nurses being "she," then we might have a claim of "bias in the language." But as there isn't, it ain't.

---

​

That's true. Except that you seemed to think earlier that words have a certain meaning in reality which is separate from usage.

---

Ad in a sense, they do.

quote:

---

In which case, does not nurse mean in reality a woman who gives suck to a child?

---

Logical error: Equivocation.We seem to have switched from "nurse" meaning "one who gives care, especially one who does so under the supervision of a physician" to "nurse" meaning "one who breastfeeds."I agree that I did not specifically mention the former definition, but it seemed clear from context as the word "nurse" was contrasted with "surgeon" rather than "absent parent." Therefore, it would seem to be that the contrast was of various positions in a medical facility rather than the ability to lactate.Again, I am wondering if you are simply playing games.

quote:

---

Of course, one may argue that usage has removed that bias and moved on from that meaning, with which I would agree.

---

No, "nurse" still means breastfeeding and one will still hear references to a "wet nurse."But seeing as how the context in my statement was not in reference to lactation but rather to social concepts such as "Men are doctors, women are nurses," I am wondering if you are deliberately being obtuse.

quote:

---

quote:

---

There are many times when a dictionary is proscriptive.

---

​

Not in English.

---

You mean people don't go to dictionaries to look up the meaning of words as if they were proscriptive?It is never appropriate to say, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means"? After all, how could one possibly justify that statement? Obviously the person using the word thinks it means what he thinks it means.We go to dictionaries to verify spelling all the time. They're/their/there are commonly interchanged and it is an error to do so. "Look it up," as many people say, and you'll see why.

quote:

---

Maybe in French, where the Academie attempts to rule what constitutes correct French.

---

Oh, I agree that other languages are much more formal about the process, but let us not forget how people actually use dictionaries.Like it or not, linguists are not the only ones who look up words in a dictionary. People who actally use the dictionary will often consider it a proscriptive text. The reason why we so often say that dictionaries are descriptive, not proscriptive, is precisely because people actually use dictionaries as proscriptive texts.You may have made a screwdriver and sincerely intended it to be a screwdriver, but it's an awl when I start punching holes in leather with it. At the very least, I am using it as an awl.

quote:

---

The Oxford has never pretended to more than description.

---

I never said they did.But just because the Oxford doesn't want to be more than description doesn't mean it won't get used as more than description.And haven't we all agreed that the actual users wield tremendous power?Take, as an example, the word "brung" as the past and past participle of the verb "bring." Lots of people use it. But I'm looking in the dictionary and I can't seem to find it. Instead, it says the word is "brought."A very significant number of people who speak English will take this as indicative that "'brung' isn't a word," as they might say, and that "brung" is wrong.No matter how much the publishers of the dictionary want the book to be a description, not a proscription, people are using it as a proscription.

quote:

---

quote:

---

... there are times when a person is simply wrong in what was said. While the person may think that what was said is indicative of what was meant, there are times when it simply doesn't.

---

​

But your examples, reasonable as they are, are of individual usages, not of usages shared amongst a community of users.

---

So?We're back to my question that is seemingly so difficult to answer:What pronoun would you suggest one use to refer to Mr. Einstein?I would dare say that the overwhelming majority of speakers of English would agree on the specific pronoun.

quote:

---

quote:

---

English insists that negation requires a "not" or a derivative in there somewhere ... No negation in the structure of the utterance, no negation in the meaning of the utterance.

---

​

I like anchovies? I like them like s**t.

---

Hmmm...seems like you got the "derivative in there somewhere." It's an implication...negation of pleasure from s**t, ergo the equivalence of pleasure between anchovies and s**t results in the negation of pleasure from s**t.

quote:

---

quote:

---

There is a structure of the language that exists outside its speakers.

---

​

In what does it exist? What is its mode? How is it manifested?

---

In the same places, modes, and methods of manifestation that other abstract notions like mathematics exist.In essence, the language acquires a life of its own. How many times have we heard the old saw, "'Ain't' ain't a word and I ain't gonna use it"? It sums it all up: There is a recognition that there is some sort of abstract, official, "The Way Things Are Supposed to Be" (C) attitude and a realization that it doesn't mean diddly since the language is a tool of the users.Doublethink, I know, but I don't have a problem with that.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I am saying those patterns exist, even if only in the abstract: We all agree that those are the rules and that if you break them, you aren't saying what you mean to say.

---

​

But you also seem to saying that these patterns can change.

---

Yes.So?In the original rules of Monopoly, there is no rule that all the fines imposed from Chance, Community Chest, Property Tax, and Luxury Tax get put on the Free Parking space and whoever lands there gets whatever money happens to be there at the time. However, so many people play the game this way that it's made it into the rules as an "alternative."Rules change, but while they exist, they are rules.

quote:

---

The issue at hand is how users should react to usages which are in flux or appear to be in flux.

---

I seem to be saying that it is inappropriate to jump to accusations as a first response.

quote:

---

How are we to know, for example, whether a usage is wrong (as you might say) or whether it is simply shifting its meaning.

---

All sorts of ways. Ask the speaker to clarify, look the words up in a dictionary, compare your reaction to others who hear the same thing, all of the above, other possibilities, too.

quote:

---

Perhaps Vizzini's overworked inconceivable is taking on a meaning which Inigo is powerless to prevent?

---

Nah. Vizzini just keeps underestimating the Man in Black.It's foreshadowing, after all. A battle of wits to the death.

quote:

---

How are we to decide if it is Inigo or Vizzini who is wrong?

---

Context helps. What is the apparent meaning behind Vizzini's outburst? It appears to be emotion and incredulity. Somehow the Man in Black is doing something that cannot be done.And yet, since he can do it, the problem would seem to be that Vizzini is misspeaking. Perhaps he should say, "Inconceivable to me." Ah, but to do that would indicate that there is someone who can outthink him and that, too, is inconceivable.And the final straw that Vizzini is the one making the mistake? His "inconceivable" notion is the death of him. If he were right, he'd still be alive.

quote:

---

quote:

---

But here's the thing: You were right. It doesn't matter how much a person may complain that he thinks the word is derived from "apologize." He's wrong. It doesn't mean that. No matter how much he can complain about the usage, he's wrong.

---

​

Now you seem to be confusing etymology and meaning - an oversight?

---

No. I'm pointing out that there is a reality involved: The word is not derived that way.And there is a reality to usage, too, including definition.If dictionaries are descriptive, not proscriptive, then the definitions we find in there must mean that there are people out there, and a not insignificant number at that, who use the word in that way. Therefore, to complain that a word is being used in that way when we can see from the descriptive source that plenty of people do use it that way is to be a bit disingenuous.And on the flip side, just because a single person uses a word in a certain way doesn't mean the word really means that. For a significant number of people, you could get them to agree with you that it doesn't mean that by showing them the dictionary and pointing out that the definition isn't there. Whether that will change their speech patterns or not is something to be seen...depending on the person, the context, and other factors, the person may decide to shift his speech to match the dictionary or he may continue to use it because he happens to like it (I'm thinking of words like "absotively" and "posilutely"...people know those "aren't real words," but they use them anyway because they like them.)

quote:

---

Or do you think nurse really means a breastfeeding woman.

---

I think in certain contexts, it does. As a contrasting word to "surgeon," most likely not. But in a phrase such as, "She was my wet nurse," then it most likely does.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Why is it we don't hear people complaining nearly as much about the need for a "you, general" pronoun to contrast with the "you, specific" pronoun?

---

​

Because they can use forms such as y'all or youse? Or because they can use simple circumlocutions - such as all of you.

---

No, that's make a distinction between singular and plural as well as throwing in accent. I mean a distinction between the general case and the specific case. Those times when you have to clarify, "When I say 'you,' I don't mean you, specifically."

quote:

---

quote:

---

People often write in the second person as a generalized concept, and yet we (and here I'm using the first person as a generalized concept) rarely get confused as to which is which. And if there is confusion, a clarification is requested and made and we move on without people making accusations of "getting personal."

---

​

Yes I agree. Paul should have done exactly that - sought clarification and we could have moved on.

---

But similarly, schraf should have done exactly that, too: Sought clarification rather and we could have moved on.Instead, she cried sexism.If Paul's eye-rolling was wrong, then schraf's accusation was wrong, too.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

crashfrog responds to me:

quote:

---

For instance, if you referred to god as female, and I responded with something like "You're an idiot, of course god is male because only males should be in authority", you would agree that is sexist, right? No matter how earnestly I might hold that belief?

---

Yes, but not because you used "he" to refer to god. In other words, the language had nothing to do with it. It's sexist because there is the attitude that being female is somehow less than being male and god, as this wonderful being, couldn't possibly be female because that would make him all icky poo or something.But remember schrafintor's statement: The language was sexist if one referred to god as male.Remember, I am not defending Paul. His eyeroll may very well be rooted in a sexist attitude, but nothing schraf said justified it. She went on about the language rather than theological attitude.If you want to argue with Paul about why he thinks god is male and possibly expose some sexist trains of thought, be my guest.But the fact that Paul refers to god as "he" and "corrects" those who call god "she" is not sufficient to justify a claim of sexism.All it means is that it appears that Paul is sincere...at the very least he's consistent and insistent.

quote:

---

Quite frankly I'm of the opinion that Paul's conception of a male god, which obviously he holds to the point of ridicule of opposing positions, amounts to a continuation of a legacy of sexism.

---

God can't be male? It is impossible to have a theology where god just happens to be male not because there is anything better about being male but just that he is?Or is it sufficient to conclude, Christian -> male god -> sexist?

quote:

---

No matter how much he may believe that god's gender is male, it's simply the result of ingrained male-centeredness in his religious traditions.

---

And you know Paul's mind well enough to justify that?Christian -> male god -> sexist? No matter what?

quote:

---

Schraf and Mr. P may disagree; I admit it's an extreme position. But I just thought I'd lay my cards out on the table. Now, do you see why I don't think Einstein's gender is germaine?

---

Yes:You refuse to grant Paul the respect of being sincere.

quote:

---

It's one thing to know the gender of a person (especially by their own report). It's quite another to infer their gender from their actions and qualities.

---

According to the New Testament, which is supposed to have some sort of direct connection to god somehow, god is constantly referred to as male.

quote:

---

It would be sexist if I assumed Einstein (in the absence of any other information about him) was male simply because he was a great scientist.

---

Agreed. But I don't think I ever attempted to say that Mr. Einstein was male because of his occupation.Nor do I think you can find anything in the New Testament that says god is male because of his righteousness.

quote:

---

I think that's what Paul is doing with god - assuming masculinity not from god's own words but from god's actions and position of authority.

---

Why? What evidence do you have of this? Have you asked him? Has he said something of which I am not aware?I don't deny to you that many people have precisely that history: They've always been taught that god is male, especially in an atmosphere that there is something better about being male, and thus have internalized that sexism.But until you specifically ask Paul or show a specific statement from him that indicates such, it is inappropriate and simply rude to make accusations of sexism.Paul shouldn't have rolled his eyes. It was indicative of him jumping to a conclusion.But by the same token, schraf shouldn't have cried sexism. It was indicative of her jumping to a conclusion.She might be right, but nothing she said justified it.

quote:

---

So I guess the question is not "What pronoun would I use for Mr. Einstein?" but rather "why would I use that pronoun?" If I'm inferring gender from evidence that has nothing to do with gender (beyond our stereotypes), that's sexism.

---

Is there some indication that I am asking you to infer sex from anything other than sex?Let's remember the context in which the question is asked, for if you remove the context, the question becomes ambiguous.Paul, coming from a premise that god is male, uses "he" to refer to god and rolls his eyes when MP refers to god as "she." Schrafinator then makes a claim of sexism in the language inherent in Paul's comments.Oh really? Well, what pronoun would you suggest one use to refer to Mr. Einstein?Since nobody mentioned anything about the occupation of Mr. Einstein, one has to wonder what that has to do with anything. Wouldn't the answer to the question of why that pronoun be something like, "It's Mr. Einstein, which is a reasonable indicator that Mr. Einstein is male and thus, the appropriate pronoun to use is 'he'"?Yes, it's an assumption that the Mr. honorific is valid, but that's my point: Paul is coming from that assumption. If you want to question the results, the problem is not the logic that got to the results but the leading assumption. It may absolutely be a sexist attitude that fed us the statement of "Mr. Einstein," but given that all we have at the moment is the simple statement of "Mr. Einstein," why the jump to sexism? Surely it is inappropriate to say that we should treat Einstein as some sort of transcendant-gendered being simply because so many people use Einstein as a model of what being a scientist is and we don't want to discourage the idea of women in science, isn't it?Again, it could very well be sexism that leads Paul to conclude that god is male, but it is not his use of "he" to refer to god nor his insistence that god be referred to as "he" instead of "she" that is sexist. If we grant Paul the respect of being sincere in his beliefs, then that is what we should expect (though we would prefer he not be rude about it).For example, if you were to refer to god as "she" and I were to respond, "You're an idiot. Of course god is male because it says so here in the Bible in this particular verse where Jesus refers to god as his father and Mary as his mother, this other verse where it talks about the spirit of god moving over Mary and causing her to conceive, and all these other verses, etc., etc." then we can't really claim I'm being sexist. I'm certainly being rude as there was no call for me to say, "You're an idiot," but seeing as how I am using a theological source of people who supposedly have a direct line to god describing god as male, it isn't sexism. And for me to "correct" you on your terminology isn't sexism in and of itself.For sexism, we need something like what you had indicated: "Only males should be in authority."As far as I know, Paul didn't say that. Has he said something elsewhere that I am unaware of?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

quote:

---

I am calm. You're the one that's overreacting.

---

Spoken like a true paranoid. LOL ... how many times does this line crop up in B-movies?

quote:

---

I don't understand your statement.

---

You argue that a word isn't biased but can be used in a biased way. Why can't it work the other way around?

quote:

---

Nor did I say they were.

---

Quite a few things about your posts make me think you are taking this quite personally. It must just be something in your writing style.

quote:

---

How? If the definition is clear and the majority of speakers recognize the defintion and the context made it clear which definition was intended, where is the bias?

---

Words have connotations and associations which you seem to not recognize. People don't work like machines lock-stepping through definitions to the 'right' one. When a person hears or reads the word 'he' there are a great many more associations than 'an organism which produces sperm.'

quote:

---

In appropriate contexts. That's where usage comes in.

---

Doublespeak.

quote:

---

That should make it even more apparent that there isn't any bias.

---

Yes. Statements taken out of context CAN be used to support your arguments.

quote:

---

But is it? There is a difference between perception and reality.

---

This is all very glib, and I respect that; but what is the point? Can you elucidate?

quote:

---

So if I understand that definition and I am clear in my usage that that is the meaning I intend by that usage, by what justification is there for someone else to come along and say that I am being biased?

---

Lol... and back to my original answer. No one is saying you-- rhetorical you-- is being biased. Suppose your-- rhetorical your-- sweet little grandmother says to rhetorical you upon meeting rhetorical you's new friend, "Why, I didn't know you were friends with a negro?" hmmm... Grannie may have meant no harm. She may not be prejudiced one whit. But that phrase is going to hit like a brick, no matter how much defining she does. The point being, YOU don't have to be biased to say things that sound biased.

quote:

---

Because if the language makes a distinction, I understand that distintion, and you understand that distinction, how can there be any bias if we all agree that what was said was what was actually meant?

---

You can't treat language as if it were a formal, and stable, system. You can't treat it like frelling Boolean algebra! Language is fuzzy. Logicians figured this out long ago, hence the abundance of symbolic systems today. In other words, what you envision is impossible.

quote:

---

But what is bias if not a moral judgement?

---

You are fond of definitions. Try this.1) a line diagonal to the grain of the fabric
2) a peculiarity in the shape of a bowl that causes it to swerve
3) an inclination of temperament or outlook
4) deviation of the value of a statistical estimate from the quantity it estimates
5) a systemic error introduced into sampling to encourage one outcome over the other( From Merriam-Webster )Also:
6) a partiality that prevents objective consideration
7) a surname
8) to influence in an unfair wayThere is nothing there that is necessarily a moral judgement. That you connected morality to it serves to support my point. There is more going on with language than you want to admit.

quote:

---

That is, just because many people find it difficult to talk of nursing without using feminine pronouns doesn't mean the language is forcing you to use feminine pronouns.

---

But you said it yourself. The language is biased toward feminine pronouns for that profession.Why are you now using the term 'forced'? No one has claimed that the language forces you to do anything, but only that it leans to one usage over others-- ie, it has a bias. It seems you are stumbling into a straw man. Remember the discussion we had about linguistic determinism? We both agreed that the strong version is untenable? Well, you are invoking the strong version here, and that is inappropriate.

quote:

---

Because the language is not tied to any one person.

---

Thus language, an abstract concept, can 'understand'? This makes no sense.

quote:

---

In a sense, the language exists outside of its speakers.

---

Do you honestly believe that a language exists if there is no one to speak it, read it, or write it?

quote:

---

There are many times when a dictionary is proscriptive.

---

I think dictionaries have historically tried to be proscriptive, with some exceptions I'm sure, and my grade school teachers certainly tried to make them proscriptive.In the sense that dictionaries probably do brake the mutation of definition, I'd agree.

quote:

---

In my own writing habits, for example, I often lose my nots.

---

Your example is irrelevant, as far as I can tell.

quote:

---

We all agree that those are the rules and that if you break them, you aren't saying what you mean to say.

---

No, I don't think we all agree to this. There are some patterns that cannot be broken without consequence, but but not all patterns are like that. Good writers break the rules all the time.But that is a bit off topic. The idea that the language is biased is the idea that proper usage implies-- more or less subtly-- meanings the user may not intend or even be aware of at all. A word carries more meanings than its strict contextually correct definition. Propaganda works on this principle. So does advertising-- ok, same thing. Poetry, metaphor, innuendo, and a great many jokes work on this principle. How can you be missing it? How can you be denying it?

quote:

---

But we're not talking about the brain. We're talking about the language.

---

Ya can't have one without the other. You can't have language with no brains producing it and no brains interpretting it. Language is the metaphor that connects brains, in a sense.

quote:

---

Are you saying the language is forcing you to think in a certain way? Or is it you are forcing the language to behave in a certain way?

---

'Force' is much too strong. ( Remember Sapir-Whorf-- weak version? ) But in a weak sense, the effect does work both ways. Propaganda is an example of the first, and the second shouldn't need much argument. Languages change.

quote:

---

But here's the thing: You were right. It doesn't matter how much a person may complain that he thinks the word is derived from "apologize." He's wrong. It doesn't mean that. No matter how much he can complain about the usage, he's wrong.

---

Doesn't matter. The word has a bad taste, whatever the correct meaning. That is how language works. Thats how language changes. Try looking up what is considered a synonym of 'apologetic.' Synonyms are pretty good indicators of a words connotations-- a word's feel. For 'apologetic' you get, among others, defensive, excusatory, and justificatory. In other words, the poster's reaction has some basis in usage.

quote:

---

No, there isn't. That's a pretty big claim you've made there, that everybody is incapable of understanding the difference between a general concept and a specific concept.

---

This is not my claim. It is not now my claim, nor has it ever been my claim. I imagine that everyone who uses 'he' as a general term, understands it to be general, but the word still carries associations with penises. It is the idea behind the 'don't think of a blue monkey' thought experiment. You can't help but have a fleeting thought of a blue monkey. When someone says 'he' you think of gender and then, if appropriate, correct it to 'general reference.'

quote:

---

Why is it we don't hear people complaining nearly as much about the need for a "you, general" pronoun to contrast with the "you, specific" pronoun?

---

Because 'you' in either usage is gender neutral. This should be obvious.

quote:

---

There's that assumption, again.

---

Do you deny that words pick up meanings as they pass mouth to ear over time? Do you deny that these meanings and connotations get passed along? Unless you deny these things, drop this idiocy. It amounts to saying that a language's history has no effect upon the meaning of words.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

But the fact that Paul refers to god as "he" and "corrects" those who call god "she" is not sufficient to justify a claim of sexism.

---

Correct in the case of Paul, but ...

quote:

---

But by the same token, schraf shouldn't have cried sexism. It was indicative of her jumping to a conclusion.

---

Not really. Remember that schraf is contextualising this in a continuing history of bias. You may want to treat Paul's post as an atomic utterance, devoid of any context, but schraf is entitled to do otherwise. She would have been jumping to a conclusion had she claimed Paul was personally sexist - as the only evidence she had was his post - but she did not do that: she claimed the language had sexism ingrained.

quote:

---

though we would prefer he not be rude about it

---

And there's the rub: he was rude - it wasn't the challenge, but the dismissive attitude that led to schraf's comment. You yourself have recognized it. All this sidetracking about what Paul sincerely believes and the irrelevant guff about pronouns and Einstein really does distract from the core issue: schraf's assertion that Paul's rude responsewas the result of ingrained sexism in the language.