nemesis wrote:
> Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>>  Personally, I always wished English had gender-neutral third-person
>> pronouns that applies to humans.
> 
> "it" only applies to objects and non-human creatures?
> 
> 

Try referring to a person who's gender you can't guess as 'it' and see
how far it gets you.

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> >   IMO "he" is a perfectly valid gender-neutral third-person pronoun.
> > IMO anyone who constructs those artificial "he/she" or whatever
> > monstrosities is just being ridiculously over-PC.

>         I'm fine with it if you're fine when others use "she" instead.

  I'm sorry, but to my ear "she" explicitly states that we are talking
about a female, while "he", when in proper context, doesn't necessarily
do so.

  It's similar to the word "man". It can either be used to specifically
refer to a male, or it can be used as a generic term for person/human,
depending on the context, such as in the phrase "where no man has gone
before". Even though the word "man" is used there, it's not referring to
a specific gender, but to humanity in general.

  (If someone said "where no woman has gone before" it would be quite
clearly specifically referring to female persons.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 8 Feb 2008 06:38:51 -0500, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

>
>  I'm sorry, but to my ear "she" explicitly states that we are talking
>about a female, while "he", when in proper context, doesn't necessarily
>do so.

You must have been taught English properly unlike some native speakers and those
who want to change the rules to fit their ideas of what is right.

Regards
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   I'm sorry, but to my ear "she" explicitly states that we are talking
> about a female, while "he", when in proper context, doesn't necessarily
> do so.
> 
>   It's similar to the word "man". It can either be used to specifically
> refer to a male, or it can be used as a generic term for person/human,
> depending on the context, such as in the phrase "where no man has gone
> before". Even though the word "man" is used there, it's not referring to
> a specific gender, but to humanity in general.

Which, if you're a feminist, is incredibly offensive, because to you, 
it's as clearly specifically referring to males as you feel she is, when 
used, referring to females.

The fact that you see 'man' and 'he' as general terms encompassing both 
genders just goes to show how deeply ingrained the phallocentric elitist 
regime has portrayed men as being the norm and females being an aberration.

...or something.

Right on sister!  Grrl powah!  etc.

-- 
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.digitalartsuk.com

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 12:18:34 -0500, Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:

>Warp wrote:
>>   I'm sorry, but to my ear ...
>
>Which, if you're a feminist, is incredibly offensive, because to you, 
>it's as clearly specifically referring to males as you feel she is, when 
>used, referring to females.
>
>The fact that you see 'man' and 'he' as general terms encompassing both 
>genders just goes to show how deeply ingrained the phallocentric elitist 
>regime has portrayed men as being the norm and females being an aberration.
>
>...or something.
>
>Right on sister!  Grrl powah!  etc.

I think that I'm a feminist as I believe in the doctrine advocating social,
political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men. I'm not offended
nor is my wife who could never be described as anything other than a feminist.
What you are saying is trivial and a smokescreen making it more important to do
little rather than actually treat women as if they had the same rights as men. 
I bet you a pound to a penny that whoever came up with that idea didn't work for
a living.
 

Regards
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 17:41:52 +0000, Stephen <mcavoysATaolDOTcom@> wrote:

>actually treat women as if they had the same rights as men. 

I should have read that a bit more carefully before posting. What I should have
said was 
"actually ensure that women have the same rights as men and treat them
accordingly." 

Regards
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mcavoysATaolDOTcom@> wrote:
> I think that I'm a feminist as I believe in the doctrine advocating social,
> political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men. I'm not offended
> nor is my wife who could never be described as anything other than a feminist.
> What you are saying is trivial and a smokescreen making it more important to do
> little rather than actually treat women as if they had the same rights as men. 
> I bet you a pound to a penny that whoever came up with that idea didn't work for
> a living.

  I think feminists who oppose the usage of "he" (or "man") as the
gender-neutral pronoun should put things in perspective.

  English lacks a gender-neutral pronoun for people (unlike other languages,
such as Finnish, where the third person pronoun is gender-neutral, and in
fact there are no gender-specific pronouns at all), so there are only three
possible options available:

  1) Use the established gender-neutral pronoun "he" which has been used
in that role for a long time. Forget *why* it was chosen as the generic
pronoun hundreds of years ago. That's not relevant today.

  2) Use awkward grammar-breaking over-PC artificial constructs such as
"he/she" everywhere, interrupting the normal flow of text.

  3) Invent a new word for the English language and establish it as the
gender-neutral third-person pronoun.

  For some reason nobody seems to opt for number 3.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp escribió:
>   3) Invent a new word for the English language and establish it as the
> gender-neutral third-person pronoun.
> 
>   For some reason nobody seems to opt for number 3.

I have seen many "suggestions" for number 3, and they all sound awkward.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 15:41:34 +0000, Invisible wrote:

> http://xkcd.com/149/
> 
> I tried this last night.
> 
> It didn't work.

That's because you're root already. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" wrote:
> there are only three possible options available:
>
>  1) Use the established gender-neutral pronoun "he" which has been used
> in that role for a long time. Forget *why* it was chosen as the generic
> pronoun hundreds of years ago. That's not relevant today.
>
>  2) Use awkward grammar-breaking over-PC artificial constructs such as
> "he/she" everywhere, interrupting the normal flow of text.
>
>  3) Invent a new word for the English language and establish it as the
> gender-neutral third-person pronoun.

4) Use either "he" or "she" as a gender-neutral pronoun; whichever one you 
prefer, as long as it is used consistently within the text.

Whoa, there were more than three possible options after all...!

Rune
-- 
http://runevision.com

Post a reply to this message