Boy removed from school in transgender rights row
- Thread starter antijoke
- Start date
A chairman becomes a chair? Surely you just use the term chairwoman when appropriate or just use the male term to mean either.
I mean it used to be that we'd have there terms 'Doctor' and 'Doctress' for males and females but now females use the (originally)male term 'Doctor' too and in doing so the term has become gender neutral - Chairman could become gender neutral too... it at least refers to a person whereas chair is an object.
I mean it used to be that we'd have there terms 'Doctor' and 'Doctress' for males and females but now females use the (originally)male term 'Doctor' too and in doing so the term has become gender neutral - Chairman could become gender neutral too... it at least refers to a person whereas chair is an object.
Guys, we can't call each other humans anymore.
Now we're all hu's. The apostrophe is important. Hus is already taken (an estate agent). I guess we could be hupersons, but aint nobody got time for that.
Anyway chairman to chair makes about as much sense as milkman to milk.
You cannot be a chair; neither can you be a milk.
As verbs you can chair something and you can milk something. You will never be a chair tho, no matter how much you identify as one.
Now we're all hu's. The apostrophe is important. Hus is already taken (an estate agent). I guess we could be hupersons, but aint nobody got time for that.
Anyway chairman to chair makes about as much sense as milkman to milk.
You cannot be a chair; neither can you be a milk.
As verbs you can chair something and you can milk something. You will never be a chair tho, no matter how much you identify as one.
Man of Honour
Why do you care? It literally has no effect on you.
Yet.
This stuff is insidious and the more its allowed to go on the more it will escalate.
It's a symptom of a disease which is affecting all of us.
Man of Honour
"Liberal" group-think. The inability to separate real issues from Facebook hot-topics. Giving in to the most vocal pressure groups and protest movements. The idea that debate is hate-speech and opposing ideas must be silenced.
As I said earlier, the potential for prison sentences being dished out for calling someone the wrong gender label (i.e. 'hate speech') becomes a rapidly approaching reality.
The disease of perceived entitlement and elevated rights due to delusions of minority oppression.
And yet you still manage to present opposing ideas unsilenced.
Go on... I feel you're trying to make a point but you haven't quite got there yet.
I know you're not saying that because I can post inconsequentially on a tech forum, that "no-platforming" isn't going on in various universities and large, global corporations like Google.
Man of Honour
There's nothing wrong with misgendering someone, its a simple and honest mistake. If you refuse to acknowledge someones gender and it gets to the point of facing jail time then you're probably the entitled one.
Why doesn't this count as a 'real issue'?
Giving in? If someone wants me the refer to them in a way that makes them feel comfortable then I'm going to do it because it takes virtually no effort whatsoever on my part. We then move on and it doesn't need to be spoken about again. Thats not giving in, it's a complete non-issue unless you want to make it one.
I'll admit there does seem to be a growing trend of shutting people down without proper conversation or debate, but I wouldn't generalise and say that it's an accepted idea.
Man of Honour
Chalk me up as a "gender neutral idiot".
I think the problems are people who consider gender, sex or both to be of extreme importance, often to the point of considering it the entirety of a person's identity, and people who consider sex and gender to have the same meaning.
Ungendered language can be clumsy and inaccurate, but unlike the above it's not harmful in an of itself. English has been mostly ungendered for centuries now, anyway.
"man" used to be ungendered - it's the Old English word for "person" and was completely ungendered for at least a thousand years and probably much longer. It only became truly sex-specific about 40 years ago, which was a godsend to feminists because they could falsely claim women had been excluded in the past when they weren't. To give one example of many, consider the last part of the first clause of the original Magna Carta of 1215. If you look at an English translation, it will almost certainly predate the recent change in the meaning of the word "man" (or be copied from a translation that predates it), so it will refer to "free men". You are, of course, expected to interpret that as applying only to male people, i.e. that all the rights granted by the charter are rights for adult male people only. This can easily be seen to be false by looking at the original text, which is of course in Latin. Latin had completely different words for "person" and "adult male person", so it's utterly certain which the authors of the text meant...and they used the sex neutral word "hominibus". Not the male-specific word "viri". The meaning is clear and it was clear to the people who translated it to "men" and correctly so because "men" was the English word for "people".
But I'd go for just adding an ungendered ending to create the word "chairer". Which is clumsy and odd, but far less so than "chairperson", which is itself better than "chair" because that's just nonsense:
If it's a real, pressing issue then I guess we'll have to find alternatives to many such offensive words. "Mankind" being one of them. The horror! That the collective noun for hupeople has the word "man" in it. Hopefully I get some bonus points for not using the offensive word "humans".
Those horrid males and their misogynist language.
I strongly suspect most women have no problem with words like "mankind", "postman", etc. Thus it would be a minority making a fuss, as per usual. Remember when somebody made a complaint that black bin liners were racist? That's about my assessment of how seriously some of these "issues" should be taken.
Here's a more recent example of manufacture/ laboured "offense" being taken... and then publicised and packaged for consumption.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/lon...nal-for-not-doing-his-recycling-a3673546.html
I just think we're all giving in to collective insanity. Everything is a big deal nowadays, everybody is told to tread on eggshells, and boundaries are being constantly re-drawn.
And yeah it does affect us. We now get to spend hours doing "diversity and discrimination" training at work. Already it's the lengthiest of our induction training programmes. This is only going to get more and more ingrained into all of us, until said training course is 20 hours long. Then coupled with the fact that certain topics at work are now "off limits" and can't be discussed. Half the things said in this forum would result in a disciplinary action at work.
Here I don't mind saying something entirely honest like, "Islam in general fills me with apprehension and I am suspicious of Islam as religious and political system that doesn't fit incredibly well with certain western values." Could I say that at work? ****, no. Do I wish ill on muslims? Nope. But that absolutely could not be discussed or voiced in the workplace without being labelled as a "threat to staff morale and cohesion", and the employer would **** bricks about being seen by somebody - anybody - as having failed to take action against me.
Basically everyone is now scared of being accused, no matter how ludicrously, of some kind of prejudice or discrimination. And that's the real world. The validity of a complaint barely matters these days. If someone gets offended it can grow on Facebook into a huge mountain of bad publicity. It can and does cost people their jobs and reputations.
It's hugely unjust. But everyone is now baying for blood over every last thing they might choose to take a dislike to. Madness. All around us.
Do you seriously think jail time is a proportionate response for simply refusing to acknowledge a gender label that is inconsistent with that person's actual biological sex?
It may well be an honest mistake with no recriminations now, but what about in a year, or 10 years time, when that honest mistake is no longer tolerated and deemed an immediate act of hate speech?
That would be a deliberate ideological stance and not a "mistake".
A Conservative MP who repeatedly said the n-word has just had the party whip restored. I think you’re safe to mistakenly misgender someone for many years to come.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 4,343
I thought mankind referred to humankind?
It does, it's called the human race, there seems to be a lot more highly sensitive people in these times and it appears many want to change the meaning of something or anything.
Permabanned
In here, for now, yes. Try it on some trendy university campus and see if free speech prevails... I am afraid those that call themselves liberal are often in reality very much the opposite.