Originally posted by Mujer
[email protected] 01, 2007 10:53 pm
Wow, how many times do we have to go over this? Nobody with half a brain thinks that language is the only domain to be contested. Clearly, as I've said countless times before, changing language is a small part of any movement for change, but it a) can directly reduce the discrimination felt by people (for example, how would you feel if humanity was constantly referred to as "man") and b) it can serve as a consciousness-raising tool.
Um, i think this is the first time this particular point has been made and objected to Mujer Libre so it doesn't go towards proving you have half a brain to make such a comment.
Secondly if you think that qualifies as "consciousness-raising" then clearly you're trying to raise a different type of consciousness, a consciousness of artificial liberal identity groups, rather than of class consciousness.
And yah, i'd be annoyed if someone insisted on using the generic "man" in place of "human" or whatever but this is not an apt comparison as the generic use of the word 'man' is now non-standard and has been for some time, they would be misusing the language in a rightist way.
If it was the latter, then perhaps it would deserve the "PC" tag, but it isn't ans so... it doesn't.
lol don't be ridiculous theres no doubt that this is about political correctness.
But some people genuinely don't fit into a gender binary, and yes, don't feel that they fit in.
You don't seem to get it. The fact that there are two genders in the English language and social construction of gender, a 'binary', does not mean that only people who fit traditional or sterotypical or expected gender roles and behavior fit, because its an inclusive binary everyone fits even if aspects of their presentation or behavior or physicality or whatever are not what one would expect. For instance, someone with an extra 'x' chromosome might not be a member of the two common chromosomal sexes on a biological level but they will still be regarded as one of the two genders on a social and linguistic level. Binary gender is not a matter of biology or behavior its a matter of social convention, and its the social convention to recognize everyone as either male or female, and in the rare instances where theres some sort of confusion, that confusion doesn't imply that the person isn't one or the other for social and linguistic purposes, it only implies that someone is temporary unsure which.
Why should they be forced to conform? Why is that so important to you?
Err no ones talking about forcing anyone to conform except you. You're asking people to conform to anyones non-standard theory of gender and language.
Simply saying that there are only two genders for people in english doesn't mean that anyone needs to conform to expected gender roles or behavior or presentation or whatever it just means that people will reasonably end up conceptualizing them as one or the other because of what gender means as a social and linguistic construct.
It's not such a great demand, you know... :rolleyes:
actually controlling people's language in a politicized way as a way of setting the terms of discourse is a great demand. If for instance, a political science department required that the term "marxism" never be used and in place the term "stalinism" be used for every reference to "marxism" that would affect the parameters of discourse so as to control it.
Post-modernist isn't a perjorative, you know...
its not and i wasn't using it that way, i was describing your sociological perspective accurately as post modernist, but i thought you might mistakenly think it was a pejorative as thats been suggested by others.
Especially when the choice appears to be between post-modernism and nineteenth century dogmatism!
Err i hate to tell you that 21st century english hasn't adopted your linguistic conventions and 21st century western and socialist society hasn't recognized a third or neutral gender.
No, it's a matter of simple respect. You using a single different word doesn't mean changing your worldview and adopting new social theory. Accepting how someone defines their gender is important to them, but to you, it should just be a matter of respecting them and the person they are.
No its not. If a white person wants to be accepted as black, saying that they're black entails accepting a theory of race whereby "race" is whatever the person says it is, not a concept created by society as a whole, which has implications for the ontological status of race, namely that it doesn't exist in a socially restrictive or exclusive sense. The same is true if someone wants to be accepted as part of some sort of neutral postmodern invented gender,it changes the ontological status of gender.
Wow, that's a big strawman. How are you going to identify outside neutral? Neutral, by definition encompasses everything else so yeah... your argument is complete shit. Thanks for trying.
You could easily imagine someone who wanted to be recognized not as male or female but as an alternative third or forth or fifth gender and then demand a separate set of pronouns, to refer to them by neutral pronouns would be to suggest that they didn't have a gender which would go against what the way they 'define their gender', thereby being 'disrespectful' according to your position, so you are being inconsistent here.