House rule changes on gendered language; Tulsi Gabbard comments

[Zinco]

The rule change to ban certain gendered terms just seems bizarre... what are they trying to achieve? They seem to have gone more insane in the USA with this stuff than other countries so far.

For people that are easily offended by this kind of thing, this is a very right wing show that Tulsi Gabbard is appearing on.

Tulsi for 2024. She’s the only Democrat who hasn’t completely lost the plot.

It is a very strange thing to legislate.

And as for being offended at ‘amen’ and change it to amen and a women!!!!! Look it up - it does not mean anything to do with biology. It is a whole lot of nothing to get offended about.

Thanks dictionary.com.

It means “it is so” or “so it be.” Amen is derived from the Hebrew āmēn, which means “certainty,” “truth,” and “verily.” In English, the word has two primary pronunciations: ah-men or ay-men.

It's not a ban on gendered terms, just renaming certain words in official language, for example chairman will now be chair. Terms for familial relationships such as mother and father will be replaced with parent, which is more inclusive of gay parents whilst remaining linguistically accurate.

France did something similar a few years ago.

I haven't read this - but seriously??? They are getting offended at the use of Amen for containing the word 'men', even though that's not what it means??!?

Right. I hope all future use of the name Amanda is outlawed. And that all women currently named Amanda rename themselves Awomanda.

Awomanda has a nice ring to it! Likewise my home city, Womanchester.

Idiots...

@EdgeOfACoin

I haven't read this - but seriously??? They are getting offended at the use of Amen for containing the word 'men', even though that's not what it means??!?

Right. I hope all future use of the name Amanda is outlawed. And that all women currently named Amanda rename themselves Awomanda.

By that 'logic' they're never going to be able to amend another law, are they?

I've not watched the video, but in general it's a good idea to use neutral language where possible for anything which is not sex specific, certainly where in the past a male term has been the default.

And for anything which is sex specific it's a stupid and bad idea.

@AntsInPenzance

It's not a ban on gendered terms, just renaming certain words in official language, for example chairman will now be chair. Terms for familial relationships such as mother and father will be replaced with parent, which is more inclusive of gay parents whilst remaining linguistically accurate.

France did something similar a few years ago.

When it comes to official roles or professions, i.e. chair versus chairman, I think the change is positive.

However, I am uneasy about eliminating terms like, mother, father, and other gendered terms for family relations. It seems like it will make it harder to scrutinise changes to things like reproductive, family and surrogacy laws if "mother" and "father" become banned terms. How will they refer to women acting as surrogates, for instance? Considering Pelosi and co.'s zeal in wanting to force women and girls to accept male bodies in their bathrooms and sports, I find the proposals a little ominous.

And the awoman nonsense wasn't a rule change, just one politician trying to be woke and making a fool of himself.

It seems like it will make it harder to scrutinise changes to things like reproductive, family and surrogacy laws if "mother" and "father" become banned terms. How will they refer to women acting as surrogates, for instance?

Used correctly it could make for clarity.
The surrogate mother is a mother. It's a sexed term. The commissioning person or couple are the parents - their role is parenting, an unsexed role.

… the awoman nonsense wasn't a rule change, just one politician trying to be woke and making a fool of himself.

I thought he was having a laugh!

And the awoman nonsense wasn't a rule change

No but when usage of terms like ‘mother’ is now changed with things pertaining to subjects such as pregnancy etc, it is a sign that things have gone too far.

Absolutely fine to use gender neutral terms with regards to occupational roles and where a distinction is not needed. And I am all for use of female and male when needed (I would welcome that and clear definition). Allowing birthing parent to become used in law, has a dehumanizing factor.

What was one person making a fool of themselves about ‘amen’ and ‘awoken’ could also be viewed as an example of the contortions society is currently going through, that women endure daily, with the words to accurately and humanely describe ourselves being eroded.

It highlights the ridiculousness of the lengths people go with their virtue signaling.

Interestingly, I did read somewhere that some French women were pushing back on gender neutralizing of occupational descriptions and claiming their words back.

There is a reason why China is taking over before it was anticipated. These priorities are just plain dumb.

@Winesalot

Interestingly, I did read somewhere that some French women were pushing back on gender neutralizing of occupational descriptions and claiming their words back.

To take an obvious example in English - it's perfectly sensible and normal now for thespians to all be referred to as 'actors' as the default. But if a woman for some reason prefers 'actress' then I wouldn't see that as problematic.

Tulsi for 2024

Shudder

Really? Why? I think she’s great.

A veteran who is pro peace building, pro free speech and who has the steel ovaries required to stand up for natal girls rights under title IX, who isn‘t afraid to go against the grain (realising that the Trump impeachment was a massive waste of time and money, unsupported by millions of ordinary Americans).

The Carlson person can never resist hyperbole. He lost me with his claim that "first cousin" will be banned because it is gendered.

Used correctly it could make for clarity. The surrogate mother is a mother. It's a sexed term. The commissioning person or couple are the parents - their role is parenting, an unsexed role.

If used correctly - but it isn’t and won’t.

In NHS literature - it’s ‘the surrogate’.

www.nhs.uk/pregnancy/trying-for-a-baby/having-a-baby-if-you-are-lgbt-plus/

The baby is not legally yours until a parental order has been issued after the child's birth. Until this order is issued the surrogate has the right to keep the baby.

Untethering motherhood bit by bit...

Good laws should always consider what the unintended consequences could be.

In the USA, there was already a woman who lost an employment rights case to do with breastfeeding because "parents" rather than "mothers" can breastfeed. There are specific protections that pregnant women and mothers who have given birth to children need in the workplace and the USA are already extremely poor in protecting them. Who benefits from obscuring this by changing language from "mothers" to "parents"?

@MoltenLasagne

Good laws should always consider what the unintended consequences could be.

In the USA, there was already a woman who lost an employment rights case to do with breastfeeding because "parents" rather than "mothers" can breastfeed. There are specific protections that pregnant women and mothers who have given birth to children need in the workplace and the USA are already extremely poor in protecting them. Who benefits from obscuring this by changing language from "mothers" to "parents"?

Yes. Exactly.

This is exactly why 'woman' should not lose its biological meaning.

If 'men can breastfeed too' then sex-based rights are lost. How people cannot see that, I don't know.

To take an obvious example in English - it's perfectly sensible and normal now for thespians to all be referred to as 'actors' as the default. But if a woman for some reason prefers 'actress' then I wouldn't see that as problematic.

I actually think it is a shame this has happened. At some point someone decided that 'actress' was a more lightweight title than 'actor' and 'actor' became applied equally to men and women.

But why? Why was the feminine version of the word 'lesser' than the masculine?

I don't really want to revive poetess or manageress, because they're a bit different. However, given that actresses take different roles from actors, I don't see a problem with retaining these gendered terms.

I always feel a stab of irritation at seeing the word 'shero' on here as well, though I appreciate the wordplay. There's already a word for a female hero - heroine. What on earth is wrong with heroine? Why is the masculine version always the default, even on a feminism board??

I remember when this started with a large cohort of well-known female actors demanding to be known as actors not actresses because they felt that the feminism of the word demeaned them. It was widely applauded at the time.

' Amen and awomen ' Nice one.

I wonder. Does this remind anyone else of the old question, ' If Typhoo puts the 'T' in 'Britain', who put the 'cunt' in 'Scunthorpe'? '

AskingQuestions, I think it's a pity that even women associate anything female with being lower-status.

Do people think that the term 'waitress' is demeaning as compared with 'waiter'? Is there a big push to rename waitresses as waiters?

To me that would make more sense, as waiters and waitresses perform identical jobs, whereas actors and actresses take on different roles.

I accept that my side has lost this argument, though.

I take your point re 'actress' being wrongly seen as lesser; however my impression is that some of the move away from it was because women didn't necessarily want to take 'different roles', and be constrained to 'women's parts'. Fairly obviously some of the big Shakespearean roles- some of the almost ubiquitous 'gender swapping' is a bit but there are productions/performances which work very well (eg a recent Timon of Athens - no reason at all for the lead to be male) . But other cases where a part might have defaulted to male for no good reason at all.