Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

"Gender neutral language" isn't

6 replies

GrumpyPanda · 09/04/2022 14:35

Surprise, surprise. So it turns out expressions like "person", "people" or "individual" are much more closely associated with male rather than female people. Who woulda thunk. Inclusiveness, anyone?

www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/gender-neutral-words-like-people-and-person-are-male-study-suggests-180979882/

OP posts:
EmbarrassingHadrosaurus · 09/04/2022 15:06

Caroline Criado Perez regularly reminds us of this. I can't check Invisible Women but it might even be in there.

nepeta · 09/04/2022 15:07

We used to know that, among feminists. The new generation does not, clearly.

Being asked to state your pronouns forces every woman to remind others that she in fact does belong to the marked part of the humankind, not the default part which is still very much male. That is not good.

SirVixofVixHall · 09/04/2022 15:08

@nepeta

We used to know that, among feminists. The new generation does not, clearly.

Being asked to state your pronouns forces every woman to remind others that she in fact does belong to the marked part of the humankind, not the default part which is still very much male. That is not good.

This.
GrumpyPanda · 09/04/2022 15:22

Oh definitely, we've known this about e.g. usage of the generic masculine all the time. My favorite giveaway, that I learned about as an undergrad many years ago, is when the generic suddenly and seamlessly turns into a biological masculine ("the patient yada yada... his needs yada yada.... his wife").
What seems new about this particular study is that it's also been demonstrated for these particular terms such as "person".
Bonus fun fact: followed a link from the Graun to find this Smile

OP posts:
EmbarrassingHadrosaurus · 09/04/2022 15:35

@nepeta

We used to know that, among feminists. The new generation does not, clearly.

Being asked to state your pronouns forces every woman to remind others that she in fact does belong to the marked part of the humankind, not the default part which is still very much male. That is not good.

I don't understand why Mary Daly, Dale Spender, Deborah Tannen and others have fallen into such disuse.
Artichokeleaves · 09/04/2022 15:50

Let's be honest, when you say 'pregnant person' or 'person with a cervix' you are in fact saying 'I put male people first and don't wish to upset them in referring to females'.

But yes. In a lot of the commentary in the papers this past week there have been many statements from activists and journalists about 'humans' and 'people' when they definitely do not mean females.

Statements like 'there are people with real suffering under this issue' for example is absolutely not said to recognise that female people excluded from resources is a problem, it means some male people may find it difficult that some spaces specifically to ensure female needs are met are not open to them. 'People' simply means male.

But we've said from the start, women have been fighting for bloody centuries that males are the default human. This is in so very many ways a male supremacist agenda. The question is just how intentionally and consciously, and whether there is any sense of conscience when it is pointed out. And the awful irony that many pushing this agenda call themselves 'feminists'.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page