Grammatical Gender and Sexism

[Quid est Veritas?]

Row over 'sexist' language riles France

With all these stories of pronouns and fireperson instead of man, it is heartening that it could have been worse. Except for modes of transportation like ships and cars, and archaicly countries, English does not have grammatical gender.

French however does. Now they are seeing all kinds of attempts to remove sexism in the language by adding all possible gender suffixes onto words, and literally making a mess. It is especially funny, seeing that it really makes no difference, as even overtly male things had female grammatical gender on occasion.

With all these fights over pronouns and silly concoctions like "humankind" or people objecting to words like "woman" because it has 'man' in it; it could really have been more odd. I find it strange that Feminism names their movement after women and names their shibboleth enemy Patriarchy after men, and then object to everything that is not absolutely gender neutral. To tackle grammatical gender is a throw too far, I think.

In my opinion, French will become virtually unintelligble to older speakers if these changes go through, and quite frankly, I don't see it happening. It is strange nonetheless, that people would even attempt it.

 

[Paidiske]

While I'm sympathetic to the idea of inclusive language in general, this is unworkable:

"In French, 10 sisters and one brother are collectively "heureux" - happy in a masculine way. Under proposed inclusive rules they would be "heureux.euse.s"."

I wouldn't mind if they proposed, for example, that the group should have the gender of the majority, or that masculine or feminine could both be accurately used to describe a mixed group. But trying to tack on multiple endings...? Nuts.

 

[now faith]

I could care less about political correctness, I celebrate the difference between Man and Woman,or Woman and Man.
I will not let a minority take my gender and combine it with a genderless stupidity.
If a person doesent know what gender they are they should look in a mirror nude ,the get a science book.and find out.
One thing is certain there are only 2 genders to pick from, who you sleep with does not change your gender, nor does it change anyone's mind that you are not of a certain gender.

 

[Radagast]

One thing is certain there are only 2 genders to pick from

Well, for grammatical gender, there can be 3 in some languages.

 

[Paidiske]

More, even. Copy/paste from Wiki:

More than three grammatical genders[edit]

• Burushaski: masculine, feminine, animals/countable nouns and inanimates/uncountable nouns/abstracts/fluids
• Chechen: 6 classes[6] (masculine, feminine and 4 other miscellaneous classes)
• Czech, Polish and Slovak: Masculine animate, Masculine inanimate, Feminine, Neuter (traditionally, only masculine, feminine and neuter genders are recognized, with animacy as a separate category for the masculine).
• Pama-Nyungan languages including Dyirbal and other Australian languages have gender systems such as: Masculine, feminine (see Women, Fire and Dangerous Things), vegetable and neuter.[7][8] (Some linguists do not regard the noun class system of this language as grammatical gender.)
  • Many Australian languages have a system of gender superclassing in which membership in one gender can mean membership in another.[9]
• Kannada: Originally had 9 gender pronouns but only 3 exist at present.
• Ganda: ten classes called simply Class I to Class X and containing all sorts of arbitrary groupings but often characterised as people, long objects, animals, miscellaneous objects, large objects and liquids, small objects, languages, pejoratives, infinitives, mass nouns
• Shona: 20 noun classes (singular and plural are considered separate classes)
• Swahili: 18 noun classes (singular and plural are considered separate classes)
• Zande: Masculine, feminine, animate, and inanimate.
• Bantu languages have many noun classes.[10]
• Tuyuca: Tuyuca has 50-140 noun classes.[11]

 

[quatona]

Row over 'sexist' language riles France

With all these stories of pronouns and fireperson instead of man, it is heartening that it could have been worse. Except for modes of transportation like ships and cars, and archaicly countries, English does not have grammatical gender.

French however does. Now they are seeing all kinds of attempts to remove sexism in the language by adding all possible gender suffixes onto words, and literally making a mess. It is especially funny, seeing that it really makes no difference, as even overtly male things had female grammatical gender on occasion.

With all these fights over pronouns and silly concoctions like "humankind" or people objecting to words like "woman" because it has 'man' in it; it could really have been more odd. I find it strange that Feminism names their movement after women and names their shibboleth enemy Patriarchy after men, and then object to everything that is not absolutely gender neutral. To tackle grammatical gender is a throw too far, I think.

In my opinion, French will become virtually unintelligble to older speakers if these changes go through, and quite frankly, I don't see it happening. It is strange nonetheless, that people would even attempt it.

It´s really interesting how certain cultural tenets are so built into the grammar of its language - to the point that the language doesn´t allow for other views to be expressed without getting unworkable.

 

[Zoii]

I have a lot of respect for the French. Im sure they will work things out.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

I could care less about political correctness, I celebrate the difference between Man and Woman,or Woman and Man.

I don't. As a female. I'm just simply a female. I never celebrated it at all.

I will not let a minority take my gender and combine it with a genderless stupidity.

It's really not a concern to you. Why make it your concern.

If a person doesent know what gender they are they should look in a mirror nude ,the get a science book.and find out.

That would be their business. But with some people. Their mind tells them something else. Since yours don't. You cant really relate to them. And tell them how to think. It's not this simple, no big deal thing. That you make it sound like.

One thing is certain there are only 2 genders to pick from, who you sleep with does not change your gender, nor does it change anyone's mind that you are not of a certain gender.

Actually when they change their birth certificate. You would be calling them what they choose. Since most people don't tell their secrets. And really you make to much of a big deal. Over something, that doesn't matter to you.

 

[now faith]

I don't. As a female. I'm just simply a female. I never celebrated it at all.
It's really not a concern to you. Why make it your concern.
That would be their business. But with some people. Their mind tells them something else. Since yours don't. You cant really relate to them. And tell them how to think. It's not this simple, no big deal thing. That you make it sound like.
Actually when they change their birth certificate. You would be calling them what they choose. Since most people don't tell their secrets. And really you make to much of a big deal. Over something, that doesn't matter to you.

I do not consider for myself making a big deal ,nor do I consider a gender bender flirting with me a non issue.
The homosexual community has made it a big deal ,to the point of protesting for special rights, beyond that of civil rights.
They want laws passed so that they are not discriminated against , in various circumstances where homosexuals being there would be improper conduct.

If a male wanted to work in a environment that females were showering or undressed that would be deemed improper.
Why?
Because heterosexual males are attracted to females.
So why should homosexuals be allowed to work with naked people of the same sex?
No big deal right, as heterosexual woman would you feel comfortable with a homosexual in the same room with you while you shower?
Do men really need to go into ladies restrooms?
Do you think I enjoy watching two men in a store do things to each other that would be wrong for a man and a woman to do in a store?

It's never a big deal until it has a direct effect on those who think it's no big deal.
I have interacted with lesbians who were drill sergeants, still said yes mam to them.
They were not offended because they still beyond their homosexual lifestyle understood they were women.
But to try to create some sort of proper language that is gender neutral is stupid.
Yes Sir and yes mam ,works fine unless you want to stammer out yes military person.
But I work with the general public, and exposed to circumstances you may think are not a big deal ,as well I have to provide restrooms in a retail environment.
Do I need go to the expense of a third bathroom for a person, who feels the need to be non gender?
After all there are other people who have the right to the proper rest room, unless their rights are no big deal.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Here in the U.S. we've seen an increasingly large group claim that words matter...and try to introduce less "offensive" words into the lexicon (think "cisgender").

Quite hypocritically though, most of the exact same group will spew an endless torrent of racism towards whites and claim that it's "just words"...not actual "racism"...and therefore doesn't hurt anyone.

If there were any consistency to the argument, I might be inclined to consider it. You don't need to be an academic however to realize that these people have simply bought into a narrative that makes them feel virtuous and righteous and truth doesn't matter to them.

 

[now faith]

Well, for grammatical gender, there can be 3 in some languages.

Well I may be off topic, unless the 3 types of reference has worked
With out confusions

 

[*Starlight*]

With all these stories of pronouns and fireperson instead of man

English isn't my first language, but isn't the gender neutral version "firefighter" instead of "fireperson"? I agree that some demands regarding gender neutral language get ridiculous, but in this case it makes sense. If you keep the word "fireman", then a woman would need to be either called "fireman" too, or the word "firewoman" would need to be created. The first option would be just weird and awkward, the second one involves creating a new word too, so if there's going to be a new word anyway, why not make it gender neutral, since gender is irrelevant here?

 

[now faith]

English isn't my first language, but isn't the gender neutral version "firefighter" instead of "fireperson"? I agree that some demands regarding gender neutral language get ridiculous, but in this case it makes sense. If you keep the word "fireman", then a woman would need to be either called "fireman" too, or the word "firewoman" would need to be created. The first option would be just weird and awkward, the second one involves creating a new word too, so if there's going to be a new word anyway, why not make it gender neutral, since gender is irrelevant here?

I agree there is nothing wrong with firefighter , we use the tern often today.
I do not agree if someone takes offense if a person said , here comes the fireman and it happened to be a woman.
Certain terms have been used for a hundred years, and are not said to insult someone.

 

[quatona]

I agree there is nothing wrong with firefighter , we use the tern often today.
I do not agree if someone takes offense if a person said , here comes the fireman and it happened to be a woman.
Certain terms have been used for a hundred years, and are not said to insult someone.

Noone said anything about it being insulting. The criteria was "inaccurate".
As long as firefighters were exclusively male the term "firemen" was accurate. Now that they are of either gender/sex it has become inaccurate. Language keeps up with changing facts.
On a sidenote, I find it curious why the very people who usually are so peculiar about keeping sexes/genders nicely apart in language, find it ok to call a woman a "man", in this case.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

English isn't my first language, but isn't the gender neutral version "firefighter" instead of "fireperson"? I agree that some demands regarding gender neutral language get ridiculous, but in this case it makes sense. If you keep the word "fireman", then a woman would need to be either called "fireman" too, or the word "firewoman" would need to be created. The first option would be just weird and awkward, the second one involves creating a new word too, so if there's going to be a new word anyway, why not make it gender neutral, since gender is irrelevant here?

Noone said anything about it being insulting. The criteria was "inaccurate".
As long as firefighters were exclusively male the term "firemen" was accurate. Now that they are of either gender/sex it has become inaccurate. Language keeps up with changing facts.
On a sidenote, I find it curious why the very people who usually are so peculiar about keeping sexes/genders nicely apart in language, find it ok to call a woman a "man", in this case.

The confusion is that the 'man' here is often unrelated to gender. It is the man of "mankind", of "The Descent of Man", the cognate of German mensch or Afrikaans mens - meaning human. It is a homonym of the gender, but unrelated to it (the gender term being the cognate of German mann or Afrikaans man).
It is therefore already gender neutral, people are just uneducated or being silly.

 

[Moral Orel]

I think it's high time we finally change the term "mailman" to "personperson". Just my two cents.

 

[quatona]

The confusion is that the 'man' here is often unrelated to gender. It is the man of "mankind", of "The Descent of Man", the cognate of German mensch or Afrikaans mens - meaning human. It is a homonym of the gender, but unrelated to it (the gender term being the cognate of German mann or Afrikaans man).
It is therefore already gender neutral, people are just uneducated or being silly.

Since you mention German, it´s interesting that here the traditional term is "Feuerwehrmann", not "Feuerwehrmensch".

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Since you mention German, it´s interesting that here the traditional term is "Feuerwehrmann", not "Feuerwehrmensch".

Afrikaans has Brandweerman as well. The difference though is that in either case, we are combining man to the organisation: The English equivalent would be 'man of the Fire Brigade'. English allows a lot less agglutinasation than German or Afrikaans in this regard. Old English combined 'wer' or 'wiv' to words that specifically referred to the gender of the person (a surviving example being werewolf or via some change, Lord, which had been hlafweard - keeper of the loaves, with weard meaning guardsman). This is similar to how Latin combined 'vir' for man to words like Triumvir or decemvir.

The use of 'man' for gender specific purposes is a late development here, as earlier forms did not use the gender term in English. Some even argue that it often refers to Latin Manus, meaning 'hand', so that something like Chairman would be the hand of the committee, the active executive thereof. Some man words like mankind or 'man about town' are explicitly the sense of human though.

It is a bit debatable as both Chairman and Fireman are only coined after the 1500s, so the man may be the male gender being referred to, but the historical usages of Old and Middle English makes it equally likely, and supported historically, to consider it gender neutral. It wasn't a problem back then, as all bearing these titles were men, so there would be no reason to differentiate which one was meant.

 

[Paidiske]

Can a "man about town" be a woman? I'd have thought the nuances and social shading of that would make it not a term one could use of a woman, at least, not without distorting the meaning.

And this is part of the thing, I think; the social shading of gender has changed as gender roles have changed, so what once worked without question now becomes imprecise, at best. (I've often debated on CF with others about the appropriateness of using the term "priestess" to refer to a female member of the Christian clergy, for example; it's a deeply offensive term with overtones of Pagan practice, but some insist on using it).

 

[quatona]

It wasn't a problem back then, as all bearing these titles were men, so there would be no reason to differentiate which one was meant.

Exactly. Now, since we aren´t in the 16th century any more, and since women do count today, language adapts.