discuss: On language usage [was: To or not to Wiki, a summary]
Subject:
Re: [discuss] On language usage [was: To or not to Wiki, a summary]
From:
Rick Moen ####@####.####
Date:
24 Aug 2005 21:29:03 -0000
Message-Id: <20050824212901.GD4462@linuxmafia.com>
Quoting Yaroslav Fedevych ####@####.####
> And, my 5 cents: in Ukrainian, there is no such stupidity as
> sexist/non-sexist language; unless the content itself expresses a sexist
> attitude, it's OK to use masculine gender as a "general substitute".
That traditional assertion for English is heavily disputed; see Hofstadter's
"A Person Paper on Purity in Language" for why:
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs655/readings/purity.html
As long as we're adding language-specific notes, in the English
language, words can be gendered (e.g., actress); persons, by contrast,
can be spoken of in terms of either their sexes or their gender. The
two latter concepts are _distinct_ -- and the wikipedia article
(predictably) flubs that distinction, using the (predictably) wrong word
for the covered concept.
That is: One's sex is defined by reference to one's biological plumbing.
One's gender is defined by reference to psychological and sociological
role concepts, most commonly the gender concepts of "feminine" and
"masculine" (however those are construed locally).
People being denied access to housing/jobs/etc. is thus "sex
discrimination", _not_ the common erroneous usage "gender discrimination".
The latter would properly encompass such things as, e.g., a ban against
wearing of skirts imposed without regard to the wearer's sex.
Thus, also, the wikipedia article actually _ought_ to be entitled (and
speak of) "sex-neutral language", not "gender-neutral language" -- as the
former is its primary focus.
That objection _was_ actually raised on the related discussion page, but
not acted upon. (The existing placement and wording appears to be an
unfortunate compromise, after prior wrangling.)
