Words and Gender: Does Gender Differentiation Matter?

[Mirage]

I would want a fireman to be somewhat strong, wouldn't you ? And naturally men tend to be stronger so ofcourse i am going to lean more towards employing men than women. (There might be exceptions ofcourse)

Then have an established minimum amount that needs to be able to be lifted and don't change it. It's an un-biased test of strength because it establishes strength regardless of gender. Boom, problem solved.

That becomes a problem when the no of applicants becomes more than that of positions available.

Care to back it up ?

[1999] 3 S.C.R. 3; 1999 SCC 652

And here i was thinking about how it was going to say how both men and women are physically equally strong.

My example was a hypothetical one that i just made up.

[Central Slavia]

And there are people that ID themselves as dragons. It changes nothing about objective reality, and suggesting not to use the word "human" to describe people because of it would be just as stupid.


The same reason I can't aspire to be Henri Bessemer, or Nikola Tesla - because it contradicts reality.

Species is not a social construct.


Gender is.

Gender is no more a social construct than species is.

[The Steel Magnolia]

Species is not a social construct.


Gender is.

Gender is no more a social construct than species is.

Liar.

[Rocopurr]

Because gender neutral words can make things easier and are useful for people who don't identify as male or female.

So just because, let's say 1 or 2% of the people you're going to change the structure of a language?
By the way, it's not making things easier.
It makes it way more complicated.

Well, why not? Gender neutral words aren't hurting anyone.
How is it making things more complicated?

And rolling off to tongue well or not matters because?

Introduce them by their name then.

Meet my best friend Sandy. Is Sandy a boy or a girl?

Sandy, as far as I know, is a girl's name so I assume a girl.

[Individuality-ness]

.. that's not the same thing. False equivalence.

Obviously it never is the same thing if it can destroy your argument.

No seriously, it's not the same thing. A female can aspire to be an actor. A person cannot aspire to be a dragon, or a dead person.

[Haydenish People]

In German, one must differentiate between male and female students, teachers, and even nationalities (such as male and female Americans). And you call English sexist.

Before you call me an oppressive patriarch, I support equal rights for men and women. Women are just as skilled as men are in many lines of work (although there are few women in some), and I find it ridiculous that women get paid less for the same work. I do find that gender differentiation is mainly cultural. But, one thing in the OP I find odd is that women must "settle for a female version" of many titles. It's not settling. Being an actress does not make you any less than an actor. It simply means you are a female actor. It does not mean that you can never strive to be an actor, because you already are one.

[The Steel Magnolia]

Then have an established minimum amount that needs to be able to be lifted and don't change it. It's an un-biased test of strength because it establishes strength regardless of gender. Boom, problem solved.

That becomes a problem when the no of applicants becomes more than that of positions available.

[1999] 3 S.C.R. 3; 1999 SCC 652

And here i was thinking about how it was going to say how both men and women are physically equally strong.

My example was a hypothetical one that i just made up.

Your example was shit and unconnected to reality.

[Central Slavia]

Gender is no more a social construct than species is.

Liar.

Just because you repeat a lie a thousand times doesn't make it true, Mr. Goebbels.

[Land of Tob]

So just because, let's say 1 or 2% of the people you're going to change the structure of a language?
By the way, it's not making things easier.
It makes it way more complicated.

Well, why not? Gender neutral words aren't hurting anyone.
How is it making things more complicated?

Meet my best friend Sandy. Is Sandy a boy or a girl?

Sandy, as far as I know, is a girl's name so I assume a girl.

Don't assume, you'll make an ass out of you and everybody else. I can't use any specific words, because those don't exist anymore!

[Seperates]

Then have an established minimum amount that needs to be able to be lifted and don't change it. It's an un-biased test of strength because it establishes strength regardless of gender. Boom, problem solved.

That becomes a problem when the no of applicants becomes more than that of positions available.

[1999] 3 S.C.R. 3; 1999 SCC 652

And here i was thinking about how it was going to say how both men and women are physically equally strong.

My example was a hypothetical one that i just made up.

Well then, that's a workflow problem. And that is an interesting article that I have to read.

[Nailed to the Perch]

And rolling off to tongue well or not matters because?

Introduce them by their name then.

Meet my best friend Sandy. Is Sandy a boy or a girl?

I assume you'll tell me, when or if it becomes relevant. The entire point of this argument is that whether Sandy is a boy or a girl is not relevant to Sandy being able to, say, be a cop. Sandy can be a police officer regardless of Sandy's gender.

[Individuality-ness]

In German, one must differentiate between male and female students, teachers, and even nationalities (such as male and female Americans). And you call English sexist.

Before you call me an oppressive patriarch, I support equal rights for men and women. Women are just as skilled as men are in many lines of work (although there are few women in some), and I find it ridiculous that women get paid less for the same work. I do find that gender differentiation is mainly cultural. But, one thing in the OP I find odd is that women must "settle for a female version" of many titles. It's not settling. Being an actress does not make you any less than an actor. It simply means you are a female actor. It does not mean that you can never strive to be an actor, because you already are one.

Then why have a different word for the same thing?

[Rocopurr]

Well, why not? Gender neutral words aren't hurting anyone.
How is it making things more complicated?


Sandy, as far as I know, is a girl's name so I assume a girl.

Don't assume, you'll make an ass out of you and everybody else. I can't use any specific words, because those don't exist anymore!

I'm not the one here who looks like an ass...

[The Steel Magnolia]

Liar.

Just because you repeat a lie a thousand times doesn't make it true, Mr. Goebbels.

True!

On the other hand, 40-50 odd years of psychiatric research tend to agree with me.

Indeed, all I need to do to prove it is by looking myself in the mirror.

But god no. Insisting on being known by my actual gender clearly makes me a Nazi.

For fuck's sake, grow the hell up.

[Land of Tob]

Obviously it never is the same thing if it can destroy your argument.

No seriously, it's not the same thing. A female can aspire to be an actor. A person cannot aspire to be a dragon, or a dead person.

A female cannot become an actor.
A plant can't become a volcano, either.
It's the same.

[Lunalia]

Meet my best friend Sandy. Is Sandy a boy or a girl?

Why does it matter?

See the edit I made to my post, but I'll also sum it up here.

Because when you're reading a book, you want to know what the character looks like, and you also don't want the author to go into overload of flowery detail mode. You want the words to flow together, and not be clunky. Having to stop and specify the gender for gender neutral roles is clunky, especially when the character in question has a gender neutral name, like Sandy, or honestly most fantasy names. Skinny for someone with a male body is not the same thing as skinny for someone with a female body. Saying "Sandy was a short skinny actor" and "Sandy was a short skinny actress" implies different things. "Sandy was a short skinny female actor" just sounds... too many adjectives in one sentence to read well.

[Central Slavia]

Obviously it never is the same thing if it can destroy your argument.

No seriously, it's not the same thing. A female can aspire to be an actor. A person cannot aspire to be a dragon, or a dead person.

They can, it's called suicide *brick'd*
Seriously though. An actor is by definition a man who acts. Hence a female can't aspire to be an actor.
She can however aspire to be an actress. Where the only difference between the two terms is the gender of the title-holder.

[Land of Tob]

In German, one must differentiate between male and female students, teachers, and even nationalities (such as male and female Americans). And you call English sexist.

Before you call me an oppressive patriarch, I support equal rights for men and women. Women are just as skilled as men are in many lines of work (although there are few women in some), and I find it ridiculous that women get paid less for the same work. I do find that gender differentiation is mainly cultural. But, one thing in the OP I find odd is that women must "settle for a female version" of many titles. It's not settling. Being an actress does not make you any less than an actor. It simply means you are a female actor. It does not mean that you can never strive to be an actor, because you already are one.

Then why have a different word for the same thing?

IT'S NOT THE SAME THING.

[Neo Art]

Meet my best friend Sandy. Is Sandy a boy or a girl?

I assume you'll tell me, when or if it becomes relevant. The entire point of this argument is that whether Sandy is a boy or a girl is not relevant to Sandy being able to, say, be a cop. Sandy can be a police officer regardless of Sandy's gender.

Shockingly, I tend to refer to my friends as "men" and "women" not as children. Maybe that tells us something.

[Mirage]

This is stupid and it detracts from our side of the argument

2) I have no idea what you mean. Hormones *and* males? Even if you said hormones in males, it's stupid - males and females have different concentrations of certain hormones, on average, but that's a different thing. Learn biology.

3) It's true that men have higher upper body strength, and it's true that's a great thing for firemen. There's also a great way to ensure that the firemen you pick are adequate for the task regardless of gender - it's called entrance tests. Once someone is strong enough to do the job, it doesn't matter what gender they are - it's just that on average more men will be than women from the same population.

2) If you do honestly have no idea, then are you sure it is me who should learn biology ? Hormone levels matter. Go read

3) And even in that case i would prefer the "stronger" one. wouldn't you ?

[Individuality-ness]

No seriously, it's not the same thing. A female can aspire to be an actor. A person cannot aspire to be a dragon, or a dead person.

A female cannot become an actor.
A plant can't become a volcano, either.
It's the same.

No it's not. I am a female, I've done acting in high school. I'm an actor. A plant can't suddenly turn to rock. False equivalency.

[The Nihilistic view]

And there are people that ID themselves as dragons. It changes nothing about objective reality, and suggesting not to use the word "human" to describe people because of it would be just as stupid.

So are you saying that genderqueer is not a thing?

The same reason I can't aspire to be Henri Bessemer, or Nikola Tesla - because it contradicts reality.

... that's not the same thing. False equivalence.

1) I don't carry a pocket googleator around with me.
2) You will find out its relevance if you answer the question truthfully.

You don't own a smartphone, an iPod, a laptop? What?

And no, the question is not relevant AT ALL. Stop attempting to use personal attacks.

There we go, another example of an American that presumes the rest of the world has every technical gadget under the sun. Can i search up a topic of conversation whilst i am driving and on the phone?


It is not a personal attack. It is totally relevant if you answer. You see according to the things you have said thus far we can extrapolate from them that one is sexist if one is more attracted to one sex over the other.

[The Steel Magnolia]

Why does it matter?

See the edit I made to my post, but I'll also sum it up here.

Because when you're reading a book, you want to know what the character looks like, and you also don't want the author to go into overload of flowery detail mode. You want the words to flow together, and not be clunky. Having to stop and specify the gender for gender neutral roles is clunky, especially when the character in question has a gender neutral name, like Sandy, or honestly most fantasy names. Skinny for someone with a male body is not the same thing as skinny for someone with a female body. Saying "Sandy was a short skinny actor" and "Sandy was a short skinny actress" implies different things. "Sandy was a short skinny female actor" just sounds... too many adjectives in one sentence to read well.

I never said that I even supported the OP, for reference.

[Land of Tob]

A female cannot become an actor.
A plant can't become a volcano, either.
It's the same.

No it's not. I am a female, I've done acting in high school. I'm an actor. A plant can't suddenly turn to rock. False equivalency.

You're an actress.
Do you want to be associated as a man? Because this is the impression I'm getting, since you have so many problems with female words.

[The Steel Magnolia]

So are you saying that genderqueer is not a thing?


... that's not the same thing. False equivalence.


You don't own a smartphone, an iPod, a laptop? What?

And no, the question is not relevant AT ALL. Stop attempting to use personal attacks.

There we go, another example of an American that presumes the rest of the world has every technical gadget under the sun. Can i search up a topic of conversation whilst i am driving and on the phone?


It is not a personal attack. It is totally relevant if you answer. You see according to the things you have said thus far we can extrapolate from them that one is sexist if one is more attracted to one sex over the other.

...

Are you legitimately fucking serious?

Having a sexual preference is sexist now?