»
Main Forums
»
English Workshop
»
Let's talk about sex ...
| English Workshop |
|
Let's talk about sex ... |
|
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash 
|
... and gender. What is the hang-up people have with incorrectly using "gender" as a euphemism for "sex"? "Gender" has traditionally refered to masculine or feminine noun and pronoun usage in language and "sex" to that quality of a living organism being male or female. Why not call an apple and apple and an orange and orange? |
||
| © Copyright 2001 Jim Bouder - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Actually, that's exactly the point. Gender theory is an attempt to distance masculine and feminine characteristics from their physical counterparts in male and female. A penis doesn't guarantee masculinity and breasts don't determine femininity -- that's the idea anyway. Another explanation I heard once was that their are two sexes and four or five genders. man to woman woman to man man to man woman to woman man or woman to man or woman (bi-sexual) See here how gender doesn't equate to sexual organs so much as relationships between other people. Now, this doesn't mean people don't misuse the terms (even if this is an accurate description which it may not be) because when you're an undergraduate, you generally look for the easy out (and then chide others for not knowing that the preferred term is now gender). Of course, it could be a kind of New England puritan echo trying to stamp out vulgar sex.  Brad |
||
|
Krawdad Member Elite
since 2001-01-03
Posts 2597 |
Or, look at it this way. The only languages that don't change are the dead ones. When popular usage ensues long enough, the lexicographer will give the word another definition, number x+1. Having learned English in the late 20th Century, try reading the English tale of Beowulf in the original. Case in point: What is a "moot" point? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I don't quite understand how language changing through time somehow means that malopropisms are okay. Sure, it changes but that's little comfort when you missed a business meeting because you misunderstood or someone else incorrectly used a word. Gender as sex, to my knowledge, is not what you would call popular usage by the way; the word is used by academics to distinguish certain, to their mind, ingrained and misleading connections that shouldn't be there. It's an attempt to clarify ever finer points in the language, not to confuse them even more (admittedly, it may not have been successful). Also, an interesting use of the lexicographer as authority figure (which seems to go against the grain of your argument). Proper usage is indeed determined arbitrarily by people such as lexicographers, grammarians and others who claim and are given authority over the use of language. That's why we use dictionaries. In conjunction with this, my dictionary gave a little quick note on the usage of 'moot' : Usage Note: As an adjective moot has come to be widely used to mean ¡°no longer important, irrelevant,¡± as in It's a purely moot question which corporation you make your rent check out to; Brown will get the money in either case. This usage may be originally the result of a misinterpretation of its legal sense in phrases such as a moot question. A number of critics have objected to this use, but it was accepted by 59 percent of the Usage Panel in the sentence. It seems the court was rather divided on that one. Brad |
||
|
Krawdad Member Elite
since 2001-01-03
Posts 2597 |
"The court . . . divided (about 'moot')" makes my point. That's how language changes over time. Does "the lexicographer will include the new definition" dispell the notion of authoritarianism? Do you really think that language is created arbitrarily by lexicographers and their ilk? Krawdad |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Language isn't created by them but proper usage is. A good example is the double negative. The rule is that two negatives makes a positive (multiplication) but one could just as easily argue that two negatives add emphasis (addition). I'm not suggesting that we should do this, just offering the possibility. Arthur C. Clarke seems to think that English will stabilize over the next hundred years or so as a result of mass communication. It's an interesting idea although I'm not sure I believe it -- language change is too dialectical for that to happen."Does "the lexicographer will include the new definition" dispell the notion of authoritarianism?" How does that follow? If a dictator spares your life, does that make him or her any less dictatorial? It's still his decision to make. Brad |
||
|
wayoutwalt Member Elite
since 1999-06-22
Posts 4870TEXAS (it's all big) |
in tech writing we are learning the pit-falls of gender specifics o man what a riot i refuse to change my language (unless it's for an A) the dallas cowpeople rock!! |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
