• Welcome to The Cave of Dragonflies forums, where the smallest bugs live alongside the strongest dragons.

    Guests are not able to post messages or even read certain areas of the forums. Now, that's boring, don't you think? Registration, on the other hand, is simple, completely free of charge, and does not require you to give out any personal information at all. As soon as you register, you can take part in some of the happy fun things at the forums such as posting messages, voting in polls, sending private messages to people and being told that this is where we drink tea and eat cod.

    Of course I'm not forcing you to do anything if you don't want to, but seriously, what have you got to lose? Five seconds of your life?

Do you identify as a feminist?

Do you identify as a feminist?

  • Yes

    Votes: 51 71.8%
  • No

    Votes: 20 28.2%

  • Total voters
    71
@Saith (can't be bothered finding the post to quote) it is a bit silly of me, but I find it sad that all the male pronouns and etc. are the default (usage of "Man" as a race, and those specific occupation things) as well as most of the feminine type words being just the masculine ones with something stuck in front. (wo)Man, (s)He, (fe)Male, etc.
It is kinda sexist, but nobody cares right (: it's a bit like the whole male-being-default thing that pop culture tends to have going on, but I better not discuss that here...

Okay, how about this. A woman withdraws consent partway through sex, but the man doesn't stop. Most people wouldn't call that rape. That's sexist. This post has all sorts of good examples in the same vein.

Amusingly enough an email with this arrived in my inbox as I was halfway through reading that article.

Or wait maybe I shouldn't say that anything amusing could possibly stem from this... whoops.


Anyway, I voted "yes", and I found it pretty interesting that a lot of members actually had all these bad examples/impressions of feminism. When I think of it, I just think of it as a movement for women's equality (primarily). Though I suppose I'm not the best at modern history or listening to news or anything...
 
Anyway, I voted "yes", and I found it pretty interesting that a lot of members actually had all these bad examples/impressions of feminism. When I think of it, I just think of it as a movement for women's equality (primarily). Though I suppose I'm not the best at modern history or listening to news or anything...
I have a lot of difficulty seeing why someone wouldn't. Iiiii wouldn't say it's you.
 
I also dislike being referred to as a 'chick', but that's arbitrary.

I don't think it is, though. This is where I get accused of being overly PC or whatever, but it's a term that's either used as an endearment, in which case you should only use it to address someone if you absolutely know they don't mind you using it, or it's diminutive and insulting.

The same follows for things like using the word 'fag' for gay men - Gay Man A might not mind being called such by his close friends. But that does not mean that a) it's okay for you to address him as such, or b) that other gay men don't mind being called such, even by very close friends.

Even the argument "you wouldn't like it if I called you 'Taff'" doesn't entirely work - insults are based around power, and words that are offensive towards people who aren't white and/or male and/or heterosexual and/or able-bodied and so on have giant histories of oppression that still happen today that will mean that they will always be far more powerful than "breeder" or "cracker".
 
I've always been sort of iffy on the whole linguistic sexism thing. There is language that actively draws negative comparisons, like 'chick' comparing women to flailing baby birds, where I can see the potential for offense, but I just don't really believe something like using "he" as a default pronoun is ever going to seriously contribute to societal sexism. So what if you treat persons of unknown gender as male for grammatical purposes? You have to use some pronoun, and I really can't see picking the masculine as having any actual effect on how people think about men and women. Yes, yes, you can postulate that in theory it implies men are the default and women are an anomaly... but I just don't quite buy the idea that that is honestly something people take away from that language use, even on a subconscious level. :/ The thing about the subconscious is that the subconscious doesn't play songs you hear backwards or construct elaborate chains of logic analyzing the words you hear. If the implication isn't at least reasonably close to the surface, the subconscious is never going to pick up on it unless the conscious does so first. And in the case of things the mind skips over as easily as pronouns? For somebody who isn't consciously going "They're using 'he' and that's sexist!", I really, really doubt your subconscious cares.

It also just irritates me because it's silly and Anglo-centric to treat grammatical gender as this deeply meaningful thing that is synonymous with gender in actual people and has serious real-world connotations and consequences. In Iceland, heroes and computers and engines and dinosaurs and airplanes and trousers are all grammatically feminine whereas dresses are masculine, and I assure you that that has no real-world consequences whatsoever.
 
Last edited:
It also just irritates me because it's silly and Anglo-centric to treat grammatical gender as this deeply meaningful thing that is synonymous with gender in actual people and has serious real-world connotations and consequences. In Iceland, heroes and computers and dinosaurs and airplanes and trousers are all grammatically feminine whereas dresses are masculine, and I assure you that that has no real-world consequences whatsoever.

I don't have a very good knowledge of any other languages, or I would probably consider and mention them in what ways they refer to pronouns and words like human/mankind... at least, it seems to be vaguely similar in many older languages. If I glance at wikipedia. {:

(What I think is) Male pronouns being the norm is just another one of those subtle, cultural things to emphasise "male is default", and even if it doesn't make it out of someone's brain it makes the tiniest difference... or something slightly more noticable, for example if you assume that someone's friend they have referred to is the same gender and, after referring to them reflexively as that gender you might be corrected or hastily add a "...or him/her" to the end of your sentence. Or you might say "them" and be told off anyway ):

Things like that are just political correctness and don't usually have a huge bearing, but it might make some minority feel a little under-appreciated from time to time.
Also, it's more symptom than cause, I'd say... if that wasn't clear enough!
 
I've always been sort of iffy on the whole linguistic sexism thing. There is language that actively draws negative comparisons, like 'chick' comparing women to flailing baby birds, where I can see the potential for offense, but I just don't really believe something like using "he" as a default pronoun is ever going to seriously contribute to societal sexism.
So what if you treat persons of unknown gender as male for grammatical purposes?
If I ran up to a women who didn't happen to have a female genitalia at birth and her friend, and asked her friend 'Who is he?' it would crush her inside for the rest of the day/week/month, I am certain of it.

You have to use some pronoun,
One can speak a great deal without having to resort to pronoun use.

and I really can't see picking the masculine as having any actual effect on how people think about men and women.
See aforementioned example of how much that could hurt a transgender person. Any default gender hurts transgender people, period.

It also just irritates me because it's silly and Anglo-centric to treat grammatical gender as this deeply meaningful thing that is synonymous with gender in actual people and has serious real-world connotations and consequences. In Iceland, heroes and computers and engines and dinosaurs and airplanes and trousers are all grammatically feminine whereas dresses are masculine, and I assure you that that has no real-world consequences whatsoever.
English pronouns have a great deal of weight to a lot of people because there is no such arbitrary grammatical gender as in Icelandic, and they are very much tied to real-world concepts as 'female' or 'male is. (I would use the Icelandic word for Icelandic, as I am not a fan of English-oriented terms for cultures that aren't English, but I'm not sure if íslensku would be the correct case in this sentence.)
 
If I ran up to a women who didn't happen to have a female genitalia at birth and her friend, and asked her friend 'Who is he?' it would crush her inside for the rest of the day/week/month, I am certain of it.
five pronouns


One can speak a great deal without having to resort to pronoun use.
'one' is a pronoun


See aforementioned example of how much that could hurt a transgender person. Any default gender hurts transgender people, period.
one pronoun

English pronouns have a great deal of weight to a lot of people because there is no such arbitrary grammatical gender as in Icelandic, and they are very much tied to real-world concepts as 'female' or 'male is. (I would use the Icelandic word for Icelandic, as I am not a fan of English-oriented terms for cultures that aren't English, but I'm not sure if íslensku would be the correct case in this sentence.)

just having fun with this now
 
just having fun with this now
First off, Ad Hominem attacks aren't productive.
Secondly, where is the pronouns in "See aforementioned example of how much that could hurt a transgender person. Any default gender hurts transgender people, period."?
Thirdly do you actually want a block of text without gendered pronouns? Here you go:

Samus morphed into a sphere and rolled up to Alex. The former discussed politics with the latter. Alex then went downstairs after a heated debate about the Galactic Federation. The aforementioned then grabbed a knife off the kitchen counter, and went back up stairs. Samus looked up at Alex, and the former gasped at the latter. Samus shot a hail of beams, but the aforementioned's beams failed to connect with the target. Alex swung at Samus, but the latter dodged and finally took a shot at the former. This killed the aforementioned, and a victory was granted to Samus.
Alice was beginning to get very tired of sitting by Lorina (one of two sisters Alice had) on the bank, and of having nothing to do: once or twice Alice had peeped into the book Lorina was reading, but it had no pictures or conversations in it, “and what is the use of a book,” thought Alice, “without pictures or conversations?”
Alice's mind considered (as well as it could, for the hot day made the mind feel very sleepy and stupid), whether the pleasure of making a daisy-chain would be worth the trouble of getting up and picking the daisies, when suddenly a White Rabbit with pink eyes ran close by the aforementioned.
There was nothing so very remarkable in that; nor did Alice think it so very much out of the way to hear the Rabbit say to itself “Oh dear! Oh dear! I shall be too late!” (when that was thought over afterwards, it occurred to Alice that it should've been thought about, but at the time it all seemed quite natural); but when the Rabbit actually took a watch out of its waistcoat-pocket, and looked at it, and then hurried on, Alice got up, for it flashed across the aforesaid's mind that there had never been a rabbit with either a waistcoat-pocket, or a watch to take out of it, and, burning with curiosity, Alice ran across the field after it, and was just in time to see it pop down a large rabbit-hole under the hedge.

[...]

Alice was not a bit hurt and jumped up in a moment looking up, but it was all dark overhead and in front was another long passage, and the White Rabbit was still in sight, hurrying down it. There was not a moment to be lost: away went Alice like the wind, and was just in time to hear it say, as it turned a corner, “Oh my ears and whiskers, how late it’s getting!” Alice was close behind it when the former turned the corner, but the Rabbit was no longer to be seen: Alice was in a long, low hall, which was lit up by a row of lamps hanging from the roof.

There were doors all round the hall, but they were all locked; and when Alice had been all the way down one side and up the other, trying every door, the aforesaid walked sadly down the middle, wondering if it was possible to get out again.
Suddenly our protagonist came upon a little three-legged table, all made of solid glass: there was nothing on it except a tiny golden key, and Alice’s first thought was that this might belong to one of the doors of the hall; but, alas! either the locks were too large, or the key was too small, but at any rate it would not open any of them. However, on the second time round, our protagonist came upon a low curtain that had not been noticed before, and behind it was a little door about fifteen inches high: Alice tried the little golden key in the lock, and to the aforesaid's great delight it fitted!
Alice opened the door and found that it led into a small passage, not much larger than a rat-hole: our protagonist knelt down and looked along the passage into the loveliest garden you ever saw. How the aforesaid longed to get out of that dark hall, and wander about among those beds of bright flowers and those cool fountains, but Alice's head could not get though the doorway; “and even if my head would go through,” thought poor Alice, “it would be of very little use without my shoulders. Oh, how I wish I could shut up like a telescope! I think I could, if I only know how to begin.” For, you see, so many out-of-the-way things had happened lately, that Alice had begun to think that very few things indeed were really impossible.
There seemed to be no use in waiting by the little door, so the aforementioned went back to the table, half hoping that there would be another key on it, or at any rate a book of rules for shutting people up like telescopes: this time Alice found a little bottle on it (“which certainly was not here before,” said Alice), and tied round the neck of the bottle was a paper label, with the words “DRINK ME” beautifully printed on it in large letters.

It was all very well to say “Drink me,” but the wise little Alice was not going to do that in a hurry. “No, I’ll look first,” our protagonist said, “and see whether it’s marked ‘poison’ or not”; for the aforesaid had read several nice little stories about children who had got burnt, and eaten up by wild beasts, and other unpleasant things, all because they would not remember the simple rules their friends had taught them: such as, that a red-hot poker will burn you if you hold it too long; and that, if you cut your finger very deeply with a knife, it usually bleeds; and Alice had never forgotten that, if you drink much from a bottle marked “poison,” it is almost certain to disagree with you, sooner or later.
However, this bottle was not marked “poison,” so Alice ventured to taste it, and, finding it very nice (it had, in fact, a sort of mixed flavour of cherry-tart, custard, pine-apple, roast turkey, toffy, and hot buttered toast), and very soon finished it off.
"What a curious feeling!” said Alice. “I must be shutting up like a telescope!”
And so it was indeed: now only ten inches high, and with a face that brightened up at the thought that it was now the right size for going though the little door into that lovely garden. First, however, Alice waited for a few minutes to see if the aforesaid's body was going to shrink any further: our protagonist felt a little nervous about this; “for it might end, you know,” said Alice to no one but the air, “in my going out altogether, like a candle. I wonder what I should be like then?” And thus tried to fancy what the flame of a candle looks like after the candle is blown out, for it could not be remembered by Alice to have ever having seen such a thing.
After a while, finding that nothing more happened, the aforementioned decided on going into the garden at once; but, alas for poor Alice! when our protagonist got to the door, it was found that the little golden key had been forgotten, and when Alice went back to the table for it, the aforementioned's arm could not possibly reach it: Alice could see it quite plainly through the glass, and thus tried hard to climb up one of the legs of the table, but it was too slippery; and when Alice got tired out with trying, the poor little thing sat down and cried.
“Come, there’s no use in crying like that!” said Alice's mind to Alice rather sharply. “I advise you to leave off this minute!” Alice's mind generally gave Alice very good advice (though Alice very seldom followed it), and sometimes Alice's mind scolded Alice so severely as to bring tears into Alice's eyes; and remembered trying to box Alice's ears for having cheated Alice's mind in a game of croquet Alice was playing against Alice's mind, for this curious child was very fond of pretending to be two people. “But it’s no use now,” thought poor Alice, “to pretend to be two people! Why, there's hardly enough of me left to make one respectable person!”
Soon Alice's eye fell on a little glass box that was lying under the table: the aforesaid opened it, and found in it a very small cake, on which the words “EAT ME” were beautifully marked in currants. “Well, I’ll eat it,” said Alice, “and if it makes me grow larger, I can reach the key; and if it makes me grow smaller, I can creep under the door: so either way I’ll get into the garden, and I don’t care which happens!”
Alice ate a little bit, and Alice's mind said to the aforesaid “Which way? Which way?”, holding a hand on the top of the aforesaid's head to feel which way it was growing; and was quite surprised to find that it remained the same size. To be sure, this is what generally happens when one eats cake; but Alice had got so much into the way of expecting nothing but out-of-the-way things to happen, that it seemed quite dull and stupid for life to go on in the common way.
So Alice set to work, and very soon finished off the cake.
 
jesus christ what are you doing

it wasn't an "ad hominem attack", i'm not even in this debate anymore; i was just poking fun.

secondly, "that" is a demonstrative pronoun.

pronouns exist so you don't have to repeat the same name or word over and over again because it sounds dumb. congratulations?
 
pronouns exist so you don't have to repeat the same name or word over and over again because it sounds dumb. congratulations?
Why are you being (from what I perceive) mean? I was just saying (to someone else) if you don't know someone else's gender, you don't have to address them with gendered pronouns, and that there is ways around it, mainly by using second person.
 
If I ran up to a women who didn't happen to have a female genitalia at birth and her friend, and asked her friend 'Who is he?' it would crush her inside for the rest of the day/week/month, I am certain of it.
[...]
See aforementioned example of how much that could hurt a transgender person. Any default gender hurts transgender people, period.
First off, I was referring to "he" as a default pronoun as in when it is used in lieu of an attempt to be gender-neutral when referring to hypothetical people: "A reader fond of mathematics may now find himself wondering..." No actual person who may possibly be transgender is hurt.

Secondly... well. I hate to say this as a cisgendered person, but seriously. Pronouns are not offensive! They're a grammatical construct that requires some assumption of the arbitrary grammatical construct of gender, and not using pronouns just results in ridiculously convoluted text (repeated use of "the aforesaid"? Seriously?). I'm sorry, but being offended or hurt or crushed if somebody uses the wrong pronoun for you because they don't know your gender is ridiculous. Yes, it is oppressive and hurtful if you tell people you're trans and they keep referring to you according to your biological sex anyway, but having your gender misidentified by people who have been forced to make an educated guess? If that crushes you inside for the next day/week/month, I'm sorry, but you ought to go to therapy about that, no matter what your gender or sex or how they relate, because that's outright pathological in a very literal sense. (Note that I would say the exact same thing about anyone who was "crushed inside" for extended periods of time after simple, natural, well-intended everyday events of any sort; this is not about transgenderism per se.)
 
Last edited:
First off, I was referring to "he" as a default pronoun as in when it is used in lieu of an attempt to be gender-neutral when referring to hypothetical people: "A reader fond of mathematics may now find himself wondering..." No actual person who may possibly be transgender is hurt.
Oh, in that case, I suppose thats fine, I'm more fond of singular they, and as for the rest of the reply, I don't know how to reply to it.
 
First off, I was referring to "he" as a default pronoun as in when it is used in lieu of an attempt to be gender-neutral when referring to hypothetical people: "A reader fond of mathematics may now find himself wondering..." No actual person who may possibly be transgender is hurt.

Secondly... well. I hate to say this as a cisgendered person, but seriously. Pronouns are not offensive! They're a grammatical construct that requires some assumption of the arbitrary grammatical construct of gender, and not using pronouns just results in ridiculously convoluted text (repeated use of "the aforesaid"? Seriously?). I'm sorry, but being offended or hurt or crushed if somebody uses the wrong pronoun for you because they don't know your gender is ridiculous. Yes, it is oppressive and hurtful if you tell people you're trans and they keep referring to you according to your biological sex anyway, but having your gender misidentified by people who have been forced to make an educated guess? If that crushes you inside for the next day/week/month, I'm sorry, but you ought to go to therapy about that, no matter what your gender or sex or how they relate, because that's outright pathological in a very literal sense. (Note that I would say the exact same thing about anyone who was "crushed inside" for extended periods of time after simple, natural, well-intended everyday events of any sort; this is not about transgenderism per se.)

If I could give you reputation for this post I would, but I can't, so instead you're getting actual words.
 
First off, I was referring to "he" as a default pronoun as in when it is used in lieu of an attempt to be gender-neutral when referring to hypothetical people: "A reader fond of mathematics may now find himself wondering..." No actual person who may possibly be transgender is hurt.

Secondly... well. I hate to say this as a cisgendered person, but seriously. Pronouns are not offensive! They're a grammatical construct that requires some assumption of the arbitrary grammatical construct of gender, and not using pronouns just results in ridiculously convoluted text (repeated use of "the aforesaid"? Seriously?). I'm sorry, but being offended or hurt or crushed if somebody uses the wrong pronoun for you because they don't know your gender is ridiculous. Yes, it is oppressive and hurtful if you tell people you're trans and they keep referring to you according to your biological sex anyway, but having your gender misidentified by people who have been forced to make an educated guess? If that crushes you inside for the next day/week/month, I'm sorry, but you ought to go to therapy about that, no matter what your gender or sex or how they relate, because that's outright pathological in a very literal sense. (Note that I would say the exact same thing about anyone who was "crushed inside" for extended periods of time after simple, natural, well-intended everyday events of any sort; this is not about transgenderism per se.)

Look, you really can't say what is or isn't offensive to someone else. Personally it is hurtful; maybe not for days/weeks/whatever but it is hurtful. The point is, though, that you can't tell people how they should feel in any given situation. Sure, maybe they need therapy, maybe they're in therapy. Or maybe their reactions are perfectly sound.
 
Regarding other languages: yeah, gendered pronouns aren't really an issue in a lot of them, simply because they're so obviously arbitrary. English is different, though, because gendered pronouns are used almost exclusively to refer to people, and I imagine most of the societies the members of this forum come from are English-speaking ones, so forgive me if I don't discuss others. (This doesn't mean I don't think all languages should have a generic gender-neutral pronoun).

I've always been sort of iffy on the whole linguistic sexism thing. There is language that actively draws negative comparisons, like 'chick' comparing women to flailing baby birds, where I can see the potential for offense, but I just don't really believe something like using "he" as a default pronoun is ever going to seriously contribute to societal sexism.

I'm finding it hard to articulate my response to this. I can't help but find your argument more or less the same, in principle, as saying "I don't accept evolution because I don't see how small changes could have produced every living thing". And it's hard to argue against that, because, well, I accept that sexism in linguistics has an effect on sexism in society, but I don't know how to convince you of that.

Secondly... well. I hate to say this as a cisgendered person, but seriously. Pronouns are not offensive! They're a grammatical construct that requires some assumption of the arbitrary grammatical construct of gender, and not using pronouns just results in ridiculously convoluted text (repeated use of "the aforesaid"? Seriously?)

Yes, that is a terrible way of solving the problem. I imagine most people would advocate creating a new pronoun for the purpose, or through the subfunctionalisation* of an existing one.

*which the OED doesn't like, but it's a perfectly good word in biology, and I like it, so I am going to go ahead and use it in other contexts.
 
I just don't really believe something like using "he" as a default pronoun is ever going to seriously contribute to societal sexism.

It's hard to deny that 'he' being the default hasn't led to this:

2wftyjk.jpg
 
I'm finding it hard to articulate my response to this. I can't help but find your argument more or less the same, in principle, as saying "I don't accept evolution because I don't see how small changes could have produced every living thing". And it's hard to argue against that, because, well, I accept that sexism in linguistics has an effect on sexism in society, but I don't know how to convince you of that.
That's what I was attempting to say when I said "I don't know how to reply to the rest of it.", that and what Pathos (Hi! *waves* ) said. Language is gradual, and while it may not necessarily shape how we think, fuzzy thinking with corrupted language leads to bad results, like the diagram provided by Dannichu. "Females are just males with "Fe+", she is just male with "S+", history is just 'His+Story' mushed together a little, therefore females are just male derivatives that have no impact on history." is an example of such fuzzy thinking that wouldn't happen if language was sufficiently corrected to prevent these things (the actual etymologies are not worth as much as their connotations, something I learned here), while it may seem silly, there is justifications.
 
history is just 'His+Story' mushed together a little, therefore females are just male derivatives that have no impact on history."

Oh god, haven't we gone over this earlier in the thread? 'History' has nothing to do with the word 'his' (indeed, they're pronounced differently). It's derived from the Greek word historia.
 
Oh god, haven't we gone over this earlier in the thread? 'History' has nothing to do with the word 'his' (indeed, they're pronounced differently). It's derived from the Greek word historia.
is just 'His+Story' mushed together a little, therefore females are just male derivatives that have no impact on history." is an example of such fuzzy thinking that wouldn't happen if language was sufficiently corrected to prevent these things (the actual etymologies are not worth as much as their connotations, something I learned here),
 
Haha, I got so annoyed by reading that I neglected to pay attention to the rest of the post. Sorry!
 
Back
Top Bottom