Gender Neutral Spanich, etc.

[Odibex Grallspice]

I'm sure this's been addressed, but I was wondering today about the "gender neutral" language we're supposed to've been using for the past 20 or 30 years, and how that jibes out with Spanish and the other romance languages, where every noun is (seemingly randomly) gendered, i.e., "el" for "male" things and "la" for "female" things, etc? I'm very ignorant in this field so please don't ridicule me.

[chaotic neutral observer]

I was wondering today about the "gender neutral" language we're supposed to've been using for the past 20 or 30 years,

I don't believe that's actually a thing, although sometimes right-wing morons bring it up as an example of how they're being oppressed.

please don't ridicule me.

You must be new here.

[Doktor Howl]

I'm very ignorant in this field so please don't ridicule me.

[altered]

I'm very ignorant in this field so please don't ridicule me.

I would, but I can’t. I promised not to shit my pants until after I leave this state. And this is something that can only be responded to with shat pants.

[Odibex Grallspice]

I don't believe that's actually a thing, although sometimes right-wing morons bring it up as an example of how they're being oppressed.

if you're not aware about it you're a step behind the right-wing morons who at least know of it. I call the person who delivers my dark web drugs as a "carrier", rather than what I did when I was younger, a "mailman". that makes sense to me. on the other hand I'm not going to say "humankind" instead of "mankind" becasue that's not a word

I have a PDF here from NOVA Southeastern University, which advises me to refer to "the common man" as "the average person" or "ordinary people". this kind of thing to me seems technically legit, but I can't be arsed to retrain my language processing.. thing. there's plenty folks who think language has a big role on how we perceive reality, and on the articulation of our societies. a William Burroughs referred to "Language is a virus", and.. even disregarding this perspective, I think it foolish to poo poo the role language plays in a peoples. that said, I, personally, think trying to change what a word means is a most inefficient means of effecting change (for insistence, insisting "racism" means "institutional" or "systemic" racism).

it may not be a top-of-mind, hot button, guaranteed-validation-generating issue, but it's most certainly a thing, one that the right's mocking of doesn't make nonextant. and yes I am new here in that I can view things anew, without the accumulated toxin-baises of someone who has been loitering about the various stratum for some time now. none of this has anything to do with my comment.

[Odibex Grallspice]

I would, but I can’t. I promised not to shit my pants until after I leave this state. And this is something that can only be responded to with shat pants.

would it help if I shat 'em?

[chaotic neutral observer]

I call the person who delivers my dark web drugs as a "carrier", rather than what I did when I was younger, a "mailman".

Oh, that's what you were talking about?  I thought you were starting in on moaning about how no-one is supposed to use "he" or "she" anymore.  Wasn't that Jordan Peterson's schtick?

Frankly, replacing a couple dozen nouns with gender-neutral equivalents simply doesn't strike me as all that significant.  Language changes all the time, and this particular class of changes do not reduce the expressivity of English (ordurous mire of an all-assimilating language that it is), so I don't think it's worth making a fuss about.  Address people in a fashion that seems polite to them, and don't sweat the details.

If you honestly want to know how (or if) this phenomenon affects Spanich speakers, maybe you should look for a forum that specializes in cultural linguistics, rather than an obscure religious cult.

I can't be arsed to retrain my language processing.. thing.

I'm prone to snap judgments, so I may have to eat my words later?  But I don't think I'm going to like you.

[Doktor Howl]

I don't believe that's actually a thing, although sometimes right-wing morons bring it up as an example of how they're being oppressed.

if you're not aware about it you're a step behind the right-wing morons who at least know of it. I call the person who delivers my dark web drugs as a "carrier", rather than what I did when I was younger, a "mailman". that makes sense to me. on the other hand I'm not going to say "humankind" instead of "mankind" becasue that's not a word

I have a PDF here from NOVA Southeastern University, which advises me to refer to "the common man" as "the average person" or "ordinary people". this kind of thing to me seems technically legit, but I can't be arsed to retrain my language processing.. thing. there's plenty folks who think language has a big role on how we perceive reality, and on the articulation of our societies. a William Burroughs referred to "Language is a virus", and.. even disregarding this perspective, I think it foolish to poo poo the role language plays in a peoples. that said, I, personally, think trying to change what a word means is a most inefficient means of effecting change (for insistence, insisting "racism" means "institutional" or "systemic" racism).

it may not be a top-of-mind, hot button, guaranteed-validation-generating issue, but it's most certainly a thing, one that the right's mocking of doesn't make nonextant. and yes I am new here in that I can view things anew, without the accumulated toxin-baises of someone who has been loitering about the various stratum for some time now. none of this has anything to do with my comment.

UNNNG

[rong]

i'm seeing latinx substituted for latina or latino lately.  Seems relevant.

i would think since inanimate objects are unable to formulate opinions about their own identity, one has not choice but to assume their gender.  The inanimate object not only lacks the sentience to disagree, but it can't even have an opinion about it in the first place.

however, i must admit, it is a little odd to me to confer gender to an inanimate object in the first place.  Although if you think in terms of hermetic principles, maybe you believe that every single thing must be either male or female?  if you believed every single thing is either male or female, most items would probably seem more one or the other.  for example a pencil vs a bowl?? 

I wonder - it would be funny if the gender of pants is male, but the gender for pockets is female. . . are hands female or male depending on the owner?  are sexual morays also conferred on inanimate objects?  is it gay to rub two pencils together??

[LMNO]

is it gay to rub two pencils together??

Yes, but not for the reasons you think.

[chaotic neutral observer]

is it gay to rub two pencils together??

Yes, but not for the reasons you think.

[Cramulus]

i'm seeing latinx substituted for latina or latino lately.  Seems relevant.

i would think since inanimate objects are unable to formulate opinions about their own identity, one has not choice but to assume their gender.  The inanimate object not only lacks the sentience to disagree, but it can't even have an opinion about it in the first place.

however, i must admit, it is a little odd to me to confer gender to an inanimate object in the first place.  Although if you think in terms of hermetic principles, maybe you believe that every single thing must be either male or female?  if you believed every single thing is either male or female, most items would probably seem more one or the other.  for example a pencil vs a bowl?? 

I wonder - it would be funny if the gender of pants is male, but the gender for pockets is female. . . are hands female or male depending on the owner?  are sexual morays also conferred on inanimate objects?  is it gay to rub two pencils together??

From The Awful German Language by Mark Twain:

...the German genders: a tree is male, its buds are female, its leaves are neuter; horses are sexless, dogs are male, cats are female,—Tom-cats included, of course; a person’s mouth, neck, bosom, elbows, fingers, nails, feet, and body are of the male sex, and his head is male or neuter according to the word selected to signify it, and not according to the sex of the individual who wears it,

—for in Germany all the women have either male heads or sexless ones; a person’s nose, lips, shoulders, breast, hands, and toes are of the female sex; and his hair, ears, eyes, chin, legs, knees, heart, and conscience haven’t any sex at all. The inventor of the language probably got what he knew about a conscience from hearsay.

Now, by the above dissection, the reader will see that in Germany a man may think he is a man, but when he comes to look into the matter closely, he is bound to have his doubts; he finds that in sober truth he is a most ridiculous mixture; and if he ends by trying to comfort himself with the thought that he can at least depend on a third of this mess as being manly and masculine, the humiliating second thought will quickly remind him that in this
respect he is no better off than any woman or cow in the land.

In the German it is true that by some oversight of the inven- tor of the language, a Woman is a female; but a Wife (Weib) is not,—which is unfortunate. A Wife, here, has no sex; she is neuter; so, according to the grammar, a fish ishe, his scales are she, but a fishwife is neither. To describe a wife as sexless may be called under-description; that is bad enough, but over-description is surely worse.

A German speaks of an Englishman as the Engländer; to change the sex, he adds inn, and that stands for Englishwoman,— Engländerinn. That seems descriptive enough, but still it is not exact enough for a German; so he precedes the word with that article which indicates that the creature to follow is feminine, and writes it down thus: “die Engländerinn,”—which means “the she-English- woman.” I consider that that person is over-described.

[rong]

i'm seeing latinx substituted for latina or latino lately.  Seems relevant.

i would think since inanimate objects are unable to formulate opinions about their own identity, one has not choice but to assume their gender.  The inanimate object not only lacks the sentience to disagree, but it can't even have an opinion about it in the first place.

however, i must admit, it is a little odd to me to confer gender to an inanimate object in the first place.  Although if you think in terms of hermetic principles, maybe you believe that every single thing must be either male or female?  if you believed every single thing is either male or female, most items would probably seem more one or the other.  for example a pencil vs a bowl?? 

I wonder - it would be funny if the gender of pants is male, but the gender for pockets is female. . . are hands female or male depending on the owner?  are sexual morays also conferred on inanimate objects?  is it gay to rub two pencils together??

From The Awful German Language by Mark Twain:

...the German genders: a tree is male, its buds are female, its leaves are neuter; horses are sexless, dogs are male, cats are female,—Tom-cats included, of course; a person’s mouth, neck, bosom, elbows, fingers, nails, feet, and body are of the male sex, and his head is male or neuter according to the word selected to signify it, and not according to the sex of the individual who wears it,

—for in Germany all the women have either male heads or sexless ones; a person’s nose, lips, shoulders, breast, hands, and toes are of the female sex; and his hair, ears, eyes, chin, legs, knees, heart, and conscience haven’t any sex at all. The inventor of the language probably got what he knew about a conscience from hearsay.

Now, by the above dissection, the reader will see that in Germany a man may think he is a man, but when he comes to look into the matter closely, he is bound to have his doubts; he finds that in sober truth he is a most ridiculous mixture; and if he ends by trying to comfort himself with the thought that he can at least depend on a third of this mess as being manly and masculine, the humiliating second thought will quickly remind him that in this
respect he is no better off than any woman or cow in the land.

In the German it is true that by some oversight of the inven- tor of the language, a Woman is a female; but a Wife (Weib) is not,—which is unfortunate. A Wife, here, has no sex; she is neuter; so, according to the grammar, a fish ishe, his scales are she, but a fishwife is neither. To describe a wife as sexless may be called under-description; that is bad enough, but over-description is surely worse.

A German speaks of an Englishman as the Engländer; to change the sex, he adds inn, and that stands for Englishwoman,— Engländerinn. That seems descriptive enough, but still it is not exact enough for a German; so he precedes the word with that article which indicates that the creature to follow is feminine, and writes it down thus: “die Engländerinn,”—which means “the she-English- woman.” I consider that that person is over-described.

more german than german

[hooplala]

I don't believe that's actually a thing, although sometimes right-wing morons bring it up as an example of how they're being oppressed.

if you're not aware about it you're a step behind the right-wing morons who at least know of it. I call the person who delivers my dark web drugs as a "carrier", rather than what I did when I was younger, a "mailman". that makes sense to me. on the other hand I'm not going to say "humankind" instead of "mankind" becasue that's not a word

I have a PDF here from NOVA Southeastern University, which advises me to refer to "the common man" as "the average person" or "ordinary people". this kind of thing to me seems technically legit, but I can't be arsed to retrain my language processing.. thing. there's plenty folks who think language has a big role on how we perceive reality, and on the articulation of our societies. a William Burroughs referred to "Language is a virus", and.. even disregarding this perspective, I think it foolish to poo poo the role language plays in a peoples. that said, I, personally, think trying to change what a word means is a most inefficient means of effecting change (for insistence, insisting "racism" means "institutional" or "systemic" racism).

it may not be a top-of-mind, hot button, guaranteed-validation-generating issue, but it's most certainly a thing, one that the right's mocking of doesn't make nonextant. and yes I am new here in that I can view things anew, without the accumulated toxin-baises of someone who has been loitering about the various stratum for some time now. none of this has anything to do with my comment.

Yeah, I’m detecting a lot beneath the surface here that I don’t care for.

[Doktor Howl]

I don't believe that's actually a thing, although sometimes right-wing morons bring it up as an example of how they're being oppressed.

if you're not aware about it you're a step behind the right-wing morons who at least know of it. I call the person who delivers my dark web drugs as a "carrier", rather than what I did when I was younger, a "mailman". that makes sense to me. on the other hand I'm not going to say "humankind" instead of "mankind" becasue that's not a word

I have a PDF here from NOVA Southeastern University, which advises me to refer to "the common man" as "the average person" or "ordinary people". this kind of thing to me seems technically legit, but I can't be arsed to retrain my language processing.. thing. there's plenty folks who think language has a big role on how we perceive reality, and on the articulation of our societies. a William Burroughs referred to "Language is a virus", and.. even disregarding this perspective, I think it foolish to poo poo the role language plays in a peoples. that said, I, personally, think trying to change what a word means is a most inefficient means of effecting change (for insistence, insisting "racism" means "institutional" or "systemic" racism).

it may not be a top-of-mind, hot button, guaranteed-validation-generating issue, but it's most certainly a thing, one that the right's mocking of doesn't make nonextant. and yes I am new here in that I can view things anew, without the accumulated toxin-baises of someone who has been loitering about the various stratum for some time now. none of this has anything to do with my comment.

Yeah, I’m detecting a lot beneath the surface here that I don’t care for.

It's not like we haven't had some experience along these lines.