[ mona / prog / sol ]



14 2020-01-19 04:00

>>12 Quoting a definition (especially without citation) which concurs with your understanding does not make you right. For any definition you propose, I can propose a different definition. There isn't any end if we are merely arguing by appeals to authority. In this case, what is necessary is to examine the language, it's parts, their forms, as they have been used through history. i.e. Look at their morphologies and etymologies. Both morphologically and etymologically, especially considering it's relations to similar terms, ``he'' is merely a 3^rd-person personal pronoun. There is no gender. It was sexist half-assed linguists who decided that, as yet another way to deny the personhood of femmenin-gender persons. Before ``she'', there was ``he'', which could be used to refer to any person, only requiring that that person is neither the grammatical voice nor the grammatical audience (i.e. that he's in the 3^rd-person relative to the conversation). It's quite obvious, if you know the etymology, because ``she'' is merely a slight change, to a slightly more complex word, from ``he''---this is also why I say that the sexist linguists were half-assed.
Additionally, you can see similar morphological and etymological qualities in the words ``man'' and ``woman''. The term ``man'' was always merely synonymous with ``human''---it's just shorter. The term ``woman'' was invented, again by sexist half-assed linguists, in an attempt to deny the humanity of femmenin-gender persons. The term ``woman'', essentially, means sub-human---a terrible way to refer to any animate object---cf. ``male'', ``female''.
That's why such terms carry no gender. But some sexist authors try to use those terms as though their meanings carried the author's sexist ideas, and some sexist readers try to add their sexist ideas to their interpretations of those terms as they read them. Thus, there is a sexist dialect which has those terms defined as though they carry such unnecessary distinctions, but conscientious linguistic connoiseurs eschew such sexism, especially since, without it, the language's elegance is enhanced.
Now there is the question of how to deal with the terms which the sexist use for oppressive purposes. One idea that has been gaining popularity recently is that ``she'' should be kept as a 3^rd-person personal pronoun, but as the secondary 3^rd-person personal pronoun. e.g. When one wants to refer to two 3^rd parties, one can keep them separate by using ``he'' for one and ``she'' for another,,. Or, i.e. it could be used such that it preserves the (false, artificially maintained) superiority/inferiority relation between ``he'' and ``she''. Or some other qualities which have, classically, been attributed to ``she'' but not ``he''.

And, >>13, no. Having balls does not imply masculinity, just as having breasts does not imply femmenity. Does a thing that is a bedframe with a matress on top imply that it's a bed? No. You might be able to force it to serve you as such, but you cannot change the fact that it, really, is a low table that happens to have a soft surface. And it's not just about it self-identifying as a low table. No no no, it's not about that at all (though it's quite necessary for each our benefit, that society moves towards universal tolerance of all furniture items' self-identities, irregarding whether their self-identity matches their form or their true identity).



do not edit these