5 ms·

How can "host" ever be sensitive? I'm struggling to find a meaning of it that'd be problematic in any context.

by rvense 10y ago

yuja_wang 10y ago
I think it's because it's a word that used to be "gendered" (in the correct use of the word gender). There was "host" and "hostess."
paulddraper 10y ago
It's gender-specific (male). The female counterpart is hostess.
- coldtea 10y ago
  Tons of the words in the english language are gender specific -- ban them all because some small number of people decided not to "identify with established gender roles" anymore, and that its not enough for them to do so, all speakers of the language should also change their ways? It's mostly pandering to individuals with an inflated sense of self importance (everybody change the language to cater for our particular use case and "offence"), and it's disgraceful and hypocritical because it leverages previous generations fights for actual discrimination and intolerance (e.g. against gays and lesbians) by taking to extremes from people that have it too easy today (or don't even belong to said minorities, but just "fight the good fight" in their name).
  - paulddraper 10y ago
    Take, for example, "he" and "they". For centuries, "they" has been plural and "he" has been used for gender-neutral singular third-person. Now, some find that situation unacceptable and are trying to make everyone else change the way they speak and write.
    - rspeer 10y ago
      The singular "they" is an established part of English that has been used by competent writers for centuries, almost as long as the singular "you", whose grammar it shares. You probably use it daily without noticing.
      - EdiX 10y ago
        Only as a bound variable pronoun, it's use as a singular personal pronoun is very very recent and not very common.
        rspeer 10y ago
        Okay, that is an interesting distinction. It might even be true. Although I don't think it's that new to also use "they" to refer to a specific person whose gender you don't know (perhaps because you haven't met them). It is at least a reasonable claim that could be investigated further, as opposed to the claim that singular "they" is always an error, which any corpus will show is false.
        EdiX 10y ago
        > Although I don't think it's that new to also use "they" to refer to a specific person whose gender you don't know (perhaps because you haven't met them). That's possible but I've never seen any historical example of this nor I have seen anyone do it (outside of a specific subculture) so I don't think it's true: after all it's usually easy to deduce the gender of someone you haven't met from their name and if you get it wrong nobody (outside of that same specific subculture) will get really angry because of that.
    - unclenoriega 10y ago
      The OED has citations for singular they predating modern English.[1] If you look, I think you'll find that many of the English "rules" floated today date back only a century or two, and were ignored by great writers even then. 1. http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/200700 http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/200700 Pastebin link for non-subscribers: http://pastebin.com/kZFpdTnV http://pastebin.com/kZFpdTnV
      - paulddraper 10y ago
        I don't doubt it was used at some time or another. Ancient texts are filled with grammar errors, even judged by the proper grammar of the time. "He" has been the _proper_ usage way back from its roots at the German "er", which has the same usage. "Man" or "one" (German, "Mann" or "man") has been used in the indefinate case. http://english.stackexchange.com/q/30455/69352 http://english.stackexchange.com/q/30455/69352
        rspeer 10y ago
        Your StackExchange link is not the most conclusive thing: you have people answering that you can still get away with saying "he", or possibly "he or she", and you also have people correctly pointing out that almost all English speakers use "they". We are not talking about grammatical errors here. You're free to declare great speakers and writers through the centuries to be in error, but what are you even claiming at that point? You could declare that saying the word "bread" is a mistake and it would be just as meaningless. As with most arguments against the singular "they", your argument from German etymology also precludes the singular "you". Do you say "thou" all the time?
        paulddraper 10y ago
        I believe the link proves my point: "he" is the formal/traditional use, but people are changing that for PC reasons. > Do you say "thou" all the time? "You" was not only the plural second-person but also the formal singular second-person (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%E2%80%93V_distinction#English https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%E2%80%93V_distinction#Englis...) -- similar to German "sie" and "Sie". So it was always correct. Anyway, I'm sure the PC crowd will win. It's just an (in this case, innocuous) example how systemically they can change they way we speak and communicate.
- oh_sigh 10y ago
  I'm not sure that's the reason. Are these language police really suggesting new versions of words for every gender they invent?
  - paulddraper 10y ago
    Yes. Do you remember flight stewards before they became attendants?
coldtea 10y ago
What if the host is a homeless person, and calling them a host bring all the feelings about how they can't actually host anyone at their own place? Better use "presenter" just to be safe.
- NhanH 10y ago
  Presenter has "present" in it. Something that said person would be unlikely to receive as well, and would be sad about it. Not to mention it might be triggering for time-traveling people or time-lord wizard.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    That's a valid point I haven't considered.
- derefr 10y ago
  My own guess, for entirely different reasons: originally, a "host" referred to an army (see the Bible term "lord of hosts", etc.) Thus the adjective "hostile", and the grouping noun "a host of" mostly used for bad things, e.g. "a host of issues."
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

How can "host" ever be sensitive? I'm struggling to find a meaning of it that'd be problematic in any context.

by rvense 10y ago

How can "host" ever be sensitive? I'm struggling to find a meaning of it that'd be problematic in any context.

I think it's because it's a word that used to be "gendered" (in the correct use of the word gender). There was "host" and "hostess."

paulddraper 10y ago

It's gender-specific (male). The female counterpart is hostess.

coldtea 10y ago
Tons of the words in the english language are gender specific -- ban them all because some small number of people decided not to "identify with established gender roles" anymore, and that its not enough for them to do so, all speakers of the language should also change their ways? It's mostly pandering to individuals with an inflated sense of self importance (everybody change the language to cater for our particular use case and "offence"), and it's disgraceful and hypocritical because it leverages previous generations fights for actual discrimination and intolerance (e.g. against gays and lesbians) by taking to extremes from people that have it too easy today (or don't even belong to said minorities, but just "fight the good fight" in their name).
- paulddraper 10y ago
  Take, for example, "he" and "they". For centuries, "they" has been plural and "he" has been used for gender-neutral singular third-person. Now, some find that situation unacceptable and are trying to make everyone else change the way they speak and write.
  - rspeer 10y ago
    The singular "they" is an established part of English that has been used by competent writers for centuries, almost as long as the singular "you", whose grammar it shares. You probably use it daily without noticing.
    - EdiX 10y ago
      Only as a bound variable pronoun, it's use as a singular personal pronoun is very very recent and not very common.
      - rspeer 10y ago
        Okay, that is an interesting distinction. It might even be true. Although I don't think it's that new to also use "they" to refer to a specific person whose gender you don't know (perhaps because you haven't met them). It is at least a reasonable claim that could be investigated further, as opposed to the claim that singular "they" is always an error, which any corpus will show is false.
        EdiX 10y ago
        > Although I don't think it's that new to also use "they" to refer to a specific person whose gender you don't know (perhaps because you haven't met them). That's possible but I've never seen any historical example of this nor I have seen anyone do it (outside of a specific subculture) so I don't think it's true: after all it's usually easy to deduce the gender of someone you haven't met from their name and if you get it wrong nobody (outside of that same specific subculture) will get really angry because of that.
  - unclenoriega 10y ago
    The OED has citations for singular they predating modern English.[1] If you look, I think you'll find that many of the English "rules" floated today date back only a century or two, and were ignored by great writers even then. 1. http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/200700 http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/200700 Pastebin link for non-subscribers: http://pastebin.com/kZFpdTnV http://pastebin.com/kZFpdTnV
    - paulddraper 10y ago
      I don't doubt it was used at some time or another. Ancient texts are filled with grammar errors, even judged by the proper grammar of the time. "He" has been the _proper_ usage way back from its roots at the German "er", which has the same usage. "Man" or "one" (German, "Mann" or "man") has been used in the indefinate case. http://english.stackexchange.com/q/30455/69352 http://english.stackexchange.com/q/30455/69352
      - rspeer 10y ago
        Your StackExchange link is not the most conclusive thing: you have people answering that you can still get away with saying "he", or possibly "he or she", and you also have people correctly pointing out that almost all English speakers use "they". We are not talking about grammatical errors here. You're free to declare great speakers and writers through the centuries to be in error, but what are you even claiming at that point? You could declare that saying the word "bread" is a mistake and it would be just as meaningless. As with most arguments against the singular "they", your argument from German etymology also precludes the singular "you". Do you say "thou" all the time?
        paulddraper 10y ago
        I believe the link proves my point: "he" is the formal/traditional use, but people are changing that for PC reasons. > Do you say "thou" all the time? "You" was not only the plural second-person but also the formal singular second-person (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%E2%80%93V_distinction#English https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%E2%80%93V_distinction#Englis...) -- similar to German "sie" and "Sie". So it was always correct. Anyway, I'm sure the PC crowd will win. It's just an (in this case, innocuous) example how systemically they can change they way we speak and communicate.
oh_sigh 10y ago
I'm not sure that's the reason. Are these language police really suggesting new versions of words for every gender they invent?
- paulddraper 10y ago
  Yes. Do you remember flight stewards before they became attendants?

coldtea 10y ago

What if the host is a homeless person, and calling them a host bring all the feelings about how they can't actually host anyone at their own place? Better use "presenter" just to be safe.

NhanH 10y ago
Presenter has "present" in it. Something that said person would be unlikely to receive as well, and would be sad about it. Not to mention it might be triggering for time-traveling people or time-lord wizard.
- coldtea 10y ago
  That's a valid point I haven't considered.
derefr 10y ago
My own guess, for entirely different reasons: originally, a "host" referred to an army (see the Bible term "lord of hosts", etc.) Thus the adjective "hostile", and the grouping noun "a host of" mostly used for bad things, e.g. "a host of issues."

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]