8 ms·

You're arguing definitions, but ultimately language is use, and use is always changing. You can carry on as you've always had, but some fraction of the public

by dahdum 4y ago

You're arguing definitions, but ultimately language is use, and use is always changing. You can carry on as you've always had, but some fraction of the public will assume ignorance, some stubbornness, and some malice. It's not really any different than terms for ethnic minorities or those with disabilities over time. How you approach it is up to you, but how people perceive you is up to them.

slibhb 4y ago
It's not quite as simple as arguing definitions. My argument is that the categories "man" and "woman" really exist, independent of language, and that they don't have anything to do with identity. Some people (you, apparently) agree with that and just want to shift the definitions so "man" means "someone who identifies as a man" and will be replaced by "biological man". But other people don't agree, they don't believe that "man" and "woman" are immanent categories that exist outside language and culture. As far as language changing, it certainly does, but it rarely changes by fiat. I don't believe changes referenced in this article represent organic change, I think they're a fad that will only catch on in a few enclaves. We'll see.
- red_trumpet 4y ago
  > and that they don't have anything to do with identity. That's absurd. It divides humans into two groups, and everytime you divide humans into groups they make this about their identity.
  - HyperSane 4y ago
- dahdum 4y ago
  > Some people (you, apparently) agree with that and just want to shift the definitions so "man" means "someone who identifies as a man" and will be replaced by "biological man". I don’t particularly care what the common use meanings are or if they shift over time, I’ll use what I think is most appropriate for the circumstances and audience, while trying to be as inclusive as I can. Though I won’t be using “menstruators” any time soon for the same reason I won’t use “Latinx”, too many people I interact with find it derogatory and offensive.
lo_zamoyski 4y ago
Either language expresses reality, or it becomes something else. Yes, meanings of utterances can change in the sense that in the sign "woman", the signifier can remain fixed while the signified changes. So what? That's banal. The gender position is not a mere question of signifier/signified correspondence shifting. And that language changes doesn't mean all changes are equally good. When language loses its grip on reality, we've lost. We've become Orwellian.
crackercrews 4y ago
> You can carry on as you've always had, but some fraction of the public will assume ignorance, some stubbornness, and some malice. Among people who are Very Online this might be a sizable fraction. But if you look at the public at large it isn't. Language is about usage. It's not about usage by an elite minority. Reminds me of latinx, favored more by white college grads than by hispanics.
another_story 4y ago
Maybe we should use words in a way that bests help the people they relate to? I'd wager the vast majority of women giving birth would rather the literature be clear and understandable rather than accommodating to an incredibly small group of individuals.
LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
> ultimately language is use, and use is always changing Maya Forstater was fired, and JK Rowling still receives death threats for their use of the word "woman" to signify adult human females. That's domestic terrorism, to present it as "the language is always changing" is Orwellian. > It's not really any different than terms for ethnic minorities What if the USA declared all citizens to be "black"? Blacks would now perfectly match all the USA's demographic averages, income, crime, lifespan, etc, etc. Racism solved, right? Or the beginning of a vastly worse racism that must be endured in silence because the words to describe it have been taken away?

by dahdum 4y ago

slibhb 4y ago

It's not quite as simple as arguing definitions. My argument is that the categories "man" and "woman" really exist, independent of language, and that they don't have anything to do with identity. Some people (you, apparently) agree with that and just want to shift the definitions so "man" means "someone who identifies as a man" and will be replaced by "biological man". But other people don't agree, they don't believe that "man" and "woman" are immanent categories that exist outside language and culture. As far as language changing, it certainly does, but it rarely changes by fiat. I don't believe changes referenced in this article represent organic change, I think they're a fad that will only catch on in a few enclaves. We'll see.

red_trumpet 4y ago
> and that they don't have anything to do with identity. That's absurd. It divides humans into two groups, and everytime you divide humans into groups they make this about their identity.
- HyperSane 4y ago
dahdum 4y ago
> Some people (you, apparently) agree with that and just want to shift the definitions so "man" means "someone who identifies as a man" and will be replaced by "biological man". I don’t particularly care what the common use meanings are or if they shift over time, I’ll use what I think is most appropriate for the circumstances and audience, while trying to be as inclusive as I can. Though I won’t be using “menstruators” any time soon for the same reason I won’t use “Latinx”, too many people I interact with find it derogatory and offensive.

lo_zamoyski 4y ago

Either language expresses reality, or it becomes something else. Yes, meanings of utterances can change in the sense that in the sign "woman", the signifier can remain fixed while the signified changes. So what? That's banal. The gender position is not a mere question of signifier/signified correspondence shifting. And that language changes doesn't mean all changes are equally good. When language loses its grip on reality, we've lost. We've become Orwellian.

crackercrews 4y ago

> You can carry on as you've always had, but some fraction of the public will assume ignorance, some stubbornness, and some malice. Among people who are Very Online this might be a sizable fraction. But if you look at the public at large it isn't. Language is about usage. It's not about usage by an elite minority. Reminds me of latinx, favored more by white college grads than by hispanics.

another_story 4y ago

Maybe we should use words in a way that bests help the people they relate to? I'd wager the vast majority of women giving birth would rather the literature be clear and understandable rather than accommodating to an incredibly small group of individuals.

LawTalkingGuy 4y ago

> ultimately language is use, and use is always changing Maya Forstater was fired, and JK Rowling still receives death threats for their use of the word "woman" to signify adult human females. That's domestic terrorism, to present it as "the language is always changing" is Orwellian. > It's not really any different than terms for ethnic minorities What if the USA declared all citizens to be "black"? Blacks would now perfectly match all the USA's demographic averages, income, crime, lifespan, etc, etc. Racism solved, right? Or the beginning of a vastly worse racism that must be endured in silence because the words to describe it have been taken away?