3 ms·
Eh. You can _say_ that, but it's clearly no coincidence that the word for 'male' and for 'person' were the same for a long time. 'Person' seems like the obvious
by niek_pas 4y ago
Eh. You can _say_ that, but it's clearly no coincidence that the word for 'male' and for 'person' were the same for a long time. 'Person' seems like the obviously neutral choice to make, hence my question: why not just use 'person'?
- mdp2021 4y ago> seems like the obviously neutral choice It seems very wrongly - because it just «seems» ignorant. Because where you read 'person' the normal and correct action is to search where the reference to the personality is. And in that case, _there is not_, and such lack was clearly expressed. Again: no, you cannot use 'person' where you do not mean "a collection of special traits". You can go on annoyingly inventing language, but it was already there. And you cannot demand that others adopt your code, which has no real foundation. Edit: > seems like the obviously neutral choice I missed that detail. «Neutral»? Neutral to what?! Gender? We should be obsessed by that?! We should introduce that in salads, in geometry, in this very page?!
- mikrotikker 4y agoOmg. Get a life.