5 ms·

Having words for different things is useful. It makes language more efficient and reduces the need for clarification :) We have words such as "waitress" and "w

Having words for different things is useful. It makes language more efficient and reduces the need for clarification :) We have words such as "waitress" and "waiter", because it adds useful information. It tells us their sex. It's not sexist to have such words, it's just useful. Similarly, being able to tell the sex of the people involved in a union, is useful information. It means you don't have to ask for clarification, and reduces the chances of faux pas. To compare it to a persons colour is silly. Sex matters... That's why our language is full of words like son/daughter, waiter/waitress. Colour does not matter, which is why our language doesn't have specific words for say a black waiter. It's irrelevant.

corin_ 14y ago
> "It's not sexist to have such words, it's just useful." Less so now than in the past, but there are feminists who would disagree with you on that, and who do consider "waitress vs waiter", "actress vs actor" etc. to be sexist. > "Colour does not matter, which is why our language doesn't have specific words for say a black waiter." Actually our language does have some specific words for people of different colours, plenty of them are now considered racist. I'm sure you don't need a list of examples here.
danparsonson 14y ago
> Having words for different things is useful. It makes language more efficient and reduces the need for clarification :) Well that's my point precisely - the fact that you see gay marriage as being different to heterosexual marriage simply because of who is involved illustrates the flaw in your reasoning. If you think you would feel awkward entering into a conversation with someone who may or may not be gay, may I suggest you refer to their 'partner' or their 'other half' until it becomes clear what gender the person is that you're talking about? Or just be direct and say 'your... wife? husband?'. Most reasonable people really won't mind. But let's be honest - your delicately-phrased attempt to pour logic onto the question does not disguise the fact that your concerns run beyond linguistic convenience. It's a very weak argument. > Similarly, being able to tell the sex of the people involved in a union, is useful information. It means you don't have to ask for clarification, and reduces the chances of faux pas. It's really not that useful - if you need to know, ask, but the chances are that you don't - and as I'm sure you realise, 'mere' language is a powerful tool for enforcing segregation and bigotry. It makes a real difference to the people actually involved, and, if you're honest with yourself, not a jot of difference to you. If you think about it, carving the world up based on sexual preference would be hilarious in its stupidity if it didn't cause so much pain. I mean, honestly, how does anyone's choice of lover alter your life? Millions of people are in happy homosexual relationships RIGHT NOW and I bet you hadn't noticed. > To compare it to a persons colour is silly. Sex matters... That's why our language is full of words like son/daughter, waiter/waitress. Colour does not matter, which is why our language doesn't have specific words for say a black waiter. It's irrelevant. Actually, likening the redefinition of 'marriage' to the redefinition of 'man', as you did in the parent comment, is silly. The parallel I was drawing was between predjudice that existed (and in places still does) based on racial differences and the predjudice that you are demonstrating, whether you realise it or not, against homosexuality.
- mibbitier 14y ago
  > the fact that you see gay marriage as being different to heterosexual marriage simply because of who is involved illustrates the flaw in your reasoning. It IS different. Just like "women" is different from "men" simply because of who is involved. Logic doesn't seem to be working... As someone else noted, it's like extreme feminists who consider 'waitress' to be sexist. What is so offensive about having two words, marriage and "union/civil partnership", to describe things, and have completely equal rights for all?
  - danparsonson 14y ago
    > It IS different. Just like "women" is different from "men" simply because of who is involved. No, marriage is a social construct whereas gender is based on biology - there's a big difference there. You can measure the gender of a person without them having to give you any information, but (as you have argued) not the gender of a person's spouse. Besides, you've already made this point earlier: > > > Colour does not matter, which is why our language doesn't have specific words for say a black waiter. It's irrelevant. So which is it? Are these things relevant or not? You don't need to say 'black waiter', but you do need to say 'civil partnership'? Why is one important but not the other? Once again - your insistence upon this distinction and the value of it speaks volumes about your unconscious prejudices. Perhaps you like being able to say you're married and have everyone know you're not gay? But of course that would be outright homophobia and you're still apparently labouring under the misapprehension that you don't suffer from that. Perhaps you're actually a closet homosexual and trying hard to deflect people away from finding out? If that's the case then I'm genuinely sorry for you, as the need to hide from the world can take a terrible toll on a person. Fortunately our society is (generally) becoming more open. If it's useful to keep a different word for same-sex marriages, perhaps you also advocate having different words for inter-racial marriages, marriages between people who are more than a certain number of years apart, who wear different types of clothes, etc.? After all, that's all equally "useful" information and one wouldn't want to make a faux-pas. > What is so offensive about having two words, marriage and "union/civil partnership", to describe things, and have completely equal rights for all? It's very easy as a white, heterosexual male to insist that words are meaningless and ask 'who cares?', but the reality is that linguistic distinctions contribute significantly to prejudice. You can't have "completely equal rights for all" whilst making such distinctions between people - that's a sad fact of human psychology (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-group%E2%80%93out-group_bias http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-group%E2%80%93out-group_bias for example). Additionally, let's not forget that the whole debate in the larger world isn't just about the definition of a word - it's exactly about creating a situation of equal rights for all that doesn't exist currently. It's not about being 'offended' and the fact that you trivialise the issue thus suggests that you really don't understand the issues at stake. It's not only completely ridiculous to make a distinction about someone based on their sexual preference, it's harmful and often very unpleasant to be on the receiving end of - perhaps you read this article when it did the rounds on here? http://intransigentia.wordpress.com/2010/02/22/why-sexist-humour-isnt-just-a-joke/ http://intransigentia.wordpress.com/2010/02/22/why-sexist-hu... That's about sexism but the point is the same. "It's just a joke!" "It's just a word!" etc. If you truly desire equal rights for all, then the 'redefinition' of marriage shouldn't matter to you. On the other hand if you want to keep tabs on who's gay and who's not - you're homophobic. You may insist you're not but that stubborn refusal to introspect or question yourself doesn't change the fact.
natep 14y ago
English doesn't distinguish between male and female because it's important, it does so because it is sexist. Read this[1] to see what it would be like if our language were racist instead, and then you might see that sexist/racist analogies are valid. Will we ever reach a gender-neutral English language? Not in the near term, but it's worth being aware of. [1] http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs655/readings/purity.html http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs655/readings/purity.html

corin_ 14y ago

> "It's not sexist to have such words, it's just useful." Less so now than in the past, but there are feminists who would disagree with you on that, and who do consider "waitress vs waiter", "actress vs actor" etc. to be sexist. > "Colour does not matter, which is why our language doesn't have specific words for say a black waiter." Actually our language does have some specific words for people of different colours, plenty of them are now considered racist. I'm sure you don't need a list of examples here.

danparsonson 14y ago

> Having words for different things is useful. It makes language more efficient and reduces the need for clarification :) Well that's my point precisely - the fact that you see gay marriage as being different to heterosexual marriage simply because of who is involved illustrates the flaw in your reasoning. If you think you would feel awkward entering into a conversation with someone who may or may not be gay, may I suggest you refer to their 'partner' or their 'other half' until it becomes clear what gender the person is that you're talking about? Or just be direct and say 'your... wife? husband?'. Most reasonable people really won't mind. But let's be honest - your delicately-phrased attempt to pour logic onto the question does not disguise the fact that your concerns run beyond linguistic convenience. It's a very weak argument. > Similarly, being able to tell the sex of the people involved in a union, is useful information. It means you don't have to ask for clarification, and reduces the chances of faux pas. It's really not that useful - if you need to know, ask, but the chances are that you don't - and as I'm sure you realise, 'mere' language is a powerful tool for enforcing segregation and bigotry. It makes a real difference to the people actually involved, and, if you're honest with yourself, not a jot of difference to you. If you think about it, carving the world up based on sexual preference would be hilarious in its stupidity if it didn't cause so much pain. I mean, honestly, how does anyone's choice of lover alter your life? Millions of people are in happy homosexual relationships RIGHT NOW and I bet you hadn't noticed. > To compare it to a persons colour is silly. Sex matters... That's why our language is full of words like son/daughter, waiter/waitress. Colour does not matter, which is why our language doesn't have specific words for say a black waiter. It's irrelevant. Actually, likening the redefinition of 'marriage' to the redefinition of 'man', as you did in the parent comment, is silly. The parallel I was drawing was between predjudice that existed (and in places still does) based on racial differences and the predjudice that you are demonstrating, whether you realise it or not, against homosexuality.

mibbitier 14y ago
> the fact that you see gay marriage as being different to heterosexual marriage simply because of who is involved illustrates the flaw in your reasoning. It IS different. Just like "women" is different from "men" simply because of who is involved. Logic doesn't seem to be working... As someone else noted, it's like extreme feminists who consider 'waitress' to be sexist. What is so offensive about having two words, marriage and "union/civil partnership", to describe things, and have completely equal rights for all?
- danparsonson 14y ago
  > It IS different. Just like "women" is different from "men" simply because of who is involved. No, marriage is a social construct whereas gender is based on biology - there's a big difference there. You can measure the gender of a person without them having to give you any information, but (as you have argued) not the gender of a person's spouse. Besides, you've already made this point earlier: > > > Colour does not matter, which is why our language doesn't have specific words for say a black waiter. It's irrelevant. So which is it? Are these things relevant or not? You don't need to say 'black waiter', but you do need to say 'civil partnership'? Why is one important but not the other? Once again - your insistence upon this distinction and the value of it speaks volumes about your unconscious prejudices. Perhaps you like being able to say you're married and have everyone know you're not gay? But of course that would be outright homophobia and you're still apparently labouring under the misapprehension that you don't suffer from that. Perhaps you're actually a closet homosexual and trying hard to deflect people away from finding out? If that's the case then I'm genuinely sorry for you, as the need to hide from the world can take a terrible toll on a person. Fortunately our society is (generally) becoming more open. If it's useful to keep a different word for same-sex marriages, perhaps you also advocate having different words for inter-racial marriages, marriages between people who are more than a certain number of years apart, who wear different types of clothes, etc.? After all, that's all equally "useful" information and one wouldn't want to make a faux-pas. > What is so offensive about having two words, marriage and "union/civil partnership", to describe things, and have completely equal rights for all? It's very easy as a white, heterosexual male to insist that words are meaningless and ask 'who cares?', but the reality is that linguistic distinctions contribute significantly to prejudice. You can't have "completely equal rights for all" whilst making such distinctions between people - that's a sad fact of human psychology (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-group%E2%80%93out-group_bias http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-group%E2%80%93out-group_bias for example). Additionally, let's not forget that the whole debate in the larger world isn't just about the definition of a word - it's exactly about creating a situation of equal rights for all that doesn't exist currently. It's not about being 'offended' and the fact that you trivialise the issue thus suggests that you really don't understand the issues at stake. It's not only completely ridiculous to make a distinction about someone based on their sexual preference, it's harmful and often very unpleasant to be on the receiving end of - perhaps you read this article when it did the rounds on here? http://intransigentia.wordpress.com/2010/02/22/why-sexist-humour-isnt-just-a-joke/ http://intransigentia.wordpress.com/2010/02/22/why-sexist-hu... That's about sexism but the point is the same. "It's just a joke!" "It's just a word!" etc. If you truly desire equal rights for all, then the 'redefinition' of marriage shouldn't matter to you. On the other hand if you want to keep tabs on who's gay and who's not - you're homophobic. You may insist you're not but that stubborn refusal to introspect or question yourself doesn't change the fact.

natep 14y ago

English doesn't distinguish between male and female because it's important, it does so because it is sexist. Read this[1] to see what it would be like if our language were racist instead, and then you might see that sexist/racist analogies are valid. Will we ever reach a gender-neutral English language? Not in the near term, but it's worth being aware of. [1] http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs655/readings/purity.html http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs655/readings/purity.html