Forced to use (gender) language conventions in university

[warpus]

New words and conventions change all the time, new generations, social groups, ideological groups invent and change meanings of words all the time, bottom up. New techs, new functions need new words as well.
Once the direction is firm, new words will be made up, bottom up, that are more likely degenderised from the start.

Seems like a really strange plan to transition over to words you can pronounce that are cool by introducing words that are impossible to pronounce and look stupid on paper first. When you're trying to upgrade your restaurant's menu and make it more classy you don't do that by introducing the deep fried placenta sandwich and hoping that the rest falls into place

 

[Oerdin]

"Governments are not alien to the people."

Get the hell out of here!

I am sure that was such a great comfort when a paranoid Stalin was running death camps, when Mao was busy starving millions to death, or when Pol Pot was running the killing fields. Ultimately, no governments should not be running propaganda campaigns and pretending it is education. If that is what is happening then our education system is badly screwed up.

 

[Hrothbern]

"Governments are not alien to the people."

Get the hell out of here!

I am sure that was such a great comfort when a paranoid Stalin was running death camps, when Mao was busy starving millions to death, or when Pol Pot was running the killing fields. Ultimately, no governments should not be running propaganda campaigns and pretending it is education. If that is what is happening then our education system is badly screwed up.

You rip it out of context mate

We were discussing manipulation of language in democratic governments.

The examples you give are not democratically chosen governments.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

You seem to be saying that it's okay for governments to subtly manipulate us and try to influence our thoughts, because we elected them and so that must mean we want them to do that? I think that's a bit... weird.

 

[Senethro]

Everyones out to manipulate your thoughts all the time, including the people who are claiming there is a natural status quo or centre that we should not be moved from.

 

[Hrothbern]

You seem to be saying that it's okay for governments to subtly manipulate us and try to influence our thoughts, because we elected them and so that must mean we want them to do that? I think that's a bit... weird.

I said this originally:

A government is not alien to the people.
A government chosen by the people has the mandate to govern, has the means to get good info and takes actions accordingly. Lots of that info being in the realm of the civil society.
If you call that manipulative..... well perhaps in a country where the trust in the government is low, where their mandate is more often not used wisely, or distrust is a national sport.

I say nowhere that governments should manipulate.

Please look at the string of posts, before reacting on one post.

 

[Arent11]

You rip it out of context mate

We were discussing manipulation of language in democratic governments.

The examples you give are not democratically chosen governments.

You seem to be saying that it's okay for governments to subtly manipulate us and try to influence our thoughts, because we elected them and so that must mean we want them to do that? I think that's a bit... weird.

In fact I would even agree that it is ok to manipulate people in a crisis or for some extremely important greater good that borders on the survival of humanity. But in a common setting? No, then even elected governments are not "allowed" to manipulate - although they of course do.

But anyway, we are talking about a teacher in french that simply has no (legal) right to give bad grades for holding another opinion. Even in a moral sense that is pretty evil. You could even sue her & would probably win. The point is that students want to get their graduation & not get into a hassle.

 

[Hrothbern]

But anyway, we are talking about a teacher in french that simply has no (legal) right to give bad grades for holding another opinion

When the teacher did not clearly expressed her conditions, I agree it was simply wrong
And I would myself never have given a bad grade if someone would have forgotten that. I would simply judge it and give it back to correct it and when so done give the normally judged grade.

 

[Hrothbern]

In fact I would even agree that it is ok to manipulate people in a crisis or for some extremely important greater good that borders on the survival of humanity. But in a common setting? No, then even elected governments are not "allowed" to manipulate - although they of course do.

The normal way for exceptional situations is for me that a servant of the Res Publica, the state, bears responsibility by publishing his memoirs in some form to explain what he did and why. A postponed but accountable responsibility.
But this noble tradition is meanwhile perverted in a circus of lectures for the big money. Obama's book no exception. Even Bush did better there with his paintings to honor military veterans.

And repeating what I said before: introducing degenderising language by your adminisrtration is no manipulation, it is influencing and shaping the future for which you are mandated to do so in a democracy.
Administrative operational actions, converting public policies like respect for all, to one of the application areas is no manipulation.

Manipulation is another animal. Subliminal pictures of a desert in a coca cola commercial was manipulation and meanwhile forbidden, the fabricated "proof" for the Iraq war was manipulation. Etc.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I said this originally:


I say nowhere that governments should manipulate.

Please look at the string of posts, before reacting on one post.

Yes sir Mr Hrothbern sir (for the record I did anyway, but okay)

 

[Hrothbern]

Yes sir Mr Hrothbern sir (for the record I did anyway, but okay)

oh
IDK if I understand well what you mean now
I truly hope I did not offend you in anyway
(just trying to clarify, no more)

 

[Valka D'Ur]

But these conventions are only being used in print. Where you don’t have to pronounce them. Should we also get rid of chemical notation? Because I sure as [feces] don’t know how to pronounce Al2(SO4)3•16H2O

Al₂(SO₄) = aluminum sulfate. And I'm sure we all know what H₂O is.

Can't you just say "Fireman" when referring to a male firefighter, "Firewoman" when referring to a female firefighter, and "Firefighter" when it's ambiguous?

Sorry, but "firewoman" sounds silly. There's nothing wrong with "firefighter."

 

[sophie]

Al₂(SO₄) = aluminum sulfate. And I'm sure we all know what H₂O is.

So why do we write it as Al2(SO4) rather than as "aluminum sulfate"?

Why don't you try actually looking at the wider point I'm trying to make, rather than laser-focusing on an irrelevant peripheral detail.

I could just as easily have made the point by asking why we type 5,402,346,421 instead of writing "five billion four hundred two million three hundred forty-six thousand four hundred twenty-one", or why we type any number of Latin acronyms for which the average layperson doesn't know the constituent parts, but whose meaning is widely understood, such as e.g., i.e., etc., et al, ibid., idem, cf., and rf. Or pointed out that "lol" is an expression which is regularly employed in writing, but is almost never used in everyday speech, and was never intended to be spoken aloud. Or pointed to analogous examples to the one warpus brought up, e.g. how does one pronounce s/he?

The point is this is a Thing which SINGLY applies to academic WRITING convention. So complaining about its pronounceability is irrelevant, just as it is for all the above examples. Even without knowing that cf. stands for confer or that e.g. stands for exempli gratia you can immediately grasp the information being conveyed without having to pronounce the "word(s)" or breaking the thing down to its constituent parts. You can see "d* Zeug*e*in" as "der Zeuge, beziehungsweise die Zeugin" and "die Richter*innen" as "Die Richter und Richterinnen" in the same way that you can see "s/he" as "she or he" or that you can see "e.g." as "for example" [even though that's not literally what e.g. stands for], or the same way that you can see "H2O" as "water". It's all just shorthand that, because of the semiotics inherent to writing, we can use to represent a concept that would otherwise require far more space to represent in the language as-spoken.

I will allow that "d* Zeug*e*in" is a horrifically unpleasing way to express the information from an aesthetic perspective, but then, so is (imo) s/he and "his or her" in English. And if that's your beef, there are other ways of doing it without going crazy with asterisks, such as "der Zeuge, bzw. die Zeugin" or "Die Richter und Richterinnen".

 

[Hrothbern]

Al2(SO4) = aluminum sulfate. And I'm sure we all know what H2O is.

yes and no my dear chemistry colleague
but what would you say on the telephone ?
it is a hydrated aluminium sulfate
it is a hydrated aluminium sulfate with 16 water
it is the hexadecahydrate of aluminium sulfate

EDIT there is a whole bunch of hhydrates here

 

[uppi]

So why do we write it as Al2(SO4) rather than as "aluminum sulfate"?

Well, those who write the former tend to read it and think about it as "ah-el-two-es-oh-four".

 

[sophie]

Words are usually learned by context from parents or peers, not from a dictionary. And words are created or defined by the necessity to have a word to designate a certain object or action. So, the basic structure of our thoughts and language is already predetermined by the nature of the world itself.

Yes, and we've reached a point in our social consciousness where it's less socially acceptable to be exclusionary in our verbiage. This stuff didn't appear in a vacuum.

You are missing the point. Of course there is an evolution of language. That is no excuse to change language for obviously ideological reasons. Especially if those reasons are not fueled by any constructive intention, but rather to "educate" people who just want to be left alone.

This isn't to do with "educating", so much as it's to do with "not being exclusionary" or "being precise with your language". Which is a big deal in academic discourse.

I would prefer if you would call that biology & not "essentialist". This is exactly the use of diffuse language that prevents clear arguments & a constructive discussion.

Well too bad, because I didn't mean biological. I meant essentialist. You're reducing a Thing down to a singular, necessary essence that defines the Thing as that Thing. That's Platonic essentialism.

Nope, the people who advocate these language conventions do so to "educate" people & force them to share their viewpoints. They want to define sex/gender not biologically but by choice. And by changing language they can force others to accept their viewpoint without having to provide any argument.

Yep. Dude, if this were about gender identity or fluidity, they wouldn't be demanding you write "Student*Innen"; they'd be demanding you write "Studenten, Studentinnen, und studierende Leute, die genderqueer sind"

I usually see whether someone is male or female. The few cases where that might not be the case are so seldom that it doesn't justify any change of language. Unless you want to make up a reason.

So you agree that on an interpersonal level Gender has nothing to do with sexual organs.

I also don't see why the use of a general term that coincides with the male or female(!) term imposes a "hierarchy of genders". It is not a "masculine" signifier, when it is used for both male & female.

Yes it is. If the default is a word that is masculine in form, then that would imply by extension that the feminine word is a deviation from the default.

 

[warpus]

Sorry, but "firewoman" sounds silly. There's nothing wrong with "firefighter."

English is my 3rd language so it all sounds funny to me. You're right though, firewoman sounds a bit more funny than fireman, but I didn't really ponder this too much when I wrote my post.

I bet "fireman" sounded equally funny to people when it was first introduced, tho.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

So why do we write it as Al2(SO4) rather than as "aluminum sulfate"?

Why don't you try actually looking at the wider point I'm trying to make, rather than laser-focusing on an irrelevant peripheral detail.

Sometimes it is written as aluminum sulfate. You claimed you didn't know how to pronounce Al₂SO₄. If you're unsure how to pronounce "aluminum sulfate" I guess Bootstoots could help you.

I could just as easily have made the point by asking why we type 5,402,346,421 instead of writing "five billion four hundred two million three hundred forty-six thousand four hundred twenty-one", or why we type any number of Latin acronyms for which the average layperson doesn't know the constituent parts, but whose meaning is widely understood, such as e.g., i.e., etc., et al, ibid., idem, cf., and rf. Or pointed out that "lol" is an expression which is regularly employed in writing, but is almost never used in everyday speech, and was never intended to be spoken aloud. Or pointed to analogous examples to the one warpus brought up, e.g. how does one pronounce s/he?

The point is this is a Thing which SINGLY applies to academic WRITING convention. So complaining about its pronounceability is irrelevant, just as it is for all the above examples.

You must be someone who never actually hears your own voice in your mind, reading the words, or if you're reading an adaptation of something that's been on TV or in a movie, you never mentally "hear" the dialogue in the actors' voices.

It matters a lot if the words can be pronounced. Take your nose out of the ionosphere, and realize that not everyone reads the same way. Whether it's casual fiction or academic papers, some people mentally read out loud.

Otherwise, why do a lot of science fiction and fantasy fans want to know how alien words and languages are pronounced? (or maybe that's something you personally never think about?)

Even without knowing that cf. stands for confer or that e.g. stands for exempli gratia you can immediately grasp the information being conveyed without having to pronounce the "word(s)" or breaking the thing down to its constituent parts. You can see "d* Zeug*e*in" as "der Zeuge, beziehungsweise die Zeugin" and "die Richter*innen" as "Die Richter und Richterinnen" in the same way that you can see "s/he" as "she or he" or that you can see "e.g." as "for example" [even though that's not literally what e.g. stands for], or the same way that you can see "H2O" as "water". It's all just shorthand that, because of the semiotics inherent to writing, we can use to represent a concept that would otherwise require far more space to represent in the language as-spoken.

I had no idea what "cf." stands for. It's a "TIL" moment. (I mentally read that as "Today I learned")

I will allow that "d* Zeug*e*in" is a horrifically unpleasing way to express the information from an aesthetic perspective, but then, so is (imo) s/he and "his or her" in English. And if that's your beef, there are other ways of doing it without going crazy with asterisks, such as "der Zeuge, bzw. die Zeugin" or "Die Richter und Richterinnen".

I don't read German, so whatever. *shrug*

yes and no my dear chemistry colleague
but what would you say on the telephone ?
it is a hydrated aluminium sulfate
it is a hydrated aluminium sulfate with 16 water
it is the hexadecahydrate of aluminium sulfate

It depends on who I'm talking to, and exactly what I'm trying to convey.

English is my 3rd language so it all sounds funny to me. You're right though, firewoman sounds a bit more funny than fireman, but I didn't really ponder this too much when I wrote my post.

I bet "fireman" sounded equally funny to people when it was first introduced, tho.

I don't know why it would sound funny. I guess it's because firefighting is a profession that has excluded women until fairly recently. When women did start to become firefighters, it no longer made sense to use the word "fireman" exclusively.

After all, if your house is on fire, who cares what sex or gender the person is who shows up to put the fire out?

 

[bernie14]

calling someone "they" is perfectly appropriate when that someone lacks identity/sense of self, although psychologically, it's hard to see the benefit...if someone already has a poor sense of self, referring to them as multiple persons may not be the best idea

EDIT and aluminum sulfate is Al2(SO4)3

 

[Manfred Belheim]

After all, if your house is on fire, who cares what sex or gender the person is who shows up to put the fire out?

You might care if you need to be carried out of the building.