Forced to use (gender) language conventions in university

[Valka D'Ur]

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

Oh, please. Let's not turn this into an argument over whether women should or should not be allowed to be firefighters. The issue is what to call the women who are firefighters.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Oh, please. Let's not turn this into an argument over whether women should or should not be allowed to be firefighters. The issue is what to call the women who are firefighters.

Well if you wanted the discussion to be restricted solely to what to call them, maybe you shouldn't have widened the scope yourself?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Well if you wanted the discussion to be restricted solely to what to call them, maybe you shouldn't have widened the scope yourself?

I didn't. If you want a firefighter to save you or your house, why worry about whether you call them a fireman or a firewoman? The point is that you don't want your house to burn down. Sort out the labels later.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I didn't. If you want a firefighter to save you or your house, why worry about whether you call them a fireman or a firewoman? The point is that you don't want your house to burn down. Sort out the labels later.

Okay. Well you did actually say "who cares if it's a man or a woman", not "who cares what you call them", and I just gave a reason as to why you might possibly care about the former. I agree that the latter doesn't matter, although I will also have to disagree in that I do also think "firewoman" does sound weird, but that's probably mostly because it's a term that's never been adopted and so it's unfamiliar. I don't see anything weird in "policewoman" for example.

 

[Akka]

If the physical criteria are the same for both men and women, it should not matter whoever save you from your house (because said criteria have made sure that they are able to).
If not, it's more a problem about criteria than anything else.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Well in the UK at least the criteria should be the same as there are laws stopping discrimination of that sort. However, I think one of the criteria is VO2max/kg which probably isn't a very good criterion to use as it's essentially a measure of your fitness to carry your own body weight around, and doesn't factor in load bearing, which will disproportionately encumber smaller/lighter people even with exactly the same score by that metric.

But either way, even if there is a problem with the criteria, and that problem is solely with the criteria, that's still a reason why you might care about the sex of the fire*an.

 

[Senethro]

I don't think people unconscious from smoke inhalation care much about whats in the underwear of the qualified emergency service personnel saving them.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I don't think people unconscious from smoke inhalation care much about whats in the underwear of the qualified emergency service personnel saving them.

I'd agree with that. After all, they're unconscious.

 

[Ryika]

If the physical criteria are the same for both men and women, it should not matter whoever save you from your house (because said criteria have made sure that they are able to). If not, it's more a problem about criteria than anything else.

Well, the more suited for a job a person is, the better they will be able to navigate the most extreme situations. Criteria for entry always have to find some middle-ground where you still get enough people who are able to navigate through all situations that will occur 99.8% of the time, but those 0.2% of situations are exactly where you would really like your firefighters to have that extra bit of strength, ability and training that isn't strictly required of them.

Which is not to say that women can't do the job. After all, most male firefighters are not at the very top of the pyramid either. But whether a person fulfills the minimum criteria is certainly not the only thing to think about.

 

[CKS]

Many years ago in Minnesota there was a big stink, because it turned out that 2/3 of male firefighters in the Twin Cities could not meet the minimum physical criteria required for women who wished to become firefighters.

On topic, I don't have an issue with using fireman to refer to both male and female firefighters, nor do I have an issue with using firefighters. I do have an issue with using firewoman or with using fireman and pronouncing it fire man. Regardless, whether in school or at work, write the way the boss wants you to or risk bad consequences.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

The difference with school of course is that you're a paying customer, not an employee.

 

[warpus]

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

One would hope firefighters have standards they have to meet before they start work. I don't care what the gender of the firefighter who is carrying me out of a burning building is, as long as they have the capability to perform their job.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Yes one would hope that.

 

[sophie]

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.

You are. Without a doubt. THE most exasperating poster on the boards. Allow me to refer you to my earlier post. I'll post it 3 times to make sure you get the message.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Of course I subvocalize. It is actually impossible to read WITHOUT subvocalizing. But that doesn't mean that the written word is not also semiotic. What do you read when you see "e.g." or "i.e."? Do you go "E...G...hm that's a weird array of symbols. That's not a word...Oh well whatever, moving on...whoa look a list, how on earth did we get here?" or do you rather substitute "for example" for the acronym? Because the latter is semiotics at work. There is no English word that is "eegee", and you'll nearly never hear someone say "eegee" in regular spoken English. e.g. is rather a shorthand we have developed that POINTS to a larger phrase. You can subvocalize e.g. as "for example" or exempli gratia, but it's entirely not necessary. I subvocalize it as "eegee" and know precisely what information is being conveyed without having to make the necessary connections. You doubtless do the same thing with the ampersand (&), which is actually a cursive way of writing "et" (Lat: "and"). You don't subvocalize the ampersand as "et", you probably subvocalize it as "and", which is not what the symbol says literally. The image of the unit points to a separate meaning divorced of its literal depiction. This is what I mean when I say the written word doesn't have to be literally pronounceable." A written word can exist as a symbolic placeholder for another larger meaning. 100 does not mean "one hundred". 100 means "centum", "einhundert", "one hundred", "cent", "ciento", "yuz", một trăm, एक सौ, or mia moja. It can mean "ten tens" or "twenty fives" or "four twenty-fives". Technically speaking, there is no actual way to pronounce "100", but you decode that sign and consequently subvocalize it as "one hundred".

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?)

Because people get really nerdy about some things. I don't tend to care overmuch about conlangs so I decode the symbol as "irrelevant gibberish" and skip to the end of the italicized portion of the text.

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

So you agree that a word doesn't have to be literally pronounceable as-written to be valid as writing. What are you complaining about again?

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

This whole topic is about writing conventions in academic German. What are you even doing in this thread if you can't be assed to make even the bare minimum effort of familiarizing yourself with the topic at-hand before wading into the discussion?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

You are. Without a doubt. THE most exasperating poster on the boards.

I resemble this statement.

 

[PhroX]

Frankly the worst crime against language in this thread is the repeated misspelling of "aluminium sulphate"....

 

[Broken_Erika]

Frankly the worst crime against language in this thread is the repeated misspelling of "aluminium sulphate"....

Alumanium Sulphat!

 

[Valka D'Ur]

stuff

Whatever. *shrug*

 

[Lexicus]

and you'll nearly never hear someone say "eegee" in regular spoken English.

I make a point of doing this as often as possible because it tickles my fancy so much. I say "eye ee (ie)" too and also use internet acronyms like lol in real-life dialogue.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

But these conventions are only being used in print. Where you don’t have to pronounce them.

There was a time when politicians were able to simply address the citizenry. All citizens, as one. This time is gone now. Now, you have to address male and female citizens in separation. You can not say "Dear citizens" but have to say "Dear female and male citizens"
Explanation: The German word for citizen is "Bürger". The word "Bürger" is grammatically male, as are many German words describing a type of person or a profession. The root of this grammatical quirk is probably sex-related, okay. However, in its actual usage, in its meaning, those technically male words are neutral, all-encompassing. Similarly to how the German word for stone, "Stein" is also grammatically male, yet we don't expect German stones to have a penis attached to them, while trying to exclude those with vaginas.

In feminist newspeech, it has to be "Bürgerinnen und Bürger".
And what I don't like about this is not only the aesthetic deficit. What I don't like about this is that this case perfectly demonstrates how feminist newspeech in German forces you to constantly address the gender and to constantly separate the two genders vocally. To always make it relevant. You are not a citizen. You are a MALE or a FEMALE citizen.
This is not a language of inclusivity, but of division. And it is embarrassing to hear people talk like that. Like we needed a constant reminder that different sexes exist. Say what you want about males, but they usually notice that much.