Cancellations

vimothy

vimothy

yurp
instead of reading in the news that, "two men rob a service station in rochdale", it would be, "two people with penises rob a service station in rochdale"
 
IdleRich

IdleRich

IdleRich
But I thought this was in the context of smears for cervical cancer?
If you wanted to talk about a penis disease then checking people with penises seems like a reasonable place to start.
 
vimothy

vimothy

yurp
I guess I was reading this as a more general proscription, like it's better to use a more inclusive term in general. so, "people with prostates should get checked out for prostate cancer" or whatever, but using men and women as generic terms elsewhere is fine?
 
IdleRich

IdleRich

IdleRich
vimothy said:
I guess I was reading this as a more general proscription, like it's better to use a more inclusive term in general. so, "people with prostates should get checked out for prostate cancer" or whatever, but using men and women as generic terms elsewhere is fine?
Click to expand...
I'm not saying that they shouldn't use it normally, I'm saying that I find it particularly strange to argue against it in this case. The reason it's being used is cos some women don't have cervixes and some men do so the distinction is important. Inclusive is exactly the wrong word here as it's being used specifically to exclude some people who would normally be scooped up by the term women and who actually don't need to be addressed.
 
padraig (u.s.)

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
vimothy said:
confusing times!
Click to expand...
they really aren't. the principal is simple: be as inclusive - i.e. accepting of other people's identities as valid - as possible as often as possible.

in your robbery example, the key piece of information isn't their gender identity, it's what they look like. it's true, one could say "masculine-looking people" instead of "men", but the public safety element probably trumps the confusion the former could (no pun) engender. if they were arrested and turned out to be butch lesbians or non-binary or etc, future reports could make that change.

whereas the cervix and prostate stuff bears directly on people's reproductive organs rather than their gender identity, and - unless you buy the (extremely feeble) arguments that it's somehow harmful to cisgendered women - no good reason not use inclusive gender-neutral language.

most of the time there's no good reason not to use more inclusive language, but there are exceptions

personal pronouns are much easier. just find out what someone prefers and use it. when in doubt, ask.

I find hard to believe someone who can quite reams of difficult critical theory and economics would find this very difficult.
 
padraig (u.s.)

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
vimothy said:
it's not that I find it difficult, it's more that I'm wondering where this anxiety comes from, and what it means
Click to expand...
the anxiety of people who want to be called by their proper pronoun and/or included?

or the anxiety of the people who feel imposed on by having to make a tiny effort to call people what they want to be called?

two very different anxieties
 
padraig (u.s.)

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
vimothy said:
are they very different? they seem to have the same root cause
Click to expand...
they 100% do not

one is the anxiety of your entire life being an endless struggle to have your identity validated

the other is the anxiety of people who are asked to make a tiny effort to call people what they want to be called
 
padraig (u.s.)

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
no offense but I really think you don't get it, which is surprising

you would never substitute "people with penises" for "men". or any other arbitrary organ.

the whole idea is separating gender identity from body parts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top