zapatos

When did I say I thought that was unacceptable?

The GOP knew their proposal was unacceptable. Yet they proposed it anyway. How is that different than what the Democrats did?

I like how you characterize the GOP effort as "willing to do something", and the Democratic effort as "push something they know will not pass once again". Given that you could just as easily have switched the parties that you made those characterizations about, I'm afraid your bias is shining through.

They are siblings?

Yes, if it means the death of millions, they should limit their fight. If it means dropping one word from my statement that in no way changes the meaning of what I am saying, then "no" they should continue the fight. I have no idea why you keep throwing up obstacles. If you don't want to help, then don't. But please don't act as if the lack of a perfect solution is the only thing holding you back.

Of course! As I said earlier, you gather the information and make your choice. Yes. If there is even the remotest possibility it could advance women's rights, even if it means death and destruction for millions, it should be implemented.

People might think you are weird for pouring Bonaqua on your head.

These types of things tend to work both ways. When women try to convey to you a lifetime of frustration that comes with being treated as "less", asking that you PLEASE stop using language that they feel continues the legacy of discrimination against them, and you respond with words like "weirdo", "revolutionary", "non-issue", and "stopped listening", they realize you are not on their side and they then act and vote accordingly. By complaining about things like this, they are asking you to convey whatever message you'd like, but to simply use different words. But when you ask them to stop complaining about such language, you are essentially asking them to limit their fight for equality. You are being asked by them to choose sides, and the message you are sending is that you'd rather oppose them than support them. You've made clear your position on this and I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm just telling you how many women view this, and why I've chosen to modify my language accordingly.

Of course. I don't think anyone is suggesting anything else.

You keep seeking a definitive answer to that question but I'm afraid you'll never find it. Some people find it sexist, and they have valid reasons to think so. Some people don't find it sexist, and they also have valid reasons. To add to the murkiness, some people who think it is sexist won't take offense if the intent to offend wasn't there, while others will take offense regardless. You seem to fall pretty clearly in the camp of not finding it sexist (it is "simply an identifier"), whereas I think the historical use of demeaning language against women puts this phrase clearly in the category of "AVOID ITS USE". That is the information we have to work with. If you are hard core about modifying your language to avoid offense then you will not use that phrase. If for whatever reason you accept that you may unintentionally offend (or intentionally as the case may be), then you will use that phrase. Or you may use it sometimes but not others. I suspect we all pretty much agree to the above (and you'll tell me if I'm wrong). This thread seems to be primarily about each of us trying to get the others to shift slightly in our respective directions on how we view this particular language.

The place to stop is when you've taken all the steps you'd care to based on the information you have. If someone says "he/she" is offensive to them, then you need to decide for yourself if you will modify your language. If someone says that adding "woman" to the end of their description is offensive to them, then you need to decide for yourself if you will modify your language. In my mind it is as simple as that, and this entire discussion seems to continue because some of us think modifying their language is the right thing to do, and some other don't.

Sorry to disappoint you. I guess I'm not as knowledgeable as you and don't yet understand. Do you think you might help me understand without the judgement? Is it illegal to hold another referendum? Is that what makes it unprincipled? Does the law allow not allow for asking the same question more than once? Would it be unprincipled to hold a referendum after Brexit to see if people would like to rejoin? Or is it that once a decision is made, it cannot be reversed? Was there a referendum to join the EU in the first place? If so, was the referendum to leave the EU unprincipled? As I said, we have multiple votes all at the time on the same issue. People in Congress attempt to pass or revoke the same laws over and over again. Are Right to Life believers unprincipled for not just accepting abortion? In the US the view seems to be more that times change, and what once was a good idea may no longer be so. If the majority change their mind, how is it principled to keep going down the same path? If we didn't ever change our minds, we'd still not have women voting in the US. Or Britain for that matter.

Who are the people who do not?

We have multiple votes all the time. Someone tries to get a referendum passed, doesn't get passed, and they try again.

To the best of my recollection I have never given you a negative rep.

Nice job of letting it go.

I wasn't comparing the two. I was trying to demonstrate to naitche that his assertion ("Language used correctly is not sexist. The intent its used for might be") was wrong by giving an example of racist language without racist intent.

It was an example of racist language with no racist intent. Are you saying it wasn't racist language? Or that I had racist intent? Or something else?

Yes, that was using the language correctly. Languages change constantly based on use. Words are added to (or deleted from) the dictionary every year. Merrian-Webster added 840 words in 2018.

I like the idea of SOLVED but I'm not sure closing the thread is helpful. Short of a thread asking for a formula or how to solve for 'x', it seems to me that most threads can benefit from additional posts. Someone might see it from a different perspective, adds some color, or wish to debate a fine point used in the thread. I understand what you are after and applaud it, but maybe not closing a thread for some number of months might work.

I didn't say anything about your comment being humorous. No, of course not. No one is saying that all offensive comments are sexist. I don't know why you think that. Again, of course not. What did I say that made you think that? It can be construed as an example of sexual stereotyping. Given the history of sexism, in particular the suggestion that men are intellectually superior to women (women are bad at business because they get too emotional, women are bad at math, not allowing women to vote or be scientists, etc.), criticizing May as a stupid WOMAN can seem, especially to those for whom sexism is experienced daily, as a continuation of that historical use of gender in a negative way. "You play like a girl", "don't worry your pretty little head", "you really screwed that up Sally". Given the similar forms of stereotyping language that are now universally acknowledged to be discriminatory in nature ('He is a lazy black/tight fisted jew/drunk Irishman/stupid Pole', etc.) it amazes me that it is so difficult to see that "stupid woman" might not also be construed as discriminatory.

Implying that if we cannot achieve perfection or know with certainty that this crosses the line and that doesn't, then our suggestions are worthy of making fun of and thus not to be taken seriously. Such as below. I don't remember confusing them. Can you show me where I did that?

When I was an eight year old kid we used the common verb (at that time and place) "jew". As in "he jewed me out of a quarter". I can assure you that I had no intent to slur jews. I was just a stupid kid using the language I learned. I had no idea it had racist origins. Using language correctly does not absolve it from being racist, sexist, or any other "-ist".

Thanks for the advice. If I've misunderstood perhaps you should express yourself more clearly.

Sure you are. It's there in black and white. You may not act that way IRL, but it is what you are conveying on this site.