From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic,alt.censorship,alt.sex
Subject: Re: A gender neutral pronoun, was Fundamentalist Nightmare
Date: 5 Nov 92 17:01:01 GMT
Organization: Syracuse University, CIS Dept.

In article <LEE.92Nov5104927@ace.npac.syr.edu> lee@ace.npac.syr.edu (Lee C. Brink) writes:

>>  If someone says something that unintentionally upsets, outrages, or
>>otherwise violates what you find "right", then no insult has occured.
>>One must try to insult someone.  Offense taken from an offhand remark
>>is not the fault of the person that makes the statement.  It is the
>>person that recieves and interprets the message incorrectly that is
>>at fault.  An insult must be given, but offense can be taken from 
>>anywhere.
>
>JSG> See the dictionary definition of "insult" that I posted yesterday.  It
>JSG> does not support your conclusion.
>
>I guess it depends on the dictionary you use.  Webster's New World Dictionary,
>Third College Edition, copyright 1988, page 701 says (In part):
>
>	To treat or speak to with scorn, insolense, or great disrespect
>
>Sounds like you have to have some malice behind the words used to insult.
>By this definition, if there is no malice, there is no insult.
>Of course, if the listener is looking for an insult, they'll inevitably 
>find it.

I'm sure it does depend on the dictionary.  But it probably only suggests
that there are multiple meanings for "insult."  (At least one which implies
malice, and one which does not.)


>Maybe we should pass laws to ban insulting speech.  That would solve all the
>world's problems, right?  We could feel all warm and fuzzy inside all the time.
>Throw in cradle to grave government protection, and we'll be all set.

Lee, if you know me or have read anything I have written, then you know that
I would absolutely oppose any law to ban speech on the basis that it was
"insulting," "offensive," etc.

What did I say in *defining* "insult" that made you think I was somehow
looking to *ban* insults?


>>  I personally find PC language to be unwieldy, tiresome, unnecessary,
>>and annoying.
>
>JSG> Why do so many of you seem insistent on wrapping the question of using
>JSG> gender-neutral pronouns in a blanket in "PC" positions?
>
>Because the "PC" movement wants to change speech so it resembles "doublespeak"
>from George Orwell's "1984."  If you can't express the thought, you can't think
>it, and it helps the elite to keep control of the masses.

But that's the *opposite* of what we're talking about here!  Here, we have
merely suggested that it would be nice to have a few *additional* gender-
neutral words--which would allows us to conveniently express thoughts that we
all can understand, but which can be very awkward to communicate (in English)
as the language now stands.

The whole point that I have made in my last few posts is that this issue has
essentially *nothing* to do with the introduction of the "double-speak"
terminology to which you refer.  (i.e., the "x-challenged," etc.)



>Why is it that people feel that I HAVE to be sensitive.  What if I don't want
>to?  Should I kow tow to the gods of "PC" all my life?

There will always be some people who want to tell you what you *have* to do.
There will be many more people who will try to convince you as to what you
*should* do.

I have yet to hear anyone in this discussion suggest that you *must* use
gender-neutral terminology.  In fact, in the essence of this discussion,
there really hasn't been much debate over whether one *should* use gender-
neutral terminology.

A few people, who already try to write in gender-neutral terms, have simply
expressed the *fact* that, in English, this can be very awkward.  The only
people trying to *force* anything, are those who are insisting that no
new gender-neutral words should be developed--so that *nobody* may use
them--even when they want to.

(Note the infamous "they"--grammatically incorrect, but in this sentence
I'm not thinking in terms of a "he" or "she"...)


If you have ever walked past my office door during the last year-and-a-half,
then you have seen the "New Official Politically Correct Terms 1991--You
Must Comply" item that was posted on my door (until the fascist CST thought
police deemed it unacceptable and ripped it down).

I find most of the "PC" terminology to be pretty laughable, too.  But then
again, I don't try to *force* anybody to stop using it.

If you think that gender-neutral writing is laughable, then feel free to
laugh.  But please don't suggest that the fact that I sometimes like to use
gender-neutral terms is equivalent to advocating a ban on insulting/offensive/
derogatory speech.


-- 
J. S. Greenfield                                         greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here, 
but my d*mn system wants a 
*real* name!)                        "What's the difference between an orange?"
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc