<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-text-html" lang="x-western"> <br>
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mide692861c0512031136u7a3fe106g3664d403f1ff457a@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On 12/3/05, Jason Cohen <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:jcohen07@brandeis.edu"><jcohen07@brandeis.edu></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> I'm surprised David's remarks were immediately attacked as "stupid" and
"bullshit" without even a consideration of their validity. Some have said
that he must be a non-English speaker to have made such a ridiculous
request.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->[snip]
It's an artifact of the language, yes, to accuse the author of the
readme (or the readme itself) of sexist assumptions as David did is
both stupid and bullshit.
</pre>
</blockquote>
Neither David nor I accused the author of being sexist. Rather, we
accused the author of using an archaic language convention that we
believe is illogical and sexist. We didn't mount personal attacks on
the author. In fact, my entire email was directed at changing our
language, not at attacking the author or the README. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mide692861c0512031136u7a3fe106g3664d403f1ff457a@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> If you're trying to refer to an individual with an unknown gender you have
three options: 1) use "him" (the common solution), 2) use "their" even
though it is a plural pronoun,or 3) use his/her, which I would imagine some
of you may find awkward English.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Or just use a sentence structure that doesn't require a pronoun, as is
most natural here.
</pre>
</blockquote>
That is a fine solution for this particular case. My response was more
general. There are certainly going to be times where it's most
appropriate to use a singular pronoun when the sex of the individual
referred to is unknown. I am merely arguing that when that case occurs
"his/her" or "his or her" should be used as an alternative to the
common "his". <br>
<blockquote
cite="mide692861c0512031136u7a3fe106g3664d403f1ff457a@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> Why can't we just change the sexist and illogical convention and begin
using "his/her"?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
We're talking about a readme for a somewhat obsecure piece of software
here, not the chicago manual of style.
People in writing and academic circles have not solved this in a way
which makes everyone happy, so it would be foolish to assume we could.
</pre>
</blockquote>
I understand your willingness to stay out of the fray for a still
contested issue. However, unless you decide to refrain from using "his"
when referring to an unknown individual throughout all OTR's
documentation, you are making a choice to continue the status quo. By
continuing to use "his" in this situation, you are stating that you
accept its usage and find it appropriate. If you're going to use
singular pronouns, abstaining from the debate is simply not an option. <br>
<blockquote
cite="mide692861c0512031136u7a3fe106g3664d403f1ff457a@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">This sounds awkward to most English speakers only because
they're not accustomed to hearing or seeing it. Yet, that strikes me as a
pretty poor argument for continuing to use "his" when referring to an
individual of unknown gender that not only sounds awkward to non-English
speakers but is in addition conceptually flawed and a vestige of a
patriarchal society that did consider women second-class citizens.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
The claim that the mere use of the male word is an example of sexism
has not been substantiated. If it sounds odd to a non-native speaker
it is because they do not realize that we use the male word to refer
to gendern unknow as well.
</pre>
</blockquote>
It sounds odd to a non-native speaker because it doesn't appear logical
to use a male pronoun when referring to an individual of an unknown
gender. You continue to support the practice because it's a convention
of the English language. I tried to stress in my last email that this
fact is not conclusive. Simply because our language has a particular
convention which has been used for hundreds of years does not mean that
the convention is appropriate. Some gendered terms have already been
replaced by gender-neutral terms such as flight attendant as a
replacement for stewardess. There is an academic debate occurring at
the moment as to whether we should change the language to reflect a
commitment to gender equality. You can't abstain from that debate by
saying that this is how the way things have been done in the past and
therefore are appropriate for the present. <br>
<blockquote
cite="mide692861c0512031136u7a3fe106g3664d403f1ff457a@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> It's also not just "his" that poses this problem. People still refer to
mankind, businessmen, firemen, fisherman, man-made, mailman, policemen,
congressman etc. There's nothing exclusively male about any of the mentioned
professions, yet they are commonly or exclusively referred to with a non
gender-neutral term.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Here your own sexism shows: We are all man, including women. Here you
attempt to say that men and women are not the same thing.
</pre>
</blockquote>
I believe the word man does and should refer to a male member of the
human race. I am not contesting that "Man" has in the past and
continues to be used to refer to all humans. My assertion is that it is
inappropriate to refer to humanity as Man. The use of Man to refer to
all humans suggests that men are the preferred or more important sex
and the only sex worth mentioning. I don't suggest that an individual
who uses the word "Man" in this way is sexist- only that the word does
have a sexist connotation. <br>
<br>
One need only look to our history to see this. The marriage ceremony
declares that the two individuals have become "Man and Wife". The man
retains his identity while the woman becomes a wife with all the duties
that attach to that title. Under English common law and under American
law until well into the 19th century when a woman and man married the
woman lost her civil existence. The system called "coverture" denied a
woman the right to hold property, sue in a court of law, become a
juror, or contract. Blackstone states that when a woman married she and
her husband become one- the husband. Freedom was defined as the ability
to contract and the only groups that were denied this right were
slaves, women, and children. She completely lost her existence as
recognized by the law. Despite societal change, this fact is still a
part of our language. Simone de Beauvior argued in <i>The Second Sex
(1949</i>) that the two sexes are Men and the Other sex. Women weren't
considered to have a distinct identity but rather were referred to as a
contrast to men. All of these sexist traditions and legal practices
explain why Man is used to refer to all of humanity rather than just
the male sex. If we continue to use these sexist laden conventions we
are unwittingly enforcing sexism. <br>
<br>
Jason Cohen<br>
<blockquote
cite="mide692861c0512031136u7a3fe106g3664d403f1ff457a@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
OTR-users mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:OTR-users@lists.cypherpunks.ca">OTR-users@lists.cypherpunks.ca</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://lists.cypherpunks.ca/mailman/listinfo/otr-users">http://lists.cypherpunks.ca/mailman/listinfo/otr-users</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
</body>
</html>