Talking about being Politically Correct !

12223242527

Comments

  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    I haven't misunderstood him. False accusations and suspicions is EXACTLY why I made my above comments. Trust goes both ways but a teacher is inn the vulnerable position of being a pariah just by the mere accusation of some disgruntled student or a parent thinking the worst when they find out their daughter has had private discussions/meetings with a make teacher behind closed doors. Too many risks involved to not protect one's self accordingly. Too many people in this world looking to be offended and score a huge pay day while they're at it.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    peter wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Putting his own interests above those of his students, doesn t make him a very worthwhile teacher, does it?

    He's not putting his "own interests" above anything. He'd be being judicious. You cant be naive when workibg in this capacity, plain and simple. If ever he finds himself in a compromising situation and with his job it's easy to happen, being a worthwhile teacher won't matter because he won't be able to teach at all.

    I coached competitive ice hockey up until two years ago. It was mandated that the coach left the locker room door open if alone with one single player. Once there was a second player and/or another coach in the room, the door could then be shut.

    Sad, but, you know, in the end, it was for the security of everyone.

    Exactly.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,449
    Some good arguments here. Thank you, guys.
  • Posts: 17,241
    It's an interesting issue you bring up there, @DarthDimi. Any student at some point might have the need for a private meeting with his or her teacher, for whatever reason. In that regard, you should definitely trust them. But I also remember when I was that age myself, and you'd sometimes hear rumours about teachers – not necessarily anything serious stuff, but still rumours. That happens at any school, I guess.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 7,948
    doubleoego wrote: »
    I haven't misunderstood him. False accusations and suspicions is EXACTLY why I made my above comments. Trust goes both ways but a teacher is inn the vulnerable position of being a pariah just by the mere accusation of some disgruntled student or a parent thinking the worst when they find out their daughter has had private discussions/meetings with a make teacher behind closed doors. Too many risks involved to not protect one's self accordingly. Too many people in this world looking to be offended and score a huge pay day while they're at it.

    I can see where you're coming from, but in Europe there's no claim culture like that. Thankfully. @Darth in this case I side with @Thunderfinger. You should trust your students, just as much as they trust you. There's Always talk about teachers (used to be when i was in school), especially in that age bracket. But the step of making an official complaint (especially if there's no basis for it) is still huge. There's a reason why these cases end up on the national news: they don't happen very often.

    And if you have any doubt about the intentions of the pupils themselves, talk to fellow teachers about it and indeed don't allow yourself to be in a closed-door situation. But even though you're as handsome as you are, that probably doesn't happen often.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 7,948
    patb wrote: »
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/11/07/dutch-man-69-identifies-20-years-younger-launches-legal-battle/

    A pensioner has begun a legal battle to be recognised as being 20 years younger than his actual age so he can go back to work and achieve greater success with women on Tinder.

    Emile Ratelband, 69, argues that if transgender people are allowed to change sex, he should be allowed to change his date of birth because doctors said he has the body of a 45-year-old.

    Sadly he lost the case. I was quite looking foreward to having him have to pay for his pension again instead of getting it.
  • Posts: 7,653
    patb wrote: »
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/11/07/dutch-man-69-identifies-20-years-younger-launches-legal-battle/

    A pensioner has begun a legal battle to be recognised as being 20 years younger than his actual age so he can go back to work and achieve greater success with women on Tinder.

    Emile Ratelband, 69, argues that if transgender people are allowed to change sex, he should be allowed to change his date of birth because doctors said he has the body of a 45-year-old.

    Sadly he lost the case. I was quite looking foreward to having him have to pay for his pension again instead of getting it.

    Basically because he is such an annoying attention seeking dick.
  • edited December 2018 Posts: 4,599
    Not sure if those outside the UK can access this but the first hour of this BBC chat show is about PC culture, "safe space", free speech and stand up comedy. I had to pause it twice to let the blood pressure come down but I got through it in the end.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0001k5k?fbclid=IwAR3Bg3eK8CkdEb0MQnEaqH64Zm7J2a4ComWPso6U07wJ9z32BRoZqYUqq-o
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    The Scottish parliament has now banned gingerbreadmen in their cantina, as it is deemed sexist.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,372
    The Scottish parliament has now banned gingerbreadmen in their cantina, as it is deemed sexist.

    It's gone so far now that I legitimately thought you were kidding, but a Google search is unfortunately telling me that is not the case and this is totally a thing. Wow.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Knowing how cheap the Scots are, it was probably just an excuse to cut down on expenses.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 7,948
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    The Scottish parliament has now banned gingerbreadmen in their cantina, as it is deemed sexist.

    It's gone so far now that I legitimately thought you were kidding, but a Google search is unfortunately telling me that is not the case and this is totally a thing. Wow.

    How is a gingerbreadman sexist? As in it's only men getting torn up and eaten alive?
  • edited December 2018 Posts: 17,241
    The Scottish parliament has now banned gingerbreadmen in their cantina, as it is deemed sexist.

    Can't they just rename it "gingerbread person"? Problem solved! :-)
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 7,948
    The Scottish parliament has now banned gingerbreadmen in their cantina, as it is deemed sexist.

    Can't they just rename it "gingerbread person"? Problem solved! :-)

    I think they should skirt the issue all together.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,449
    The Scottish parliament has now banned gingerbreadmen in their cantina, as it is deemed sexist.

    Can't they just rename it "gingerbread person"? Problem solved! :-)

    "Men and women, we don't serve your kind here; we only serve persons."
  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,812
    I’ve changed the name of this thread after noticing a number of our Bot attacks have occurred after several posts from Bots have been initially been made in this thread, possibly because the original name was The PC thread.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 12,916
    Well it's surely a gingerbread cookie.

    But I've offended some, not least for calling them Shirley.

    LOqcCV.gif
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489

    Goofy goes with the flow.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 12,916
    Oh my gawsh. How they got away with that first one.

    There may be hope for us yet. Pretty good stuff. Thanks, Goofy.

  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,449
    We use different grammatical genders for numerous words like "steward" and "stewardess" or "actor" and "actress". We are now, however, urged to abandon such practices and restrict ourselves to neutral words, such as "secretary". Likewise, letter salutations like "Dear sir, dear madam" are considered imporsonal (I agree), lazy (I agree), and flat-out dangerous considering the posibility that the receiver identifies as neither (I disagree.)
    My problem is not that some people don't easily fit in either one of the traditional categories, but rather that our language(s) may not be ready to wash away gender-specific terminology just yet. Grammatically (not morally) speaking, it feels wrong to call Eva Green an "actor", though it doesn't feel wrong to call Eva Green and Daniel Craig the lead "actors" of Casino Royale. Why? Because so far in my life, that is how the language game has always been played. Likewise, the "Dear madam" salutation, when formally addressing a woman in an e-mail (e.g. the mother of a student), feels more respectful and humble than "Dear Angela Scott" or just "Hello". I may risk dealing with a parent who no longer feels like a woman, but I lack the tools to find an appropriate alternative without being too direct or borderline disrespectful.
    I furthermore refuse to use the "they" construct when talking about e.g. Sam Smith simply because it doesn't work, grammatically speaking. "When they sang the song for Spectre, Sam Smith was at the height of their career." I'm sorry, but no. The grammar in that sentence is fundamentally flawed and my language checking software is threatening to sue me.
    Lastly, "steward(ess)" is considered insulting because the brackets, apparently, suggest that women are inferior. Aren't people reading too much into this now? It is simply a helpful trick for those who don't want to write "steward and stewardess", repeating the first several letters when you don't have to. It is not about pushing one gender into an inferior position.

    The startling thing is that people simply assume that languages can be changed overnight and that such changes will be accepted without a fuss. That is not the way it is. Languages change slowly and organically and not because some have decided that they must because of often far-fetched reasonings about which most people care little. If Glen become Glenda and turns from "he" into "she", that's fine. If Glen feels neither Glen nor Glenda, that's fine too. All of that is fine, but in the latter case, Glen(da) will be a he, she or sometimes he and sometimes she without a clear preference for either. What Glen(da) cannot do is demand that we throw grammar rules out and choose the plural form just like that.

    As a teacher, I work very hard, every day, to get my students to speak and write proper Dutch. (And I am a science teacher!) But if they don't, they risk missing important opportunities in life since language is a big part of the impression future employeers, employees, partners..., will have of them. Yet with certain drastic and sudden changes, whimsically imposed by small groups of people who may or may not have been overthinking a few things, it becomes impossible to help improve the grammar of my students. Concord errors are all too often made; gender confusion in written and spoken language doesn't help avoid them one bit.

    I am not a fan of our age-old language rules bowing so suddenly to the wishes of people who may be a tad too sensitive about the gender rules. Most people merely apply the rules as taught to them, and do so without intending any harm, insult or sexism. Perhaps sudden changes will do more harm than good since people are resistent to change, especially when they fail to appreciate the necessity for it. I too hope that we can keep our grammar rules intact for a while longer without having to feel guilty of maybe, possibly, yet unwillingly and unintentionally insulting anyone.
  • BirdlesonBirdleson Moderator
    Posts: 2,161
    Well said.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    ‘They’ has always been grammatically correct for a single person, it’s just that up until now it’s been used for a hypothetical person of indeterminate or unknown gender (“the person who built that sandcastle is very good at it: they even put little flags on”) - it’s not a very big change to use it for a known person. No one should be a slave to their word processing software, and the next update of it will adjust I’m sure, just as grammar and spelling have always historically adjusted over time. English has never been set in stone.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,449
    “the person who built that sandcastle is very good at it: they even put little flags on”

    That's horrible. I was always taught that if the gender is unknown, we choose a convenient "he". I know this is how we do it in Dutch and in French too.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited May 2022 Posts: 14,861
    In English anyway, the singular version of ‘they’ has been in use since the 14th century according to this:
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they

    Defaulting to ‘he’ has often also been acceptable of course, but we’re moving away from that, and language has always changed throughout history: just have a flick through Chaucer for an example of that! :)
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,009
    A lighthearted contribution...

    I work in a clinic part-time that has a doctor who specialises in "transitional therapy", which involves counselling as well as other supports for patients making the change to what they consider to be their appropriate gender. It's been an enlightening experience for me to see these people first hand more regularly instead of just hearing about them or observing from a distance (nobody I know personally has ever gone through such a transition, so I've never known what it's been like).

    One such patient came in recently, and I was checking them in. Unfortunately, the system still had their male name on file - it hadn't been updated yet. So I made a mistake in calling them by their male name instead of their female name. I apologised, but they were good sports about it.

    "That's why I decided to become a woman - I got tired of being wrong all the time!" they said.
  • edited May 2022 Posts: 784
    "That's why I decided to become a woman - I got tired of being wrong all the time!" they said.

    LOL
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 7,948
    mtm wrote: »
    In English anyway, the singular version of ‘they’ has been in use since the 14th century according to this:
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they

    Defaulting to ‘he’ has often also been acceptable of course, but we’re moving away from that, and language has always changed throughout history: just have a flick through Chaucer for an example of that! :)

    You may be moving away from it, but I sure as hell am not. I'm utterly done with a tiny minority with a sex fixation to dictate everything in life the rest is up to. There's no sexism in language, if you think brackets mean the part that's in brackets is deemed less, you're utterly wrong. We always use it for the part that is may or may not be applicable. You can use it for singular/plural, or male/female.

    And yes, the term for a human born with female organs is called 'woman', just like a human born with male organs is called 'man'. These are technical terms without further value. Biologically it just isn't possible for two men to repodruce together, no matter how much they love eachother. There's no use to make a fuss about it or try and put people into distinguashable 'boxes' for it. If a man doesn't feel like a man but wants to dress like a woman, fine. Biologicaally that won't change a thing. Life isn't 'fair'. That's another human invention. And yes, life has a thing for mixing things up a little, with 1 in 10.000 or so having a mix of organs. So they can choose. Or everybody can choose in which way they want to be adressed, who cares. But starting to change language just so we can cater for those who can't accept what life has thrown at them makes no sense. If you've been adressed in a way you don't like, say it. End of story.
    I belong to a group of people that's been the most disciminated against of all humans, but we don't complain about it. We just accept the fact that we're in a minority and we take the inconvenience in our day to day life for granted. When I say what it is, you'll laugh and say that's nothing. Exactly because nobody complains about it. Should we start complaining? No. It's a fact of life, and turning it the other way won't help. It caters for the majority, and that's the end of it.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited May 2022 Posts: 14,861
    mtm wrote: »
    In English anyway, the singular version of ‘they’ has been in use since the 14th century according to this:
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they

    Defaulting to ‘he’ has often also been acceptable of course, but we’re moving away from that, and language has always changed throughout history: just have a flick through Chaucer for an example of that! :)

    You may be moving away from it, but I sure as hell am not. I'm utterly done with a tiny minority with a sex fixation to dictate everything in life the rest is up to. There's no sexism in language, if you think brackets mean the part that's in brackets is deemed less, you're utterly wrong. We always use it for the part that is may or may not be applicable. You can use it for singular/plural, or male/female.

    There absolutely is sexism in language which defaults to the male, of course there is. It's nonsensical to claim otherwise.

    Grammar is made by people, it isn't more important than them. If we were inventing the English language today there's no way we'd set out a system whereby it defaults to just half of the population, there's no reason for it and it doesn't make sense. So we'll change it and we'll move away from needlessly gendered words, because the language is something we invented in the first place.
    And yes, the term for a human born with female organs is called 'woman', just like a human born with male organs is called 'man'. These are technical terms without further value. Biologically it just isn't possible for two men to repodruce together, no matter how much they love eachother. There's no use to make a fuss about it or try and put people into distinguashable 'boxes' for it. If a man doesn't feel like a man but wants to dress like a woman, fine. Biologicaally that won't change a thing. Life isn't 'fair'. That's another human invention. And yes, life has a thing for mixing things up a little, with 1 in 10.000 or so having a mix of organs. So they can choose. Or everybody can choose in which way they want to be adressed, who cares. But starting to change language just so we can cater for those who can't accept what life has thrown at them makes no sense. If you've been adressed in a way you don't like, say it. End of story.

    They have been saying it, that's the point. If someone decided to change their name to, say, Sean Connery even though he was born Thomas Connery because he couldn't accept the Christian name life threw at him, would you respect his wishes and call him Sean? I expect you probably would, there would be absolutely no reason not to. So why refuse to use a gender term that someone else decides they'd like to be known as? Just because you're not used to it? That's a bit silly, isn't it.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 7,948
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    In English anyway, the singular version of ‘they’ has been in use since the 14th century according to this:
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they

    Defaulting to ‘he’ has often also been acceptable of course, but we’re moving away from that, and language has always changed throughout history: just have a flick through Chaucer for an example of that! :)

    You may be moving away from it, but I sure as hell am not. I'm utterly done with a tiny minority with a sex fixation to dictate everything in life the rest is up to. There's no sexism in language, if you think brackets mean the part that's in brackets is deemed less, you're utterly wrong. We always use it for the part that is may or may not be applicable. You can use it for singular/plural, or male/female.

    There absolutely is sexism in language which defaults to the male, of course there is. It's nonsensical to claim otherwise.

    Grammar is made by people, it isn't more important than them. If we were inventing the English language today there's no way we'd set out a system whereby it defaults to just half of the population, there's no reason for it and it doesn't make sense. So we'll change it and we'll move away from needlessly gendered words, because the language is something we invented in the first place.

    It changes in the way the majority of it uses it, and no, there's no sexism in grammar. There might be sexism in the use of it.
    Let me give you an example of this line of thought: If I call a person of colour a 'monkey', it doesn't make the word 'monkey' racist. The use of it however IS (if that was my intention). By banning the word you won't make me less racist, nor will it help in any way, shape or form the person in question. It will however make it difficult for biologists to refer to a certain group of mammals.
    If you dislike the default of going to the male version, go default to the female version. It doesn't make a difference. I've read (mostly scientific) - no, i'm not saying scientific is worth less here - articles that took the female form as the default. Works just as well, and nobody was offended.

    The problem therefore lies in the fact that these people WANT to be offended for it gives them a podium. They're not there to solve a problem, they're there to get their subsidies and make money out of social injustice.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    In English anyway, the singular version of ‘they’ has been in use since the 14th century according to this:
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they

    Defaulting to ‘he’ has often also been acceptable of course, but we’re moving away from that, and language has always changed throughout history: just have a flick through Chaucer for an example of that! :)

    You may be moving away from it, but I sure as hell am not. I'm utterly done with a tiny minority with a sex fixation to dictate everything in life the rest is up to. There's no sexism in language, if you think brackets mean the part that's in brackets is deemed less, you're utterly wrong. We always use it for the part that is may or may not be applicable. You can use it for singular/plural, or male/female.

    There absolutely is sexism in language which defaults to the male, of course there is. It's nonsensical to claim otherwise.

    Grammar is made by people, it isn't more important than them. If we were inventing the English language today there's no way we'd set out a system whereby it defaults to just half of the population, there's no reason for it and it doesn't make sense. So we'll change it and we'll move away from needlessly gendered words, because the language is something we invented in the first place.

    It changes in the way the majority of it uses it, and no, there's no sexism in grammar. There might be sexism in the use of it.
    Let me give you an example of this line of thought: If I call a person of colour a 'monkey', it doesn't make the word 'monkey' racist. The use of it however IS (if that was my intention). By banning the word you won't make me less racist, nor will it help in any way, shape or form the person in question. It will however make it difficult for biologists to refer to a certain group of mammals.

    I think you're missing the point a bit. Picking either gender is troublesome- if you want your daughter to grow up with the idea of the world being a place where she can succeed as well as anyone, referring to 'policemen' or 'postmen' or calling hypothetical people 'he' does not help at all.
    If you dislike the default of going to the male version, go default to the female version. It doesn't make a difference. I've read (mostly scientific) - no, i'm not saying scientific is worth less here - articles that took the female form as the default. Works just as well, and nobody was offended.

    So you're suggesting.. change the way grammar works? The female is not the default gender, but you're saying you're able to change to it.
    If you're willing to change grammar and you're able to... what's the problem?
    The problem therefore lies in the fact that these people WANT to be offended for it gives them a podium. They're not there to solve a problem, they're there to get their subsidies and make money out of social injustice.

    But the thing is, you're acting like the offended party here. It doesn't harm anyone to just use a different pronoun. It's really easy, as yourself just suggested.
Sign In or Register to comment.