sourmìlk wrote:No. I am not saying that. I'm saying there is an implicit threat that the crowd would, not that he'd make them.
I don't get. How could he make a threat that the crowd would rape her if he had no control of the crowd? Ah, it doesn't matter anyway.
Do you have one within our experience to say otherwise? You asked about an example outside of my experience.
Sure, I just listed about 8 starting with nonsexual violence and ending in torture, I think (um...I hope the likelihood of torture isn't in your experience, but the likelihood of many of those things would be). I'm sure you can think of others.
Роберт wrote:So, my point being, if someone requests that you use a simple, single syllable pronoun that already has a fairly broad use, and you refuse to use it, that makes you a jerk. I can think of no other reason.
Okay, that clarifies matters, although not as I'd hoped. Forget my hypothetical argument. I'm not sure why you find it confusing, but it's irrelevant now, since you apparently do actually think that "ze" is a special case (at least a little), with no reason to avoid it on account of it being short. First off, "ze" is not in fairly broad use, by any objective standard. I don't even know anyone IRL who calls themselves "ze" (admittedly I don't get out much and I'm not in the age group where the word is common, but still). If I didn't occasionally visit lgbt sites, I probably wouldn't have encountered anyone online who calls themselves "ze". If I go outside now and stop someone in the street, I strongly suspect they would never have even *heard* the word "ze". This is important not just because it reduces the incentive to adopt the word, but because it increases the disincentive, as I'll come to.
Apparently you think the reasons are strong. I'd love to hear them.
Did you miss my rant about adding made up words to English? That's just one reason. One of my personal reasons. There are more. Adopting a new pronoun would involve some effort and concentration at first, and a lot more effort explaining the term to people who didn't know it when you used it in the 3rd person. People would find it unfamiliar and strange, perhaps humorous, which is worse than just people laughing at you - it would impair your communication. Distract from the substance of what you say. It would sound odd in literature, lacking the gravitas of more well-established words. There are any number of other reasons. Probably people have reasons I would never even think of.
However you or I might weigh this issue up*, it's just not true to say that there is no reason to refuse except to be a jerk. This is one of the hallmarks of Basic Human Decency: ignoring any opinions, arguments or even evidence contrary to the "policy" and completely disregarding the thoughts and feelings of others (except of course, the specifically approved thoughts and feelings of the specific others who have been granted its "protection").
* on the issue of weighing it up, another thing that should occur to you, if it hasn't, is that while I can understand why someone might want a new gender-neutral pronoun applied to them, many people just wouldn't get it.
To be fair, I should add that it's possible I've overreacted or taken your statement too seriously because it pushed my "PC" buttons (of course, I never expected this long exchange about it - that's the result of unexpected communication difficulties). Admittedly, it's very common for people to omit the possibility of dissenting views. Even people who are willing to acknowledge them may make statements that portray there own views as facts, just as a way of presenting *their views*. So maybe what you said is no different. It *seems* worse to me, but I could be reading too much into it.
Also, if the figure is, say 10% of women have been victims of rape or attempted rape, that's a smaller number than the percent of women who will experience that in their lifetime.
Sure. Probably not as much as you'd think, though. If the distribution was uniform over age, you'd expect twice the number, but since the distribution is skewed towards youth (quite strongly, I think, from memory), the figures are probably not all that far apart.
Not at all. If that's the Tosh scenario, than the mother scenario would be where she threatens/jokes about someone killing a kid when she's already murdered 25% of all children.
Yes, at all. In the scenario you proposed, 25% of children were murdered by their mothers. The probability of the mother killing the child is therefore 25%. The mother jokes about killing the child, who she has a 25% probability of killing. For Tosh's joke (pretending he actually joked about raping the heckler) to be equivalent, he would have to have a 25% probability of raping that woman. The only way (with the information available) to express that in an analogy is if 25% of women were raped by Daniel Tosh.
Now, the new mother-child analogy you just proposed is correct, you're just wrong in claiming my analogy doesn't corresponded to the first one. It corresponds to both. They're equivalent in the relevant details. Whether the particular mother in question kills a random 25% of children, or a random 25% of mothers kill their own children, either way, there is a 25% chance of that mother killing that child.
Iranon wrote:Expecting others to follow non-standard language conventions to fit with one's ideology seems a bold request, to put it mildly. I'd tend towards prickly remarks even if I sympathised with their leanings, if this makes me a prick so be it.
Any natural language will have some idiosyncrasies and limitations. Futzing with the language itself in the hope to get something that's sufficiently correct and politically opportune is a losing battle unless we want to take this to outright newspeak
I agree with pretty much everything you say (mostly including this). But I think there actually is a real case for a gender-neutral pronoun (I'm no expert on the matter, but as someone who shares your general views and who's nonpartisan on the issue, I'm hoping you'll consider my claims as credible).
It's not just ideology. I mean I'm sure some of it's ideology and that some of it's also just silly androgynous kids seeking attention, but that's not what's important. There are people (probably many more than apparent) whose gender identity is irreconcilable with a single gender category (although it occurs to me that the problem might be greatly diminished if our concept of male and female weren't still so constraining). They can have a hard time of it, partly because of active discrimination, but also because society just doesn't have any place for them. It would be useful to have a gender-neutral pronoun because (a) we don't really have an existing pronoun which applies, which makes communication awkward; (b) it would be good to have a pronoun that doesn't feel *wrong* to the person it refers to, as though they're constantly being labelled as something they're not; and (c) it would be great if it eventually came into more general usage as a pronoun for everyone, since gendered pronouns are more trouble than they're worth, imo. (there are other political advantages advantages as well, like increased visibility which can accelerate social change, etc)
Of course, unlike Роберт, I do see the introduction of a new pronoun as a big deal. Personally, I look forward to the day when we have a gender-neutral pronoun, but I'm not looking forward to the transition period where our language has to be awkward.