• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Usage of terms male/female when describing animals

Tigers!

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Messages
2,842
Location
On the wing waiting for a kick.
Basic Beliefs
Bible believing revelational redemptionist (Baptist)
In the hobby forum there is a thread about infection passing to birds via feeders

https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?23078-a-bird-feeder-hobby-and-the-problem-of-infected-finches/page2

In that thread I asked about what was called a house finch esp. for a picture.
One was kindly supplied. I asked whether the red was was the male or female.

This got me thinking about the terms male/female.
With the rise of 'inclusive' language we are told that we should not use terms such as male/female, mother/father etc.

Does that now apply to our descriptions in the animal kingdom?
Are we now reduced to terms such as egg layer/non-egg layer? Much more of a mouthful.
 

bigfield

the baby-eater
Joined
May 4, 2011
Messages
4,533
Location
Straya
Basic Beliefs
yeah nah
It seems to me that you've never given any thought as to the reasons why it's considered more inclusive to avoid using gendered language, or to avoid assuming which parents a child has in their life.

And I reject your premise:
we are told that we should not use terms such as male/female, mother/father etc.

No-one is telling me that.

I would have to go out of my way to trawl the internet for some obscure opinion piece to find such a prescription. May I suggest you find something better to do with your time.
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
22,444
Location
Far Western Mass
Gender
Here.
Basic Beliefs
I'm here...
And I reject your premise:
we are told that we should not use terms such as male/female, mother/father etc.

No-one is telling me that.
Nor I.

PC was not developed so that no one would ever be offended ever again. It was created to avoid accidental offense.
Or, as it turns out, banality.
The kids i know with two fathers aren't offended by the casual assumptions, they just have to work thru stupid assumptions every damned conversation.
Thanknyou, but i cannot give this to my mother.
No, she's not in Heaven, or a coma, or an ashram.
No, it's not one of "those" divorces.
...until they can get a word in edgewise.
IFF they want to. One little snot just makes them keep guessing.


So, really, you can say, 'mother/father' if you want. Just might have some 9 year old looking at you with pity.
 

Tigers!

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Messages
2,842
Location
On the wing waiting for a kick.
Basic Beliefs
Bible believing revelational redemptionist (Baptist)
It seems to me that you've never given any thought as to the reasons why it's considered more inclusive to avoid using gendered language, or to avoid assuming which parents a child has in their life.

And I reject your premise:
we are told that we should not use terms such as male/female, mother/father etc.

No-one is telling me that.

I would have to go out of my way to trawl the internet for some obscure opinion piece to find such a prescription. May I suggest you find something better to do with your time.

The latest Victorian Public Service Inclusive Language Guide is your friend. https://www.vic.gov.au/inclusive-language-guide
Coming soon to a public service near you.

At the moment it is only recommendations but will time with become more insistent.
 

repoman

Contributor
Joined
Aug 4, 2001
Messages
8,282
Location
Seattle, WA
Basic Beliefs
Science Based Atheism
It seems to me that you've never given any thought as to the reasons why it's considered more inclusive to avoid using gendered language, or to avoid assuming which parents a child has in their life.

And I reject your premise:
we are told that we should not use terms such as male/female, mother/father etc.

No-one is telling me that.

I would have to go out of my way to trawl the internet for some obscure opinion piece to find such a prescription. May I suggest you find something better to do with your time.

The latest Victorian Public Service Inclusive Language Guide is your friend. https://www.vic.gov.au/inclusive-language-guide
Coming soon to a public service near you.

At the moment it is only recommendations but will time with become more insistent.

Mel Gibson warned about China - who with the help of local politicians getting over on Australia. China which is brutal to all LGBT people.

 

bigfield

the baby-eater
Joined
May 4, 2011
Messages
4,533
Location
Straya
Basic Beliefs
yeah nah
It seems to me that you've never given any thought as to the reasons why it's considered more inclusive to avoid using gendered language, or to avoid assuming which parents a child has in their life.

And I reject your premise:
we are told that we should not use terms such as male/female, mother/father etc.

No-one is telling me that.

I would have to go out of my way to trawl the internet for some obscure opinion piece to find such a prescription. May I suggest you find something better to do with your time.

The latest Victorian Public Service Inclusive Language Guide is your friend. https://www.vic.gov.au/inclusive-language-guide
Coming soon to a public service near you.

At the moment it is only recommendations but will time with become more insistent.

Thank you. Maybe now you should actually read it.

Here's what Tigers! thinks it says:

we are told that we should not use...mother/father

Here's what the guide says about mother/father:

Don’t assume that everyone is heterosexual (straight), or that this is the norm. Avoid using language such as ‘wife’ or ‘husband’ that assumes all relationships are heterosexual, as this excludes non-heterosexual people and devalues their relationships. Words and phrases such as ‘partner’, ‘parents’, ‘relationship’, ‘in a relationship’ are examples of LGBTIQ inclusive language.

If you're talking to a child about their parents, but you don't actually know what their home situation is, then there's a good chance you're making a mistake by assuming they have a mother or father at home. Some children's parents are simply divorced and the father or mother isn't in the picture. Some children have a deceased parent. Some children have two fathers, or two mothers. Some live with a guardian who isn't their parent at all. In some branches of the public service, workers encounter children from all kinds of backgrounds.

On the other hand, if you're talking to a child about their parents and you know that they live with their mother and father, then there's no reason why you can't refer to them as such. No-one is telling you that you shouldn't.

Here's what Tigers! thinks it says:

we are told that we should not use...male/female

Here's what the guide says about male/female:

Gender, sex and sexuality are all separate concepts.

Gender is part of how you understand who you are and how you interact with other people. Many people understand their gender as being female or male. Some people understand their gender as a combination of these or neither. Gender can be expressed in different ways, such as through behaviour or physical appearance.

Sex refers to a person’s biological sex characteristics. This has historically been understood as either female or male. However, we now know that some people are born with natural variations to sex characteristics.

That is, there's no prescription whatsoever.

At the moment it is only recommendations but will time with become more insistent.

It's like the War on Christmas, but all year 'round!
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
22,444
Location
Far Western Mass
Gender
Here.
Basic Beliefs
I'm here...
we are told that we should not use terms such as male/female, mother/father etc..
I'm old enough to remember agreeing that 'No one is telling me that.' I have read your offered justification for the claim
I can't see where it uses the words 'mother' or 'father' at all.
Male and female are sprinkled thru the document.
They even suggest using language like:
[_] Man
[_] Woman
[_] Other __________.

So, i'm gonna have to dust off "no one is telling me that."

Have you read it? It's not what you think it is.
 

Bronzeage

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 27, 2011
Messages
7,473
Location
Deep South
Basic Beliefs
Pragmatic
Fifty years ago, there was a book for children titled "Brain Teasers", basically a book of trick questions.

One went something like this: A father and son were in a car accident. The father is dead and the boy is severely injured. The boy is rushed to the hospital and a surgeon is called. The surgeon looks at the boy and says, "I can't operate on this patient. He's my son." It's a brain teaser that hasn't aged well, but there was a time when a female surgeon was so rare as to be practically non existent.

The use of gender neutral terms is like most exercises in political correctness, it's a conscious effort to not be an asshole.

I remember an anecdote about Walt Disney(maybe true, maybe not). Disney Studios was making an animated short about learning to ride a bike. The narrator says, "When you get on your bicycle.." Walt interrupted and said, "Change that to "a bicycle. Not every child has their own bike." It's a simple thing to care about other people's feelings and not be an asshole about it.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,531
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
Its hard to discuss something only because it's possible to discuss it. Seems that whatever is written is going to offend most - return little for those who see fit to discuss the subject.

That's why I'm taking a turn at nasty. Especially it will be bad when one applies such terms to those who cannot defend themselves.
 

Shadowy Man

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2002
Messages
3,276
Location
West Coast
Basic Beliefs
Rational Pragmatism
Not accounting for every possible permutation doesn’t necessarily make one an asshole. If the narrator were to say “when you walk to the store...” should they be corrected because some people use wheelchairs? If they said “when you see...” or “when you hear...” should they be corrected because some people are blind or deaf?
 

thebeave

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2001
Messages
3,406
Location
Silicon Valley, CA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Not accounting for every possible permutation doesn’t necessarily make one an asshole. If the narrator were to say “when you walk to the store...” should they be corrected because some people use wheelchairs? If they said “when you see...” or “when you hear...” should they be corrected because some people are blind or deaf?

Exactly. I think you generally find that the majority of the people who are supposedly excluded or "oppressed" by a particular choice of words, generally don't really give a flying fuck. It's the far fringe SJWs and attention seekers who are not even affected that seem to be most bothered.
 

ronburgundy

Contributor
Joined
Dec 6, 2014
Messages
5,757
Location
Whale's Vagina
Basic Beliefs
Atheist/Scientist
Not accounting for every possible permutation doesn’t necessarily make one an asshole. If the narrator were to say “when you walk to the store...” should they be corrected because some people use wheelchairs? If they said “when you see...” or “when you hear...” should they be corrected because some people are blind or deaf?

Exactly. I think you generally find that the majority of the people who are supposedly excluded or "oppressed" by a particular choice of words, generally don't really give a flying fuck. It's the far fringe SJWs and attention seekers who are not even affected that seem to be most bothered.

Note that those examples are talking to a general audience and not addressing any specific person. If you were talking specifically to an individual who couldn't walk and you said "When you walk to the store...?" or "Do you like to go jogging?" it would come off as highly awkward at best. Most of the gendered language issues are around talking to individuals and assuming either their gender and/or only allowing for a binary option. In addition, those types of examples where speech assumes a physical ability come up in conversation about 1/millionth of the time that gender assumptions come up in conversation.
 

thebeave

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2001
Messages
3,406
Location
Silicon Valley, CA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Not accounting for every possible permutation doesn’t necessarily make one an asshole. If the narrator were to say “when you walk to the store...” should they be corrected because some people use wheelchairs? If they said “when you see...” or “when you hear...” should they be corrected because some people are blind or deaf?

Exactly. I think you generally find that the majority of the people who are supposedly excluded or "oppressed" by a particular choice of words, generally don't really give a flying fuck. It's the far fringe SJWs and attention seekers who are not even affected that seem to be most bothered.

Note that those examples are talking to a general audience and not addressing any specific person. If you were talking specifically to an individual who couldn't walk and you said "When you walk to the store...?" or "Do you like to go jogging?" it would come off as highly awkward at best. Most of the gendered language issues are around talking to individuals and assuming either their gender and/or only allowing for a binary option. In addition, those types of examples where speech assumes a physical ability come up in conversation about 1/millionth of the time that gender assumptions come up in conversation.

Well, even when we try our best, we're never going to make all of the people happy all of the time when it comes to words and language. If I were to start using "them" (or xir or xe) instead of "he" or "she" in my everyday conversation with random strangers, I can pretty much guarantee I would do nothing but create awkwardness, confusion and annoyance far more than if I just stuck with the old standby terms. And this is coming from someone living in the SF Bay Area, which has a huge LGBT presence. But the fact is, with the vast majority of people, their gender is also their biological sex. I do, however, sometimes come across androgynous people working in retail, and I make a point to be my normal friendly self and just avoid any mention of gender or sex. Its not that hard.
 

ronburgundy

Contributor
Joined
Dec 6, 2014
Messages
5,757
Location
Whale's Vagina
Basic Beliefs
Atheist/Scientist
Note that those examples are talking to a general audience and not addressing any specific person. If you were talking specifically to an individual who couldn't walk and you said "When you walk to the store...?" or "Do you like to go jogging?" it would come off as highly awkward at best. Most of the gendered language issues are around talking to individuals and assuming either their gender and/or only allowing for a binary option. In addition, those types of examples where speech assumes a physical ability come up in conversation about 1/millionth of the time that gender assumptions come up in conversation.

Well, even when we try our best, we're never going to make all of the people happy all of the time when it comes to words and language. If I were to start using "them" (or xir or xe) instead of "he" or "she" in my everyday conversation with random strangers, I can pretty much guarantee I would do nothing but create awkwardness, confusion and annoyance far more than if I just stuck with the old standby terms. And this is coming from someone living in the SF Bay Area, which has a huge LGBT presence. But the fact is, with the vast majority of people, their gender is also their biological sex. I do, however, sometimes come across androgynous people working in retail, and I make a point to be my normal friendly self and just avoid any mention of gender or sex. Its not that hard.

A lot of conservatives seem to find it extremely hard to avoid using gendered terms even when there are indicators they may be inappropriate, so much so that many conservatives feel compelled to misgender a person even after the person has explicitly told them their gender. Then they like to pretend they are just being scientifically accurate, proving that they scientifically illiterate in addition to being a hateful bigot who gets joy hurting others.
 

J842P

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Messages
4,137
Location
USA, California
Basic Beliefs
godless heathen
Not accounting for every possible permutation doesn’t necessarily make one an asshole. If the narrator were to say “when you walk to the store...” should they be corrected because some people use wheelchairs? If they said “when you see...” or “when you hear...” should they be corrected because some people are blind or deaf?

Exactly. I think you generally find that the majority of the people who are supposedly excluded or "oppressed" by a particular choice of words, generally don't really give a flying fuck. It's the far fringe SJWs and attention seekers who are not even affected that seem to be most bothered.

Note that those examples are talking to a general audience and not addressing any specific person. If you were talking specifically to an individual who couldn't walk and you said "When you walk to the store...?" or "Do you like to go jogging?" it would come off as highly awkward at best. Most of the gendered language issues are around talking to individuals and assuming either their gender and/or only allowing for a binary option. In addition, those types of examples where speech assumes a physical ability come up in conversation about 1/millionth of the time that gender assumptions come up in conversation.

Um, no not really. Here's an example, the term Latinx.
 

Bronzeage

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 27, 2011
Messages
7,473
Location
Deep South
Basic Beliefs
Pragmatic
Not accounting for every possible permutation doesn’t necessarily make one an asshole. If the narrator were to say “when you walk to the store...” should they be corrected because some people use wheelchairs? If they said “when you see...” or “when you hear...” should they be corrected because some people are blind or deaf?

I guess that depends upon whether there are paraplegics, the blind, or the deaf, in your audience. If you don't have to confront the people you offend, it's no harm, no foul.
 

ronburgundy

Contributor
Joined
Dec 6, 2014
Messages
5,757
Location
Whale's Vagina
Basic Beliefs
Atheist/Scientist
Note that those examples are talking to a general audience and not addressing any specific person. If you were talking specifically to an individual who couldn't walk and you said "When you walk to the store...?" or "Do you like to go jogging?" it would come off as highly awkward at best. Most of the gendered language issues are around talking to individuals and assuming either their gender and/or only allowing for a binary option. In addition, those types of examples where speech assumes a physical ability come up in conversation about 1/millionth of the time that gender assumptions come up in conversation.

Um, no not really. Here's an example, the term Latinx.

Except there you don't have to make any decision or know anything about the audience, you're just using a gender neutral term as the default, instead of default term that is needlessly gendered to being with. In fact, in 99% of situations it saves you from have to say "Latinos Y Lantinas".

Only a fragile snowflake who always needs to be a sexist bigot would give a flying fuck about replacing the masculine default of latino with a neutral default of latinX, especially since nearly everyone complaining doesn't know Spanish in the first place (or any foreign language).
 

thebeave

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2001
Messages
3,406
Location
Silicon Valley, CA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Note that those examples are talking to a general audience and not addressing any specific person. If you were talking specifically to an individual who couldn't walk and you said "When you walk to the store...?" or "Do you like to go jogging?" it would come off as highly awkward at best. Most of the gendered language issues are around talking to individuals and assuming either their gender and/or only allowing for a binary option. In addition, those types of examples where speech assumes a physical ability come up in conversation about 1/millionth of the time that gender assumptions come up in conversation.

Um, no not really. Here's an example, the term Latinx.

Except there you don't have to make any decision or know anything about the audience, you're just using a gender neutral term as the default, instead of default term that is needlessly gendered to being with. In fact, in 99% of situations it saves you from have to say "Latinos Y Lantinas".

Only a fragile snowflake who always needs to be a sexist bigot would give a flying fuck about replacing the masculine default of latino with a neutral default of latinX, especially since nearly everyone complaining doesn't know Spanish in the first place (or any foreign language).

LOL!

https://thinknowtweets.medium.com/progressive-latino-pollster-trust-me-latinos-do-not-identify-with-latinx-63229adebcea
 

ronburgundy

Contributor
Joined
Dec 6, 2014
Messages
5,757
Location
Whale's Vagina
Basic Beliefs
Atheist/Scientist
Except there you don't have to make any decision or know anything about the audience, you're just using a gender neutral term as the default, instead of default term that is needlessly gendered to being with. In fact, in 99% of situations it saves you from have to say "Latinos Y Lantinas".

Only a fragile snowflake who always needs to be a sexist bigot would give a flying fuck about replacing the masculine default of latino with a neutral default of latinX, especially since nearly everyone complaining doesn't know Spanish in the first place (or any foreign language).

LOL!

https://thinknowtweets.medium.com/progressive-latino-pollster-trust-me-latinos-do-not-identify-with-latinx-63229adebcea

It takes a special kind of illiterate to think that contradicts anything I said. Whether people click a LatinX box on a survey over Latino or Latina options (which is all your cite examined), has absolutely nothing to do with whether general references to LatinX people would logically cover all Latin people. Does the fact that few people would select "they" as their personal pronoun mean that you can never use "they" in speech to refer to people in general and must always refer to "men and women", otherwise no one will know your referring to people?
 
Top Bottom