this post was submitted on 05 Mar 2024
193 points (78.0% liked)
Asklemmy
43939 readers
472 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's funny how "just how it works out" always leads to "neutral" words having double meanings that equal "man" but never "woman"
Maybe it's not "just how it works" and maybe it's just bias...
You're literally arguing that this word should specifically exclude women, while complaining that double meanings never include women. It makes no sense. Why wouldn't you want to take power over the word to make it apply to women too?
There is no world where "Check out that dude" will mean a woman.
It will always be "neutral" or masculine.
And that's not neutral.
I have zero interest in fake neutrality
That's because context matters.
"You're shit" and "You're the shit" mean completely different things
Of course. No one literally thinks that "dude" always means man.
The issue isn't the obvious truth of the different meanings. The issue is that those different meanings aren't neutral like they claim to be, because they rely on the idea of men being the "default" state of people.
There's a reason there isn't exactly a large number of words in use that can men "woman" and "everybody" and that's because most men would be uncomfortable with that.
Yet somehow, the opposite is fine?
Your points in this thread are certainly implying that "dude" is always a man. When you say "if a word is either neutral or masc, then it's not neutral", then you're literally saying it always is masc.
So, neutrality is a spectrum? How do you define the different parts of the neutrality spectrum?
That's a claim that needs some data to back up.
I don't give a single shit about what they think. Why should anyone?
I mean, clearly you do. If you didn't give a shit, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
And just like you, enough people "give a shit" about man being a stand in for the default human, that despite literally thousands and years of language development not a single case of "woman as the default" has entered common usage.
That's what bias looks like.
Hot take alert... Bitch has seen to evolved similar to Australian's cunt at this point. "Women as the default" but it is still neutrally used.
Your examples of female-based neutral words are pejorative. Do you have examples not rooted in misogyny?
Queen
"Queen" by itself refers to either women or gay men. It is not gender neutral. "Drama queen" is applied to all genders, but, again, this example is pejorative toward women. Do you have any examples of women-centric language that can refer to all genders, but that is not negative toward women?
I think we would need to clarify on what your definition of gender neutral is before continuing. I would consider it gender neutral because I and the people I hang around would use the term with a person regardless of their gender. Maybe that's exclusive to us but also you defined more than one gender that can be described by the term so a looser definition of gender neutral would still apply. Women and men (even though they are gay) are very clearly two different genders.
I find your perspective and words judgemental, assumptive, and accusatory.
I can see no evidence of a good faith discussion from your end, so I will no longer continue with you.
I hope these words might help you move beyond the veil that causes you to be so assumptive: