This is why we should just call them "he". They even take your pandering as an insult.

submitted by usehername from (twitter.com)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]usehername[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

I somehow missed these from one of your earlier posts:

If we start doing that, we should get rid of racial identifying words, like "Chinese" and make everyone who speak English call themselves English names.

That is a completely different line of "logic" and totally irrelevant to the subject at hand.

So it doesn't affect your ability to think without bias. Good. The system is not broken.

I don't speak for all English speakers.

On to your most recent reply...

Perhaps you should actually ask men around the world, instead of just simply absorbing straight from feminist articles (yes, this one is an assumption).

Yeah, and it was a false assumption. Most men already think like that (they are default and women are deviations from them), as evidenced by all Abrahamic religions. Having it built into the language simply further cements that idea in their minds. Feminist articles... ffs. It became clear to myself and many other native English-speaking women when were little girls, coming to understand the language. In general, men think women are like another species, totally alien to them, and the English language places them as the default human while women are the strange "others". I got this perspective from listening and speaking with many men and reading their forums. Again, my point is that while obviously male-default language didn't invent women's oppression, it is clearly a symptom of and a contributing factor to it.

I put forth evidence that female rights have been achieved despite the language being "sexist".

And I never argued that female rights couldn't be achieved despite language being sexist so what's your point? You're not trying to prove it isn't sexist, you just don't think it's a big deal.

Culture dictated the formation of language, but it didn't make it oppressive

Obviously the language is reflecting the oppression of the culture, but changing language can influence culture.

gender-specific advantages offered to women

Like what?

My conclusion is fair,

Lmao. You are employing a logical fallacy. Correlation does not equal causation. Also, the statement of fact in your conclusion:

female status has elevated much higher than many Asian and third-world countries (e.g. China, Japan) for many years

Does not stand in opposition to my claim:

Male-default language is both a symptom of and a contributing factor to women's oppression.

Qualifiers:

This does not mean that male-default language is the only contributing factor, or even one of the biggest contributing factors to women's oppression. This does not mean that it's impossible for women to accomplish anything or have feminist movements when they speak a language that uses male as the default.

I feel like you're not understanding me because you keep saying things that are totally irrelevant and erroneous. I'm also guessing English isn't your first language?

[–]TheOnyxGoddess 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

That is a completely different line of "logic" and totally irrelevant to the subject at hand.

Your line of argument is about trying to change a gender identifying word to be gender neutral will help stop contributing to oppression. I'm comparing it to racial identifying words and changing them to be non-racial identifying help stop racism. Your reasoning for a single word change is ridiculous.

I don't speak for all English speakers.

I wasn't asking about other English speakers, I was asking about you specifically. It means the system isn't broken that we're all affected by bias when talking to another.

Yeah, and it was a false assumption. Most men already think like that (they are default and women are deviations from them), as evidenced by all Abrahamic religions.

Abrahamic religions are based off outdated thinking, they don't actually reflect how most men think, unless you're from an area where Abrahamic religion is often preached and the men are so closed off from the world. If this is America I would believe it and would find it somewhat surprising because a lot of the western progressive movements happened in America.

It became clear to myself and many other native English-speaking women when were little girls, coming to understand the language. In general, men think women are like another species, totally alien to them, and the English language places them as the default human while women are the strange "others". I got this perspective from listening and speaking with many men and reading their forums. Again, my point is that while obviously male-default language didn't invent women's oppression, it is clearly a symptom of and a contributing factor to it.

I was born and raised in Australia and grew up with English as my primary language and religion is not well emphasised in my upbringing (and not well emphasised in my area). English is not oppressive. However it just sounds like you were raised in a way more sexist environment than me and stumbled onto websites where males congregate where they can objectify and speak bullshit about women, that doesn't mean they're a majority (I'm not saying there's not much of them either).

From what I've seen both females and males have been trying to treat each other like a different species for many years, but with the rise of feminism in the early 2000s, that differentiation is reducing and people care less if you're a girl and care more if you're a weaker entity to attack (mybissies withbsociety in general).

And I never argued that female rights couldn't be achieved despite language being sexist so what's your point? You're not trying to prove it isn't sexist, you just don't think it's a big deal.

You made a claim that English is oppressive and changing that will help fix the oppresssion. I'm saying it's not a big deal and feminist have changed society more than the English language have changed since a century ago. I never actually accused you of saying female rights can't be achieved without changing the language.

Lmao. You are employing a logical fallacy. Correlation does not equal causation. Also, the statement of fact in your conclusion:

Lmao, you think I'm employing correlation as causation. No, that would imply that I'm arguing that there is a "link", I'm actually outright stating as a fact that feminists movement elevated the female status and will continue to elevate the female status despite the language being sexist and it's been proven in western first-world countries. We've basically made "female" look so good that more men even want to be us if that says anything.

a contributing factor to women's oppression.

You still haven't proven that. You're still making a claim and not supporting it. At least I put forth something that was actually concrete.

Edit: Wording

[–]usehername[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Abrahamic religions are based off outdated thinking, they don't actually reflect how most men think, unless you're from an area where Abrahamic religion is often preached and the men are so closed off from the world. If this is America I would believe it and would find it somewhat surprising because a lot of the western progressive movements happened in America.

The majority of the adults in the U.S. (where I'm from) are Christian, which is an Abrahamic religion.

it just sounds like you were raised in a way more sexist environment than me

I have found that my experience is the norm, even when speaking to women from other states and countries. Where are you from?

it just sounds like you were raised in a way more sexist environment than me and stumbled onto websites where males congregate where they can objectify and speak bullshit about women, that doesn't mean they're a majority.

As I specifically said, this is also from having close relationships with and spending time around many males. Is your argument that males in general are not sexist? You're not being clear. Pretty much all you've said so far is: we're doing well enough without changing the language. It's fine if that's your point of view, but you haven't tried to prove that changing the language would have no effect or a negative effect, and you're arguing against all sorts of things that aren't my argument.

English is not oppressive.

Prove it then.

We've basically made "female" look so good that more men even want to be us if that says anything.

Lmao men who want to be women are either:

  1. Gay and effeminate, so they want to escape homophobia,

  2. AGPs who have it as part of their humiliation fetish because they consider womanhood the most degrading thing there is,

  3. MRAs who think women have it easy.

There's nothing feminist about it.

I'm actually outright stating as a fact that feminists movement elevated the female status and will continue to elevate the female status despite the language being sexist

I already specifically singled that comment out and agreed with it (though you cut that part out of your quote), but it still doesn't disprove my point, so why emphasize it again?

If you haven't noticed that English is sexist or you don't think it's a big deal, that's fine, but you're not being clear in your argument. Here is a study on the negative effects of sexism in language:

https://oxfordre.com/communication/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228613-e-470

[–]TheOnyxGoddess 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I have found that my experience is the norm, even when speaking to women from other states and countries. Where are you from?

Australia (largely misogynistc, though less gender crazy than the U.S)

Prove it then.

You prove your point first. You were the one who made a claim about English and I've been arguing against it.

If you haven't noticed that English is sexist or you don't think it's a big deal, that's fine, but you're not being clear in your argument. Here is a study on the negative effects of sexism in language:

I've been saying it's not oppressive. Thinking "man" as the default is not oppressive. The action of thinking "man" first is not oppressive.

Lmao men who want to be women are either:

Gay and effeminate, so they want to escape homophobia,

AGPs who have it as part of their humiliation fetish because they consider womanhood the most degrading thing there is,

MRAs who think women have it easy.

There's nothing feminist about it.

Based off what the TIs are saying, that is not the case.

Lmao. You are employing a logical fallacy. Correlation does not equal causation. Also, the statement of fact in your conclusion

You said this specific quote in response to my wording:

Considering that the word "man" is the default in many first-world westerner's mind and female status has elevated much higher than many Asian and third-world countries (e.g. China, Japan) for many years, it would mean that language has zero impact on oppression.

...My conclusion is fair, especially if you look at gender-specific advantages offered to women and looked at the feminist movements all over the world.

Considering that you agreed with the first paragraph and have no idea my conclusion was actually referring to the second paragraph, I would say you have read my response out of context and have no idea what I was actually talking about.

[–]usehername[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

You prove your point first. You were the one who made a claim about English and I've been arguing against it.

I cited the study.

Based off what the TIs are saying, that is not the case.

TI? Trans-identified? If so you are just wrong and there are a thousand examples on this very sub.

Considering that you agreed with the first paragraph and have no idea my conclusion was actually referring to the second paragraph, I would say you have read my response out of context and have no idea what I was actually talking about.

I'm gonna spell it out for you one more time and then I'm done. You've been misunderstanding me and/or strawmanning my argument the entire time. Yes, feminist movements have accomplished things despite sexism in the English language. I linked my study and here's another:

http://scholarsmepub.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/SJHSS-26459-461.pdf

Just because feminist movements are doing well doesn't mean English isn't sexist.

[–]TheOnyxGoddess 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I cited the study.

As far as I've seen, you haven't. Post the link.

Yes, feminist movements have accomplished things despite sexism in the English language. I linked my study and here's another:

You're just pointing out my comment, your original argument was:

"only thing we'd need to do is refer to men as weremen. No other words would need to change."

"I'm arguing that males shouldn't be the default, and that the word "man" should be kept and considered gender-neutral, while we call men something else."

I've been arguing why we don't need to make a change.

TI? Trans-identified? If so you are just wrong and there are a thousand examples on this very sub.

That's not how you investigate and argue. You theorise it's because they're effeminate, MRAs and other crap, but that's not what they're arguing. You need to look at their points and argue against their points. This sub so far has shown that TI's just love to pretend to be women for ridiculous sexist reasons.

[–]usehername[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

As far as I've seen, you haven't. Post the link.

It's at the bottom of my message that begins with:

The majority of the adults in the U.S. (where I'm from) are Christian, which is an Abrahamic religion.

But I'll post it again:

https://oxfordre.com/communication/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228613-e-470

And I added this one in the next message, but I'll go ahead and post that one again too:

http://scholarsmepub.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/SJHSS-26459-461.pdf

You're just pointing out my comment, your original argument was:

"y thing we'd need to do is refer to men as weremen. No other words would need to change."

"I'm arguing that males shouldn't be the default, and that the word "man" should be kept and considered gender-neutral, while we call men something else."

That's called a suggestion, not an argument. You were the one who started arguing with me saying English isn't sexist, which I argued against and provided proof for while you provided nothing.

That's not how you investigate and argue. You theorise it's because they're effeminate, MRAs and other crap, but that's not what they're arguing. You need to look at their points and argue against their points. This sub so far has shown that TI's just love to pretend to be women for ridiculous sexist reasons.

I asked you a question which you didn't respond to, but based on your response, I'm guessing the answer is yes. As for this part specifically:

You theorise it's because they're effeminate, MRAs and other crap, but that's not what they're arguing.

HSTS (homosexual transsexuals like Laverne Cox and Blaire White) and some other types of trans argue that they are women because of their "lady brains", which has been disproven, and I do bring that up in fights with actual TRAs, but I didn't think I'd need to explain that to you. There are other points that they make that I have evidence against, but again, I'm not arguing with a TRA, am I? Are you just trolling?

That's not how you investigate and argue.

I obviously look at other sources besides this sub, but I told you to check this sub because it's a huge compilation of evidence of how they think. Better yet, check the trans and MRA reddit subs for yourself. I'm right. I also have personal experience with these people, but the proof of how they think is easily accessible online.

[–]TheOnyxGoddess 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

That's called a suggestion, not an argument. You were the one who started arguing with me saying English isn't sexist, which I argued against and provided proof for while you provided nothing.

I've been saying it's not oppressive, (yes, English is sexist, I agree with that, not oppressive, there's a difference between the two) and that we don't need to change it.

If you're not arguing, then why did you say this:

"I'm not arguing that "man" shouldn't be the default. I'm arguing that males shouldn't be the default, and that the word "man" should be kept and considered gender-neutral, while we call men something else"

You're lying at this point.

But I'll post it again:

https://oxfordre.com/communication/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228613-e-470

And I added this one in the next message, but I'll go ahead and post that one again too:

http://scholarsmepub.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/SJHSS-26459-461.pdf

Those two sources are actually essays, NOT STUDIES (studies, papers which show research, surveys). The author made claims and used several sources to back them up. There's a difference between collecting raw data and interpeting and simply reading someone else's interpretation of them. You might as well blindly believe the bible.

Better yet, check the trans and MRA reddit subs for yourself. I'm right. I also have personal experience with these people, but the proof of how they think is easily accessible online.

Your research methodology is flawed. In research, you're meant to propose a hypothesis, develop a way to measure the demograph, collect and interpret data. You've outright assumed majority of male attitudes are misogynistic (I honestly don't see the problem with that until you start advertising it as fact).

Lmao men who want to be women are either:

Gay and effeminate, so they want to escape homophobia,

AGPs who have it as part of their humiliation fetish because they consider womanhood the most degrading thing there is,

MRAs who think women have it easy.

This is why I say your research methodology is flawed, you clearly ignored what TI's are actually saying and didn't differentiate between their argument and their motives (interesting how you didn't list that some are just misinformed and mislead). TRAs (including TIs) use their stated delusion, pseudoscience and emotion based arguments to get the government to settle on their proposed policies, along with this. Argue against their claims. Their fetishes is what we mock in our own time.

TI? Trans-identified? If so you are just wrong and there are a thousand examples on this very sub.

I am talking about Trans-Identified.

Edit: Wording

[–]usehername[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I've explained enough. Have a good one.

[–]TheOnyxGoddess 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You technically haven't. It's people like you are why the feminist movement have lost respect, you don't know the difference between a study and an opinion and have decided to blindly agree whatever feminist academic say with no critical thought to it whatsoever. Enjoy being brainwashed.