English, gender and God

Mister Pamboli responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

What pronoun would you suggest one use to refer to Mr. Einstein?

​

I keep asking this over and over, but nobody seems to answer it.

---

​

Most everyone has answered it in their own way.

---

No, they have done everything they can to avoid answering it. You took the tack of asking why I asked the question. Crashfrog talks about the claim that Mr. Einstein's sex is known.But nobody actually gives me the specific word that ought to be used.That's what I'm getting at.I really want to know. What pronoun would you suggest one use to describe Mr. Einstein?

quote:

---

I addressed it over 60 posts ago in message 19.

---

Um, I'm looking at post 19 and it's by crashfrog, not you.I don't recall you giving me a word. I'm asking you for a word. A single word. Not paragraphs of justification for why my question doesn't apply. A single word.What pronoun would you suggest one use to describe Mr. Einstein?

quote:

---

Just because you didn't get an answer in the terms you would like, doesn't mean it wasn't answered.

---

Just because you gave a response doesn't mean you gave an answer.If I look at my cat and I ask him, "What should I have for dinner?" and he meows at me, has he given me an answer?

quote:

---

The correct answer to an irrelevant question can be to point out its irrelevance;

---

But you haven't demonstrated, at least not to my satisfaction, that the question is irrelevant. I find it very relevant. So relevant, in fact, that I wonder why you are doing everything you can to avoid answering it directly.

quote:

---

and the trouble is, no one but you thinks your question is in any way relevant to the matter in hand.

---

Argumentum ad populum.Just because two million people do a dumb thing, it's still a dumb thing.The veracity of an argument is not related to the number of people who advocate it.

quote:

---

Further, in over 60 posts you have falied to persuade any of us that it should be.

---

And in over 60 posts, the three of you have failed to persuade me that it isn't.But surely you aren't arguing that because it's three against one that makes it true, are you?

quote:

---

The matter under discussion has nothing to do with a pronoun used in passing of one whose gender is not in question - the issue has to do with attitudes to pronouns used when gender is the very issue at hand.

---

Wait just a parboiled second.When was it determined that the gender is at issue?Fine...I guess I do need to back up one level:What sex does Paul think god is?And if you don't know, who are you to tell him that his pronoun is wrong?

quote:

---

The question you should be asking is more like What pronoun would one use of one when referring to Jaye Davidson's character in The Crying Game?

---

That depends upon the person doing the referring, doesn't it?If the person sees the character as male since the character has a penis, then the pronoun is "he." If the person sees the character as female since the character lives as a woman despite having a penis or is perceived as a woman, then the pronoun is "she."See how simple that was? You asked for a pronoun and I gave you the specific ones.Now how about you doing the same for me:What pronoun would you suggest one use to describe Mr. Einstein?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

crashfrog responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Does the mere fact that the same word is used for both inherently mean bias?

---

​

I think the answer is here is clearly "yes". Such a usage implies a worldview (as that held by Greek philosophers) that masculinity was the "normal" state, and that femininity was a deviation from that - and therefore ultimately inferior.

---

But the words aren't derived from Greek.And how can it possibly be "clear" if we're arguing over it? How can it be "clear" when so many people, even you, I might add, use words that can be used as masculine as also being neuter?

quote:

---

The use of "he" in reference to ungendered objects clearly perpetuates that view.

---

Only if one assumes that it was that way to begin with.What if it isn't?

quote:

---

Ergo, sexism in the language.

---

Then it is impossible to make a non-sexist statement.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

crashfrog responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

If the language is sexist and Paul used the language, what does that make Paul?

---

​

Not sexist. Duh.

---

Then you're saying that it is impossible to make a non-sexist statement.

quote:

---

If you tell me that Walt Disney's body is cryogenically frozen, which you absolutely believe to be true, does that make you a liar? No, it doesn't.

---

How does it make you a liar, though?Oh...that's right...you go outside the statement to make a verification to see if it is accurate.Thus, if we can show that the terms used are not necessarily sexist, then not only is the person uttering the statement not sexist, but the language isn't, either.You're behaving as if "he" in the neuter is equivalent to "black" meaning "white."

quote:

---

Sexists are people who knowingly promulgate sexisim.

---

Since language cannot "knowingly promulgate" anything, being an inanimate thing, it cannot be sexist.

quote:

---

Everyone agrees that to be guilty of an immoral elocutionary act, you have to know that the act is immoral. Just like any other immoral or offensive act.

---

And if the person isn't sexist and the object cannot be sexist, where is the sexism?

quote:

---

quote:

---

After all, Paul was not talking about the "common perception" but rather his own.

---

​

Paul was in fact rejecting another person's view of god's gender, not advancing his own.

---

How is rejecting someone else's view not simultaneously advancing your own?Question: How did Paul reject MP's view?That's right...by saying, in essence, "No, god is male."

quote:

---

quote:

---

How can descriptions of Paul's usage not be a reflection of Paul?

---

​

Why would it be?

---

Because it was Paul's usage. The comment was made specifically to talk about Paul's reaction.I sense a "love the sinner, hate the sin" attitude.

quote:

---

The description wasn't of Paul's unique usage but rather usage in general.

---

So you're saying it was a non sequitur.

quote:

---

quote:

---

What pronoun would you suggest one use to describe Mr. Einstein?

---

​

Albert Einstein had a penis.

---

I didn't ask that.Could you please answer the question I asked?What pronoun would you suggest one use to describe Mr. Einstein?

quote:

---

I don't think even Paul believes this to be true for god.

---

How do you know?And if you don't, who are you to tell Paul that he's wrong in his choice of pronoun?

quote:

---

What's the relevance here?

---

Because there was an accusation of sexism made. Unjustified, in my opinion.The specific question, as you may recall, is in reference to a paper a friend of mine had submitted to his Rhetoric class, graded by a TA who was a bit too sensitive about "sexist language" and marked him down for using the pronoun "he"...to refer to Albert Einstein.Well, what pronoun would you suggest one use to refer to Mr. Einstein?Is it sexism to refer to Einstein as "he"?Is the language "sexist" to refer to masculine things as "he"?So if Paul sees god as masculine, where is the sexism in his statement that refers to god as "he" and finds the use of "she" to be incorrect?

quote:

---

We're not talking about what Paul thinks about god, but what is appropriate for Paul to say about others who think differently about god.

---

Paul can't argue with you about whether god is a "he"?I'm not saying he's done a very good job at justifying himself. I'm simply asking why it is necessarily sexist to insist that god is a "he."If one follows the New Testament, it would appear that god is, indeed, a "he." All the terminology makes reference to god as masculine. For crying out loud, god visits a woman and has her conceive.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Back up and read again - that's not what happened. Paul told us that the use of "she" was ridiculous (by rolling his eyes). So, who is he to tell us we're wrong?Or have you forgotten what started this whole thing?

You haven't proved that "he" in the language is truly neuter. At least not to my satisfaction. I don't believe that human beings can concieve of intelligent beings who are ungendered, at least in some broad metaphorical sense. Even if they say they do, I don't think they truly are. Careful with that - that's the kind of thinking that leads to the fallacy of false alternatives. In fact that's exactly what you've done - you've equated "god is not female" with "god is male". It is possible - however hard to imagine - that god has no gendered qualities. So they both could be wrong.Paul rejected "God is female" with his eye-roll. He didn't support "God is male" with that action. Are you so dense you can't see my implicature? I said Einstein had a penis. What pronoun do you use when you refer to persons with penises?Also, another question - when somebody really, really goads you into answering a very specific question with one obvious answer, a question they refuse to answer themselves, doesn't it look like a trap to you?So, given that we're on opposing sides, what would make you think any of us were so stupid as to walk right into whatever trap you were planning to spring on us? If it's so important, answer your own damn question. The sexism is in his refusal to grant a difference of opinion about god's gender anything more than a summary dismissal via eye-rolling.It's not sexist to disagree. It's sexist to act like an ass about it.[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 05-14-2003]

quote:

---

Hold it right there.

---

Calm down. I said up front that it wasn't clear to what you were getting at.

quote:

---

I am saying it isn't but instead it can be used in a biased manner.

---

Why not the possibility that the use of 'he' as a neuter is biased, but can be, and these days probably always is, used in an unbiased way?

quote:

---

So if I understand that definition and I am clear in my usage that that is the meaning I intend by that usage, by what justification is there for someone else to come along and say that I am being biased?

---

I don't think anyone has accused you of personally being biased. It is nonetheless possible to have a bias in the language you use.

quote:

---

I am saying that the language isn't biased, but the person is and will use the language accordingly.

---

How do you use 'he' and 'she' 'accordingly?' There isn't much wiggle room in English. Obviously female things, like females, are refered to as 'she.' Everything else is 'he' with a few exceptions-- ships, sports cars, that sort of thing. It is precisely this usage pattern that can be considered a bias.

quote:

---

But you're assuming that the language is biased to begin with.

---

I am assuming that the language embodies certain patterns reflecting the thoughts of its past speakers in its vocabulary and syntax. These patterns are taught to new speakers of the language, who in turn cause changes in the language via usage and pass that changed language along.

quote:

---

What if it isn't?

---

How can it not be? Bias is just a reflection of the language's history. Whether a moral judgement is made about that history is another thing altogether.

quote:

---

What if the language understands the difference between "he" in the neuter and "he" in the masculine?

---

How can the language 'understand' anything? The understanding is in the brains which created it and which use it, but the structure of a language is robust enough that patterns of thought get passed along for quite some time.

quote:

---

Does the mere fact that the same word is used for both inherently mean bias?

---

Well... yeah, in a sense. The brain works a lot more by association than by logic. Things named with the same word are associated. Not very long ago a poster here objected to the term 'apologetic.' I pointed out that it comes from a word meaning 'to defend publically' and that it does not derive from the English 'apologize.' The two were associated because of the similarity in the terms. It isn't logical. It isn't historically accurate. But there you go. The association was made. That's the way brains work.

quote:

---

But only if you assume there is salt in the water to begin with.

---

There is always salt in the water. That salt is the history of the language. This is quite a justified assumption.

quote:

---

And if the history of the language isn't that, what then?

---

History is bias. But bias can also be due to the tendency to associate similar things. I won't argue that it is reasonable, but it does appear to be fact.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Rh: What pronoun would you suggest one use to refer to Mr. Einstein?
I keep asking this over and over, but nobody seems to answer it.
...
But nobody actually gives me the specific word that ought to be used.

---

This is priceless. Later in the post I asked what pronoun Rh would use to describe an apparent transgender character in a movie. His answer was ...

quote:

---

If the person sees the character as male since the character has a penis, then the pronoun is "he." If the person sees the character as female since the character lives as a woman despite having a penis or is perceived as a woman, then the pronoun is "she."
See how simple that was? You asked for a pronoun and I gave you the specific ones.

---

Note the specific ones. Rh's answer is basically the same as an earlier one I gave in post 19 about the pronoun one would use for God: I think they should use the pronoun they prefer.So the answer to all these questions is that one should use, not one specific pronoun, but the pronoun one thinks appropriate. I cannot suggest that one use a specific pronoun about Einstein unless I want to comment on Einstein's gender. The question is in fact an example of a many questions construction - because the real issue would be better phrased as What gender do you believe Einstein to have been, and, given that gender, what pronoun would you suggest one use to refer to him? Thus, Rh's claim that we are avoiding his straightforward question is disingenuous - we are avoiding his misleadingly straightforward question, which hides the issue which is really under discussion. That's what I am getting at.

quote:

---

I really want to know. What pronoun would you suggest one use to describe Mr. Einstein?

---

If one sees Einstein as male for whatever reason then the pronoun I would recommend is he. If the person sees Einstein as female for whatever reason, or example this writer http://members.cts.com/king/n/ndanger/980428/einstein.htm, then the pronoun I would recommend is she.
See how simple that was? You asked for a pronoun and I gave you the specific ones.

quote:

---

Um, I'm looking at post 19 and it's by crashfrog, not you.

---

Look again.

quote:

---

I don't recall you giving me a word. I'm asking you for a word. A single word.

---

No single word, a choice of words depending on the speaker's view of Einstein's gender - just as in your answer, an approach I commend.

quote:

---

... you haven't demonstrated, at least not to my satisfaction, that the question is irrelevant. I find it very relevant. So relevant, in fact, that I wonder why you are doing everything you can to avoid answering it directly.

---

I wish I knew why you find it relevant. I'm at a loss to see how one can extrapolate from a usage about Einstein to a usage in a case where a gender pronoun is actually being called into question.

quote:

---

Argumentum ad populum.

---

No - this was not an argumentum ad populum. An argumentum ad populum would be to claim the truth of the proposition on the basis of the population supporting it. You may be right and we may be wrong - our numbers have nothing to do with it. But the fact that none of us on this thread, except you, believes your question about Einstein to be relevant, explains why no one is answering it. It was answering your question about Einstein that was the subject of that point, not the more general proposition about appropriate pronouns.

quote:

---

And in over 60 posts, the three of you have failed to persuade me that it isn't.
But surely you aren't arguing that because it's three against one that makes it true, are you?

---

Absolutely not. Never would. But it does explain why the discussion is going the way it is.

quote:

---

When was it determined that the gender is at issue?

---

When Paul eye-rolled the word She used of God.

quote:

---

And if you don't know, who are you to tell him that his pronoun is wrong?

---

Actually, he implied my pronoun was wrong.[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 05-15-2003]

crashfrog responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

And if you don't know, who are you to tell him that his pronoun is wrong?

---

​

Back up and read again - that's not what happened.

---

Back up and read again: You're arguing a point I'm not making.

quote:

---

Paul told us that the use of "she" was ridiculous (by rolling his eyes). So, who is he to tell us we're wrong?

---

Because Paul has his opinion as to the characteristics of god.I think I need to remind you, yet again, that I am not defending Paul. I am not agreeing with him that god is male. Nor am I agreeing with MP that god doesn't have a sex as we perceive it.What I am saying is that given Paul's opinion that god is male, then it is not unusual to hear him refer to god as "he" nor is it sexist for him to do so.Whether or not you agree with Paul's conclusion that god is male is irrelevant. It has no bearing on whether or not there is sexism in calling god "he" since, as I continually ask and never get an answer, what pronoun would you suggest one use to refer to Mr. Einstein?Now, if you don't know that Paul thinks of god as male, then it's an even flimsier call to cry sexism since it is an argument based upon no evidence. Given that there is a completely valid reason to call god "he," whether or not you agree with that conclusion that god is male, it is inappropriate to cry sexism.Again, I am not defending Paul's view...simply acknowledging its existence and interpreting the logical results given it. If a person were to think that god is male, we should not be surprised to see him refer to god as "he." And when faced with someone who calls god "she," we should not be surprised to find some sort of reaction to this. Note, I am not saying that Paul's specific reaction was commendable (for the umpteenth time, I am not defending Paul!) I am simply pointing out that we should not be surprised by a person who thinks of god as male having some sort of reaction to seeing god referred to as "she."To cry sexism because of that response is to jump to conclusions.

quote:

---

Or have you forgotten what started this whole thing?

---

No, I haven't.You seem to have forgotten what it is I'm arguing about. You seem to think that I am trying to defend Paul.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

It's pretty easy to arrive at that conclusion when you consistently defend his pronoun use, dispite than being not at all relevant to the issue. Yeah, to jump to the conclusion that Paul, while he might be otherwise a great guy, for some reason feels it's ok to disparage an identification of supreme cosmic authority with a female rather than male gender. When people do this we usually call it sexist, because it is.So, Paul's comment was sexist. Therefore the question is, is Paul sexist? Or did he just use sexist language without thinking about its implications? Actually the question is "which one of those does Schraf think?" I think she's given her answer. Clearly she wasn't at all "surprised" by Paul's response - her comments have suggested that she encounters it all the time, as have I - but that doesn't mean such a response should escape without comment.Einstien's gender is not germaine. That's the third time I've personally answered the question so your repeated claims that no one is answering is beginning to look a little hollow. We're not giving you the answer you clearly want, because we're not idiots.

crashfrog responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

You're behaving as if "he" in the neuter is equivalent to "black" meaning "white."

---

​

You haven't proved that "he" in the language is truly neuter. At least not to my satisfaction.

---

Then what would it take?How about your own words?You, yourself, used "man" in the neuter. That would appear to me, at least, that you have some sort of understanding that words like "he" and "man" have neuter meanings, that context is an indicator of when those words are being used in the neuter and when they are being used in the masculine, and that other people are aware of those meanings and distinctions.If you aren't going to believe yourself, who are you going to believe?

quote:

---

I don't believe that human beings can concieve of intelligent beings who are ungendered, at least in some broad metaphorical sense. Even if they say they do, I don't think they truly are.

---

Irrelevant. What you think is not at issue. It is what Paul thinks.Paul thinks god is male.Therefore, where is the sexism in then calling god "he"?

quote:

---

quote:

---

How is rejecting someone else's view not simultaneously advancing your own?

---

​

Careful with that - that's the kind of thinking that leads to the fallacy of false alternatives.

---

Incorrect. You're assuming that "your own" is one of definition rather than one of indefinition.That is, one can say god is male, one can say god is female, one can say god has no gender, one can say god transcends gender, and I'm sure there are other possibilities I haven't mentioned.But by saying that one of those is wrong, it necessarily means that you think something else is right...even if that something else is "we cannot know."

quote:

---

In fact that's exactly what you've done - you've equated "god is not female" with "god is male".

---

Incorrect. I have done no such thing. Let me remind you, once again, that I am not defending Paul.And make no mistake, this is all about Paul's opinions. Mine are irrelevant. Paul thinks god is male. Thus, why are you surprised to find that Paul refers to god as "he"? And given that Paul thinks god is male, why the shock to find him react to someone saying that god is "she"? Indeed, one might hope that Paul maintain some politeness and not roll his eyes, but how is the fact that he did indicative of sexism? How is it not further indicative of Paul's thoughts that god is male?How is it sexist to refer to males as "he"? And to react when those refer to males as "she"?

quote:

---

It is possible - however hard to imagine - that god has no gendered qualities. So they both could be wrong.

---

Indeed.Do you seriously think Paul thinks so?If not, if it is apparent tht Paul thinks god is male, why the cry of sexism?And if you truly have no idea what Paul thinks, how can there be any justification of a claim of sexism?

quote:

---

Paul rejected "God is female" with his eye-roll. He didn't support "God is male" with that action.

---

Yes, he did. Paul used "he" to refer to god. An eyeroll in reaction to "she" is even more indicative of that...especially when it comes with no commentary that god transcends gender or some such.Do you seriously think Paul thinks god is something other than male?

quote:

---

quote:

---

What pronoun would you suggest one use to describe Mr. Einstein?

---

​

Are you so dense you can't see my implicature?

---

Yes.I want you to say it out loud. I can't force you to. I want to hear it from you, however, that you honestly and truly believe that Mr. Einstein is male then results in people referring to Mr. Einstein as "he."Why is it so hard for you to do this?

quote:

---

I said Einstein had a penis. What pronoun do you use when you refer to persons with penises?

---

Depends. For many people, simply having a penis does not mean you are male. Ask a MtF, pre-op transsexual about it.

quote:

---

Also, another question - when somebody really, really goads you into answering a very specific question with one obvious answer, a question they refuse to answer themselves, doesn't it look like a trap to you?

---

Yes, it does.And when someone avoids what is so truly simple a question, doesn't it look to you like they really can't support their argument?Oh, and by the way...I did answer the question. Mister Pamboli asked me a very similar question quite directly and I gave him a direct answer, indicating the specific pronouns to be used.And I don't recall it normally being a requirement for a person to answer his own questions. After all, I know what I think. It's your thoughts I am trying to understand. If you want me to answer the question, why don't you ask it?

quote:

---

So, given that we're on opposing sides, what would make you think any of us were so stupid as to walk right into whatever trap you were planning to spring on us?

---

Intellectual honesty. Integrity. Courage of one's convictions.You know, all those things that are required for meaningful discussion. After all, if you are willing to discuss the subject honestly and with integrity, even if you are sure you are right, then being led down the primrose path is not a horrible thing. You might learn something.

quote:

---

If it's so important, answer your own damn question.

---

But I already know my response. It's yours I don't know because you keep refusing to answer the question.

quote:

---

quote:

---

where is the sexism in his statement that refers to god as "he" and finds the use of "she" to be incorrect?

---

​

The sexism is in his refusal to grant a difference of opinion about god's gender anything more than a summary dismissal via eye-rolling.

---

You mean cries of sexism are to be honored above reality? We really ought to refer to Mr. Einstein as "he or she"?Again, you seem to be of the opinion that your view of the world is the only valid one and anybody who disagrees with you is being sexist. You are refusing to accept that other people have differing opinions and thus will have different ways of comporting themselves.What pronoun would you suggest one use to refer to Mr. Einstein?

quote:

---

It's not sexist to disagree. It's sexist to act like an ass about it.

---

You mean it is sexist to insist upon reality? It is sexist to refer to Mr. Einstein by a single, specific, gendered pronoun?Remember, what you think of the gender of god is irrelevant. It is what Paul thinks that is important as it is Paul who is making the utterance. Whether or not you believe him is irrelevant. Paul has his beliefs and we should expect him to behave in accordance with those beliefs.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Actually it's a sexist habit that I'm not proud of, but habits are hard to change since they're not deliberate.I have an understanding that, while "he" and "man" may have a neuter usage on the surface, they rarely communicate a neuter meaning - listeners to those words rarely find them inclusive to women at first glance. Therefore I find their usage in neuter situations inappropriate. Sometimes, however, I'm typing so fast it's a pain to go back and fix my own usage. Not much of an excuse but there it is. But isn't it reasonable to expect him to at the very least entertain beliefs different than his own? Instead of rejecting them without argument? Or, as Schraf did, articulate the possibility that his beliefs are not concious choices but simply habits ingrained in language?

quote:

---

Rhhain: What I am saying is that given Paul's opinion that god is male, then it is not unusual to hear him refer to god as "he" nor is it sexist for him to do so.

---

Actually, there was no objection whatsoever to Paul's use of a pronoun - it was Paul's objection to my use that was commented on.

quote:

---

I continually ask and never get an answer, what pronoun would you suggest one use to refer to Mr. Einstein?

---

You have been answered fully and in some detail by me, at least. It is still beside the point. The relevant questions would be more like If it is clear that two people hold different views about Einstein's gender, what should the reaction of one of them be to the other's usage, and, if that reaction should be critical, how should the other party, in turn, react.I appreciate you might prefer to tackle a reduced subset of these, but unfortunately the tack you are taking is simplistic rather than simplified.

quote:

---

I am simply pointing out that we should not be surprised by a person who thinks of god as male having some sort of reaction to seeing god referred to as "she."

---

I'm sure crash, schraf and I were not surprised. We kinda expect it due to the ingrained sexism of the language, as we see it's effects, and possibly even fall victim to it ourselves, from time to time.

quote:

---

You, yourself, used "man" in the neuter. That would appear to me, at least, that you have some sort of understanding that words like "he" and "man" have neuter meanings ... If you aren't going to believe yourself, who are you going to believe?

---

Crahsfrog gives another excellent example of ingrained sexism, as I'm sure crashy won't be in the slightest offended by that, or take it as an accusation. I found myself this morning betraying some surprise that the plumber who came to fix our sauna was, in fact, a woman. Her reaction - of distinct, slight, but tolerant offense - was appropriate and measured, just like schraf's.

quote:

---

Paul thinks god is male. Therefore, where is the sexism in then calling god "he"?

---

No sexism in that - but sexism in criticising my usage of She

quote:

---

How is it sexist to refer to males as "he"? And to react when those refer to males as "she"?

---

It depends on the reaction, and it depends on the extent to which the user of he is confident of the maleness of the referent, or aware of differing views of the gender of the referrent. If the reaction was It's interesting that you say She. Can you tell me why? there would be no issue. Let's rephrase your question: How is it sexist to refer to what you believe to be males as "he"? And to react negatively when others refer to what you believe to be male as "she"? Doesn't appear quite so reasonable now does it?And then, of course, there is the chosen form of criticism: an eye-roll. There is no OED of body language, but I would be surprised if many here disagreed that an eye-roll in the context it was used implies a prior knowledge of the issue under contention, and it's contentiousness.

quote:

---

Oh, and by the way...I did answer the question. Mister Pamboli asked me a very similar question quite directly and I gave him a direct answer, indicating the specific pronouns to be used.

---

PronounS. You couldn't answer with one, but had to contextualise the response. Now why was that? Lack of honesty? Lack of integrity? Lack of courage? Or was it not appropriate to give a single pronoun? Perhaps the example could not be reduced to the simplistic level of your Einstein example?You are still trying to reduce this to a simplistic issue. Crashfrog, at the very least, has the intellectual integrity not to oversimplify an issue, nor to be browbeaten into taking a position that could be used to mislead others who may not follow the thread closely.

quote:

---

Rhhain: where is the sexism in his statement that refers to god as "he" and finds the use of "she" to be incorrect?
crash: The sexism is in his refusal to grant a difference of opinion about god's gender anything more than a summary dismissal via eye-rolling.
Rhhain: You mean cries of sexism are to be honored above reality? We really ought to refer to Mr. Einstein as "he or she"?

---

I cannot follow your reasoning here. What do you mean by honored above reality? What is the reality above which crash is honouring a cry of sexism? What on earth has your Einstein example to do with this?

quote:

---

Actually it's a sexist habit that I'm not proud of, but habits are hard to change since they're not deliberate.

​

I have an understanding that, while "he" and "man" may have a neuter usage on the surface, they rarely communicate a neuter meaning - listeners to those words rarely find them inclusive to women at first glance.

---

Exactly. I have observed that in my peer-group it is exclusively males who use man or mankind as encompassing terms, and that this usage rarely goes uncommented upon if women are present.I use the term encompassing rather than neuter because the usages refer to situations where males and females are included. If the terms were truly neuter to my peer group one could use them to refer to groups of females, such as this chemical appeared to cause cancer of the ovaries in Man. This usage stand out as extremely odd in my peer-group, though I am aware of many examples from earlier decades - examples which sound frankly comical today.

The most I can say for myself is that I don't use those terms in speech, only in print. Which is probably worse than the other way around, come to think of it - but I guess it just goes to show that one's speech and one's writing are different dialects.As you say, they're used as encompassing terms - but I can't imagine that a group of women, listening to a speaker (usually male) talk about "The Great Men of Science" or whatever, would feel all too terribly included.