I believe his complaint is that it's flipping stupid, a waste of time, resources and effort, and the militantism and vitriol it receives from the liberal elite puzzles us mere mortals who wonder wtf people aren't addressing the real issues like homelessness, financial inequality and the looming great turd that is hard brexit. There are far bigger fish to fry, and this is, by comparison, trivial.Originally Posted by opel80uk
wazzickle (22-10-2018)
How does Kleenex rebranding their Man-size products to Xtra Large impede dealing with homelessness? And besides, is your stance not hypocritical? If you ‘mere mortals’ are wondering why everyone else are not dealing with real issues (I presume you get to decide what are real issues?), why get involved and feel the need to comment about something so trivial in the first place, instead of dealing with those real issues that you’ve decided should be the only things ever talked about? Why is forum after forum filled up with people criticising the reasons why this woman and people like her tried to change something they felt needed changing, despite most of those forum posters admitting that it in no way affects them? I presume it’s because you posting here, much like me posting now, did not interfere with some paper either of us were completing that would solve all of the Brexit conundrums.
The overwhelming population do not have the power to solve ‘real issues like homelessness, financial inequality and the looming great turd that is hard brexit’. This woman saw something she wasn’t happy with, and attempted to change it. Yes, in the bigger scheme of things I accept it is a relatively trivial matter, but if your only complaint is that she should be dealing with something more important (and ignoring the irony of you making that claim whilst you’re posting on Hexus about it), and you have no real counter argument to the actual point she is making regarding the unnecessary genderising of everyday items, then maybe the triviality of her complaint isn’t really the issue.
Jonj1611 (22-10-2018)
Not quite as much an exaggeration as you (and certainly I) might wish, as we already had our first company-approved gender neutral primer toolbox talk in team meetings... Customer Services will soon be trialling a new part of their opening spiel in which they have to first enquire about the customer's preferred pronouns, in anticipation of this thing going live.
It's the fact that society is actually entertaining the idea of adopting it. It's not like entire nations are taking offense at the use of a racial slur that represents centuries of abuse, or anything. It's a few people who've dreamed up a reason to get angry at being referred to as He or She. That's all... grievance politics.
Bit of both.
It's that we have SO MUCH new terminology that it needs a flippin' look-up table just to get a basic grasp of, that you need that many newly-invented words just to accomodate a few people who feel slightly different on a particular day, and that a few such wittering attention-seekers can so easily go about changing the language.
Depends on how the law eventually implements this. I'm sure I'll get fired for using the wrong word before long, though...
Go refer to a person who is generflux as genderfluid, or vice versa, and see how much vitriol gets spat at you for it...
They're bothered, because the cry-bully types won't shut up about it, and because people do acquiesce at the slightest hint of a grievance.
YOU don't DARE tell me how I am impacted. I am impacted. The fact that you would utterly disregard how I have been impacted by this is oppression... and more so since I am, as you seem to insist, a minority. By disregarding me, you are oppressing a minority. I therefore demand you acknowledge my minority identity as Teapot and refer to me with the non-binary gender-neutral pronouns of Wibble, Flip, Tiddly-Wink and Baldrick.
See how it works?
I didn't say "Kleenex"... I said "We". Why are you misrepresenting my rather exact words?
Bonebreaker777 (23-10-2018)
Instead?
Why instead?
What makes you think we don't spend time addressing both issues?
Same reason people complain to the BBC about the content of one of their programmes. Same reason people complain about the BBC cancelling a programme after receiving 7 complaints.
You don't think we can write this while the paper is printing?
Did you just assume my gender.... and assume my multitasking capabilities based on my assumed gender??????!!!!!!!
How DARE you........
So why, then, if so many of us cannot fix a problem like that, does a teeny tiny minority somehow have the power to govern the behaviour of a nation, dictate the English language and erase centuries of history?
Again, the problem isn't what he/she/zim/zee/xe/xee/ir/hir/zir is saying or trying to do. It's the fact that society is listening to [insert whatever blinkin' pronoun here] instead of collectively addressing the more pressing matters.
We have plenty of counters. 'She' is just not listening.... but then, that's another part of how it works, you see. They don't listen back. They don't want to listen. They don't want to be silent for a moment, because that just means people aren't hearing their voice.
See, I'm a big fan of giving everyone exactly what they ask for, in arguments like this. Firstly because it proves such people are never happy, and always disappointed when they get everything they want, because it means they have nothing left to fight for and shout about. Secondly because it usually bites them on their own backside.
Bonebreaker777 (23-10-2018)
For one, you could answer how it is exclusionary when the term has no practical implications. We have terms like chick flicks, family friendly etc. etc. are just some of the many terminology that serve as to mean that the product is aimed at a certain demographic (so exclusionary in your book), yet nothing stops anyone outside the targeted demographic from consuming the product if you want to. I do not get upset when someome dismiss something I value, and if they ask me to explain what it is that I find so valuable, I would be happy to oblige.
As to the second part of the post, you might be surprised to know that.. there was no ulterior motives. I have just moved to a country where I do not speak much of the language, I haven't had the chance to have lengthy discussions for a few weeks. Which is why you will see that I have been posting a lot more in the past few days compared to the past twelve months or more. Despite feeling like having a friendly discussion, I actually didn't want to get into anything too heated (Brexit and whatnot), so entering a discussion as to why to the need to paint the wall blue when beige was just fine was a pretty sound preposition (besides, it is a lively thread). That is why despite challenging scaryjim to an answer, I also gave him an clear out (i.e. he doesn't have to answer if he doesn't want to). I do not expect anyone to change my life herr, but I would have been happy to learn something I might have I have overlooked. Perhaps blue is more soothing and better conductor to a good sleep than beige?
(Despite a couple of long posts in the past few days, real life will probably require me to post less soon. So if I disappear again, that's it's either because I have no time to reply, or no time to even lurk.. though I think that for the next few weeks at least I will go nuts if I can't get into a friendly discussion)
Last edited by TooNice; 22-10-2018 at 05:28 PM.
Oh, if ONLY they were exclusionary!!!!!
"Sorry love, I can't sit and watch all seasons of Sex & The City with you. Chicks only, I'm afraid. Yeah, I'll be out in the garage tinkering with the car. Have fun..."
Worth noting, as the all-important disclaimer these days, that the consumption of some products is medically impossible due to physical gender limitations.... and actually consuming some other products may be medically fatal!!!
So what? I presume the company made a commercial decision in trialling that? And you are free to work for a company that isn’t trialling preferred pronouns, are you not? Should your issue not be with your company?
Firstly, on the language, there has hardly been a time where it hasn’t been evolving, with new terminology being introduced on a regular basis. I don’t know why so many people are exercised by having more descriptive words, rather than less.
Secondly on how much vitriol you or others get spat at you, I work in a College, and I know that there are numerous students who have preferred pronouns. However, I have never, ever used anything other than he/she, and yet not once has anyone passed comment on it or corrected me, let alone ‘spat vitriol’ at me - even those who I subsequently found out have preferred pronouns. It’s amazing how you and me have such different experiences of this issue, especially given that I work predominantly with the generation that uses pronouns the most, but I only ever use he/she.
No, not really. I asked how you were impacted, and you still haven’t told me. Or rather you hadn’t, until we established that it’s mainly you not wanting to learn new words, and an objection to new words being made up. I still don’t really understand it, but if you want to campaign for that as a minority then why on earth would I object? It affects me not one iota and if society adopts it as part of it's ever-changing evolution, then great for you. If it doesn’t, then you at least have my sympathy.
Because you said it was banned in a thread about Kleenex. If you are referring to ‘we’ as someone other than Kleenex, then who is that ‘we’ and who has ‘banned’ it?
So it's not an exaggeration of changes that are taking place...
Why would they? Our customers don't have a choice in who supplies their services. We get our money no matter what we do... and we've done some pretty questionable things. This doesn't actually have any tangible commercial impact, aside from a minor virtue signal that no-one outside will really care about even if it turns out to be a mere publicity stunt.
You thought I'd have examples that negatively affected me - Does having to leave a career I've put over 20 years into just to appease a tiny cry-bully minority not qualify as negative?
Is that not what I've been saying?
Hint: Yes, it is.
Yes, some elements of language evolve, mostly the informal ones and often their use is fleeting. I rarely hear anyone use words like 'fandabbydozy', just as we no longer use the terms Blackamoor, Swarth or Ethiop, despite them being the politically correct and preferred terms of their day.
However, there is a basic core that must remain unchanged, else communication is pretty impossible. Heck, we've had two genders throughout the entirety of history, yet we haven't even needed to update the wording of laws to reflect this... Why should we now change overnight to accomodate dozens of new ones?
As for people's irritation over a stack of extra words - One reason would be the sheer lack of necessity. But more importantly, because it is a flawed argument.
"Increasing numbers of people who are in favour of gender neutrality believe that, by seeing gender as a binary – two neat categories – we are currently promoting a system that punishes people for transgressing gender roles. They don't necessarily want to do away with the idea of "male" and "female" altogether, but they'd like people to understand that there is a whole spectrum of expression in between".
That's the official argument. It's flawed because, rather than create a whole range of genders and different scales for each one, the way to deal with the transgression of gender roles is to eliminate gender roles entirely.
The problem is severalfold:
- People making this argument are themselves associating societal gender with the physical gender (which is binary by Nature and nothing will change that) while at the same time trying to decry other people for making that same association, which is hypocritical.
- Rather than eliminate gender roles, these people are creating an ever-increasing list of new genders and scales of gender, which creates even more division and gives rise to gender identity politics instead of unifying humanity.
- Many of these people are simply using the argument as a pretext for seeking attention and having something to shout about, rather than work to actually eliminate the issue.
So yeah, we didn't need seperate gender terms to distinguish between women in traditionally male roles or vice versa, so for what possible purpose must the majority of us now adopt half a language's worth of additional terms just to appease a few randoms seeking attention?
More importantly - Do you really think they'd play by their own rules if we were to throw the ball back in their court?
Oh Emm Gee..... Your experience differs from mine.
So what?
I know plenty of people who are gay, transgender, bi and all manner of other flavours. Some conform to one or more of their various individual stereotypes, while others do not. Many are not (and never even were) college students.
How does this change a thing?
Your anecdote only serves to further reduce the size of the overly-vocal minority to which preferred pronoun policies pander...
And which generation do you think that is?
This isn't limited to those too young to afford a sex change... just the opposite, in fact.
But so what?
There are plenty of things I have little-to-no direct experience of, but still know they happen an awful lot in the world.
Not at all what I said, but carry on......
I dunno, yet here you are challenging to my objections, for some reason...... One might presume you are somehow affected by them, and by far more than an iota.
So?
You assume that by me saying 'We', I really mean 'They', inferring Kleenex??!!
Pretty distinct words with pretty definite and distinct meanings, whichever way you hold it, but whatever supports your argument... surely you realised that and are just trying the semantic angle?
Or maybe the company is viewing this as being part of a general shift in how society views these things, and is trying to get ahead of the curve?
Why would you have to leave?! Because you don’t want to do something that the company wants you to do? In the case of having to use different pronouns for other people and not yourself, that seems rather extreme. But yes, I can see you would see that as a negative.
Well no not really – you’ve been mainly critical of those looking further this particular agenda, rather than the companies acceding to them.
I don’t agree that many of these people are just seeking attention, or at least I think it is unknowable - how could you possibly know what motivation these people have? That said I do think the 2 other points you make are reasonable, albeit easily refutable. All of that said, my issue was never with those like you who actually oppose these kinds of societal changes; I understand there will be people who oppose changes to what they believed as some kind of Immutable truths; societies were told it was unnecessary, and undesirable, to have universal suffrage. Societies were told it was unnecessary, and undesirable to have Emancipation for slaves. And as recently as 2015 here in Ireland, people were campaigning, as is their right, against same-sex marriage using in part, as one of the tenants of your arguments seems to be, that redefining marriage is subverting established language and understanding of meaning. However, what all these campaigns have in common is that the process was started by a minority, often to benefit a minority. They would also have been accused of being attention seekers, or of seeking to disrupt the established order, and of negatively impacting those on the opposite side of the argument, and society in general. But it was only when wider society saw merit in the arguments of advocates that changes were eventually made, and that will be the case with wider gender argument; if the small minority cannot convince the masses of their merit of their argument, then it simply won’t be adopted, and this will be just a fad, regardless of how much they shout. If society decides that it does merit change, then it will happen. And in my opinion, as someone who really is unaffected either way, I think those who oppose this need to develop their arguments because, as with the case with you and your company, it appears some kind of change is happening already.
No, I’m in no way affected by your objections, or indeed this issue at all. It has little or no relevance to me, but was genuinely interested in why so many people were bothered when I couldn’t (and still can’t) see how it really affects them. In fairness though, you mentioned that you feel it furthers identity politics and the hypocritical nature you feel of their argument so that furthers my understanding of one of the sides. I actually appreciate that, and it gives me something to think about.
No, here is your original quote, and my initial reply next to each other:
You: ‘So now we ban Man-size things, even though there's a perfectly valid reason for the term...’
Me: ‘why are you misrepresenting what has happened with the man size thing? They haven’t been banned – Kleenex have decided to rebrand after people made complaints. Saying that the term has been ‘banned’ implies that somehow Kleenex are being legally compelled to take the course of action that they are when that is not the case; they could if they wanted continue to use the term.
Regardless of who the ‘we’ was that you were talking about (I can’t really see how that’s the important point here), who has actually banned man-sized things?
It isn't so much the 'thing' that has been banned - but the attempt to ban the term "man - sized" with the emphasis on the man. One wonders if the term woman-sized t would have prompted the same sense of outrage had it been used (for example) to describe a small packet of tissues suitable for a handbag?
I still wonder how the BBC still manage to call a program Women's Hour. Where is the corresponding "Men's Hour"? why does the BBC tink that women need a dedicated programme for women?
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
Been helped or just 'Like' a post? Use the Thanks button!
My broadband speed - 750 Meganibbles/minute
I appreciate that it is the term ‘man’ rather than the actual item that is being referred to, but the point I’m making is no one, as far as I can see, is trying to ban it but rather are trying to influence companies/groups/people etc. to choose themselves to stop using it. There’s a difference, and it’s an important one. If anyone was advocating to have the term banned, as continually keeps being implied, I think most would see that as an obvious step too far. People using commercial and/or public pressure to try and influence companies is not the same as banning something.
And on your second point, there was a Men’s Hour on BBC Radio, but was cancelled because of a lack of listeners if I recall rightly. But that’s entirely missing the point anyway. As far as I see it, it’s not labelling something ‘man’ (or ‘woman’ for that matter) per se that people have an issue with, especially if whatever has been labelled pertains particularly to that group, but rather the unnecessary gendering of everyday items that don’t need to be. I don’t ever listen to it, but if Woman’s Hour talk about things like feminism, women in politics, health issues that affect women only etc. then it’s the use of ‘Woman’s Hour’ entirely appropriate. However, if they are discussing issues that are not any more or less relevant to women than men, or not viewed specifically in the context of being a woman, then it doesn’t make sense. Same for any potential Man’s Hour; whilst the Men’s Hour on BBC was cancelled, there are lots of podcasts aimed at men with ‘men’ in the title, and I don’t know anyone saying they should be renamed. I suppose it can be boiled down to this – It would make sense that a Radio Programme specifically aimed at, and discussing issues specifically pertinent to, men would use the word 'Men' in its name. The same, IMO, cannot be said of a piece of tissue.
I would say that issues like feminism and women in politics affect men as much as women and should not be confined to a programme aimed at women. If gender specific terms are the new taboo - it should apply across the board.
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
Been helped or just 'Like' a post? Use the Thanks button!
My broadband speed - 750 Meganibbles/minute
can you imagine if they had "man's hour" and spent it discussing, football, beer, the finer details of VAR, improving the torque efficiency of the Cosworth engine and how to check your nads for lumps?
Silliness aside, Women's hour often features novels/short stories specifically selected because they're by female authors, news editorials on women etc. If they exclusively did that for male stuff there'd be outcry.
Sorry, that was bad grammar on my part - I wasn't suggesting feminism & women in politics affect women only ('affect women only' was confined to the health issues part).
On the wider point, whilst feminism and women in politics affects men and women, if the programme is looking at those issues predominately in the context of how they affect women, then calling it Women's Hour is entirely appropriate. Just like Men's hour would be an entirely appropriate name for a magazine show that discusses, oh I don't know, Prostate cancer, working as a male in traditionally female dominated area such as Nursing & Social Services and Male Pattern Baldness, specifically from the male point of view. And just to be clear, there WAS a Men's Hour on the radio and no one was calling for it to have it's name changed as far as I know. Furthermore, and I could be wrong, but I am sure almost half of the people listening to Women's Hour are men - so seemingly whilst the title might give some insight into content, it's not putting men off actually listening. If Men's Hour was still going, and people were arguing for it's name to be changed, i'd be on the other side of the fence of this.
That said, if there was a better, more inclusive, descriptive term for a radio show that is discussing issues specifically in the context of being a woman then why not use it? If we all agree that man-size means larger, why not just use larger?
So while gender specific terms are not the new taboo per se, it looks as if unnecessary gendering may well be.
AHHHH-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!
No.
We're so far behind the cultural (and sadly technological) curve, you'd think sideburns and bell-bottoms were the hip new thing. We generally don't adopt anything until the rest of the industry already has it in place and sucessfully implemented... whereupon we just badly emulate them.
Apparently I'm free to go work for a company that isn't doing this..... That means leaving this one, no?
Why?
Many people up and move overseas due to cultural changes they want nothing to do with.
Why is leaving a company whose policies with which I disagree extreme to you?
As per my original assertions, I have explained in detail my objections to the agenda and the reasoning behind it.
The issues with those pandering to the agenda are quite succinctly covered in the aforementioned assertion:
"People who get upset about this generally do so because we're pandering to an overly vocal minority who are simply seeking attention, rather than offering any reasonable offence that needs addressing "
If you really need more on that, I already covered that above, too.
Primarily because all they do is shout about it, rather than offering any form of possible solution or way forward. Often their assertions are too fallacious for someone who has an actual horse in the race.
I'm acquainted with a fair few people like this, as well as through third hand accounts from both sides. Fairly typical malcontents, and many I know personally do indeed rally to just about any cause they take a liking to. But when called upon it, they often end up conceding that they're not quite as passionate or personally involved as previously asserted.
Conclusion: They argue for the attention, the sake of it, and the fun, not for the actual cause. Those who do can usually explain to me in appreciable detail what the problem is.
Case in point:
Genderflux vs Genderfluid. Two different and seemingly specific words presumably for two very different gender identities, right? Surely if you're demanding I start using 40 new pronouns to describe you, while not using the existing 40 for the other identities, then there must be distinct differences in your identity? Tell me about them..... Tell me, that I may learn, understand, become educated and all that..... Go on, tell me. I'll listen.......
Oh, right. So.... it's "like a sort of this, like sort of that, but like different like, but like not really, but kinda sorta like... you dunno. Not really given it much thought... but mostly it comes down to what gender and how much of that gender you happen feel like being on a given day"? And I'm supposed to figure out which pronoun look-up table is most appropriate for that moment, for each person, or risk the wrath of your offence?
I see. One of those.
Yeah, I'm not changing society for that.
I'll embrace the independence of the Shetlanders, Londoners, Wessex, Orcadians, Manx, Mercians and the Canvey Islanders LONG before I see yours happen... right before we crown Allan Verno Evans here, and Tywysog Llywelyn Jones Cymru of California over in Wales!!!
Refute away. I've had a fair bit of discussion on this one, lately...
I don't oppose societal changes. I DO question the validity of the reasoning behind them and how genuine the offence presented is, especially if addressing said offence requires wide-reaching alterations to society, language or some other aspect of the majority of life.
Some still argue that.
I'm personally a bit of a fan of Heinlein's writing on that, and regularly trot the quotes out when people start complaining about whichever party is in power.
Some argued this. About as many others argued the opposite. They ended up having wars to decide.
Other totally separate societies argued that slavery wasn't really necessary in the first place and actually their society had been doing pretty well without it for many centuries...
Marriage has existed long before
Will it?
When?
I've been waiting for just one of these alternative gender arguments to convince me of their merit. So far, everything I've heard has been frivolous at best. I'm more that willing to listen, I openly invite such argument and am quite interested in the topic myself... but so far I have been disappointed by most of it.
And therein lies my issue - Society here has become so used to listening to minorities, and especially certain elements of the non-minorities arguing on behalf of the minorities (whether it's an actual issue for them or not), that it pre-emptively acquiesces to things. You can almost make up any old BS and it will be given serious voice... and thus I assert that half this non-cis non-binary gender neutral preference stuff is just people taking the mick.
It's quite simple.
Identities exist to identify. To tell one apart from the others. To recognize a distinction. To differentiate. To discriminate, in the proper use of the word. So you're different - How should I treat you? Oh, no different at all? Then why even bother pointing out your differences?
Moreover, identities are for other people to easily identify you. Creating a whole bunch of new identifiers just makes it a ridiculously convoluted process... with the added stress of having to ask someone what their identifiers are before you can actually identify them, further complicated by the fear of retribution for either getting it wrong or not already knowing (it's bad enough when you don't get someone's name right!)... all overshadowed by the fact that a gender identity is even less of a person-defining aspect than sexual preference and is essentially a non-issue in the first place.
All this is doing is creating more divides, instead of unifying people in our acceptance of one another.
That's an awful lot of words for someone 'not affected'....
Hopefully some of this post gives you more.
It's not a small issue, but one teeny tiny node in a whole network of issues that intertwine, offering precedent to a lot of abuse and stand to make trivial the achievements of those (such as you have mentioned) who fought long and hard against genuine grievances, while enabling more sinister ideology to gain traction.
We. Society. Us. People. The forum. The UK. Marketing. Culture. Whatever generalising terms you enjoy the flavour of, of similar generalisation to 'They', as in "they say it's going to rain today".
If I'd meant Kleenex, I'd have said Kleenex and if I meant 'has officially been banned' I'd have used those exact words.
In surmisation of a currently dynamic situation, 'We' are now effectively banning the term, albeit in various passive non-directly legally enforced ways through social pressure and other methods..... yeah, not quite as catchy when you have to explain and overly quantify every word.
So in other words and like many things before, 'We' are banning it, rather than it being banned.
Personally, my objection is partly to the claims of sexism and the denigration of a term that has a perfectly valid origin, but mostly to the companies for obsequiously grovelling in the face of this criticism.
Same for the outcry over the Gentleman’s Smoked Chicken Caesar Roll at Waitrose, which the supermarket is 'correcting' amidst lashings of apologies.... yet strangely no-one seems to be bleating about the actual term Gentleman's Relish, for which the roll is named, which just smacks of more attention-seeking as previously discussed.
People should learn what things like racism and sexism actually are, before they start bleating about them.
In this modern day and age, where trial by social media carries more gravity than an official legal
And again, the tissue was never aimed specifically at men. It was merely the same size as the standard handkerchief (12"x12") used in men's suits at the time. Women's were smaller at 8"x8".
That's where the name comes from and is no more sexist than Mens' wristwatches tending to be bigger than Womens' wristwatches. Even then, this is just Man-size tissues not man-only tissues.
I wonder if I can sue PJ Harvey over her song 'Man-Size'....?
Or does this mean we'll now be watching Batperson, Spiderperson Iron Person and Wonder Person?
I'd hope for a Superperson too, but that evokes racially superior soldiers and we don't want to go down that route...
If there were that many men actually listening, I imagine we wouldn't have anywhere near as much need for things like feminism any more!!
It equates to being larger. It doesn't necessarily mean it, though and the assumption that it does is likely a misuse and misapproriation of the term by one marketing company from another.
Last edited by Ttaskmaster; 24-10-2018 at 05:47 PM.
Are you playing devils advocate here? You must be, surely.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote