Sexist language: Difference between revisions

1,106 bytes removed ,  20 February 2021
no edit summary
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
No edit summary
Line 3: Line 3:
This wiki frequently, mockingly, speaks of the [[Mediocre lawyer|attorney]] in the abstract. These days, an officer of the courts is marginally more likely to be female than male, but the [[hypothetical]] [[lawyer]], for whom we have such great affection and about whom we speak at such length, is neither one thing nor the other<ref>As they used to say of the great [[Bob Cunis]].</ref>. This creates challenges when using {{tag|pronoun}}s. And nor, needless to say, is biological sex the only game in town — there was a time when we would scoff at misuse of the word “[[gender]]” to describe what was really “sex”. But it seems to the [[JC]] there is room in a robust conceptual scheme for both — “sex” is biological; “gender” psychological, for want of better words — and arguing the toss between them is, well, a little fruitless.
This wiki frequently, mockingly, speaks of the [[Mediocre lawyer|attorney]] in the abstract. These days, an officer of the courts is marginally more likely to be female than male, but the [[hypothetical]] [[lawyer]], for whom we have such great affection and about whom we speak at such length, is neither one thing nor the other<ref>As they used to say of the great [[Bob Cunis]].</ref>. This creates challenges when using {{tag|pronoun}}s. And nor, needless to say, is biological sex the only game in town — there was a time when we would scoff at misuse of the word “[[gender]]” to describe what was really “sex”. But it seems to the [[JC]] there is room in a robust conceptual scheme for both — “sex” is biological; “gender” psychological, for want of better words — and arguing the toss between them is, well, a little fruitless.


Generally, there is much to admire about {{tag|pronoun}}s. Lawyers don’t use them often enough: they are more idiomatic and easier on the ear that the lawyer’s usual stand-in “[[such]] [insert {{tag|noun}}]”. But pronouns tend to commit you to a {{tag|gender}}: “[[he]]”, or “[[she]]”, “[[him]]” or “[[her]]” — seeing as no-one likes to be referred to as “[[it]]”, and “[[he or she]]” is an abomination before all right-thinking men. ''Or'' women.
{{pronouns on the JC}}


And nor, these days, does that even remotely capture the possible universe of alternatives. While the [[JC]] has no wish to get offside with any factions in the presently raging gender wars — we have J.K. Rowling and her ingrate actor friends for that — he does not propose to even try to accommodate emerging non-binary formulations. If this aggrieves you, so be it: you’re welcome to find another resource offering free, satirical observations on the law and practice of derivatives that better suits your preferences. Or you could always bear with it: ''[[Friedrich Nietzsche|Was mich nicht umbringt, macht mich stärker]]'', after all.


Now it is also true that the point of satire is to poke the ribs of sacred cows, and right now few are more sacred. Perhaps [[I]] should be more phlegmatic — but pick your battles, and all that.  
Now it is also true that the point of satire is to poke the ribs of sacred cows, and right now few are more sacred. Perhaps [[I]] should be more phlegmatic — but pick your battles, and all that.