Expose the lie

[HenrikOlsen]

Dictionaries have mostly been compiled by men though, so you can't use them as an unbiased reference.

[Moose]

Dictionaries have mostly been compiled by men though, so you can't use them as an unbiased reference.

Mmm. If it's fair to say that a reference is necessarily biased because it was mostly compiled by men, then it's reciprocally necessary (and inescapably so) to infer that a reference compiled by mostly women must be equally necessarily biased. Under that consequence, no reference whatsoever could ever be considered unbiased.

I don't think that's fair, Henrik. A reference is biased because it's biased. That bias must be demonstrated by something other than logical fallacy. (Argumentum ad hominem, specifically ad homines.)

[swampyankee]

Oh, I'll readily concede that manhole is probably as specific as it is only through decades(?) of common usage. To overcome that, I think a gender-neutral alternative would have a much better chance of acceptance if it's approximately as specific as the term it replaces, vis-à-vis my firefighter vs. fireman example. In that regard, I think "streethole cover" achieves that...even if it lacks a certain ring to my ear.

(?) Note: I was curious about how long the term has been in use, so I made a quick check of Wikipedia. I didn't find the answer because I was immediately sidetracked by one of the alternative names: biscuit. It doesn't meet the criteria above but it might be quirky enough to catch on. I like it. Maybe even road biscuit.

Road biscuit sounds like something a horse would leave behind.

On a slightly more serious note, I suspect that some percentage of the complaining about "PC terms" is because a) the complainer was brought up with different, less accurate, less inclusive, or actively insulting terms and b) because the complainer believes that some group's elites do not a collective right to tell other people what to call members of their group. Indeed, group qualifiers probably cause the most complaining about PC terms.

[primummobile]

A substantial part of the problem with political correctness is its name.

The introduction of a new (at the time) term is unnecessary. We already have the words "considerate", "tolerant" and "respectful". And we already have the negative terms "bigoted", "prejudiced", and all kinds of "-ist" (racist, sexist etc).

Now even if a new term was needed to cover the positive and necessary qualities I listed above, "politically correct" is not the one that should have been coined. It is, I would contend, impossible to say without sounding condescending - and this is the case two decades on. It's a polysyllabic adverb-adjective combination that sounds like it was made up by a jumped-up sociology student or professor, the sort who describes the study of social interactions as "multi-dimensional" because that makes it sound a bit like a science.

But it's the second word, "correct", that is most poisonous. It means that any viewpoint that disagrees with political correctness is, by definition, wrong. Never mind that the proponents might have made a mistake, or that they have arrogantly chosen to speak on behalf of a group that never gave them permission to do so.

I have attended a number of Equal Opportunity and Diversity courses. These were run by people whose hearts were probably in the right place but their brains were not. One told us, very forcibly, that we should not use the term "homosexual" because it means "man sex". I told her she was talking rubbish, that the word did not originate from the Latin "homo" for "(hu)man" but the Greek "hom(e)o" for "same". To her credit she later looked it up and admitted the next day that she had got it wrong, but it was that PC attitude that had given her the certainty that she was right.

I completely agree that some words are derogatory, and they really do cause harm. My approach is to call people what they wish to be called - assuming I need to call them by a group name.

I probably have more to say but dinner has just arrived.

It has always been my understanding that "politically correct" is a reference to the complicated and ridiculous things that politicians say in order to avoid offending people when they are being heard by a mixed group. You are "politically correct" if what you are saying is the "correct" thing for a politician to say. Politicians fall over themselves and talk in circles to avoid saying something and to make it so ambiguous that they can later claim they meant something different. For a politician it's a good idea. For the rest of the world it's not. I think the word is over-used, and that it originally meant the doublespeak some people use to say something when they really mean something else.

As you said, it gets more annoying when the champions of a new term don't belong to the group they are defending. Most Native American groups refer to themselves as "Indians" or "American Indians". Most black people refer to themselves as "black" and most white people refer to themselves as "white". I have several black friends and coworkers. I have never once heard any of them tell me I should refer to them as an "African American". I only hear white people on TV saying that.

I'm sorry if this went over the line. I am just trying to give examples of what I am saying.

[HenrikOlsen]

Mmm. If it's fair to say that a reference is necessarily biased because it was mostly compiled by men, then it's reciprocally necessary (and inescapably so) to infer that a reference compiled by mostly women must be equally necessarily biased. Under that consequence, no reference whatsoever could ever be considered unbiased.

I don't think that's fair, Henrik. A reference is biased because it's biased. That bias must be demonstrated by something other than logical fallacy. (Argumentum ad hominem, specifically ad homines.)

I would say it's clear from the sample posting here that males have a strong tendency to consider it "not a problem" quite possibly from never having thought about it, that in itself is a bias.

Note that this is in the mild end of a continuum which at the other end has the vile evil that is spouted by I know better than to name them, but they're on your TV daily and two seconds of sane thought should identify them. But it is part of the same continuum.

[Hlafordlaes]

PC language is often warranted to not offend, but PC positions on issues are often just another form of dogma.

[Moose]

I would say it's clear from the sample posting here that males have a strong tendency to consider it "not a problem" quite possibly from never having thought about it, that in itself is a bias.

It's not clear at all.

a) The sample here is both small and self-selected. You can't draw valid conclusions from that about what men generally believe.

b) I haven't seen anybody in this thread explicitly support clear misogyny/misandry. (The OP comes closest, perhaps, but his position is far too non-specific as to draw a clear conclusion as to his intent.) The only thing really under question is if 'man' is always meant literally or is an alternate/short form for "human" in generic contexts. Concluding that the position of "not a problem" comes from bias assumes that it is a problem (assuming the antecedent/begging the question), a fallacy in itself. Not agreeing with your subjective assessment of whether or not it's a problem does not make something bias.

[Perikles]

I would say it's clear from the sample posting here that males have a strong tendency to consider it "not a problem" quite possibly from never having thought about it, that in itself is a bias..

If you claim that, then it is equally as valid to claim that those who object to words like 'mankind' do so quite possibly from never having thought about it, but are biased simply because it contains the word 'man'.

The OED gives the first meaning of man as a human being =Latin homo (which has both m. and f. gender by the way). Second meaning, an adult male. I'm quoting from the S.O.E.D which although originally had all male authors, was revised and proof-read by a team of principally 5 women, and it took them 5 years.

[caveman1917]

"Mankind" is longer written and the same length spoken as "humans," so where's the advantage?

To me there's a subtle difference in meaning between "mankind" and "humans", the latter refers to a set of individuals, whereas the former refers more to the group as a group. Somewhat akin to the difference between "Romans" and "the Roman civilization", but slightly less pronounced. Though perhaps that's simply because one term is singular and the other plural.

[Hlafordlaes]

Somehow "The Ascent of Human" just doesn't have the same ring as Bronowski's original title.

[swampyankee]

My observation is that the term "PC" is frequently used by people who are annoyed that they can't be offensive -- something they conflate with valid -- without being called out on it.

[primummobile]

My observation is that the term "PC" is frequently used by people who are annoyed that they can't be offensive -- something they conflate with valid -- without being called out on it.

How do you know what the people are annoyed about? My experience has been what I stated above. Other people who don't belong to a group define for that group what is and is not considered to be offensive.

For example, I think it is very divisive in our country to call groups by the names <insert group name>-American. I consider myself an American of Irish and German heritage. I would never call myself an "Irish-American" because I'm no different from any other American as far as that goes. So, rather than calling myself an Irish-American, I refer to myself as an American. If someone asks further, I tell them that I'm white. When you use those types of so-called "politically-correct" terms when talking about citizenship you are bringing race to the forefront of the issue when it doesn't belong there. That's why I get annoyed by it. It's not because I can't be offensive. It's because I think it is divisive and creates problems where there were none.

ETA:
Here is another example:

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/cool.asp

This is the kind of stuff most people I know oppose. They aren't fighting for the right to offend someone, just for the return of common sense.

[Chuck]

The language seems biased in favor or women since 'woman' always means female while males have to share 'man' because it sometimes means all of humanity.

[HenrikOlsen]

I think my point just got made.

[SeanF]

Well, it may be be stretching the definition of "PC" a bit, but I think it fits - I saw a news story this weekend about a young boy in Nebraska. He's three years old, his name is Hunter, and he's deaf. He has been told by his preschool that he can not say his own name (using sign language) because the hand sign for "Hunter" violates the school's no weapons policy. I can only hope that there's more to the story, or that it's some kind of satire to begin with, because, as it stands, it's ridiculous.

[Paul Beardsley]

I think my point just got made.

The point-scoring aspect of this thread is a disappointing failure.

[Gillianren]

The point-scoring aspect of this thread is a disappointing failure.

I don't think that was the kind of point Henrik meant. I think that was more, "Okay, that demonstrates what I mean."

However, I have noticed, and not just here, that it's almost exclusively males who don't have a problem with "man" to mean "humans." They're covered either way. I also think it's funny that I'm generally a prescriptivist, yet I'm the one arguing that the language should change. Yes, I know what the dictionaries all say. I know what the word has been used to mean. What I'm saying is that it's still wrong. We talked, not that long ago, about the generic name for a bovine of which you do not know the sex, and there were a lot of people using a lot of terms other than "cow." Now, part of that, I really believe, is that very seldom is the generic name for an entire species male or female. There is usually a name which is neither, at least in English (the advantage to having dropped gender in most of our words more than a thousand years ago). It's odd that we have a species where we didn't. But basically, it's cows and men. Even peafowl have a gender-neutral name, though few people use it.

[Perikles]

the advantage to having dropped gender in most of our words more than a thousand years ago.

You call this an advantage, but isn't it precisely the failure to be consistent and drop gender for all words that gives rise to the present difference in how some words are viewed? The vestiges of gender difference are perceived somehow as disadvantageous to women as though a grammatical gender difference had anything to do with sexual differences. I just don't see the connection.

[Moose]

I'll just mention that my 7th grade french teacher (female, not that it matters much), when we asked about why some inanimate objects in french were masculine, some feminine, a few neuter when many of these objects don't really imply a gender. She said [paraphrased/translated] "Grammatical gender is not the same thing as genetic gender. Don't treat them the same." A very no-nonsense, no meadow-muffin teacher. I learned more french grammar from this woman than all thirteen other teachers/professors combined.

I suspect she's largely why I'm not especially fussed over vestigial grammatical artifacts that haven't caught up with modern views. The misogyny/misandry that's rampant in today's pop culture is far more damaging and immediate. (I'd list examples, but a few minutes of searching the topic is depressing the hell out of me.)

[Gillianren]

You call this an advantage, but isn't it precisely the failure to be consistent and drop gender for all words that gives rise to the present difference in how some words are viewed? The vestiges of gender difference are perceived somehow as disadvantageous to women as though a grammatical gender difference had anything to do with sexual differences. I just don't see the connection.

Yes, I know you don't. I'm not sure how to explain it to you if you can't see the problem. I think gender in words to describe animals is important for specificity, and I think having the generic name for a species describe only half of it is a failure of specificity. If no other argument is persuasive, I hope that one carries some weight around here. I like that no one, upon inventing something in an English-speaking country, has to decide if their inanimate object is male or female. (And if it doesn't have anything to do with genetic male or female, what's the point?) But I don't like being told that I'm just the same as "man." I want to be equal, but this is one case where "equal" doesn't mean "the same."

[Perikles]

I like that no one, upon inventing something in an English-speaking country, has to decide if their inanimate object is male or female. (And if it doesn't have anything to do with genetic male or female, what's the point?) But I don't like being told that I'm just the same as "man." I want to be equal, but this is one case where "equal" doesn't mean "the same."

The virtual loss of a grammatical gender makes English easier in some respects, but I think it loses some colour in the process. And because it lacks consistency, it becomes a problem. A German girl would not remotely be offended by Fräulein being grammatically neutral, nor would a male panthera think his masculinity was being challenged, if he were sentient and Spanish speaking.

I'm sorry if I can't convince you that in the right context the set of 'man' includes the subset of adult males and also all other males and females of all ages. That is not saying you are the same or equal, it just identifies you as part of that set. Perhaps we should move on.

[Drunk Vegan]

My observation is that the term "PC" is frequently used by people who are annoyed that they can't be offensive -- something they conflate with valid -- without being called out on it.

It can be used in that context (for example, a certain political party which says many things which can be taken to be offensive, is often railing against political correctness.).

However I think the reason that so many people are against PC is more subtle than that. Yes, there are some people who don't like it because it shines a spotlight on their racism, sexism, nationalism, or whatever -ism they happen to have which is not socially acceptable.

But, there is a much larger group of people who do not like it because it has been co-opted by both the political and corporate spheres. Politicians speak the political correctness language because it allows them to lie more easily and get away with it.

It's used just as much in the corporate world for the same purpose. No one wants to read an email composed in the language of political correctness because it is little more than doublespeak and the more PC terms are use, the more meaning is removed from the message and thus the more ambiguous the instructions are.

It's not just a problem of "not being able to say what you mean" - it's a problem of not being able to understand what other people mean, because they are lying as a matter of course and generally don't even realize they're doing it. This inefficient form of communication has no business in a workplace, yet it has become the norm rather than the exception to prevent "isms" from taking hold.

[Paul Beardsley]

My observation is that the term "PC" is frequently used by people who are annoyed that they can't be offensive -- something they conflate with valid -- without being called out on it.

There's no doubt that this happens - I've seen it happen - but I don't think it comes close to being the main reason for people intellectually rebelling against the term and the mindset that goes with it.

Among other problems that I and others have already mentioned, there is the problem of PC only tackling surfaces. Take a term like "retarded". It's used in a pejorative sense about people of low intelligence, so the PC types say, "We won't use that word any more! We'll use 'special' instead." So then the word "special" acquires a pejorative meaning. It's what Stephen Pinker calls "the euphemism treadmill"; there's no point in changing the label if you haven't addressed the underlying problem.

[Ara Pacis]

Among other problems that I and others have already mentioned, there is the problem of PC only tackling surfaces. Take a term like "retarded". It's used in a pejorative sense about people of low intelligence, so the PC types say, "We won't use that word any more! We'll use 'special' instead." So then the word "special" acquires a pejorative meaning. It's what Stephen Pinker calls "the euphemism treadmill"; there's no point in changing the label if you haven't addressed the underlying problem.

Is that A Modest Proposal?

I think there needs to be a distinction between anti-negative and pro-positive terminology that some people consider to be representative of "Political Correctness". I recall that some people seemed to promote the term "differently-abled" over "disabled" or which may seem to be a bit much, but both sides of that argument might agree that it's better than the word "crippled".

As for "human", perhaps "anthrope" would seem more neutral.

[HenrikOlsen]

Is that A Modest Proposal?

I think there needs to be a distinction between anti-negative and pro-positive terminology that some people consider to be representative of "Political Correctness". I recall that some people seemed to promote the term "differently-abled" over "disabled" or which may seem to be a bit much, but both sides of that argument might agree that it's better than the word "crippled".

I remember one of the last times we had this discussion I was arguing for using "crippled" because that way those determining government help would be less able to hide behind pretty labels when they denying money to people who need them.
There was a guy who utterly misunderstood my point and thought I was arguing for cutting the money rather than arguing for language that makes cutting the money less easy to argue.

Like it might be possible to get more veterans help is if it was still called shellshock rather than ptsd.

[HenrikOlsen]

The virtual loss of a grammatical gender makes English easier in some respects, but I think it loses some colour in the process. And because it lacks consistency, it becomes a problem. A German girl would not remotely be offended by Fräulein being grammatically neutral, nor would a male panthera think his masculinity was being challenged, if he were sentient and Spanish speaking.

I'm sorry if I can't convince you that in the right context the set of 'man' includes the subset of adult males and also all other males and females of all ages. That is not saying you are the same or equal, it just identifies you as part of that set. Perhaps we should move on.

I'm sorry that you can't see that there is no right context where the word for the set of men includes all females.

There may be a semantically correct context but that doesn't make it right.

And, incidentally, this is semiotics (specifically pragmatics) not grammar.

[primummobile]

I'm sorry that you can't see that there is no right context where "man" includes all females.

There may be a semantically correct context but that doesn't make it right.

And therein lies the problem. Perikles is stating a fact. That one of the definitions of the word "man" is "human" cannot be disputed. It has been that way since antiquity. However, whether or not he or anyone else thinks that it is "right" or "wrong" is completely a matter of opinion.

This is why people get so upset about PC-ness: "There may be a semantically correct context but that doesn't make it right." That statement causes way more problems than what it solves.

Who is going to decide what is right or wrong? What are the criteria for deciding? Once a decision is made, how are you going to change cultural values to fit what you have decided is "right"? Where is it going to stop? Is it going to stop? What will our children find offensive?

Instead of giving in to perceived insults and offensive speech, perhaps we should concentrate our energy on real offenses. There is no law that says I need to listen to you when you speak.

[Jens]

I am SO sick and tired of people being "politically correct."

I am POLITE. That's what my parents and the school systems in which I was raised taught me. They also taught me to be truthful, which, by definition, is the antithesis of being politically correct.

Being politically correct is NOT being truthful.

I think a lot hinges on what you mean by "politically correct." If a person says, "Look at that n****er" to refer to a black person, and someone objects to that, is that wrong? Or say if a person uses the term "ch**nk" to refer to a Chinese person. Should that be acceptable because to object would be politically correct? I have a feeling there may be a line between definitions of the term.

[DonM435]

There have been cases wherein someone used the word "chink" in the (accepted) sense of a weak point in a defense, or the word "niggardly" to (correctly) refer to a stingy budget. Those folks got into trouble anyway.

(I will apologize in advance in case those words get censored by the software and come out even worse by implication.)

[primummobile]

There have been cases wherein someone used the word "chink" in the (accepted) sense of a weak point in a defense, or the word "niggardly" to (correctly) refer to a stingy budget. Those folks got into trouble anyway.

(I will apologize in advance in case those words get censored by the software and come out even worse by implication.)

There was another incident at the University of Pennsylvania where a Jewish student called a group of black females "water buffalo". He was formally charged in the university justice system and it continued even after he and several experts testified that the use of the "water buffalo" was a reference to the Jewish slang "Behema" which was used to refer to a person who was being unnecessarily loud.

When John Chancellor covered the event on the NBC news he had this to say, among other things:

He is now charged with racial harassment under the university's Code of Conduct. The school offered to dismiss the charge if he would apologize, attend a racial sensitivity seminar, agree to dormitory probation, and accept a temporary mark on his record which would brand him as guilty. He was told the term "water buffalo" could be interpreted as racist because a water buffalo is a dark primitive animal that lives in Africa. That is questionable semantics, dubious zoology, and incorrect geography. Water buffalo live in Asia, not in Africa

You can read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_buffalo_incident

The university pressed the issue to ridiculous lengths. If for some reason we cannot walk away from or ignore a perceived offense, then it behooves us to find out if the offense was real or only perceived. The attempt to contort our language in order to remove all possible offense to another person or group is an impossible task.