I said about how there weren't any female equivalent terms of "mate" or "guy" as in, "this guy who sits next to me...." - like there's no informal, equal word to match it. Catherine suggested that we just use "person", the advantage being, um, obviously, that it is gender-neutral, but I said that would be great, only people would think you were a little bit funny if you tried using that in an informal setting. So she said, well, make them not think you're funny by doing it enough, and that that would be a breakthrough for collapsing gender divisions.
I said, however, that as long as people are so obviously divided into genders - in hair/clothes, in the expectations we have of them, whatever - using "person" would be an empty gesture, and you would not succeed in normalising such a term, until people are no longer significantly split by gender. Of course, gendered language is one aspect to the split, but I think saying "a man/woman I work with" (say), is rather more manifestive than constitutive [1] of people divided by gender. And as such, avoiding its use is going to confuse people, without enlightening them, because it's trying to cure the symptom without affecting the cause.
:) still, I'm not too stuck on that position. ;) I thought it was rather an interesting one! (also, hehe, maybe I didn't give a fair account of her view, I dunno, but I did trrrrry to!)
I said about how there weren't any female equivalent terms of "mate" or "guy" as in, "this guy who sits next to me...." - like there's no informal, equal word to match it. Catherine suggested that we just use "person", the advantage being, um, obviously, that it is gender-neutral, but I said that would be great, only people would think you were a little bit funny if you tried using that in an informal setting. So she said, well, make them not think you're funny by doing it enough, and that that would be a breakthrough for collapsing gender divisions.
I said, however, that as long as people are so obviously divided into genders - in hair/clothes, in the expectations we have of them, whatever - using "person" would be an empty gesture, and you would not succeed in normalising such a term, until people are no longer significantly split by gender. Of course, gendered language is one aspect to the split, but I think saying "a man/woman I work with" (say), is rather more manifestive than constitutive [1] of people divided by gender. And as such, avoiding its use is going to confuse people, without enlightening them, because it's trying to cure the symptom without affecting the cause.
:) still, I'm not too stuck on that position. ;) I thought it was rather an interesting one! (also, hehe, maybe I didn't give a fair account of her view, I dunno, but I did trrrrry to!)
[1] hah!
Reply
Leave a comment