T-shirt I love: if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate
Happy
Birthday,
Lady K,
_nemesis_,
mystrys,
& whethergal!
Wait, wha?
In a Star Wars: The Old Republic forum post on titles I tried to explain that I objected to my Republic Trooper being called "Sir!" because you don't call NCOs "Sir!" (or "Ma'am!"), or refer to them as an officer. Three different gamers missed the point and had to pipe in with "It's a gender-neutral title!" I felt like I was talking politics with my friends. >.
If you know any Army, USMC, or USAF sergeants (or Navy petty officers), try calling them "Sir" (or "Ma'am," as U.S. military courtesies are gender-based). They will VERY quickly inform you that "Sir" (or "Ma'am") is what you call commissioned officers or warrant officers, and it's NOT what you call non-commissioned officers (NCOs, noncoms) or other enlisted ranks.
I alluded to a common stereotypical response above: "Don't call me Sir, I work for a living" (or "Don't call me Ma'am, I work for a living," as appropriate). NCOs are the backbone of the military services, as well as the front line leaders; this custom is actually a form of recognizing that. It's a VERY big distinction you learn early on, and that's why it's so jarring that I can't quite enjoy the storyline.
Since several people responded as if this were a gender issue rather than a rank issue, I'm guessing that this is a "Who cares?" issue to those without the background. Maybe my explanation will help explain why some of us recoil from it when we encounter this oddity in the script. ^_^
Doesn't everybody?
After class last night (actually, during lab) the instructor mentioned Haldane's Law and evo-devo (Evolutionary developmental biology) in a side conversation with me while we were talking about the Neandertal and Denisovan genes found in Eurasian and East Asian populations.[Dear Instructor:]
Thanks again for an enjoyable class last night, though I despair a little of the finer points of osteology nomenclature (but that’s part of why I’m taking this course). And thanks for mentioning Haldane’s Rule (viability of homogametic vs. heterogametic sex in hybrids and other crosses); I’ve no idea why I didn’t remember it from undergraduate days.
I did find myself a bit bemused after class. I'd mentally pigeonholed evo-devo as "embryonic development" (and its chemical clues), for which I'd seen a couple of Scientific American articles (alas, I don't often read actual journals except for specific topics). And I’d pigeonholed epigenetics as "sometimes inheritable changes in what genes are activated and inactivated" (and in my mind I was thinking of differentiated tissues, rendering heritability a moot point)... without realizing that in many areas they're pretty much two sides of the same coin; i.e., which genes get turned on or off, and how. As a safety guy with some toxicology this should have caught my eye earlier, since I'm always on the lookout for potential teratogens, etc. So thank you for that “Aha!” sense of wonder that comes in seeing the relationship between two distinct things.
Looking forward to next week,
~ Glas