What if it isn’t everyone who uses a word “wrong”? What if it’s say 25% of people who use it incorrectly? Should you encourage them to use it correctly?
If there are two different ways of using the word and they could be mistaken for each-other that’s bad. Once the use of a word has flipped and means something very different from the original (idiot, gay, etc.) then there’s no reason to try to return to the original usage. If the usage is still in dispute and the majority of people use the word in the original meaning, I think it’s good to discourage people from using the word incorrectly so that people are still able to understand each-other.
I thnik Subcultures and sub-cultural contexts will always exist.
There’s always some cases where people have - and prefer- a small or specialist audience.
If you try to discourage it too hard you’ll probably end up with more slangs/ patois / creoles emerging. Try to clamp down of business consultant jargon and see what happens, a million worse terms will probably emerge.
then it’s an unsettled contest between a split community
a language’s community isn’t bound by any rules: it’s free to change a language however it chooses
I’ve found a language policing minority on here try to pejorate female as derogatory, and I explain to them that by trying to induct sexist presuppositions into the language they’re either sexist or playing themselves
First, some languages do have authorities that bound their language by rules. For example, the Académie Française and the Real Academia Española, which work for French and Spanish, respectively. English is an exception, which uses common usage rather than strict “definitions.” So while English is free to change with speakers, some languages do have official groups that make rules about their use.
Second, those who dislike “female” (when used as a noun describing female humans, specifically) aren’t turning the word into a pejorative - they are merely reporting that their experience with the word, when used in that way, expresses derogatory sentiments. The critics aren’t turning it into a “bad word,” the people who use “female” to describe women and girls are already using it to “otherize” and dehumanize half the population. To ignore the way that effect makes women and girls feel, even though they’re the ones being directly affected by such usage, is quite dismissive. I don’t want to throw around the word “mansplaining” willy nilly, but if you’re a man who goes around explaining to women that they shouldn’t be offended by a term that impacts them, but which you have no personal stake in, it might be wise to step back and listen to their experiences.
First, some languages do have authorities that bound their language by rules.
All natural languages work the same way.
Some institution claiming otherwise doesn’t change that.
aren’t turning the word into a pejorative
This analogy fits you.
Imagine online activists started condemning usage of the word dutch as a slur.
It’s bizarre: there is nothing wrong with the dutch, yet they’re acting as though we should think so & resist that urge?
Why are they propagating problematic presuppositions we don’t have about the dutch?
Why are they trying to make this official?
Are they some special breed of stupid?
Continuing this analogy, they drag you into fights by claiming you’re a racist for using the word when you’re not actually saying anything offensive about the dutch.
You & the rest of society know the word dutch isn’t offensive, yet these activists insist it is by pointing to some fringe online community spewing vitriolic propaganda about dutch inferiority specifically using the word dutch.
You repudiate their claim by asking why some fringe group irrelevant to wider society gets to decide the meaning of words, but they condemn your “hurtful” language and say you’re as bad as them or one of them.
Don’t be an asshole & use another word like Dutchperson, Netherlander, or Hollander they say: it’s the right thing to do & shows socially conscientious, moral rectitude.
Yes, they are whether they recognize it or not: from an external, impartial observer, claiming there’s a problem with the word female with little regard for context communicates the problem resides in whatever the word itself denotes rather than the contextual meaning.
Our society includes both a minority of sexists & a vast majority of non-sexists who use the word female differently, yet these activists privilege the language & rhetoric of the sexist minority over the non-sexist majority.
Why should the sexists get to decide the meaning of words for everyone & the unequal ideas to perpetuate in society?
Who does that serve?
Older activists understood that doesn’t serve them and chose to reclaim words like black & queer as words of pride instead.
Newer activists would be wise to follow that example: instead of antagonizing non-sexists by treating them as sexists or fulfilling an inferiority complex to establish sexist language as normative, they could try not playing themselves.
The rest you wrote is misguided opinion you’d ironically perpetuate.
the people who use “female” to describe women and girls are already using it to “otherize” and dehumanize half the population
Counterfactual.
The language community decides the meaning of words through observed usage, and in the preponderance of the community, female is inoffensive.
That includes among females themselves.
Female is used self-referentially “in-group”: it shows up in feminist book titles, in dating communities (eg, “F4F/M”), classifieds (eg, “need a roommate […] females only”), etc.
In conventional language, female is an acceptable word.
I don’t want to throw around the word “mansplaining” willy nilly
Logic has no sex.
You’d be wise not to internalize & promote sexism.
But the disputes occur because people use the newer, less common meaning until it becomes more common. If you discourage people from using the word “incorrectly” but it eventually evolves in meaning through usage because people ignore your encouragement to return to the original meaning, then you’d just be on the losing side of the battle historically.
I feel like it should be much more nuanced as to whether you encourage or discourage change. People reclaiming or usurping derogatory terms as a big FU to bigotry? Awesome. People twisting words for the purposes of oppressive, deceptive, or marketing purposes? Nope.
The reason behind the change should be preferably be intentional, backed by goodwill, and done in order to increase ease of communication because the old meaning/usage wasn’t sufficient.
But language is a shared medium and a lot of intention falls by the wayside because of random quirks as much by intentional campaigns.
You sound like you consider all linguistic evolution to be a bad thing. I’m not saying there shouldn’t be opposition to change, indeed opposition helps to filter out pointless change, while worthwhile change will tend to overcome that opposition. So go ahead and be that opposition if you will, but it just seems like a limited perspective to me.
It reminds me of my English teachers at school who impressed upon me that it’s incorrect to use the pronouns “they/them” in a singular, non-gender-specific context. So you had to go with the traditional but sexist “he” or an awkwardly pseudo-random distribution of “he” and “she”, despite the fact that “they” was in common use colloquially. Perhaps my teachers’ fervent opposition was only fueled by the fact that it was a language problem which popular usage had already solved. They were fighting a valiant rearguard action against common sense, and I’m glad they lost.
But, you’re just one person. You won’t be present for 99.9999%+ of newer usages of terms, so you’ll be impotent to effect much change on the matter. With the level of illiteracy and the anti-intellectualism that seems rampant these days, even having a widely read column on a popular platform might be insufficient to turn such a tide. Maybe at best you’d be a screenwriter for a Hollywood blockbuster that a decent portion of the population watches and you could hope for the best, but even that seems weak considering we collectively don’t even remember movie lines accurately ten or twenty years later.
What if it isn’t everyone who uses a word “wrong”? What if it’s say 25% of people who use it incorrectly? Should you encourage them to use it correctly?
If there are two different ways of using the word and they could be mistaken for each-other that’s bad. Once the use of a word has flipped and means something very different from the original (idiot, gay, etc.) then there’s no reason to try to return to the original usage. If the usage is still in dispute and the majority of people use the word in the original meaning, I think it’s good to discourage people from using the word incorrectly so that people are still able to understand each-other.
Then both groups are correct and the word gets multiple meanings.
Only one individual can use a word incorrectly.
I thnik Subcultures and sub-cultural contexts will always exist.
There’s always some cases where people have - and prefer- a small or specialist audience.
If you try to discourage it too hard you’ll probably end up with more slangs/ patois / creoles emerging. Try to clamp down of business consultant jargon and see what happens, a million worse terms will probably emerge.
then it’s an unsettled contest between a split community
a language’s community isn’t bound by any rules: it’s free to change a language however it chooses
I’ve found a language policing minority on here try to pejorate female as derogatory, and I explain to them that by trying to induct sexist presuppositions into the language they’re either sexist or playing themselves
A couple things.
First, some languages do have authorities that bound their language by rules. For example, the Académie Française and the Real Academia Española, which work for French and Spanish, respectively. English is an exception, which uses common usage rather than strict “definitions.” So while English is free to change with speakers, some languages do have official groups that make rules about their use.
Second, those who dislike “female” (when used as a noun describing female humans, specifically) aren’t turning the word into a pejorative - they are merely reporting that their experience with the word, when used in that way, expresses derogatory sentiments. The critics aren’t turning it into a “bad word,” the people who use “female” to describe women and girls are already using it to “otherize” and dehumanize half the population. To ignore the way that effect makes women and girls feel, even though they’re the ones being directly affected by such usage, is quite dismissive. I don’t want to throw around the word “mansplaining” willy nilly, but if you’re a man who goes around explaining to women that they shouldn’t be offended by a term that impacts them, but which you have no personal stake in, it might be wise to step back and listen to their experiences.
All natural languages work the same way. Some institution claiming otherwise doesn’t change that.
This analogy fits you.
Imagine online activists started condemning usage of the word dutch as a slur. It’s bizarre: there is nothing wrong with the dutch, yet they’re acting as though we should think so & resist that urge? Why are they propagating problematic presuppositions we don’t have about the dutch? Why are they trying to make this official? Are they some special breed of stupid?
Continuing this analogy, they drag you into fights by claiming you’re a racist for using the word when you’re not actually saying anything offensive about the dutch. You & the rest of society know the word dutch isn’t offensive, yet these activists insist it is by pointing to some fringe online community spewing vitriolic propaganda about dutch inferiority specifically using the word dutch. You repudiate their claim by asking why some fringe group irrelevant to wider society gets to decide the meaning of words, but they condemn your “hurtful” language and say you’re as bad as them or one of them. Don’t be an asshole & use another word like Dutchperson, Netherlander, or Hollander they say: it’s the right thing to do & shows socially conscientious, moral rectitude.
Yes, they are whether they recognize it or not: from an external, impartial observer, claiming there’s a problem with the word female with little regard for context communicates the problem resides in whatever the word itself denotes rather than the contextual meaning.
Our society includes both a minority of sexists & a vast majority of non-sexists who use the word female differently, yet these activists privilege the language & rhetoric of the sexist minority over the non-sexist majority. Why should the sexists get to decide the meaning of words for everyone & the unequal ideas to perpetuate in society? Who does that serve?
Older activists understood that doesn’t serve them and chose to reclaim words like black & queer as words of pride instead. Newer activists would be wise to follow that example: instead of antagonizing non-sexists by treating them as sexists or fulfilling an inferiority complex to establish sexist language as normative, they could try not playing themselves.
The rest you wrote is misguided opinion you’d ironically perpetuate.
Counterfactual. The language community decides the meaning of words through observed usage, and in the preponderance of the community, female is inoffensive. That includes among females themselves. Female is used self-referentially “in-group”: it shows up in feminist book titles, in dating communities (eg, “F4F/M”), classifieds (eg, “need a roommate […] females only”), etc. In conventional language, female is an acceptable word.
Logic has no sex. You’d be wise not to internalize & promote sexism.
But the disputes occur because people use the newer, less common meaning until it becomes more common. If you discourage people from using the word “incorrectly” but it eventually evolves in meaning through usage because people ignore your encouragement to return to the original meaning, then you’d just be on the losing side of the battle historically.
I feel like it should be much more nuanced as to whether you encourage or discourage change. People reclaiming or usurping derogatory terms as a big FU to bigotry? Awesome. People twisting words for the purposes of oppressive, deceptive, or marketing purposes? Nope.
The reason behind the change should be preferably be intentional, backed by goodwill, and done in order to increase ease of communication because the old meaning/usage wasn’t sufficient.
But language is a shared medium and a lot of intention falls by the wayside because of random quirks as much by intentional campaigns.
And we can work to stop it from becoming more common by nipping it in the bud.
At least you turned up to the fight.
Which is why change should be gradual and limited, otherwise two people who use that language are unable to clearly communicate.
Clear communication is so Ohio, I’ve got rizz.
Or something. I’m too old to make this joke.
You sound like you consider all linguistic evolution to be a bad thing. I’m not saying there shouldn’t be opposition to change, indeed opposition helps to filter out pointless change, while worthwhile change will tend to overcome that opposition. So go ahead and be that opposition if you will, but it just seems like a limited perspective to me.
It reminds me of my English teachers at school who impressed upon me that it’s incorrect to use the pronouns “they/them” in a singular, non-gender-specific context. So you had to go with the traditional but sexist “he” or an awkwardly pseudo-random distribution of “he” and “she”, despite the fact that “they” was in common use colloquially. Perhaps my teachers’ fervent opposition was only fueled by the fact that it was a language problem which popular usage had already solved. They were fighting a valiant rearguard action against common sense, and I’m glad they lost.
But, you’re just one person. You won’t be present for 99.9999%+ of newer usages of terms, so you’ll be impotent to effect much change on the matter. With the level of illiteracy and the anti-intellectualism that seems rampant these days, even having a widely read column on a popular platform might be insufficient to turn such a tide. Maybe at best you’d be a screenwriter for a Hollywood blockbuster that a decent portion of the population watches and you could hope for the best, but even that seems weak considering we collectively don’t even remember movie lines accurately ten or twenty years later.
But, together we’re 2 people. And we can recruit more to the army.
“I don’t want to belong to any club that would accept me as one of its members.”