Comments

  • Currently Reading
    And it's thanks to you that I had this opportunity to listen to this pearl.
    (I have downloaded the video and kept the audio as MP3.)     — Alkis Piskas

    :up: :100:
  • Currently Reading
    Please, find the time to watch --actually, listen-- Russel's video. — Alkis Piskas

    I just watched and listened it. I am not going to lie: this footage or tape is so awesome and with a big philosophical value. I am agree with Russell when he says that Christianity has now another concept or at least, Christians act differently to past times.
    On the other hand, it surprised me his voice! I never expected such lightness. Well, it is true that old tapes tend to distort voices...
  • Currently Reading
    ↪Alkis Piskas
    Re Boethius's "The consolation of philosophy": — Alkis Piskas
    Wow! What an advanced philosophical agenda for that period of time! — Alkis Piskas

    This is the book I began with. It is interesting and has deep philosophical inquiries. Another fact to consider is that the book is written in two forms: prose and verse. For example: It begins with a philosophical verse (or poem) like, "To crown with glittering office their ambitions/such blessings leave them cold/relentless greed devours those earlier grains/reopens wide its jaws." Can headlong lust be curbed by any reins, be bounded by fixed laws?... And then Boethius writes a paragraph where he explains his views on life and aspirations through philosophy (influenced by Plato and neo-Platonist)
  • Currently Reading
    If someone has nothing better to read! :grin: — Alkis Piskas

    :rofl: :100:
  • Currently Reading
    ↪Alkis Piskas
    I understand! Nonetheless, I personally think that both Kierkegaard and Sartre are worthy to read about. :smile:
  • Currently Reading
    March/April readings:

    The consolation of philosophy by Boethius.

    Why I am not Christian by Bertrand Russell.

    Christ recrucified by Nikos Kazantzakis (recommended by @Alkis Piskas)

    Rereading: Fear and Trembling;The Concept of Anxiety, Kierkegaard.
  • What exemplifies Philosophy?
    What type of philosophy most exemplifies what philosophy is or should be to you? — Pantagruel

    I picked empiricist. I am aware that is an "old-fashioned" (I guess...) philosophical category. Yet, I think some works, such as "an essay of human understanding" are among the most important philosophical treatises.
    John Locke is one the of the main philophers of modernity, even if he is not now the most popular.
  • Spinoza’s Philosophy
    Spinoza‘s philosophy. — Ali Hosein

    @180 Proof is a master on Spinoza's works and I believe he can answer your question.
  • Welcome Robot Overlords
    ↪Banno
    Interesting.

    I simply see ChatGPT as a normal program that produces "statistically plausible" answers. Yet, it seems that some people demand so much from it, like "understanding the reality."
  • Dilbert sez: Stay Away from Blacks
    I think feminists have been arguing for gender neutral language or inclusive language for decades already and Spanish does have a few ugly examples... — Benkei

    Another example which is pretty controversial in Spain: Juez (judge). Some feminists want to switch the lexicon to "Jueza". It is a terrible mistake because "Juez" is already a neutral word and refers to both women and men.

    I've lived in a student house with an exchange student who was clearly born female but still wanted to be referred to as "he". I just did it because it made him happy. My confusion (or anyone's aversion) really doesn't need to factor in a lot. — Benkei

    Yes, I agree with this. If they are happy when they are called as they wish to be, there are no problems. But I think this topic or debate was so badly taken by some politicians or some activists, or whatever, etc., because rather than use it in good faith, they just use those words with political aims.
  • Dilbert sez: Stay Away from Blacks
    ↪Isaac
    ↪Benkei


    I understand and respect your views.

    Yet, what I want to say is not related to civil rights, sexology, philosophy of mind, etc... and I respect the transsexuals citizens. If they want to switch their genders is not a topic which incumbent me.

    What I try to defend is the lexicon and grammar. These "rules" are not based on oppresive behaviours. They just help us how to speak and write "correctly" in terms of serious affairs, for example when you write a book or Ph.D.

    I only see the logic of the word LatinX when it is used by someone who doesn't consider himself a man or a woman. It is okay if they use it privately or for basic purposes. But changing every grammar rule for a brief percentage of the population would be reckless and crazy.
  • Dilbert sez: Stay Away from Blacks
    ↪Benkei
    I just do not understand why say Latino and Latina is so offensive...

    Perfectly understandable to me and I don't even live in the States. — Benkei

    Do you know that for the most Hispanic citizens LatinX word is offensive, right?
  • Dilbert sez: Stay Away from Blacks
    ↪Benkei
    Because that word has nonsense and disrespects Spanish grammar and lexicon.
  • Dilbert sez: Stay Away from Blacks
    restricting the use of "LatinX" by government employees. — frank

    Just for a basic rational sense, I would do the same...
  • Aesthetical realism:
    Should philosophers and simple humans give up the idea that beauty and ugliness may result from certain features and/or properties? — Eros1982

    If they do so, what is the core of aesthetics then?

    If yes, why we see all kinds of political intrusions into aesthetics: through educating kids, through promoting "artworks" and "artists" who are politically correct, — Eros1982

    I don't know if I am follow you correctly, but are you trying to make an argument against all of those so called "modern artists" who are irrelevant but they think they do art because they are financed by the state? Because I think we can be agree in this point.
  • Why egalitarian causes always fail
    Every generation will have its sinful elite, not because the people failed to express the true ideals of liberalism or Marxism, but because we never escape our nature. — frank

    Would it be easier if we accept our determinism and destiny?
    All of those "political theories" are just a clever move to remain a politician in power. Are they worthy to read or understand? absolutely. But I don't see the ideals of liberalism and Marxism worthy in nowadays. The society got more complex than ever and the younger generation no longer want to get in revolutions if they live well-off with materialistic entertainment.

    Whoever is called a great minister,
    when he finds that he cannot morally serve his prince, he resigns.     — Confucius

    "Unless," said I, "either philosophers become kings in the cities or those now called kings and rulers love wisdom seriously and adequately, and there is a conjunction of these two things, political power and philosophy, while the motley horde of the natures who at repesent pursue either apart from the other are excluded by force, there will be no end of evils, dear Glaucon, for the cities, nor, I think, for the human race either." — Plato. Republic,
  • "Sexist language?" A constructive argument against modern changes in vocabulary
    baloney (salchicha de baja calidad. (Did Google translate that properly? Low quality sausage?) — BC

    Baloney means camelo in Spanish. It is a slang word, right? and it means foolish or deceptive talk with nonsense if I am not wrong with the interpretation!

    It's another consequence of the postmodern idea of pervasive social construction, as opposed to the operations of biology (or nature). Only by supposing that reality is a social construct can one believe that there are 77 different genders.

    My advice to the individuals who find they have highly specialized and esoteric sexuality is "get over it".     — BC

    :up: :100:

    What about trans persons? I have known quite a few trans persons. A grand nephew is trans. I'm OK with it, — BC

    I am OK with trans persons too. It is not a big deal and I respect the way they want to live themselves. But, sometimes, they make nonsense arguments trying to throw out logical structures. They just confuse sexuality with lexicon and grammar, that I don’t even understand why this happens at all...
    Well, as you well said, I guess this is due to "Post modernism" ideas and so...
  • What is needed to think philosophically?
    ↪TiredThinker
    Humbleness and being a fierce reader.
  • "Sexist language?" A constructive argument against modern changes in vocabulary
    That's why those with liquified gender, fluid gender, or viscous gender--whatever--have somehow gotten everyone to say "gender assigned at birth". "Assignment" suggests that the identification of gender is arbitrary. — BC

    The only problem here is the way the language and lexicon is misunderstood. All of those who feels that they have a "neutral" or "nonbinary" gender attack grammar because they feel intimidated by some words of language. They think that language and lexicon are oppressive or exclusive to them when it is some rules to help us how to write, talk and express ourselves correctly, simple.
  • "Sexist language?" A constructive argument against modern changes in vocabulary
    ↪Hanover

    Hanover,

    Thank you for your words and analysis in this thread. I cannot be disagree with you in those facts, but I guess you misunderstood my main point in my OP because I am not against all of those who makes changes in the vocabulary but the ones who destroy it without any reason.

    Believe or not. Even language is a political topic which divides people. The ones who calle themselves as "progressive" want to re-establish lexicon (as they want to do so in other topics, for example History and Arts). You mentioned some examples as"When I was young, you made sure to refer to your teachers as Miss if unmarried and Mrs. If married, but now we just use Ms, which is a modern creation"
    I wish the changes they wanted were similar as your example... the new "activists" want to make us understand that the language has always been a "male's thing" and the gender endings such as "- a" or " - o" (for example perra or perro, "dog". We in Spanish rarely have neutral words) are sexist.

    I am against with the nonsense of some persons who feel intimidated because we distinguish with gender endings and they want to make our language uglier not modern.
    "Latinx" doesn't exist in our lexicon because that doesn't make non sense.
    "Elle" instead of "El/Ella". The first word looks like a frech one and neither exists in our language. Why we should implement those?
  • "Sexist language?" A constructive argument against modern changes in vocabulary
    That was very funny! I had to naturally stop there for an instant. (You can imagine the image that I got in my head!) :grin:
    Please go on ...     — Alkis Piskas

    :up:

    I found a crucial quote from the Quran which surprised me regarding this topic, it says: the term hijab sometimes refers to a curtain separating visitors to Muhammad's main house from his wives' residential lodgings. This has led some to claim that the mandate of the Qur'an applied only to the wives of Muhammad, and not to the entirety of women. Another interpretation can also refer to the seclusion of women from men in the public sphere, whereas a metaphysical dimension may refer to "the veil which separates man, or the world, from God". For some, the term for headscarf in the Qur'an is khimār [/i]

    The hijab is worn by Muslim girls and women to maintain modesty and privacy from unrelated males. According to the Encyclopedia of Islam and Muslim World, modesty concerns both men's and women's "gaze, gait, garments, and genitalia"

    Some religious groups consider the issue of veiling in Islam only as a recommendation made according to the conditions of the past, and they believe that giving it as a necessity is an imposition of an Islamist ideology. The Muslim Reform Movement emphasized that the jilbāb and khimar mentioned in the Qur'an are pre-Islamic clothing, they were not brought by the Qur'an, the hijab of the Qur'an never means a headscarf, and the Qur'an only advises on how to wear them.

    This information is so interesting, I am learning a lot in this thread! :smile:
  • What are you listening to right now?
    I feel weird listening this song :eyes: :sparkle:

  • "Sexist language?" A constructive argument against modern changes in vocabulary
    ↪Alkis Piskas


    Could be indeed an influencing factor. Who knows? — Alkis Piskas

    I am agree and yes, it could have been an influencing factor inside the progress of sociology and history.


    Interesting comment of that user, but I checked out on the problem of sexism and misogyny too. I found out the following information:

    ...Between Isis, Athena, and Aphrodite, there’s no doubt women possessed great power in ancient society. The real question is, what happened between ancient times and the present? When did men take over? When were women pushed back? The Origins of Misogyny: How History Held Women Back
    When it comes to pinpointing, there isn’t one, specific event that boosted the power of men and degraded the power of women. Instead, misogyny’s emergence in multiple cultures worked together to create the uneven roles of today.

    Misogyny is evident not only in Christianity, but also in Islam. Chapter 4, Line 34 of the Quran instructs a husband to beat his rebellious wife until she obeys his commands. Explicit directions of brutality implies the desire to keep women contained, like objects, and thus encourages hatred towards the gender. We didn't make quotations in Quran but my guess goes that is sexist as much as is Bible. Another intriguing fact inside this controversy is the way those religious text dictate how women should look like. This is the main cause hijab or Awrah (which means "intimate parts"). Quran says: be covered by clothing. Exposing the intimate parts of the body is unlawful in Islam as the Quran instructs the covering of male and female genitals, and for adult females the breasts. Exposing them is normally considered sinful. Exposing intimate parts when needed, such as going to the toilet or bathing, falls under a specific set of rules. Precisely which body parts must be covered varies among different schools of Islamic thought.

    Well, it is interesting but I don't want to go so deep inside Quran or Islamic dress code and sorry to leave the main topic on lexicon and languages again! :eyes:
  • "Sexist language?" A constructive argument against modern changes in vocabulary
    Religious authorities, with the support of state authotities, were always and still are persecuting non-believers! One must add this to the other immoralities that are or can be attributed to them, including sexism/misogyny. — Alkis Piskas

    :up:

    ↪unenlightened
    Thanks for sharing. Interesting information, :up:
  • "Sexist language?" A constructive argument against modern changes in vocabulary
    Traditional Jewish philosophy does not attach a gender to God. In Hinduism, Brahman represents a principle rather than an entity, so it has no gender. — Alkis Piskas

    Interesting.

    I still interested in this topic that we are debating about and I found an interesting paper: What God would be?, with a brief summary it says arguments to consider about.

    At the dawn of history, and in the religion of more recently attested, pre-literate peoples, there are gods. We get used to the idea of such gods portrayed in anthropomorphic or theriomorphic (i.e. animal) forms and embedded in mythological systems, but as we find them, this is not always the case. Gods can be associated with natural or fetish objects and exist with little in the way of mythological accounts. It is tempting to think that this is how they began, but we are likely to always be without relevant evidence, just as it will be difficult to know about the origin of language or of religion in general.


    Indeed, the gods, spirits, and their insitutions can now conceivably be dismissed only because things have changed. Human consciousness changed, and the gods changed. At first, the gods and their realm only grew. As civilizations began and human society became larger, more sophisticated, and more organized, the representation of the gods, and of the dead, became themselves larger, more sophisticated, and more organized.

    Well, the most important issue is what the gods were always for, and that was meaning. And the fundamental part of meaning is, in Greek terms, the Good and the Beautiful. I have argued elsewhere that a theory of value requires a theory of the transcendent. Both Plato and Kant would agree with that. Value is not supported by merely empirical knowledge or a naturalistic epistemology or ontology. Where Kant wisely gives us few details about God (since he thinks that a positive metaphysic is impossible), Plato doesn't give us a God at all. He gives us the Form of the Good. That the Form of the Good was later folded into God by Aristotle and the Neoplatonists,
  • Paradox about Karma and Reincarnation
    you do remember past lives - after a lot of meditation - and can slough off the whole thing. — Bylaw

    Really? if it would be possible, the world would work so different from as it does nowadays...
  • "Sexist language?" A constructive argument against modern changes in vocabulary
    What I underdstand --which of course might not be exactly what thow woman had in mind-- is that the Church has to reconsider the ide that God was/is of a male gender. I have talked about the unreasonable attributes given to the Supreme Being that Christians call "God", which besides the gender, include aging, emotions, vegeance/punishment, etc., which make no sense at all for an eternal and superior being. — Alkis Piskas

    I understood it know, thanks for explaining it to me! :up:

    Both you and that author are right in the fact of how non-sense of having a humanize image of God. Different theists always tried to “reinforce” the image making him or her or “it” a very tremendous and colossal figure. If we try to interpret the lexicon of the word “God”, it seems to me that is not a male word. It sounds neutral, but I guess the problem here is how is understood or interpreted. That’s why the woman complained. Most of the priests considered God as a man because is powerful, maybe a woman would be otherwise according to their thoughts. Well, I always debated on God’s existence but I never thought its etymology would make me a lot of questions…

    Well, the Bible is full of hideous and immoral stories ... — Alkis Piskas

    It can be lascivious sometimes, indeed!
  • "Sexist language?" A constructive argument against modern changes in vocabulary
    ↪Alkis Piskas
    What do you think? — Alkis Piskas

    I am agree with your argument on why religion has always been a sticky dogma which made a lot of efforts against progresses. Not only against women's rights but LGTBIQ, free education system, secularism, philosophy itself etc...
    We have to highlight that language (at least Latin) was in hands of religious scrivener who interpreted and promoted the language according to the Bible and we already seen that this sacred book is sexist itself.

    I wanted to make a brief research on the different branches of Christianity (for example: Protestant vs Catholics) and see if there are some differences about the treatment on women's rights. I found out the following opinions:

    Many of the Christian ideals concerning gender stem from interpretations of the Bible. Christian feminists have often argued that the Bible is problematic, not because of the text itself, but because of the Christian scholars who have interpreted the scripture throughout time. An example of these inconsistencies can be found in the creation story of Adam and Eve; some Evangelicals believe that Adam and Eve were created at the same time, while others believe that Eve was made from the rib of Adam. There is also wide debate within many Christian denominations over the fault of Eve concerning the consumption of the forbidden fruit, and the entrance of sin into the world.Historically, a great deal of blame has been placed on Eve, but many Christian Feminists have worked to reframe the story, and shift the blame equally between both parties, as both partook of the fruit.

    Some Christian Feminists made the decision to abandon direct scriptural use in their fight for equality, while others relied on verses that opposed patriarchal ideals, pointing out the inconsistencies within the Bible. The following passages act as examples of these inconsistencies:Galatians 3:28. "There is neither…male nor female for all are one in Christ Jesus." Yet, the power ends up on a man, so yes it is sexist.
    Deborah of the Old Testament was a prophetess and "judge of Israel"    I didn't know there was a prophetess!

    Kim, Grace Ji-Sun (2001) in her work "Revisioning Christ". Feminist Theology says: Some Christian feminists believe that gender equality within the church cannot be achieved without rethinking the portrayal and understanding of God as a masculine being. I don't understand the opinion of this woman! :sweat:
  • Shouldn't we want to die?
    ↪MojaveMan
    I understand your position and your mother's too. Sooner or later, we all want to die and that's a fact. But I dont think is a "rational" act but a sense of boredom. There a few people who are afraid to die because of uncertainty of death, but even these end up wishing a peaceful death. What is the cause of keep living with suffer and pain? Just a waste of time.
  • "Sexist language?" A constructive argument against modern changes in vocabulary
    ↪Alkis Piskas
    Do not worry if we introduce different things from the main cause of this thread because we all are here to learn! and I did learn a lot about Greek lexicon. I started this thread with the aim of debating against feminism and I end up learning about Greek grammar. I don't regret it and I am proud of it. Again, thanks for all your information and how you are taking part in this thread.

    Anyway, from that aspect at least, we are better off today! So we mustn;t complain — Alkis Piskas

    Yeah! Agree with you we are better in this aspect.

    On the other hand, I did a research in some information related to Spanish society (which is heavily influenced by Christianity) it says: The foundations of Christian misogyny—his guilt over sex, his insistence on female subjugation, his fear of female seduction—are all in the epistles of Saint Paul. While Galatians 3:28 says that one's sex does not affect salvation—"there continues to be a pattern in which the wife is to emulate the Church's submission to Christ and the husband is to emulate Christ's love for the Church."

    Does "elite educated men" ring a bell? — Alkis Piskas

    Oh yes, the ones who have always been there pulling the strings of the state...
  • Poll: Definition or Theory?
    ↪bert1
    I come two years later, but good post and original/substantive poll :up:

    For any x, x is either alive or dead — bert1

    50 % theory; 50 % A draw, as I expected in this one.

    The sun is a giant ball of fusing hydrogen and helium (and other elements) — bert1

    Well, I thought it was a definition but some users think otherwise!
  • "Sexist language?" A constructive argument against modern changes in vocabulary
    ↪Alkis Piskas
    Ionians were one of the four maain tribes Greeks derived from. You can check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionians . (I don't know if it is a translation from the Greek page or the other way around.) — Alkis Piskas

    So interesting! It appears Euskara (the language of Basque country) as suggested language to read the article of Wikipedia on Ionians.

    Unlike "Aeolians" and "Dorians", "Ionians" appears in the languages of different civilizations around the eastern Mediterranean and as far east as Han China. They are not the earliest Greeks to appear in the records; that distinction belongs to the Danaans and the Achaeans. The trail of the Ionians begins in the Mycenaean Greek records of Crete.

    History of Greece is so great and imperious! :flower:

    (Only, as far as I am concerned, I will be back tomorrow ... It's late here.) — Alkis Piskas

    See you tomorrow! Take care of yourself.
  • "Sexist language?" A constructive argument against modern changes in vocabulary
    Millions of English speaking Christians grew up "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost". Starting back in the 1970s, feminists felt aggrieved and started agitating in the name of "the Creator, the Redeemer, and either the Holy Spirit or 'Sustainer'". OK, so 'ghost' is a bit anachronistic. Is God gendered? Maybe not for some people, but Jesus definitely was male, like it or not. So, after endless bitching and carping, liturgy and hymns have been neutered in many Christian denominations. The changes in wording have resulted in more bitching and carping. — BC

    It is true that cultural background has always been sexist and has rooted for males instead of women. Religion is a good example of gender controversies. God should not be related to gender or sexuality but it has always been representated as a old, wise man with a white beard. Jesus Christ, the great prophet, is a man (whatever if some likes it or others don't as you said).
    Nonetheless, the opposition of those doctrines are even worse and most of them are extremist too. It is bad both spreading a cultural culture where woman lacks of protagonism and hating a language without reasoning and analysis. I don't know what it is worse, shouting in a church "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost" or call "latinx" a Mexican.
  • TPF Quote Cabinet
    ὑμεῖς οὐχὶ Ῥωμαῖοι, ἀλλὰ Λαγούβαρδοι ἐστέ.
    Vos non Romani, sed Longobardi estis!
    You are not Romans, but Lombards!     — The Emperor Nicephorus II Phocas to Liutprand of Cremona
  • "Sexist language?" A constructive argument against modern changes in vocabulary
    The ancient language was very exact. Both grammatically/syntactically and semantically. — Alkis Piskas
    :up:

    For I have not been studious to make a display of fine writing or of an Atticizing style, swollen with the sublime and lofty, but rather have been eager by means of every-day and conversational narrative to teach you those things of which I think you should not be ignorant, and which may without difficulty provide that intelligence and prudence which are the fruit of long experience. Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (913-959 AD), De Administrando Imperio, Greek text edited by Gy. Moravcsik.

    I found an interesting information related to Ancient Greek, I think is beautiful and worthy to share it here:
    Dialects of Greek: The Greeks believed that the Ionians had long lived where they did but that the Dorians had arrived rather late. Indeed, another Greek dialect, not shown on the map, is "Epic" Greek, the language of the Iliad and the Odyssey. Epic Greek is more like Ionic and Aeolic than the other dialects. Classical Greek culture, including philosophy, began in Ionia, whose name became the word for "Greek" in all the languages to the East.

    ↪Alkis Piskas
    It is true that can be off topic of this thread but it is not an inconvenience because I am learning a lot about Greek language and I am grateful for your effort to help me understand. :up: :grin:
  • "Sexist language?" A constructive argument against modern changes in vocabulary
    Kazantzakis — Alkis Piskas

    Nikos Kazantakis! I only know about him that he was nominated for the Nobel Prize in Literature nine times. Now you mentioned him, I am interested in his works and I will check him and his works. It is been a long time since I have read a Greek author.

    Back to sexism and language, one thing that is good in demotic/modern Greek is that it is much less connected to and it is offerered much less for sexism than ancient and purist Greek language — Alkis Piskas

    Interesting. Nonetheless, do you think that demotic/modern Greek is not "spiritual" or "philosophical" as Ancient Greek?
    Let me explain myself better: Do the Greeks think that modern Greek is just a static language and it is not used to make poetry, for example? does Ancient Greek still maintain a good status among the citizens?
  • "Sexist language?" A constructive argument against modern changes in vocabulary
    Modern Greek, a demotic language, influenced by scholarly-leterary people, writers etc. most of whom in Greece are communists --yes, they have to do with the evolution of the Greek language!-- is actually a bastard or hybrid language — Alkis Piskas

    It is one of the main issues I hate the most about politics and politicians. Why do they destroy everything? what happened to the creation of "modern Greek" is anything but the negative influence of marixist and Leninist "thinkers" that want to re-establish whatever. But this problem is not only on vocabulary/lexicon/grammar/ aspects but other things such as history or economics...

    the ancient and purist versions. — Alkis Piskas

    It is time to claim the purity of Greek language!
    Make Greece great again! :grin:

    Well, institutions always exaggerate, don't they? — Alkis Piskas

    Yes, you are so right!
  • "Sexist language?" A constructive argument against modern changes in vocabulary
    What if changes were proposed that were based on a thorough understanding of the language—would you then think the changes were acceptable? — Jamal

    Well, in this case the changes would be acceptable. Spanish suffers a lot of changes each year in order to accommodate it in all the specialities among all the Hispanic countries of the world. It is ok and a good effort to keep the language alive. But I still think that a language should be protected from activists who don't have a clue on philology. Grammar and lexicon are complex issues and are not so easy to change.
  • "Sexist language?" A constructive argument against modern changes in vocabulary
    Of course. As far as I am concerned, it's the first time I heard about it. Is it used for any other language than Spanish? — Alkis Piskas

    I think not, the attempt of using a X or E instead of gender using is (at the moment) a Hispanic issue. I wish it doesn't spread to other languages or lexicons...

    Once I used just "he" in expressing some thought in a comment in TPF and I got a bad reaction from a female member! — Alkis Piskas

    Oh Jesus! That was so painful indeed. Well, sadly, the inconvenience of using he or she in terms of grammar is something that has surpassed institutions that were always been "cultural" and "professionals", for example American Philosophy Association says in its rules about submitting papers: "Guidelines for Non-Sexist Use of Language," which it says is, "A pamphlet outlining ways to modify language in order to eliminate gender-specific references"... this is out of control.

    The Greek language does not have any of these problems. It has 3 genders. The neuter gender takes a different ending than the one for male and female names and adjectives. This allows to use that gender to cpver both male and female cases. — Alkis Piskas

    We have to protect Greek language at all costs!

    Moral of the story: There's always a linguistic solution if one does not want to sound sexist! :smile: — Alkis Piskas

    It could be... but I still see Spanish as non sexist language because whenever we use gender endings exclusively for women, then it means that is far away of being sexist.
  • "Sexist language?" A constructive argument against modern changes in vocabulary
    ↪Jamal
    If they are structures of human speech, why does modern structure is not used by the large number of citizen? as the poll I shared in OP says: 40% of Latinos do find "Latinx" offensive, and 30% would be less likely to vote for a politician who used it [New York Post, December 8, 2021, p.25].

    On the other hand, I know that you have been in Spain a lot of times and you would notice that we use gender endings (- "a" for woman, - "o" for men, and a neutral " - e" for some words). It is just the structure of our language and that's how it used and spoken by the 99 % percent of the citizens.
    This happens thanks to academics and professionals who help people to speak and write correctly.

    Another rare fact: A minister of our government proposed a few years ago to switch "Él" and "Ella" to "Elle" to refer both men and women. It was a failure because nobody knows where "elle" comes from and it looks like a french word.
    So, it seems that we will still use gender endings in our speech.
Home » javi2541997