Comments

  • 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.
  • "Sexist language?" A constructive argument against modern changes in vocabulary
    Language is an organic product of our collective minds. — Pantagruel

    I disagree.

    I don't see language as a metaphysical concept as you seem to see. Lexical and grammatical structures are based on logic and they were established with the aim of "writing well" and put some norms in the vocabulary. This is not about being static or boring - because people like me refuse to accept and adapt such words - but to keep with a basic sense in our languages.
    Furthermore, most of the "activists" who are against the gender endings or "oppressive" languages do not use good arguments to change the situation. They just use this debate for political (?) and emotional purposes without taking in consideration the importance of a logical structure such as language.
  • "Sexist language?" A constructive argument against modern changes in vocabulary
    defilnes "Latino" as (1) "A native or inhabitant of Latin America" and (2) "A person of Latin American origin living in the U.S." What's the problem with it? Gender is not involved at all. — Alkis Piskas

    The problem with Spanish words - according to some authors - is the fact that we have "gender" endings. Thus, "- a" or "- o" if we are referring to a woman or a man. This is the only reason of why some people tend to substitute those gender endings with the letter "- e" or just "- x". I also think it is stupid and lacks of logical value, even disrespects the integrity of Spanish language...
  • "Sexist language?" A constructive argument against modern changes in vocabulary
    ↪BC
    Oh, yes... I forgot about one the main problems: mass media and modern journalism. As you pointed out, they didn't a good job in the past decades because they are responsible of the prejudice of labelling people. Big companies of journalism (for example, CNN or The New York Times) use tactis to make up reality as they want. Isn't it infamous how they treat the rights of citizens just to get exclusives? their information is biased and shows a poor general image of the world.

    On the other hand, my country promoted a law which forbids to journalists to "highlight" the nationality, gender or sexual group, with the aim to protect the privacy of the persons when they got involved in trouble, like in a crime. Well, paradoxically, this law didn't get the objective and the different groups of people felt more offended than ever

    But, if we think about it, not only in mass media but everywhere (in TV context) appears groups that were omitted once. I am not upset for such action but the motives. They just use them because it would attract people and is "cool" to live in different/modern times. Those groups are pompously represented more than ever.
  • "Sexist language?" A constructive argument against modern changes in vocabulary
    ↪Alkis Piskas
    Perfect, take your time friend! :up:
  • "Sexist language?" A constructive argument against modern changes in vocabulary
    More on Latinx: — BC

    Yes, I already checked that research which is just another proof that "latinx" is both non-sense and non-existent.
    On the other hand, it is interesting to highlight that in Spain, we don't use the words of "latina" or "latino", we call them suramericanos (south Americans). Whenever I saw latino word I always thought on music references but it seems that affects some people in this world...

    BTW, Old English was as gendered as modern German. Most of the gendered forms were discarded starting around 1100 years ago, as Old English evolved into Middle English and as Middle English evolved into Modern English, about 600 years ago--give or take 15 minutes. — BC

    Exactly. Language is science and the lexicon is based on logical grammatical structures. I think seeing gender offends in these norms is nit-picking.
  • "Sexist language?" A constructive argument against modern changes in vocabulary
    Ola! Can you give me the reference about your OP and the rest so that I can know what you two are talking about? — Alkis Piskas

    Here is the reference: Against the Theory of "Sexist Language"

    I started this OP with the aim to make constructive arguments against all of those who want to destroy language and lexicon just for "gender" or feminists issues. According to some "authors" it seems that some languages as Spanish or English were constructed against women and a vigorous image of Men. I am disagree with all of this non-sense and I tried to make arguments using both Spanish and English lexicon. Nonetheless, I am also interested in Greek. I guess your language was constructed by grammar logic and reasoning standards, and not with the aim of "disrespecting" women or offence genders.
  • "Sexist language?" A constructive argument against modern changes in vocabulary
    This miraculous birth was celebrated by 'constructivists' who think gender and sex is a social invention. This nonsense would be bad enough if 'child-bearing men' only appeared in marginal academic discussions, but no -- "pregnant person" is a usage of National Public Radio and the New York Times (maybe not the New York Post.) — BC

    :up: :100:
  • "Sexist language?" A constructive argument against modern changes in vocabulary
    ↪BC
    :up: Thanks BC for sharing a good technical argument.


    The technical term for this theory is "bullshit". Let's get technical about 's. — BC

    I understand that you would have felt upset, but yes the quotes I shared in my OP are real and they are defended by some "specialists" in this matter...

    The paper I had read yesterday, also wonders: How can "-'s" be a contraction of "his" when "-es" or "-s" are genitive endings in Old English, German, Greek, etc, without being contractions of anything, let alone a particular historical pronoun?
    Or when "s" is the genitive ending in the feminine first declension of Greek but not the masculine second declension, and for both in the third declension , meaning that it historically has had no fixed gender association?

    Interesting and good arguments to all of those who wants to destroy a language and its lexicon!

    I guess @Alkis Piskas can help us to make deep arguments towards this debate using and understanding an old language/lexicon as Greek.
  • "Sexist language?" A constructive argument against modern changes in vocabulary
    ↪T Clark
    First of all, thank you for taking part in this thread.

    I am aware that using Latinx argument cannot be so taken into account in Anglo-Saxon countries because there are not gender endings such as "latina" and "latino". Nonetheless, my intention was to criticise the absurdity of statements provided by feminists who are called themselves as "philosphers" or some politicians who wants to make this as their propaganda. It pisses me off because they denigrate a language, which is one of the most appreciated cultural heritage of a society. I wanted to make such arguments because of I am angry reading those words such as "latinx" or "niñe" instead of "niña" or "niño", etc... But I guess my uncontrolled emotions didn't make solid arguments.

    In the preface, the author indicated he had alternated using "she," and "he;" and "him" and "her" in different sections of the text — T Clark

    I don't see a problem here and yes, it is a good example. At least the author explained in the preface why he opted to use that grammatical performance instead of promoting hate speech against a language.
  • External world: skepticism, non-skeptical realism, or idealism? Poll
    Right, judge for yourself. Am I an honest voter, or a troll? — Metaphysician Undercover

    You are a metaphysician honest troll.
  • External world: skepticism, non-skeptical realism, or idealism? Poll
    ↪Banno


    Oh yes! I didn't see his post:
    There. Happy now? — Metaphysician Undercover

    So, we can interpret that the vote comes from him. :eyes:
  • External world: skepticism, non-skeptical realism, or idealism? Poll
    And at 24 votes, one would have expected one or two folk to have chosen idealism. None did, despite their rejection of realism. — Banno

    Now the survey has 25 votes and appears a vote to idealism. I don't know if it is just coincidence or the fact that an user is trolling us... :chin:
  • Mind-body problem
    ↪Dfpolis
    Congratulations for your publication! :up:
  • External world: skepticism, non-skeptical realism, or idealism? Poll
    I'm not sure why idealism is on there. Idealism is not a position on whether or not there is an external world, but about whether that world (external or not) is independent of any minds. — bert1

    It is there as an option and I think is important to consider of, nonetheless as I pointed out yesterday, the option of "idealism" receives zero votes. It is true that some users thought on such option but they weren't that sure to choose it and then, they opted for another neutral position.
    We have to highlight how the theories and thinkers have changed. Back in the day, Platonism (thus, idealism) was one of the main basic roots and now most of the people go for skepticism or non-skeptical realism.
  • External world: skepticism, non-skeptical realism, or idealism? Poll
    Funny thing is: it doesn't make sense to call a world "external" unless you think there's an "internal" somewhere — frank

    :100: :up:
Home » javi2541997