|
Scarlett's play was phenomenal. I'd put her right up there with Feast and Illusion as one of the new foreigner hopes. That she walked into the tournament as a COMPLETE unknown, whereas people had been talking up Illusion for awhile, made the story even more surprising. This was literally her first ever LAN experience and she was going toe to toe with Code S Koreans? Are you kidding me?
|
On April 08 2012 04:19 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2012 04:13 HorsemasterK wrote:On April 08 2012 04:10 Zaqwe wrote:On April 08 2012 03:57 aebriol wrote:Meh, I have no problem referring to her as she or recognizing her as a woman. I just thought it interesting that people make such a sharp distinction between two words that most often - also in science - are used to mean the same thing. I am aware that the words used to mean that, but that's why I also mentioned racism and racial discrimination - two historically different concepts, but 'racism' now includes both 'racism' and 'racial discrimination' as accepted meanings of the word. Words evolve and get new meanings all the time. Recently the word 'gender' which historically used to mean exactly that - what you psychologically identify as, have evolved to also be used in a biological sense, and used that way both in the scientific community AND in everyday usage. I mean just going by wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GenderToday, the distinction is strictly followed in some contexts, like feminist literature,[3] and in documents written by organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO),[4] but in most contexts, even in some areas of social sciences, the meaning of gender has expanded to include "sex" or even to replace the latter word.Now, fine argue that it's me from my 'ivory tower' if you want, fine with me. I still think it's wrong to make such a sharp distinction and insist that you are wrong when you say it's the same thing when it's used that way these days. Either way, for me Scarlett is a 'she' and I don't really find it interesting enough in itself to make such a big deal out of it, but hey - apparently lots of people disagree  (I do like to discuss language though, which was why I wrote the post in the first place, but never mind). Historically gender has been synonymous with sex. The paper you posted notes usage in 1860 was synonymous with sex. The meaning of gender never "expanded" to include sex. They were synonymous until attempts were made to redefine gender as psychological in the 1970s. As noted these attempts to redefine gender have not really caught on outside feminist circles or similar politically motivated groups. Wikipedia is a very bad source. Looks like we solved this, the meaning of all words was written in stone on New Years, 1860. All subsequent changes are 'politically motivated.' The meaning of words can change over time, but due to how they are commonly used and not by political mandate. You are welcome to use the new-age definition which separates gender and sex if you want. I only take issue with people claiming this modern politically motivated redefinition-- a definition which never entered common parlance--is historically correct, or that people using sex and gender interchangably have somehow mixed them up.
Truth is defined by consensus? I'm sorry, but the earth revolved around the sun, whether people wanted to believe in it in 800AD or not. Similarly, gender and sex have always been different, regardless of the acceptance of the masses. This is not politically motivated; its motivated by new understanding of the way the world works. Using popular acceptance as some kind of metric of the objective merit of a concept is innately flawed.
|
On April 08 2012 04:29 ShinobiX wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2012 03:24 Zaqwe wrote:On April 08 2012 03:01 Liquid`NonY wrote:On April 08 2012 02:00 MarcH wrote:On April 08 2012 01:47 aebriol wrote:On April 08 2012 01:41 Liquid`NonY wrote:On April 08 2012 01:14 Lennoxito wrote:On April 08 2012 01:09 Gamegene wrote:On April 08 2012 01:06 Lennoxito wrote:On April 08 2012 00:46 Gamegene wrote:
[quote]
people are talking about scarlet, she's interesting.
one: she's transgendered and like it or not that makes people raise their eyebrows a bit.
two: she has no team
three: she's a girl
and four: no one cares about illusion one: he's transgendered and like it or not that makes people raise their eyebrows a bit. two: he has no team three: he's a girl and four: no one cares about illusion fixed On April 07 2012 11:44 Gamegene wrote:On April 07 2012 11:02 archides wrote:
[quote]
You serious? These mods act so petty. Banning people for something that is clearly true. Scarlett himself said he's born a male. People aren't even throwing insults at him, just asking common questions.
1. Sex =/= Gender 2. Way to be a dick. actually its equal. sex is physical. gender is psychological Well, while true, it's like racism and racial discrimination - used to be two distinct concepts, but then people started to use one (gender / racism) to refer to both, and voila - confusion. http://www.oeb.harvard.edu/faculty/haig/publications_files/04inexorablerise.pdf Im still confused as to why this is an issue? So she is transgender so what who really cares?. I have no idea how you can read everything you just responded to and not realize that she cares. She directly asks people to respectfully refer to her as female. Lennoxito and truthbombDROPPER flaunt their ignorant views when they know they are disrespectful. Whether or not they are just playing dumb and acting like they don't understand the nuances does not matter when it is clear that they are purposely disrespectful. If they don't understand something then they can humbly ask for explanations. They can also make it a point to not do exactly what has been clearly stated is disrespectful. Not only were they disrespectful to Scarlett, they're disrespectful to everyone else and to the mods. One said we're in denial and the other said mods are petty for banning someone for speaking the truth (when in fact it was not the truth but ignorance and deliberate disrespect). Gamegene is nice enough to give them a hint that can start them on their own research if they really want to but also calls them out on the fact that they're purposely being dicks. Lennoxito contradicts him. I'm nice enough to explain the basic difference in 6 words. And then aebriol swoops down from the Ivory Tower and gives us a study on how academics have increasingly used gender synonymously with sex. However the study isn't relevant because it's over a decade old and it isn't arguing that there aren't nuances when talking about a person like Scarlett or discussing gender issues. It is merely showing how prevalent it was to ignore the possibilities of such nuances whenever possible. In other words, the natural scientists who were using gender synonymously with sex were not denying the existence of the issues that caused gender and sex to be used differently in the first place. Their usage wasn't indicative of their ideology. Some feminists had begun to merge the concepts of gender and sex as both social constructs but again that is not denying the nuances of a person like Scarlett. The whole idea of aebriol linking this study is absurd anyway because he's just trying to point out why some people might be confused but anyone with an ounce of common sense who has read the exchanges between Lennoxito and truthbombDROPPER and everyone else could see that they're not just confused by the notion that gender and sex are not synonyms. As if the reason why Lennoxito straight up contradicts Gamegene is because a bunch of natural scientists began to prefer to use 'gender' in place of 'sex' just as feminists began to strongly emphasize the difference between the two... Yeah, SOTG thread. Tyler, I have always appreciated your nuanced and moderate views, but gender and sex were synonyms for hundreds of years and never stopped being synonyms in common language. And if the issue is about respect why not respect the views of people who are uncomfortable using gender pronouns they feel are not appropriate? I understand banning people who say things like *fixed* and change a post because clearly they are trolling, but I don't think people should be forced to use certain pronouns. Are you for real? I'm male, if people start referring to me as "Her", eventually I will be offended. If Scarlett wants to be referred to as female, then it's not a choice of taste which pronoun you use, you use the pronoun that is fucking appropriate to her gender. Technically, you are forced to use certain (fitting) pronouns by the rules of social life. And it does not matter one ounce what you want, what you think of the whole matter or if you even accept her choices in life. Of course, you might still make a stand. But don't be surprised if Scarlett doesn't invite you to her MLG Winner celebration party! Go Scarlett! :D
Some people may disagree with you about what pronoun is appropriate for someone who is genetically a man. Why is it so important for you to force your views on them?
People should just use whatever they think is appropriate and not "correct" those who see it differently. Conflict only arises when one side or the other insists that everyone conform to the same opinion.
|
On April 08 2012 04:34 HorsemasterK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2012 04:19 Zaqwe wrote:On April 08 2012 04:13 HorsemasterK wrote:On April 08 2012 04:10 Zaqwe wrote:On April 08 2012 03:57 aebriol wrote:Meh, I have no problem referring to her as she or recognizing her as a woman. I just thought it interesting that people make such a sharp distinction between two words that most often - also in science - are used to mean the same thing. I am aware that the words used to mean that, but that's why I also mentioned racism and racial discrimination - two historically different concepts, but 'racism' now includes both 'racism' and 'racial discrimination' as accepted meanings of the word. Words evolve and get new meanings all the time. Recently the word 'gender' which historically used to mean exactly that - what you psychologically identify as, have evolved to also be used in a biological sense, and used that way both in the scientific community AND in everyday usage. I mean just going by wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GenderToday, the distinction is strictly followed in some contexts, like feminist literature,[3] and in documents written by organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO),[4] but in most contexts, even in some areas of social sciences, the meaning of gender has expanded to include "sex" or even to replace the latter word.Now, fine argue that it's me from my 'ivory tower' if you want, fine with me. I still think it's wrong to make such a sharp distinction and insist that you are wrong when you say it's the same thing when it's used that way these days. Either way, for me Scarlett is a 'she' and I don't really find it interesting enough in itself to make such a big deal out of it, but hey - apparently lots of people disagree (I do like to discuss language though, which was why I wrote the post in the first place, but never mind). Historically gender has been synonymous with sex. The paper you posted notes usage in 1860 was synonymous with sex. The meaning of gender never "expanded" to include sex. They were synonymous until attempts were made to redefine gender as psychological in the 1970s. As noted these attempts to redefine gender have not really caught on outside feminist circles or similar politically motivated groups. Wikipedia is a very bad source. Looks like we solved this, the meaning of all words was written in stone on New Years, 1860. All subsequent changes are 'politically motivated.' The meaning of words can change over time, but due to how they are commonly used and not by political mandate. You are welcome to use the new-age definition which separates gender and sex if you want. I only take issue with people claiming this modern politically motivated redefinition-- a definition which never entered common parlance--is historically correct, or that people using sex and gender interchangably have somehow mixed them up. Truth is defined by consensus? I'm sorry, but the earth revolved around the sun, whether people wanted to believe in it in 800AD or not. Similarly, gender and sex have always been different, regardless of the acceptance of the masses. This is not politically motivated; its motivated by new understanding of the way the world works. Using popular acceptance as some kind of metric of the objective merit of a concept is innately flawed.
Language certainly is defined by consensus.
Without common understanding of words they would not be an effective means of communication.
|
On April 08 2012 04:34 HorsemasterK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2012 04:19 Zaqwe wrote:On April 08 2012 04:13 HorsemasterK wrote:On April 08 2012 04:10 Zaqwe wrote:On April 08 2012 03:57 aebriol wrote:Meh, I have no problem referring to her as she or recognizing her as a woman. I just thought it interesting that people make such a sharp distinction between two words that most often - also in science - are used to mean the same thing. I am aware that the words used to mean that, but that's why I also mentioned racism and racial discrimination - two historically different concepts, but 'racism' now includes both 'racism' and 'racial discrimination' as accepted meanings of the word. Words evolve and get new meanings all the time. Recently the word 'gender' which historically used to mean exactly that - what you psychologically identify as, have evolved to also be used in a biological sense, and used that way both in the scientific community AND in everyday usage. I mean just going by wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GenderToday, the distinction is strictly followed in some contexts, like feminist literature,[3] and in documents written by organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO),[4] but in most contexts, even in some areas of social sciences, the meaning of gender has expanded to include "sex" or even to replace the latter word.Now, fine argue that it's me from my 'ivory tower' if you want, fine with me. I still think it's wrong to make such a sharp distinction and insist that you are wrong when you say it's the same thing when it's used that way these days. Either way, for me Scarlett is a 'she' and I don't really find it interesting enough in itself to make such a big deal out of it, but hey - apparently lots of people disagree (I do like to discuss language though, which was why I wrote the post in the first place, but never mind). Historically gender has been synonymous with sex. The paper you posted notes usage in 1860 was synonymous with sex. The meaning of gender never "expanded" to include sex. They were synonymous until attempts were made to redefine gender as psychological in the 1970s. As noted these attempts to redefine gender have not really caught on outside feminist circles or similar politically motivated groups. Wikipedia is a very bad source. Looks like we solved this, the meaning of all words was written in stone on New Years, 1860. All subsequent changes are 'politically motivated.' The meaning of words can change over time, but due to how they are commonly used and not by political mandate. You are welcome to use the new-age definition which separates gender and sex if you want. I only take issue with people claiming this modern politically motivated redefinition-- a definition which never entered common parlance--is historically correct, or that people using sex and gender interchangably have somehow mixed them up. Truth is defined by consensus? I'm sorry, but the earth revolved around the sun, whether people wanted to believe in it in 800AD or not. Similarly, gender and sex have always been different, regardless of the acceptance of the masses. This is not politically motivated; its motivated by new understanding of the way the world works. Using popular acceptance as some kind of metric of the objective merit of a concept is innately flawed.
I'm sorry, but when it comes to language, yes, truth is defined by consensus. Just look at how pronunciation changes over time and is accepted by dictionaries based on the vernacular.
|
On April 08 2012 04:10 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2012 03:57 aebriol wrote:Meh, I have no problem referring to her as she or recognizing her as a woman. I just thought it interesting that people make such a sharp distinction between two words that most often - also in science - are used to mean the same thing. I am aware that the words used to mean that, but that's why I also mentioned racism and racial discrimination - two historically different concepts, but 'racism' now includes both 'racism' and 'racial discrimination' as accepted meanings of the word. Words evolve and get new meanings all the time. Recently the word 'gender' which historically used to mean exactly that - what you psychologically identify as, have evolved to also be used in a biological sense, and used that way both in the scientific community AND in everyday usage. I mean just going by wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GenderToday, the distinction is strictly followed in some contexts, like feminist literature,[3] and in documents written by organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO),[4] but in most contexts, even in some areas of social sciences, the meaning of gender has expanded to include "sex" or even to replace the latter word.Now, fine argue that it's me from my 'ivory tower' if you want, fine with me. I still think it's wrong to make such a sharp distinction and insist that you are wrong when you say it's the same thing when it's used that way these days. Either way, for me Scarlett is a 'she' and I don't really find it interesting enough in itself to make such a big deal out of it, but hey - apparently lots of people disagree (I do like to discuss language though, which was why I wrote the post in the first place, but never mind). Historically gender has been synonymous with sex. The paper you posted notes usage in 1860 was synonymous with sex. The meaning of gender never "expanded" to include sex. They were synonymous until attempts were made to redefine gender as psychological in the 1970s. As noted these attempts to redefine gender have not really caught on outside feminist circles or similar politically motivated groups. Wikipedia is a very bad source.
Actually not.
Historically, gender was used in grammar to define what ending a word should have, not commonly used to refer to actual people. Gender defined that you used 'she' or 'he' but nothing else.
And wikipedia is a great source If you disagree, link to a better source. A dictionary 1 sentence summary isn't actually something you should base your opinion on. Hope you learn your lesson from this.
http://www.ihp.sinica.edu.tw/~tangsong/reference/96102601.pdf
|
She asked to be referred to as she. The stuff you guys are debating is not relevant.
|
On April 08 2012 03:24 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2012 03:01 Liquid`NonY wrote:On April 08 2012 02:00 MarcH wrote:On April 08 2012 01:47 aebriol wrote:On April 08 2012 01:41 Liquid`NonY wrote:On April 08 2012 01:14 Lennoxito wrote:On April 08 2012 01:09 Gamegene wrote:On April 08 2012 01:06 Lennoxito wrote:On April 08 2012 00:46 Gamegene wrote:On April 08 2012 00:38 Lennoxito wrote:
[quote]
so from now on sotg will invite every guy who is able to beat any korean? people are talking about scarlet, she's interesting. one: she's transgendered and like it or not that makes people raise their eyebrows a bit. two: she has no team three: she's a girl and four: no one cares about illusion one: he's transgendered and like it or not that makes people raise their eyebrows a bit. two: he has no team three: he's a girl and four: no one cares about illusion fixed On April 07 2012 11:44 Gamegene wrote:On April 07 2012 11:02 archides wrote:On April 07 2012 06:35 truthbombDROPPER wrote:
Sorry but scarlett quite clearly used to be or still is male
I'm not sure why everyone is in denial
User was banned for this post. You serious? These mods act so petty. Banning people for something that is clearly true. Scarlett himself said he's born a male. People aren't even throwing insults at him, just asking common questions. 1. Sex =/= Gender 2. Way to be a dick. actually its equal. sex is physical. gender is psychological Well, while true, it's like racism and racial discrimination - used to be two distinct concepts, but then people started to use one (gender / racism) to refer to both, and voila - confusion. http://www.oeb.harvard.edu/faculty/haig/publications_files/04inexorablerise.pdf Im still confused as to why this is an issue? So she is transgender so what who really cares?. I have no idea how you can read everything you just responded to and not realize that she cares. She directly asks people to respectfully refer to her as female. Lennoxito and truthbombDROPPER flaunt their ignorant views when they know they are disrespectful. Whether or not they are just playing dumb and acting like they don't understand the nuances does not matter when it is clear that they are purposely disrespectful. If they don't understand something then they can humbly ask for explanations. They can also make it a point to not do exactly what has been clearly stated is disrespectful. Not only were they disrespectful to Scarlett, they're disrespectful to everyone else and to the mods. One said we're in denial and the other said mods are petty for banning someone for speaking the truth (when in fact it was not the truth but ignorance and deliberate disrespect). Gamegene is nice enough to give them a hint that can start them on their own research if they really want to but also calls them out on the fact that they're purposely being dicks. Lennoxito contradicts him. I'm nice enough to explain the basic difference in 6 words. And then aebriol swoops down from the Ivory Tower and gives us a study on how academics have increasingly used gender synonymously with sex. However the study isn't relevant because it's over a decade old and it isn't arguing that there aren't nuances when talking about a person like Scarlett or discussing gender issues. It is merely showing how prevalent it was to ignore the possibilities of such nuances whenever possible. In other words, the natural scientists who were using gender synonymously with sex were not denying the existence of the issues that caused gender and sex to be used differently in the first place. Their usage wasn't indicative of their ideology. Some feminists had begun to merge the concepts of gender and sex as both social constructs but again that is not denying the nuances of a person like Scarlett. The whole idea of aebriol linking this study is absurd anyway because he's just trying to point out why some people might be confused but anyone with an ounce of common sense who has read the exchanges between Lennoxito and truthbombDROPPER and everyone else could see that they're not just confused by the notion that gender and sex are not synonyms. As if the reason why Lennoxito straight up contradicts Gamegene is because a bunch of natural scientists began to prefer to use 'gender' in place of 'sex' just as feminists began to strongly emphasize the difference between the two... Yeah, SOTG thread. Tyler, I have always appreciated your nuanced and moderate views, but gender and sex were synonyms for hundreds of years and never stopped being synonyms in common language. And if the issue is about respect why not respect the views of people who are uncomfortable using gender pronouns they feel are not appropriate? I understand banning people who say things like *fixed* and change a post because clearly they are trolling, but I don't think people should be forced to use certain pronouns.
I don't get why people keep making this absurd logical fallacy. "Just because it's been this way for a long time, it therefore should be this way." It's pretty obvious that none of the people attempting to assert that gender and sex are synonymous have read any bit of relevant critical literature, such as writings from Simone de Beauvoir or Judith Butler (admittedly, the latter is a pain to read). Sex is biological, gender is social. Gender roles are obviously apparent - "girly" colors (pink, purple, etc.), "girly" toys (dolls, playhouses, playkitchens), "girly" roles (mother, not physically aggressive, etc.) are not borne of biology. There is nothing about male and female biology that dictates that a person with a penis has to someone shy away from colors of pink and purple and go for colors of blue, red, etc.
Sure, this is a modern understanding. That's because people in general were too ignorant to know better in the past. Now, there's the whole issue about language also involved, and it's pretty clear that many aren't reflective enough to understand the complexities of language, when they insist that it's okay for public figures to utter racial or homophobic epithets because "people don't 'intend' to be racist/homophobic/sexist when they do so" etc. But obviously, "intent" isn't worth a load of crap when language and other faculties possess unconscious and subconscious effects. Thought empirically shapes reality: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/boroditsky09/boroditsky09_index.html
Notably, as proven in the above article, feminine/masculine language [i]does[i/] shape reality and social attitudes and abstract things such as moral judgments regardless of intent. The plasticity of the brain and tendency of neurons to lock into certain routes of firing all go to show that what you "intend" doesn't matter when the subconscious assumptions of certain behaviors, like gendered language, continue to condition behavior in certain ways.
|
On April 08 2012 04:45 hinnolinn wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2012 04:34 HorsemasterK wrote:On April 08 2012 04:19 Zaqwe wrote:On April 08 2012 04:13 HorsemasterK wrote:On April 08 2012 04:10 Zaqwe wrote:On April 08 2012 03:57 aebriol wrote:Meh, I have no problem referring to her as she or recognizing her as a woman. I just thought it interesting that people make such a sharp distinction between two words that most often - also in science - are used to mean the same thing. I am aware that the words used to mean that, but that's why I also mentioned racism and racial discrimination - two historically different concepts, but 'racism' now includes both 'racism' and 'racial discrimination' as accepted meanings of the word. Words evolve and get new meanings all the time. Recently the word 'gender' which historically used to mean exactly that - what you psychologically identify as, have evolved to also be used in a biological sense, and used that way both in the scientific community AND in everyday usage. I mean just going by wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GenderToday, the distinction is strictly followed in some contexts, like feminist literature,[3] and in documents written by organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO),[4] but in most contexts, even in some areas of social sciences, the meaning of gender has expanded to include "sex" or even to replace the latter word.Now, fine argue that it's me from my 'ivory tower' if you want, fine with me. I still think it's wrong to make such a sharp distinction and insist that you are wrong when you say it's the same thing when it's used that way these days. Either way, for me Scarlett is a 'she' and I don't really find it interesting enough in itself to make such a big deal out of it, but hey - apparently lots of people disagree (I do like to discuss language though, which was why I wrote the post in the first place, but never mind). Historically gender has been synonymous with sex. The paper you posted notes usage in 1860 was synonymous with sex. The meaning of gender never "expanded" to include sex. They were synonymous until attempts were made to redefine gender as psychological in the 1970s. As noted these attempts to redefine gender have not really caught on outside feminist circles or similar politically motivated groups. Wikipedia is a very bad source. Looks like we solved this, the meaning of all words was written in stone on New Years, 1860. All subsequent changes are 'politically motivated.' The meaning of words can change over time, but due to how they are commonly used and not by political mandate. You are welcome to use the new-age definition which separates gender and sex if you want. I only take issue with people claiming this modern politically motivated redefinition-- a definition which never entered common parlance--is historically correct, or that people using sex and gender interchangably have somehow mixed them up. Truth is defined by consensus? I'm sorry, but the earth revolved around the sun, whether people wanted to believe in it in 800AD or not. Similarly, gender and sex have always been different, regardless of the acceptance of the masses. This is not politically motivated; its motivated by new understanding of the way the world works. Using popular acceptance as some kind of metric of the objective merit of a concept is innately flawed. I'm sorry, but when it comes to language, yes, truth is defined by consensus. Just look at how pronunciation changes over time and is accepted by dictionaries based on the vernacular.
Concepts and words are different things. People once refered to black people as a different species. While this might have been semantically correct in the 1800s, it has NEVER been conceptually correct. I would be as justified objecting to it in 1830 as I would be today.
|
On April 08 2012 04:49 JackDT wrote:
She asked to be referred to as she. The stuff you guys are debating is not relevant.
the entire discussion is not relevant including our posts
|
On April 08 2012 04:46 aebriol wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2012 04:10 Zaqwe wrote:On April 08 2012 03:57 aebriol wrote:Meh, I have no problem referring to her as she or recognizing her as a woman. I just thought it interesting that people make such a sharp distinction between two words that most often - also in science - are used to mean the same thing. I am aware that the words used to mean that, but that's why I also mentioned racism and racial discrimination - two historically different concepts, but 'racism' now includes both 'racism' and 'racial discrimination' as accepted meanings of the word. Words evolve and get new meanings all the time. Recently the word 'gender' which historically used to mean exactly that - what you psychologically identify as, have evolved to also be used in a biological sense, and used that way both in the scientific community AND in everyday usage. I mean just going by wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GenderToday, the distinction is strictly followed in some contexts, like feminist literature,[3] and in documents written by organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO),[4] but in most contexts, even in some areas of social sciences, the meaning of gender has expanded to include "sex" or even to replace the latter word.Now, fine argue that it's me from my 'ivory tower' if you want, fine with me. I still think it's wrong to make such a sharp distinction and insist that you are wrong when you say it's the same thing when it's used that way these days. Either way, for me Scarlett is a 'she' and I don't really find it interesting enough in itself to make such a big deal out of it, but hey - apparently lots of people disagree (I do like to discuss language though, which was why I wrote the post in the first place, but never mind). Historically gender has been synonymous with sex. The paper you posted notes usage in 1860 was synonymous with sex. The meaning of gender never "expanded" to include sex. They were synonymous until attempts were made to redefine gender as psychological in the 1970s. As noted these attempts to redefine gender have not really caught on outside feminist circles or similar politically motivated groups. Wikipedia is a very bad source. Actually not. Historically, gender was used in grammar to define what ending a word should have, not commonly used to refer to actual people. Gender defined that you used 'she' or 'he' but nothing else. And wikipedia is a great source If you disagree, link to a better source. A dictionary 1 sentence summary isn't actually something you should base your opinion on. Hope you learn your lesson from this. http://www.ihp.sinica.edu.tw/~tangsong/reference/96102601.pdf
No, historically gender always was synonymous with sex, and was commonly used to refer to people. The suggestion it should only be applied to grammar was made by Henry Watson Fowler in 1926, and like the feminist redefinition of the word in the 1970s never really caught on.
I got this from your excellent source, wikipedia:
- 1387-8 - No mo genders been there but masculine, and femynyne, all the remnaunte been no genders but of grace, in facultie of grammar — Thomas Usk, The Testament of Love II iii (Walter William Skeat) 13.
- c. 1460 - Has thou oght written there of the femynyn gendere? — Towneley Mystery Plays xxx 161 Act One.
- 1632 - Here's a woman! The soul of Hercules has got into her. She has a spirit, is more masculine Than the first gender — Shackerley Marmion, Holland's Leaguer III iv.
- 1658 - The Psyche, or soul, of Tiresias is of the masculine gender — Thomas Browne, Hydriotaphia.
- 1709 - Of the fair sex ... my only consolation for being of that gender has been the assurance it gave me of never being married to any one among them — Mary Wortley Montagu, Letters to Mrs Wortley lxvi 108.
- 1768 - I may add the gender too of the person I am to govern — Laurence Sterne, A Sentimental Journey Through France and Italy.
- 1859 - Black divinities of the feminine gender — Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities.
- 1874 - It is exactly as if there were a sex in mountains, and their contours and curves and complexions were here all of the feminine gender — Henry James, 'A Chain of Italian Cities', The Atlantic Monthly 33 (February, p. 162.)
- 1892 - She was uncertain as to his gender — Robert Grant, 'Reflections of a Married Man', Scribner's Magazine 11 (March, p. 376.)
- 1896 - As to one's success in the work one does, surely that is not a question of gender either — Daily News 17 July.
- c. 1900 - Our most lively impression is that the sun is there assumed to be of the feminine gender — Henry James, Essays on Literature.
As you can see almost all the examples use gender to refer to humans, and it is used interchangably with sex.
I hope you learn your lesson from this.
|
On April 08 2012 04:57 LlamaNamedOsama wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2012 03:24 Zaqwe wrote:On April 08 2012 03:01 Liquid`NonY wrote:On April 08 2012 02:00 MarcH wrote:On April 08 2012 01:47 aebriol wrote:On April 08 2012 01:41 Liquid`NonY wrote:On April 08 2012 01:14 Lennoxito wrote:On April 08 2012 01:09 Gamegene wrote:On April 08 2012 01:06 Lennoxito wrote:On April 08 2012 00:46 Gamegene wrote:
[quote]
people are talking about scarlet, she's interesting.
one: she's transgendered and like it or not that makes people raise their eyebrows a bit.
two: she has no team
three: she's a girl
and four: no one cares about illusion one: he's transgendered and like it or not that makes people raise their eyebrows a bit. two: he has no team three: he's a girl and four: no one cares about illusion fixed On April 07 2012 11:44 Gamegene wrote:On April 07 2012 11:02 archides wrote:
[quote]
You serious? These mods act so petty. Banning people for something that is clearly true. Scarlett himself said he's born a male. People aren't even throwing insults at him, just asking common questions.
1. Sex =/= Gender 2. Way to be a dick. actually its equal. sex is physical. gender is psychological Well, while true, it's like racism and racial discrimination - used to be two distinct concepts, but then people started to use one (gender / racism) to refer to both, and voila - confusion. http://www.oeb.harvard.edu/faculty/haig/publications_files/04inexorablerise.pdf Im still confused as to why this is an issue? So she is transgender so what who really cares?. I have no idea how you can read everything you just responded to and not realize that she cares. She directly asks people to respectfully refer to her as female. Lennoxito and truthbombDROPPER flaunt their ignorant views when they know they are disrespectful. Whether or not they are just playing dumb and acting like they don't understand the nuances does not matter when it is clear that they are purposely disrespectful. If they don't understand something then they can humbly ask for explanations. They can also make it a point to not do exactly what has been clearly stated is disrespectful. Not only were they disrespectful to Scarlett, they're disrespectful to everyone else and to the mods. One said we're in denial and the other said mods are petty for banning someone for speaking the truth (when in fact it was not the truth but ignorance and deliberate disrespect). Gamegene is nice enough to give them a hint that can start them on their own research if they really want to but also calls them out on the fact that they're purposely being dicks. Lennoxito contradicts him. I'm nice enough to explain the basic difference in 6 words. And then aebriol swoops down from the Ivory Tower and gives us a study on how academics have increasingly used gender synonymously with sex. However the study isn't relevant because it's over a decade old and it isn't arguing that there aren't nuances when talking about a person like Scarlett or discussing gender issues. It is merely showing how prevalent it was to ignore the possibilities of such nuances whenever possible. In other words, the natural scientists who were using gender synonymously with sex were not denying the existence of the issues that caused gender and sex to be used differently in the first place. Their usage wasn't indicative of their ideology. Some feminists had begun to merge the concepts of gender and sex as both social constructs but again that is not denying the nuances of a person like Scarlett. The whole idea of aebriol linking this study is absurd anyway because he's just trying to point out why some people might be confused but anyone with an ounce of common sense who has read the exchanges between Lennoxito and truthbombDROPPER and everyone else could see that they're not just confused by the notion that gender and sex are not synonyms. As if the reason why Lennoxito straight up contradicts Gamegene is because a bunch of natural scientists began to prefer to use 'gender' in place of 'sex' just as feminists began to strongly emphasize the difference between the two... Yeah, SOTG thread. Tyler, I have always appreciated your nuanced and moderate views, but gender and sex were synonyms for hundreds of years and never stopped being synonyms in common language. And if the issue is about respect why not respect the views of people who are uncomfortable using gender pronouns they feel are not appropriate? I understand banning people who say things like *fixed* and change a post because clearly they are trolling, but I don't think people should be forced to use certain pronouns. I don't get why people keep making this absurd logical fallacy. "Just because it's been this way for a long time, it therefore should be this way." It's pretty obvious that none of the people attempting to assert that gender and sex are synonymous have read any bit of relevant critical literature, such as writings from Simone de Beauvoir or Judith Butler (admittedly, the latter is a pain to read). Sex is biological, gender is social. Gender roles are obviously apparent - "girly" colors (pink, purple, etc.), "girly" toys (dolls, playhouses, playkitchens), "girly" roles (mother, not physically aggressive, etc.) are not borne of biology. There is nothing about male and female biology that dictates that a person with a penis has to someone shy away from colors of pink and purple and go for colors of blue, red, etc. Sure, this is a modern understanding. That's because people in general were too ignorant to know better in the past. Now, there's the whole issue about language also involved, and it's pretty clear that many aren't reflective enough to understand the complexities of language, when they insist that it's okay for public figures to utter racial or homophobic epithets because "people don't 'intend' to be racist/homophobic/sexist when they do so" etc. But obviously, "intent" isn't worth a load of crap when language and other faculties possess unconscious and subconscious effects. Thought empirically shapes reality: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/boroditsky09/boroditsky09_index.htmlNotably, as proven in the above article, feminine/masculine language [i]does[i/] shape reality and social attitudes and abstract things such as moral judgments regardless of intent. The plasticity of the brain and tendency of neurons to lock into certain routes of firing all go to show that what you "intend" doesn't matter when the subconscious assumptions of certain behaviors, like gendered language, continue to condition behavior in certain ways.
You should watch a show Hjernevask, or "Brainwash". Particularly episode 1, The Gender Equality Paradox.
It turns out that males and females have different interests as soon as they are born. The gender differences are genetic.
The videos are all available free on vimeo. Here's a site that links to them. The password on all of them is "hjernevask".
http://genusnytt.wordpress.com/2011/12/03/se-hjernevask-avsloja-genusmyterna/
|
On April 08 2012 05:09 Zaqwe wrote:
No, historically gender always was synonymous with sex, and was commonly used to refer to people..
Historically most of the time humans existed the earth was considered flat as well, so it must be true.
On April 08 2012 03:17 VictorJones wrote:
You just made me a fan Tyler. <3
Seriously. Here too.
I once really disliked him. Sorry :[ but now I finally see he's a great person
|
I feel there's a general problem with female gamers from the community, aside from the ignorant misogynist asshats, and I don't really know how much of a problem it is.
On the one hand a lot of female gamers want to be identified first and foremost for their achievements first and foremost, and the fact that they're a girl should be irrelevant. Some of the community has a big issue with this because they want to show that we're tolerant (?) or that we are all-inclusive, and that it IS sort of a big deal because there frankly aren't that many girl gamers in sc2 (relative to boys) and there definitely aren't that many doing that that well (relative to boys). I think it's important to respect their feelings and not get caught up in the whole zomg girl thing and turn them into a marketing tool. At the same time I have to wonder, if they felt more comfortable in our community, would they be so absolute in keeping the gender completely out of it?
But then I say it has to come down to the gamer. Just like there's gamer girls that rock the whole girl power thing and there's gamer girls that frankly use their gender to garner attention they don't remotely deserve.
It comes down to personality. And I think each person should be treated based on their personality, just like it is with just about everyone else in the scene.
I think it's fine to make a big deal out of her doing so well, but I think it is very important to not turn it into a whole zomg girls in esports thing. Not because I dont think they should get attention for their achievements, they should! Just like anyone else should. But I think it is as hurtful to turn them into a fucking marketing tool as it is to ostracize them. There just needs to be some serious mindful PR in it, that's all, and that's not something most of our scene has been very good about.
|
What a fantastically idiotic and pointless derail into academic semantics.
State of the Game thread.
|
Zaqwe:
The semantics you are debating are completely besides the point and just that - semantics. If you had any idea about gender studies of the modern times, nay, if you had any idea about human populace outside white wealthy suburbia, you would not try to bash your head against the wall here. The human sexuality, both physical and especially mental, encompasses a huge variety of shades. It is a wonder that the modern society has been able to combat bigotry like this far enough that people can publicly realize their own sexual identities. It still seems to be too hard.
Besides, even if Scarlett had absolutely no "reason" to be called as a female, if she asks for it, you should respect it. There's no logical reason to deny her wishes apart from deeply ingrained bigotry.
Ps. Smart languages like my own have just one pronoun for "he/she" anyways :p
|
is this state of the game or state of the gender?
|
|
|
On April 08 2012 04:33 JackDT wrote:
Scarlett's play was phenomenal. I'd put her right up there with Feast and Illusion as one of the new foreigner hopes. That she walked into the tournament as a COMPLETE unknown, whereas people had been talking up Illusion for awhile, made the story even more surprising. This was literally her first ever LAN experience and she was going toe to toe with Code S Koreans? Are you kidding me?
Rofl wow, foreigner hope? People are seriously jumping the gun here....
|
Just dont discuss this whole thing on SOTG pls. This thing has gotten too much attention already, imo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
