It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Adjusting the pronoun isn't adjusting grammar. Coming up with new word constructs is. 'They' for the singular form is perhaps sometimes used in English, but in Dutch it doesn't work. And perhaps you missed the point that making she default instead of he doesn't change the fact that a large group of the population, about 50%, is incorrectly adressed, just like the current situation. In other words, nothing changes.
You just can't change all the words to a neuter for the sole reason sex is a base in grammar. Again, in English it doesn't show as much as it does in, i.e. Dutch or German. We have in Dutch female, male and neuter words. They behave differently.How would you propose to change all those words? What's your alternative to steward or stewardess? Neither is allowed as both imply (a) sex.
Yes it is, according to the rules it's not grammatically 'correct' to use the female as the default.
I don't speak Dutch, it's not relevant to what I'm talking about.
As you say though, there is a singular form of the word 'they', it is accepted, and "using a different pronoun isn't adjusting grammar". So there's no problem.
I think you missed the part of my post where I said "Picking either gender is troublesome".
'Address' has two 'd's by the way.
Again, I'm talking about English, not Dutch. This conversation is being conducted in English, the objection raised is to the word 'they'. The proposed change is clear, it is the one under discussion.
Steward/stewardess is well-known as the most troublesome example; I'm happy to take whatever path those affected by it choose is best, as in the Sean/Thomas example. It's not for me to tell anyone how to refer to themselves and it will cause me absolutely no damage at all to refer to a female cabin crew member as a 'steward' if that's what they were to decide.
The discussion is mainly about the use of the "generic masculine" when a multitude of people are concerned, say all the voters. It used to be standard that the "generic masculine" also encompassed feminine persons, but apparently no longer. For the last twenty years politicians were compelled to thank the "Wählerinnen und Wähler" (basically: voteresses and voters) for their votes. In the meantime they (or at least some of them) address the so-called "Wähler:innen" or "Wähler*innen"for their support. It used to be "WählerInnen" (capital I), to express that both male and female voters were addressed. But the "colon" and "asterisk" versions are supposed to include the indefinite range of persons that do not subscribe to being committed to either being masculine or feminine.
The problem is not really to include the two "standard" genders, but to come to a reasonable solution in tune with past understanding of our language. For whatever it's worth, the "generic masculine" included women as well. Once women were allowed to act as bakers, they were included in the group known as "the bakers" (die Bäcker"), although individually they should have been addressed as "Bäckerin" (the feminine form of "Bäcker").
The main problem for some women's rights (?) activists seems to be that they don't wish to be subsumed under a generically masculine term. But just as an example, "person" in German is a feminine word. Whenever "a number of persons" are mentioned, we have a generic feminine, and I havent't heard of any males over here complain about that.
The annoying thing is that if every "minority" out there -- and we're all part of some minority and sensitive about certain things -- starts dictating new rules in a futile attempt to make life more fair (a point well explained by @CommanderRoss), no one will know what can and cannot be said. For example, I don't know how to refer to people of a darker complexion anymore. When I was in school, the N-word was no longer allowed. We had no trouble accepting that, obviously. A weaker N-word was deemed appropriate, though not for long. Then it changed to "black" people, until that was considered inappropriate too. Then it became a "coloured" person, yet last time I checked, even that isn't allowed anymore in some circles. When I last mentioned this to a few colleagues, one of them all but attacked me, asking why-oh-why I even needed a word to distinguish between colours... But hold on! Differences between people can't lead to discriminatory behaviour, but surely we can still use words with which to objectively describe another person. You can't just tell the whole world that a language has changed over insensitivities that, by the way, you won't avoid by replacing one word with another. The words may change, but racists' attempts to insult and hurt will remain just the same and just as effective or ineffective.
My point is that even though words and grammar rules do change over time, it would be problematic if we all started imposing our own changes from our own, personal sensitivities. It used to be an insult to call a "stewardess" a "steward"; my students apologise if they accidentally address me as "madam", out of habit, no less, because most of my colleagues are women. After decades of calling an actress and actress and not an actor, I'm not suddenly going to mix it all up because some non-binary people prefer it that way.
I completely respect each and every identity. I labour hard, every day, to placate everyone I know, each of whom brings his or her own wishes to the table. But I just won't give in to confusing linguistic demands that force me to deliberately break the grammar rules or even simple habits. Also, some people don't like being addressed as either "madam" or "sir". When addressing these people, I'll happily refrain from using either. But when the IRS or local politicians send me letters, I demand being addressed as "sir". I believe I have earned that. So when it was just decided a few days ago that formal letters should no longer use the "dear sir/madam" salutation to avoid possibly insulting a non-binary person, I noticed my own sensitivity in the matter. I expect my students and their parents to begin an e-mail with "dear mister...", not with "hello!". That's how it's always been. And there's nothing problematic to it!
'Dictating' is a strange word to choose here, I think it has imagery that's not really applicable; and this discussion is about language after all.
And we do know what can be said; but you're saying that you won't do it because your word processing software highlights some words- these are small reasons, it kind of feels like the sort of thing people who refuse to wear masks because of COVID say; something which makes such a small impact on your life doesn't seem worth the fuss to worry about. If you think it's that important to make a stand then fair enough, but I think it's kind of a King Canute vs the tide thing and everyone else who doesn't find it so hard to do will eventually be wondering why you're refusing.
POC or BAME is fine I believe; I'm surprised there aren't any guidelines to this if you're in education. I have friends who are teachers and they're kept up to date on this sort of stuff all the time. The first time I heard the term 'cis' was from a teacher I was going out with because she'd been brought up to speed at work.
Plus of course the students are usually pretty proactive: my friend is a professor and was telling me last week that he got a note from the students that he should use 'they' when using hypothetical examples of individuals in his lectures- which I do think was a bit OTT as he says he uses named examples like 'when John is travelling 100mph', that sort of thing, so I don't see their issue there, but students are going to be students I guess :)
So habit is more important than being respectful to other people? As I say, Thomas Connery changed his first name to Sean, would you have respected that if you'd known him?
In that specific example I'm sure he didn't mind old friends of his calling him Tom, but if he had, would you have ignored his wishes because you're not going to suddenly mix it all up?
Also, I think in the example of actors, it's mostly women rather than specifically non-binary people who ask for that. Not all of them, I think many don't mind either way.
If you'll forgive me, that is an odd hill to die on. It's just not hard to do; the rules change all the time, for example as I have pointed out; singular 'they' has been coming for the last 700 years. Grammar is made by people for people, it's not more important than them.
We all have these things which are more important to us than to other people, so I guess I can respect it but I don't share it.
The word processor remark in my previous post was in jest, of course. My word processor isn't really going to sue me. And evidently, I'm not losing sleep over what my spelling checker does or doesn't allow. ;-)
Thomas turned Sean is something I can easily respect. I've had a girl student, Margot, turn into a boy student, Arthur. I supported her and then him every step of the way. In neither case do I have to change my language, though, nor is it demanded.
No, we don't get any memos about words to use or not to use. We read about it in the news, hear about it in the teacher's lounge, in our private circles... Then again, Belgian students and parents aren't so eager to sue schools and teachers as they are in certain other countries. ;-) In other words, lapses in decorum can still be forgiven where I work rather than duked out in court. I'm sure the reason why notes are given in certain schools about words to use and whatnot, has a lot to do with hypersensitive people teaming up on anti-social media like facebook and twitter and creating a PS nightmare for schools. But we are probably on our way to such a dangerous system too.
The "700 years" argument doesn't really work for me since the singular "they" is something you rarely read and hardly ever hear. The royal "we" form isn't exactly normal, everyday speech either, is it? But like I said, I'm not going to press the issue. All I'm saying is that things are starting to get annoyingly confusing and some trends are making me not willing to communicate with strangers anymore.
Sure, but it's not the first time you've used it on here when refusing to refer to Sam Smith given their chosen pronouns, that's the only reason I mention it. If we're giving reasons it's a bit silly, and rather cumbersome if you're going to have to roll that out every time they, or someone like them, are mentioned anywhere. It's just an easier life to roll with it, surely.
I guess I just don't get the problem with changing language. It's not very hard to do; I learn new words occasionally and slot them into my vocabulary, sometimes I even learn archaic bits of grammar I never knew about before and I add them to my knowledge too. It's not something that irritates or upsets me.
Did you read Craig's story above? Would you really refuse in his place?
I think it's about education and keeping students in a welcoming environment for their development.
Genuinely I read it and hear it and use it all the time, and always have; I'm honestly surprised that you've never come across it. With your example of 'steward(ess)' being the easier version of steward/stewardess, I would say that talking about a hypothetical individual and referring to them as 'he or she' is lot clumsier than a simple 'they'. May I ask if you are a native English speaker? Your mentions of Dutch and Belgian make me unsure of where you are.
Well that would be a real shame, and I think it would really be an overreaction to the situation. As I say, grammar and word usage/meaning has always changed and will continue to do so. Just a read of a Fleming book from only a few decades back contains many phrasings and word meanings which have altered since even then.
I'm surprised you don't know this. ;-) I'm not a native English speaker. My first language is Dutch. I had to learn English from films, books, TV, lessons in school, and working for an American company (for a very brief while.) I always do the best I can to improve my English proficiency and I learn something new every day . ;-)
Regarding the "he or she" vs "they", I have actually read a interesting (albeit very small) book in which the author strongly protested against both:
Gwynne's Grammar : The Ultimate Introduction to Grammar and the Writing of Good English.
He was very clear on the matter. "He or she" is clumsy; a simple, neutral "he" will do. And "they" is rubbish since, well, plural meets plural, singular meets singular. ;-)
But look, I don't mind. Like I said from the start, it's not a big deal. A minor nuisance, that's all.
Ah I see, well you have excellent English indeed! :) But maybe it's a situation where the ones who use it more find it easier to roll with new developments.
Indeed, I only learned from the wiki link I gave to you the other that it actually wasn't considered proper grammar for many years; I always just knew it as correct- I've grown up using it. But as the wiki also says, opinions on that have changed and it's now more generally accepted in 'proper' grammar as a singular form.
As I'm sure you've learned, English doesn't exactly follow its own rules very much ;)
And I'd argue that 'he' can never be neutral, it's a gendered word.
I hope so; when you say it will put you off communicating with strangers then it sounds like a real issue.
A funny exception is 'blond'- it always annoys me to see Bond fans refer to Daniel Craig as 'blonde'! :D
Hey thanks for the compliment, @mtm.
My last sentence was, of course, exaggerated. In my job, I have to talk to strangers. I don't want to -- introvert and all -- but I do so just the same. It merely wears my "inner batteries" down, especially after having been engaged in "small talk." Not wanting to insult another person is part of the issue. That's why I'm so irritated when instances of "you can't say this or that anymore!" occur more randomly, more frequently and more adamantly. The hidden message seems to be that "if you continue to use word x or phrase y, you'll get into trouble." And that creeps me out. As a teen, I had to learn the hard way that you can't say "Eskimo" or "Indian". I had learned those words in school from bonafide teachers who hadn't received the relevant memos either. The backlash was enormous when I "deigned" to call the Inuit by the term "Eskimo". Apparently, the word calls back to darker days in their history. Fine, I respect that. But I don't need those in the know to get all worked up over it when I so clearly didn't know at the time, and, more important, never . meant . to . insult . anyone!
I actually had to clarify to my 70-year old grandmother, a few decades ago, that she couldn't use the N-word when speaking to coloured folks. She didn't understand at first. The N-word had always been used by nuns in her school days, back in the 1930s. She never meant anything negative by it; it was the only word she'd ever legitimately known for coloured people! I had to point out what was wrong with it and what other words she was allowed to use instead. A lovely lady of colour came to take care of her when she got too old to be on her own. My grandmother was fond of her, but I'm glad I had already gotten her to the point of no longer using the N-word.
I guess it is more frustrating for someone who has put the enormous effort in to learn another language to find it changing under their feet; I hope it's not trite of me to suggest that may be part of the issue?
I think most people are, or at least should be, forgiving of slip ups with some of the newer phrases or pronouns, as in Craig's anecdote. I expect you may have accidentally slipped up with your pupil who transitioned a couple of times, and hopefully he was understanding. I wouldn't let it put you off speaking to people- most people are generally nice! :)
Well, that undermines your whole position, now doesn't it ;-)
Times they are a changin' and all that. But the main problem is, that we have small groups of people claiming something that isn't true (language isn't racist, humans are) and will then attack anyone who uses said terms because they don't go with their world view. The terms you just used for coloured people I've never heard off, and frankly I don't understand why we would have to change the words again. AFAK gingers are still called gingers, even though they've often been harassed ith their hair colour as 'argument'.
I mentioned before I have been discriminated aagainst all my life, and you didn't even ask why. Probably because I said 'we' just take it in our stride, without complaining (aalthough some have done that). Which concludes that in this day and age we're all so hyperly afraid to insult eachother that we're changing whatever some activist will come up with, wether it makes sense or not.
I don't see the added value of changing to 'they' collectively just because a couple of people see something there isn't: a degrading of anyone in the use of singular male as a standard for unknown. If I'm a mysochinist, it won't make me less so if I shift to the use of the word 'they'.
Hence my resentment isn't against the actual use of any words, but against the proposed premises for why we should.
No, not at all. I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with gendered words when they apply to specific people who have a gender, otherwise I'd have said that the word 'she' should be dropped totally, and obviously that's just unnecessary. Daniel Craig is a man, there's no debate about that.
I feel like you're trying to start an argument and score points more than actually have a civil chat about it, which is what Dimi and I were having.
Which is nonsense of course; language can be anything that people use it for. It's like saying 'dickhead' isn't an insulting word or there aren't swearwords, there are only swear-people. Of course there's racist language. There's lovely poetic language, there's affectionate language, there's all sorts of language. Words have meaning.
Well I'm not here to tell you why, I think you can probably find it out quite easily.
I didn't ask because you didn't volunteer it; it's up to you to say if you want to.
Well, as I said, the singular 'they' has been in use for centuries, I've always used it and didn't even realise it hadn't been technically correct for some of that time until the last few decades (genuinely found myself using it yesterday when one of my clients texted me to say the work I had done for his client needed some amends; I texted back to say that I thought his client was probably right; I don't know the gender of that client so I said that I thought "they have a point"- that just feels right to me), but everyone I know who is raising kids tries to default to male forms of words as little as possible, and I think that's perfectly right. Kids shouldn't automatically assume that police officers or fire fighters or anything like that are or should be men.
You said that 'language isn't racist, humans are' and I think that's close to what I'm saying but perhaps needs a little change: I would say 'language isn't important, humans are'- or rather that the well-being and development of people is more important than preserving some archaic bit of grammar for the sake of it.
No, language con't be 'anything you use it for'. It depends on context, intent and majorities use. That's why a single word can have different meanings. Calling my son a monkey isn't racist. Calling my friends' kids monkeys isnt't racist, so is calling my coloured friends' kids monkeys racist? If so, that in itself ould be racist (distinguishing on solely on the basis of skin-colour). I could perhaps, but I don't have the need to do so, as this is the only time I've heard the terms and I find no use for them in daily life: they're only used by those obsessed with beeing 'not-racist', usually beeing as racist as can be with their fixation on background. I don't care which skincolour somebody has. If I like them, I like them and, in my company, if they do their work good they do so. End of story. It's by emphasising on the use of these newly invented words that no-doubt will be changed again within the year because someone else finds offensive use for them that you actually pull the focus towards skincolour in the first place.
Same goes for 'white-male privilege'. It's another racist trick for a specific group to feel guilty about something they had no influence over. If you want people to stop preferring people similar to themselves, fine. But I can tell you that beeing a white male in Japan will block me completely from beeeing part of Japanese high society.
Oh man, are you trying to start this again? This was a week ago.
Let's not pretend it wasn't a joke that was attempting to be at the expense of me and score a point.
I don't even know what you're arguing here. You say language can't be anything you use it for, and then give an example where... it's anything you use it for. You seem to think that context isn't a fundamental part of language, which is plainly not true.
Honestly, if you want to upset people by refusing to be respectful of them, then that's your problem in terms of how people treat you and not mine. It's as hard to use certain terms for race as it is to say 'please' and 'thank you', acting like it's some major inconvenience or a terrible burden on someone's life just puts me in mind of those people who act like it's a dreadful infringement on their lives -or conspiracy trick by 'Them'- to wear a facemask.
I'm not interested in replying any further to this, as I said; you're clearly in this for the argument rather than a good-natured conversation as Dimi was, and I'm not interested in that at all
- President Merkin Muffley, "Doctor Strangelove..."
I tell you, it's political correctness gone mad.
https://fb.watch/dx6xZyx7Ij/
Now get off of your high horse. Perhaps I don't have the time to respond to you immediately, so yes, replies can get in more than a week later. And no, it was'nt a joke 'at your expense'. It as a joke, period. But your statements are testament to the problem: you feel superior over me, because I don't march to your political correctness. If you'd actually red anything I've said before, it is that context is EVERYTHING. There are no 'romantic'words, or racist, or whatever. Their meaning derives from the context, and so coming up with new words to replace words that suddenly are supposed to be racist is b***ocks. 'Fetch' was suddenly racist because it was used in a racist setting in the USA. Since then nobody is allowed to use it for humans, even though nobody had problems wwith it before that. So goes for black, white, pink, or whatever term of colour resembes your skin the most. It's this utterly nonsensical sensitivity for the words themselves rather than their context that gets us in this mess in the first place.