Re: [dq-rules] Hidden Bias (was Gender Neutral Writing)

[Larry <Kurgan@fastmail.fm>]

Hello Marty,


MG> This post is not meant as an attack, and I apologize if it offends or 
MG> upsets anybody.

    It didn't, and I must admit to some surprise in that. Whenever
    someone starts off saying they don't want to offend, you generally
    know that's what's coming. You avoided that nicely. Thanks. :)


MG> In my opinion, one of the great losses to society is the lack of good
MG> written communication skills.

    I agree, and yes, it's quite true that computers have greatly
    contributed to this, simple by giving people an alternative method
    for writing that's easier and quicker. I still hope that we never
    completely lose the art of writing by hand, though. The day I see
    a computer program for calligraphy is the day I puke. <Chuckle>


MG> There are several types of bias, unfortunately. Some of them are hard 
MG> to spot or understand, but they exist. The 'gender bias promulgated 
MG> by use of the HE pronoun' is one of them. I am not sure how to 
MG> express this very well (I am much better in person) but it can be 
MG> compared to the feelings of short people or left handed people in its 
MG> effect and distribution.

    You're doing fine expressing yourself, and I do know exactly what
    you're trying to say. No matter how you word it, I've heard the
    claim many times. The problem is that the bias is inferred by many,
    but doesn't truly exist. He, Him, and His are simply the words
    used by the language as generic terms, because it's literally
    impossible to do otherwise, unless you want to create a third
    category of expressions that are completely neuter, and I don't
    recommend it. I've seen that attempted, and quite frankly, it was
    a ludicrous experiment with clearly distracting results. Remember,
    we are the huMAN race, comprised of men and woMEN, all retaining
    their huMANity. Let's toss MANkind in there, too. :) I'm not being
    flippant, as it might appear. What I'm trying to point out is that
    the term "woman" is a modification of man, with "man" receiving a
    qualifier. The English language recognizes the base, and ignores
    the modifiers, when speaking generically. It's not a bias, it's
    merely the most logical method. Try and think of "man" as a common
    element. All are "human." Some are "woman," and some are just
    "man." If someone is actually getting upset because they think the
    language is specifically referring to those that have penises, and
    ignoring those that don't, they're getting upset over nothing, and
    merely don't comprehend what's actually taking place. It's like a
    joke that isn't about a certain race, but the race is mentioned
    along the way, and suddenly they assume it's a racial slur when
    it's nothing of the kind. Honestly, when I see people like this, I
    get embarrasses. Oh, not for myself or the language, but for them,
    and the fact that they're making themselves look foolish and
    uneducated, and they don't even know it.


MG> If you know a person that is noticeably short, ask him (or her) if 
MG> they like short people jokes, or grocery shopping. High heels shoes 
MG> serve two very real purposes - from the male perspective, they shape 
MG> the calves and butt nicely (women like to be noticed and appreciated 
MG> for their appearance) AND they give women a few extra inches of 
MG> height that evolution denied them. Almost every corporate or 
MG> psychological study I have encountered concludes that having a height 
MG> advantage makes a person appear more authoritarian or wise. Humans 
MG> 'look up' to greater power. Short people are denied that respect on a 
MG> regular basis without resorting to artifice.

    I agree with some of that, although the high heels bit is a little
    confusing. I don't know a single man that considers the effect on
    appearance that heels give a woman, other than greater height. Did
    you read that in Cosmo? :) And short people don't always get
    ignored or have a lack of respect. See, you said they are "denied"
    that, when what you should have said is simply that they have to
    work a little harder to attain it. Perot, Devito, Napolean... I
    could go on. They had a steeper climb, but they overcame. I'm
    tall, but I have a brother that is short. He was insecure about it
    briefly, but then, while still in his teens, he realized it wasn't
    important, and he became secure with who he was, and that lead to
    him being popular and successful. It's all in the mind. It's all
    still in the mind with the language, too. Realize the truth of how
    it works, understand that it's not a slur or intended bias, and
    suddenly your back to being able to enjoy the language without
    being distracted by silly things bread from insecurity.

    And the masses cheered, and the roses bloomed, and the scents of
    mediocrity, insecurity, and fear were overcome by the musty smells
    of old books and the fallen rose petals, which the literate trod
    upon triumphantly.


MG> The left handed bias problem is much easier to locate. Ask any left 
MG> handed person how they feel about how the world is designed and you 
MG> are likely to get an 'ugh' related response. From simple things like 
MG> doors and scissors to more complicated things like cars and writing 
MG> with a pen or pencil. We live in a right handed world, and there are 
MG> constant reminders for lefties that the world is not theirs. I am 
MG> right handed, by the way, but my fiancee and best friend are lefties. 
MG> I have heard about their pain and suffering - it exists.

    Here I disagree a little more strongly. This isn't a bias, it's
    marketing. Most people are right-handed, so that's how items are
    designed. I'm a very big and tall man, and it's a pain in the rear
    for me to find clothing with costing me a fortune. I usually have
    to mail order things. Heck, my shoe size is 16! Is any of that the
    result of bias? Of course not, and I'd be both wrong, and showing
    my insecurity, if I claimed otherwise. I don't like it, but the
    fact is simply that people my size are fairly rare in the
    population, and it costs more for these things to be crafted and
    produced. Sucks, but again, that's just the way it is, and it's
    nobody's fault. Actually, if you pause and think about it, the
    percentage in left- or right-handed items being manufactured
    *does* equal the percentage of those that exist, but that also
    means that it's going to be a little harder to locate those
    things. I'm partially in this group, too. I'm ambidextrous, and
    all the things that I do left-handed I have to look far and wide
    to find. I gave my only bow away to my brother a few days ago,
    because it was a right-handed bow and I couldn't use it.


MG> So, what is the point of worrying about such a simple, 'stupid' 
MG> little problem? It is really only a concern if you care about giving 
MG> people a fair shake.

    Are we still talking about the language? If so, I don't see it the
    same way. If changing the language as we've discussed, then that's
    not giving them a fair shake, it's corrupting something beautiful
    and making sure that everyone else ends up feeling just as bad
    over what was nothing but is now made real.


MG> Imagine going through life being an outcast or constantly being
MG> reminded that there is something wrong with you or that you are
MG> inferior. It is a subtle thing, but it exists.

    Yes, it exists. But *not* with the subject at hand. If people
    truly feel inferior or that something is wrong with them, simply
    because the language doesn't, by default, reflect their genitalia,
    then I submit to you that these people need therapy, and the
    language shouldn't be re-crafted just to suit their foolishness.
    If someone feels inferior, it doesn't exactly help their case when
    they grab a bullhorn, rush out into the world, and start acting
    like it in the name of equality.
    

MG> Some people go overboard trying to compensate - hence some of the crazy,
MG> awkward and not very polite attempts to change the status quo.

    Heh heh heh, yep. Mixing genders in text is right up there at the
    top on this one. If it makes anyone feel better, I'm male, but I
    always refer to ships and cars as "she." And ya know what? I don't
    feel slighted by it. :)


MG> The lefties I know are all tired of living in the righty world, but
MG> recognize that change is hard and the status quo got that way by
MG> resisting change.

    "Change is hard?" "Status quo?" And just what is it that
    right-handed people are supposed to be resisting? C'mon, you can't
    truly be serious here. There's nothing to be changed! If
    left-handed people don't like something about their "invisible
    disability" (cough) then it's up to THEM to do something about it.
    Oh, I don't mean changing other people, because it's not any of
    those other, right-handed people's, business. I'm talking about
    overcoming their perceived problems themselves. If they're sick of
    right-handed devices or objects, then they need to overcome that,
    either by learning how to use them, or by finding and/or creating
    items they can live with.


MG> People suffering from these subtle biases feel the way they do because
MG> these subtle biases exist. It is not merely their perception, but remember
MG> that perception can be valid.

    To an extent, yeah, but people can easily take something that
    isn't a bias but interpret it as one, simply because they are in a
    minority. Is it a bias that women can have children but I can't? I
    don't have a womb, but it isn't a conspiracy, and nobody kept it
    from me because I wasn't part of their club.


MG> By at least acknowledging that the English language is not quite 
MG> perfect and that there is no truly convenient way of writing a gender 
MG> neutral pronoun, the bias is alleviated.

    Agreed. :)


MG> The use of 'he' will still rankle some, but until English is changed so
MG> that a neutral pronoun is found and accepted it behooves the writer to
MG> at least consider the potential audience.

    Oh man, if you only knew. What your describing is a form of
    pandering, and you won't go far in the industry if you practice
    it. God forbid someone actually creates a neutral pronoun, which
    would be an atrocity, but the mixing of gender terms isn't an
    answer, it only aggravates the issue. Professional writers won't
    touch the subject, and rightly so. This is for two reasons. First,
    it's just plain wrong, and an incredible butchery of the English
    language, which, although imperfect, is extremely beautiful.
    Secondly, they'd get fired for producing unprofessional material.

    Hey, one other thing to think about. There are over 200,000 words
    in the English language. Do you know how many most people use in
    their entire lives? Around 500-900 at most. Before we start
    worrying about changing some of the few words we've bothered to
    allow ourselves to learn between reruns of Gilligan's Island and
    chasing after dates while guzzling cases of lite beer, perhaps we
    should turn towards the concept of simply learning more of our
    language in the first place, so we have a greater mental
    vocabulary to choose from?

    Just my opinion. :)

 
Best regards,

   Larry                         mailto:Kurgan@Fastmail.fm