"Sexist language?" A constructive argument against modern changes in vocabulary

javi2541997

I am against modern changes on vocabulary. In this thread, I want to discuss with a constructive argument, why changing words from Latin is reckless and lacks of substantial value. To start with, I will use two main examples which triggered me the most.

1. The non-existent "Latinx"

"Latinx" is not even a word in Spanish. It doesn't exist in our grammatical rules and neither is accepted. This issue started in 2015 as an attempt to remove "sexist" gender endings, thus the words Latina and Latino, Español, Española, etc... Anyway, polling now shows that 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]. I would think that almost any speaker of Spanish would find the term offensive. Indeed, polling now shows that 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, the arguments used to promote latinx word are not based on inclusion but an incorrect perception of Spanish language. We use gender endings not as a distinctive but for grammatical rules to highlight the subject in a phrase. It is so simple but it seems to triggers a lot of people.
Fortunately, Real Academia Española, the Spanish Royal Academy in Madrid, tries to govern the Spanish language. The Academia, along with the Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española, has ruled, as far back as 2018, against the use of "Latinx" and "Latine." So the activists are up against the Kingdom of Spain now... I ask Ocasio-Cortez, aka "AOC" or "Sandy Cortez," to please respect the integrity of the Spanish language.

2. English: "-'s" ending that makes a noun possessive.

Some people state that the "-'s" ending that makes a noun possessive, e.g. "Javi's tea," was an abbreviation of the pronoun "his," and that "his" was used in this way because women were all possessions of men.
Where does one begin with remarkable assertions like this? The archaic Latin expression pater familias, "father of the family," must be a contraction of "pater familia-his." So Latin became less sexist when familias changed to familiae? Even English already has a dedicated suffix for the female, for example: "emperor, empress," "waiter, waitress," etc...

But, of course, the point is not any actual historical knowledge about languages or grammar, it is the assertion that women are historically possessions of men. If some idiosyncratic account of grammatical structures illustrates such a feminist claim, no one with the proper consciousness or politically correct attitude is going to question the accuracy or the logic of such a thing. We see something similar in the not unusual assertion that women having longer hair than men is no more than a Christian or Roman cultural convention. Feminists rarely seem to be confronted with the absurdity of such things. That would be very bad form in any "gender studies" department.

I am agree with Kelley L. Ross, in his note that: The issue of "sexist language" has branched out to new levels of actual insanity, with the idea that "gender" is completely arbitrary and has nothing to do with natural sex. Thus, even children are actually encouraged to proclaim themselves members of the opposite sex, or no sex, and choose pronouns contrary to natural usage, or to make up new ones. Using the "wrong" pronouns for someone is now the political crime of "misgendering," which can lead to someone being, not just shamed, vilified, and condemned, but fired from their jobs or even, in some jurisdictions, criminally prosecuted.

Note: I developed my arguments thanks to the essay called Who Stole Feminism? How Women Have Betrayed Women by Simon & Schuster, 1994. Review: The War Against Boys, How Misguided Feminism is Harming Our Young Men by Christina Hoff Sommers.

T Clark

↪javi2541997

I think there is a valid argument to be made for your position. I do worry some about how our languages are being changed for what I consider trivial or unnecessary reasons. Even so, I don't think you've made your case very well. The two examples you've cited are not really convincing. I don't have strong feelings about "Latinx" but it's pretty early in the controversy. There were similar changes I think have turned out well, e.g. providing "Ms." as an alternative to "Mrs." and "Miss." I understand this example is more important to you since you are Spanish-speaking. As for the apostrophe issue, the etymology you suggest seems pretty far-fetched to me.

Some fiddling with language pisses me off, but some makes sense. An example - I remember reading a non-fiction psychology book I had heard good things about. In the preface, the author indicated he had alternated using "she," and "he;" and "him" and "her" in different sections of the text. I thought it was a stupid and distracting change to make. Then, as I read, I found it really made a difference in how I thought about what he was writing.

BC

Some people state that the "-'s" ending that makes a noun possessive, e.g. "Javi's tea," was an abbreviation of the pronoun "his," and that "his" was used in this way because women were all possessions of men. — javi2541997

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

's
suffix forming the genitive or possessive singular case of most Modern English nouns; its use gradually was extended in Middle English from Old English -es, the most common genitive inflection of masculine and neuter nouns (such as dæg "day," genitive dæges "day's"). The "-es" pronunciation is retained after a sibilant.
Old English also had genitives in -e, -re, -an, as well as "mutation-genitives" (boc "book," plural bec), and the -es form never was used in plural (where -a, -ra, -na prevailed), thus avoiding the verbal ambiguity of words like kings'.
In Middle English, both the possessive singular and the common plural forms were regularly spelled es, and when the e was dropped in pronunciation and from the written word, the habit grew up of writing an apostrophe in place of the lost e in the possessive singular to distinguish it from the plural. Later the apostrophe, which had come to be looked upon as the sign of the possessive, was carried over into the plural, but was written after the s to differentiate that form from the possessive singular. By a process of popular interpretation, the 's was supposed to be a contraction for his, and in some cases the his was actually "restored." [Samuel C. Earle, et al, "Sentences and their Elements," New York: Macmillan, 1911] — Online Etymology Dictionary

javi2541997

↪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.

javi2541997

↪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.

BC

↪javi2541997

Your OP touches on many of my linguistic pet peeves.

A particularly egregious practice is replacing "pregnant woman" with "pregnant person". Why would they do that? Because men can get pregnant! Oh? I wasn't aware that men had ovaries or uteruses. Well, this alleged "man" did: She decided she was a man, changed her name and wardrobe, took some testosterone, and left his? her? reproductive apparatus intact. Then "he?" decided "she?" should have a child, so he or she, wtf, stopped taking testosterone, and a little later she (a definite she now) got pregnant by an actual man and 9 months later bore a child.

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.)

Alkis Piskas

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, ... Interesting and good arguments to all of those who wants to destroy a language and its lexicon — javi2541997

Ola! Can you give me the reference about your OP and the rest so that I can know what you two are talking about?

I guess Alkis Piskas can help us to make deep arguments towards this debate using and understanding an old language/lexicon as Greek. — javi2541997

Thank you for using me as a reference :smile:
I know that you are interested and you react positively to my comments in general. And I, in turn, I am always interested in and I like yours.

BC

An example - I remember reading a non-fiction psychology book I had heard good things about. 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

A good case can be made for inclusion of feminine pronouns when the pronoun represents a group of people. English, as you know, long ago established the masculine 'man' and 'mankind', 'he' and 'his' as the collective plural. So much so, that if the text said "womankind" we guys would know we weren't included.

Using 'she' and 'her' can be a bit jarring: "She led her troop of tough marines into battle." Are marines invariably male? They were, unless things changed last week. But "She steered the company through a difficult recession." sounds OK. to me even if men are more commonly CEOs.

javi2541997

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:

javi2541997

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.

BC

↪javi2541997

More on Latinx:

According to Pew Research, "About One-in-Four U.S. Hispanics Have Heard of Latinx, but of that 25%, just 3% Use It". This is a link to the Pew article

Pew Research is a good source of information on social behavior.

Alkis Piskas

↪javi2541997

Gracias. I'll come back to this after I read your reference ...

BC

↪javi2541997

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.

javi2541997

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.

javi2541997

↪Alkis Piskas

Perfect, take your time friend! :up:

BC

↪javi2541997

Referring to Who Stole Feminism?, The War Against Boys and some similar titles...

The following is tangentially related to Latinx. It's about the way in which groups are represented by opinion-making mass media, pictorially as well as in words.

One of the things I have noticed over the last several years -- maybe a decade -- is a change in the way media represent particular groups. Promotional material of colleges often use pictures of women in class, labs, etc. with few men visible. In the US, women do make up a majority of students on many campus. The imbalance of men and women in college seems like a significant problem that isn't being addressed adequately.

Another disproportionate representation is that of gay people. The standard gay couple, or gay group, is more often than not female. Statistically, gay men represent a much larger share of the gay population than gay women--36% male, 19% female--and always have. The largest group in the GLBTQ... salad are bisexuals (40%), of which the largest group are women--29% vs. 11%. Bisexuals don't get a lot of press, one way or the other. Apparently media do not know how to represent them. I don't either.

Transgendered people, in one form or another, are the HOT group in media. The GLBTQ... salad makes up only 5% of the whole population and trans people make up about 5% of the GLBTQ... population, or a very tiny fraction of the whole population. None the less, a lot of articles are written about trans people. One would think, sometimes, that 30,000,000 Americans were thinking of switching genders. It's more like a few hundred thousand, out of 330 million.

Another annoyance is that parts of the media seems to have concluded that most gay men were, are, or want to be drag queens. Some do, true enough -- and doing it well takes a lot of effort, time, practice. More power to them, but (merciful god!) most gay men are not drag queens.

It is thus no surprise that media don't do a good job naming suramericanos, hispanics, and latinos.

javi2541997

↪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.

Alkis Piskas

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. — javi2541997

I can undestand that the construction of "'s" alludes to sexism, after I read the following etymology in Wiktionary:
"From Middle English -s, -es, from Old English -es (“-'s”, masculine and neuter genitive singular ending), from Proto-Germanic *-as, *-is (masculine and neuter genitive singular ending)."
Indeed, the feminine gender is missing from the equation. But, of course, you don't stick on that and you see the issue from a general viewpoint, an overall view and talk about.

Indeed, we must not forget that almost all sectors of human science(s) have been reserved to and dominated by the the male gender, at least until the late 19th - early 20th centuries. Litterature is not included in them, but it was a field certainly dominated also by men. I saw an excellent film lately --The Professor and the Madman-- referring to an extremely talented lexicographer and philologist --James Murray-- who worked on creating the first edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, a project thats started in the 1879. The place where this endeavour started and from which the man got the approvel to start working for this project was the Oxford University Press, in which started to admit women only in October 1920! I cannot talk of course how much the English language has been influenced gender-wise by that men-dominated society, but I can guess a lot. And I believe the same holds for every country in the Western world. including Spain, which has the focus in this post.

As for "Latinx", I can't say much, except that, as a linguist and a professional translator, I find it not worthy of serious consideration, if not ridiculous. Dictionary.com (former Oxford LEXICO) 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.
(Of course, we find similar definistions in other dictionaries too.)
So, this is maybe another reason why to consider "Latinx" --besides stupid-- a sexist name.

Pantagruel

If you accept that, "liberally", one percent of the population identifies as transgender (how much of that is due to media is another question) that is still a very, very low number to allow to influence the structure, semantics, meaning, flow of something as huge, vital, and beautiful as language. I have not now nor ever have had a prejudiced bone in my body. I'll happily call anyone whatever they ask me to. But that's it. Language is an organic product of our collective minds. No one has a right to dictate its evolution out of an aggressive parochialism. Let them legislate. My use of language is who and what I am.

unenlightened

What's the ~~Beef~~ vegan myco-protein meat substitute? It seems to happen, as might well be expected, that social inequalities and prejudices are enshrined in the languages we inherit. We all, here, inherit the language of the British Empire, and its legacies of racist, sexist, classist, and otherwise offensive attitudes. Overcoming these is difficult and has not happened just because the inequalities in the written law may have largely been removed. Old habits die hard.

But if you are quite sure that you can use this distorting language without succumbing to the sexism or racism or gender stereotyping that is implied in the grammar, then there is no problem, is there? "How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world, That has such people in't."

Pantagruel

It seems to happen, as might well be expected, that social inequalities and prejudices are enshrined in the languages we inherit. — unenlightened

Indeed! And the way to understand that is by understanding language, not by trying to artificially constrain it. It's like the people who want to destroy the statues of the false heroes of the past. Those statues are the monuments to human stupidity, greed, and gullibility. We need to keep those statues around to remind us what to watch out for today, and tomorrow....

Jamal

It's like the people who want to destroy the statues of the false heroes of the past. Those statues are the monuments to human stupidity, greed, and gullibility. We need to keep those statues around to remind us what to watch out for today, and tomorrow — Pantagruel

Do you think the removal of the Stalin statues all across the USSR in the 1960s was wrong?

Statues are made to celebrate people, their actions and their ideology, and they don’t function as neutral historical documents even many years later. When they’re not worth celebrating any more, pull them down.

javi2541997

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...

javi2541997

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.

Jamal

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 — javi2541997

I disagree. They are structures of human speech, not imposed rules of writing. The former precedes the latter.

javi2541997

↪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.

Alkis Piskas

The problem with Spanish words - according to some authors - is the fact that we have "gender" endings. — javi2541997

All Latin languages --Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, French-- have endings. English and Greek languages have too. In Greek, even the second names are different for male-female persons.

[Re "x" ending] I also think it is stupid and lacks of logical value, even disrespects the integrity of Spanish language... — javi2541997

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?

***

BTW, I thought later that there is a parallel for "Latino" in English: "Man". When written with a capital, it refers to the human race/species and with a small letter it refers to the male gender, although this is considered "sexist" --alluding to male domination-- by some people.
However, the English language has a much worse and well known problem in this area: the use of "he/she" and "his/her". It is so bad that in order to avoid saying/writing "he or she" and "his or hers", which is quite tiresome if not annoying when used repeatedly, they resorted to a severe syntactical violation: switching grammar number for the same subject by using "they" and "their". "Each one has their opinion". It's very ugly, disturbing and confusing! Well, until one gets used to it! :smile:

Once I used just "he" in expressing some thought in a comment in TPF and I got a bad reaction from a female member! I explaned that I just used it in a generic form. Yet, I'm aware of that problem since a long time ago and I used to write e.g. "he (for brevity) ..." just once and then used only he or his. I still use it, but I have also started to use "their" as a solution --something which I really hated to see-- because I found out that it is a regularly used and accepted form in the English language.

***

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. (The German language also has 3 genders.)

***

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

Jamal

↪javi2541997

Well, I wasn’t saying anything about the attempts to de-gender language. I probably agree with you on that. But I don’t think you can just appeal to conventional rules to defend conventional rules. What if changes were proposed that were based on a thorough understanding of the language—would you then think the changes were acceptable?

Isaac

social inequalities and prejudices are enshrined in the languages we inherit. We all, here, inherit the language of the British Empire, and its legacies of racist, sexist, classist, and otherwise offensive attitudes. Overcoming these is difficult and has not happened just because the inequalities in the written law may have largely been removed. Old habits die hard. — unenlightened

Absolutely.

How grossly offensive then, when one very minor group of such 'oppressed' people (who just happen to be mostly rich and white), ask for their particular set of oppressive words to be removed and the entire progressive media, most governments of the world and the left-wing pundits jump to it right away.

I'd struggle to think of a more blatant and disgraceful display of contempt for the poor than for our governments and media to say "Oh, we can make all these changes, we can do so very easily - we just didn't in your case".

Or maybe I'm mistaken. I haven't checked the newspapers for a while. Are we perhaps finished with the poor now, are the starving no longer with us, and we can safely move on the merely uncomfortable?

javi2541997

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.

javi2541997

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

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions