US college course bans the words 'male' and 'female'

Akrasia

zeffabelli wrote: »

What's next? Banning Romance languages for the offensive use of gendered vocabulary?

If only, that gendered vocabulary is Bullsh1t

me - "Hey miss, is 'Cabanon' la or le?"

Teacher "I don't feckin know just call it whatever"

padd b1975

Akrasia wrote: »

Actually, a course like this could be very good if it was taught in a rational and non soap-boxy way

The way popular culture treats men and women and people with disabilities and the various sexual preferences and races etc is a hugely important social topic that is genuinely worthwhile to study and understand

But when it's being taught by someone who sets the rules at the outset that limits how the students are allowed to think about these issues then it's clearly going to be a terrible course.

I'm afraid you're just adding to the hilarity there chief.

zeffabelli

Until parents stop paying 35,000 a year for this crap, it will never change.

I know I won't pay for it. I would refuse to pay for attendance in the humanities at this stage.

Duggy747

New Guidelines:

Organism A (Male)

Organism A1 (Female, because to suggest Organism B would be derogatory and imply a woman is below / next in line to a male. Please reference Page 12, paragraph 3 about the use of the alphabet in front of others.)

Please adhere to trigger warning guidelines before speaking about organisms for those who don't identify as living beings or of a molecular structure.

super_furry

Can't we all just be Purple Penguins?

strelok

strelok wrote: »

freedom of speech is what prevents the government from shutting this down and as retarded as these feminists are, them being able to display their retardation so publicly is what makes america brilliant

If we are "brilliantly displayed" by the words we use, you might ponder your own "retard this, retard that" effort.

strelok

Deleted User wrote: »

If we are "brilliantly displayed" by the words we use, you might ponder your own "retard this, retard that" effort.

i guess it was kind of retarded of me

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

If we are "brilliantly displayed" by the words we use, you might ponder your own "retard this, retard that" effort.

Better stop using the words fool, imbecile, cretin among many others in common usage that were medical terms in the past. We can wrap ourselves up in knots trying to be "politically correct" when it comes to language.

robindch

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

In her course notes, which you can read here

Its Notes wrote:

Identify areas of systemic and institutionalized racism, prejudice, misogyny, classism, sexism, and discriminatory practices in the casting, production, distribution, and reception of various media samples, and
make connections to your personal experiences.

Irony grabbed its coat and left the party.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

Better stop using the words fool, imbecile, cretin among many others in common usage that were medical terms in the past. We can wrap ourselves up in knots trying to be "politically correct" when it comes to language.

Not sure any of them really come with the same connotations as "retard". But if they do, meh, I can live without them.

Avoiding words like "retard", or similarly "spastic" doesn't tie me up in knots.

kneemos

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Not sure any of them really come with the same connotations as "retard". But if they do, meh, I can live without them.

Avoiding words like "retard", or similarly "spastic" doesn't tie me up in knots.

Retarded is a perfectly descriptive word.

Yamanoto

Wibbs wrote: »

Better stop using the words fool, imbecile, cretin among many others in common usage that were medical terms in the past. We can wrap ourselves up in knots trying to be "politically correct" when it comes to language.

There's a whole Wiki page detailing various controversies surrounding use of the word 'niggardly'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_about_the_word_%22niggardly%22

super_furry

Wibbs wrote: »

Better stop using the words fool, imbecile, cretin among many others in common usage that were medical terms in the past. We can wrap ourselves up in knots trying to be "politically correct" when it comes to language.

God help you if you ever have to listen to someone rant and rave about how you're a huge raving sexist for using the word hysterical due to it's obscure etymology. I got up and walked away two minutes in.

zeffabelli

super_furry wrote: »

God help you if you ever have to listen to someone rant and rave about how you're a huge raving sexist for using the word hysterical due to it's obscure etymology. I got up and walked away two minutes in.

I think some campuses have long since banned "women," due to it meaning wife of man, and instead use gyne.

the evasion_kid

frostyjacks wrote: »

When will this madness end?

Never It seems....

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feminists-upset-over-statue-of-man-and-woman-talking/article/2565164

orubiru

Akrasia wrote: »

Actually, a course like this could be very good if it was taught in a rational and non soap-boxy way

The way popular culture treats men and women and people with disabilities and the various sexual preferences and races etc is a hugely important social topic that is genuinely worthwhile to study and understand

But when it's being taught by someone who sets the rules at the outset that limits how the students are allowed to think about these issues then it's clearly going to be a terrible course.

I agree with you here and also don't really see the problem with courses being introduced that are genuinely educational and informative.

The main problem I have is with the potential consequences of using a banned word or phrase. Who is enforcing the correct usage of language and how is someone punished if they use the wrong pronoun or phrase or whatever?

If I go off to Sweden and call people "him" or "her" then what are the consequences? What consequences are appropriate?

If I use the wrong pronouns for someone should I lose my job? Or should I just be publicly shamed or maybe hounded on the internet?

What if I hear an old person using the banned phrase "colored person"? Should I tell them to say "person of color" from now on or should I contact the authorities so that they can be properly dealt with?

I realize it may be a slippery slope fallacy but how much of a leap is it from words being banned in college to people being prosecuted for using banned words?

kneemos

orubiru wrote: »

I agree with you here and also don't really see the problem with courses being introduced that are genuinely educational and informative.

The main problem I have is with the potential consequences of using a banned word or phrase. Who is enforcing the correct usage of language and how is someone punished if they use the wrong pronoun or phrase or whatever?

If I go off to Sweden and call people "him" or "her" then what are the consequences? What consequences are appropriate?

If I use the wrong pronouns for someone should I lose my job? Or should I just be publicly shamed or maybe hounded on the internet?

What if I hear an old person using the banned phrase "colored person"? Should I tell them to say "person of color" from now on or should I contact the authorities so that they can be properly dealt with?

I realize it may be a slippery slope fallacy but how much of a leap is it from words being banned in college to people being prosecuted for using banned words?

A man will be along shortly to explain things.:)

conorhal

Uh.... how exactly are two binary descriptions of gender 'ze' and 'xe' any different from him and her since each is used to describe male and female?

I would laugh at how bonkers it all is, but a lot of these nutters are genuinely influential in the corridors of power.

osarusan

zeffabelli wrote: »

I think some campuses have long since banned "women," due to it meaning wife of man, and instead use gyne.

Yeah? Which campuses?

Carlos Orange

It always seems strange to me that people who dislike the word female so much aren't called womanists.

The Rape of Lucretia

Could we not just retire the phrase 'take offense', than all other words would be OK. It would be a lot simpler, clearer, and the world would be a better place.

suicide_circus

This is pretty much the kind of claptrap I expect from those involved in the politically correct arts such as gender studies. The more people change the more they stay the same. They may have switched their jackboots and Luger for a hemp pancho and a macbook but the thought process is remarkably similar.

suicide_circus

suicide_circus wrote: »

This is pretty much the kind of claptrap I expect from those involved in the politically correct arts such as gender studies. The more people change the more they stay the same. They may have switched their jackboots and Luger for a hemp pancho and a macbook but the thought process is remarkably similar.

They want to kill all Jewish people and take over the world?

conorhal

Deleted User wrote: »

They want to kill all Jewish people and take over the world?

Have you heard of the BDS movement? There's no shortage of pancho wearing goons that are eager to blame the joos for all the worlds ills.

The Corinthian

Deleted User wrote: »

They want to kill all Jewish people and take over the world?

I hope you're joking, TBH. He/She wrote "the thought process is remarkably similar" not "their aims are remarkably similar".

So if you're joking, well, meh. If not, learn to read.

Overheal

darkpagandeath wrote: »

That will not take long to get torn down. Freedom of speech in the old USA.

Not unconstitutional.

https://xkcd.com/1357/

zeffabelli

Overheal wrote: »

Not unconstitutional.

https://xkcd.com/1357/

Yeah but in state universities, doesn't it count as state players, the government, controlling speech?

Carlos Orange

Overheal wrote: »

Not unconstitutional.

https://xkcd.com/1357/

You didn't reply to someone who said it was unconstitutional.

Cienciano

Omackeral wrote: »

Heard it said today that if Back To The Future were made accurately then the 2015 that they travelled to in the movie would just be people with their faces buried in their phones and constantly taking offence at everything.

They were right, a fúcking college course in america and people are going mad over it like it's the end of the world and it actually effects their lives :rolleyes:

Squeeonline

strelok wrote: »

I love that tumblr is leaking more and more into the real world

:feminst jazz hands:

TRIGGERED!!!!!

you're not respecting that I had a traumatic jazz related event when I was younger, you insensitive clod!

Now I wait for your mansplation of why what you did is ok.

Overheal

psinno wrote: »

You didn't reply to someone who said it was unconstitutional.

That was of course the implication.

zeffabelli wrote: »

Yeah but in state universities, doesn't it count as state players, the government, controlling speech?

It is not the government involving themselves in the course curriculum whatsoever. It is neither promoting nor interfering with it; perfectly legal.

Paramite Pie

Reading through the rest of the guidelines, it's quite strict in general.

Doctor Appointments cannot be made during classtimes and are counted as absences. Harsh. It's not always easy to get an appointment to suit.

Six absences in a semester gets you an automatic F. I assume this is a weekly class and there's not any weeks in a semester but referring to the doctor appointment rule it could be problematic.

Rym Shanley

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Meh

I thought this kind of stuff would be right up your street.

Carlos Orange

Overheal wrote: »

That was of course the implication.

It is not the government involving themselves in the course curriculum whatsoever. It is neither promoting nor interfering with it; perfectly legal.

You are free to think that. Doesn't necessarily make it so.

Concepts exist outside of legal restrictions maintained by one constitution in a country few in anyone on this thread live in.

The Corinthian

The Corinthian wrote: »

I hope you're joking, TBH. He/She wrote "the thought process is remarkably similar" not "their aims are remarkably similar".

So if you're joking, well, meh. If not, learn to read.

You're dancing on the head of a pin. Comparing these people to the Nazis is utterly ridiculous, whether the comparison be aims, thought processes etc.

Overheal

psinno wrote: »

You are free to think that. Doesn't necessarily make it so.



Concepts exist outside of legal restrictions maintained by one constitution in a country few in anyone on this thread live in.

Well, I live in it, and am confident I have interpreted the First Amendment correctly.

Akrasia

padd b1975 wrote: »

I'm afraid you're just adding to the hilarity there chief.

So you think there is nothing to be learned from looking at how women's roles have changed in popular culture?

Or do you just think the entire field of sociology is pointless?

OiL RiG

[Deleted User] wrote: »

They want to kill all Jewish people and take over the world?

I think you'll find it's 'people of the Jewish faith.' Wouldn't want to offend anyone.
Also, 'members of the Nazi party,' not 'Nazis.'

Honestly, why anyone thinks a simple grammatical manipulation of the label makes it less offensive is beyond me.

The Corinthian

Deleted User wrote: »

You're dancing on the head of a pin. Comparing these people to the Nazis is utterly ridiculous, whether the comparison be aims, thought processes etc.

Dancing on the head of a pin? It it had any relevance to anything being discussed it might even sound clever rather than someone who wants to sound clever.

So you feel any comparison to the Nazis is utterly ridiculous, on the basis of incorrectly reading the comparison made. Now you're accusing me of indulging in abstract philosophy (or theology) despite the fact that all I did was not that but point out that you were basing your response on something that was never said.

The only one who sounds ridiculous at this stage is you, in fairness.

Carlos Orange

Overheal wrote: »

Well, I live in it, and am confident I have interpreted the First Amendment correctly.

I'm confident concepts exist outside of one countries constitutional restrictions on government action. Usually they even pre-date them. Anyhow https://xkcd.com/386/

zeffabelli

Overheal wrote: »

Well, I live in it, and am confident I have interpreted the First Amendment correctly.

I think given they are state employees, there would be a case for a1st amendment argument.

jimgoose

You didn't have any of this kind of carry-on in the Good Old Days when the pathetic lot of the overwhelming majority of the Hoi-Polloi was to spend eighteen hours a day whacking the ground with a stick for half a rotten potato, while wearing filthy rags, and to expire in their own filth in unspeakable agony of Bubonic Plague or the tuberculosis. We need more real problems like that to keep people usefully occupied, or at any rate away from media. I blames that meddling Kraut Gutenberg and his infernal contraption, so I does.

DoYouEvenLift

It's funny because stuff like this is seeping into Ireland as well. At first we used to be able to laugh about this sh!t because "haha, America's so stupid at times" but now that we know there actually are some tumblr feminists and SJWs in Ireland buying into the bullsh!t it's more depressing and disheartening than anything...thought we were better and smarter than all that.

Akrasia

orubiru wrote: »

I agree with you here and also don't really see the problem with courses being introduced that are genuinely educational and informative.

The main problem I have is with the potential consequences of using a banned word or phrase. Who is enforcing the correct usage of language and how is someone punished if they use the wrong pronoun or phrase or whatever?

Yep. There is danger in these kinds of courses which are pushing a shallow and one sided interpretation of society onto its students

The danger is that the students will believe the crap that they're being taught and develop into the thought gestapo who go around telling others what they should and should not think or believe, or say.

Tim Hunt lost his job because of an inappropriate joke. The enforcers, the thought police are a mob of outraged 'social justice warriers' and a media that are just controversy generating machines.

Words are supposed to be tools to convey meaning and intent, but instead they have become the objects themselves.

If I use the wrong pronouns for someone should I lose my job? Or should I just be publicly shamed or maybe hounded on the internet?

What if I hear an old person using the banned phrase "colored person"? Should I tell them to say "person of color" from now on or should I contact the authorities so that they can be properly dealt with?

I realize it may be a slippery slope fallacy but how much of a leap is it from words being banned in college to people being prosecuted for using banned words?

Banning words is so pointless because the underlying sentiment remains. Its just a merry go round of words that are tainted by their abusive associations and thus become offensive, so polite people use different words which then get tainted and around and around in circles it goes.

People should focus more on the message and the intent behind the words and base their opinion on this, and not how 'politically correct' the person is.

zeffabelli

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You're dancing on the head of a pin. Comparing these people to the Nazis is utterly ridiculous, whether the comparison be aims, thought processes etc.

Ok I'll give it a shot.

It's the product of a culture obsessed with power from top to bottom, it's a culture obsessed with identity, it's citizens have become immune to violence, it's humanities departments, the intellectuals, are putting tighter reigns in free thought and language.

This trend in the humanities, as well as the filtering through of bdsm into mainstream culture, the high approval rating of water boarding, the militarisation of local law enforcement, the glorification of violence as a first solution(by this I mean gun shootings over stupid stuff)....would start ringing some bells as they are all responses, mimicry, and articulations of the obsession with power.

Akrasia

OiL RiG wrote: »

I think you'll find it's 'people of the Jewish faith.' Wouldn't want to offend anyone.
Also, 'members of the Nazi party,' not 'Nazis.'

Honestly, why anyone thinks a simple grammatical manipulation of the label makes it less offensive is beyond me.

It's the same reason people think bleeping swear words does anything

Everyone knows what the word is. What's the point?

Akrasia

psinno wrote: »

I'm confident concepts exist outside of one countries constitutional restrictions on government action. Usually they even pre-date them. Anyhow https://xkcd.com/386/

https://xkcd.com/1022/

The Corinthian

The Corinthian wrote: »

Dancing on the head of a pin? It it had any relevance to anything being discussed it might even sound clever rather than someone who wants to sound clever...
...
...The only one who sounds ridiculous at this stage is you, in fairness.

You seem to be getting angry.

Thanks for the analysis of me. Good man. Now let's return to the topic, which actually isn't me!

Mourinho

Wibbs wrote: »

Better stop using the words fool, imbecile, cretin among many others in common usage that were medical terms in the past. We can wrap ourselves up in knots trying to be "politically correct" when it comes to language.

Another one of my favourites and this is coming from a person who works in this area.

If you take the terms retard, disabled and special needs. At one time or another these were perfectly acceptable medical terms, however they then were labelled as offensive and hurtful and all that jazz and a new term is coined.

But you see here's where the brain hasn't been engaged, these words were turned into insults from the playground to the workplace by regular people, for instance the kid that lets in the losing goal at lunch time "Paddy you retard!"

Or even adults discussing a very stupid workmate or a local eejit "That fellas one disabled bastard"

So a new PC term is coined, for instance the current intellectually challenged term I have heard been used as an insult a few times, well guess what that then becomes an insult and will no doubt lead to new term being coined as someone will in turn say how offensive it is, it really beggars belief.

If you really want to try and change things then keep one phrase from now on and forever more and encourage its proper use and let older terms like retard fall away into the category of eejit, gob****e, etc Which IMO is the way these words are used anyway, 99.9% in a context not referring to an actual person with special needs.

Skullface McGubbin

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Unfortunately it is far from limited to the US.Sweden's 'gender-neutral' pre-school

Some have called it "gender madness", but the Egalia pre-school in Stockholm says its goal is to free children from social expectations based on their sex.

On the surface, the school in Sodermalm - a well-to-do district of the Swedish capital - seems like any other. But listen carefully and you'll notice a big difference.

The teachers avoid using the pronouns "him" and "her" when talking to the children.

Instead they refer to them as "friends", by their first names, or as "hen" - a genderless pronoun borrowed from Finnish.

The books have been carefully selected to avoid traditional presentations of gender and parenting roles.

So, out with the likes of Sleeping Beauty and Cinderella, and in with, for example, a book about two giraffes who find an abandoned baby crocodile and adopt it.

Sweden takes gender issues seriously, and for a number of years now, the government has been taking its battle to the playground.

Gender advisers are now common in schools, and it is part of the national curriculum to work against discrimination of all kinds.

It sounds like these types want to eliminate gender distinctions much like the way Marxists want to eliminate class distinctions. While Marxists dream of a classless society, these Swedish feminists appear to dream of a genderless society. So they're basically like some sort of Gender Marxists.