342
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Mar 2026
342 points (98.6% liked)
politics
31035 readers
23 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Pedantic and off topic, but it would have been a shit ton easier if we just add a masculine prefix (alternative to "wo") and leave "man" as a gender neutral one since you and so.many others can't accept the current set up.
Something extra douchey like "heman/hemen", so that all the douches would eagerly use it.
And everyone can just go back to using "man" as a gender neutral option like most languages were built around.
So we could say "Congressmen" to describe humans in Congress.
Like, what are you even suggesting?
Congresswomen? "Congress women"? "Women who are in Congress"?
Do you understand why none of those make sense?
It's because "congressmen" is already gender neutral.
"Mankind" literally includes everyone. Women, men, nonbinary, furries, saxophone players, your mother-in-law, literally every human
Why are you so hung up on genitals, that you insist they be brought up at every moment? How do you care enough to put that effort in, but never actually got pedantic enough to see what was correct?
Even more pedantic and off-topic, but this is actually how the English language used to work. In Old English, "man" just referred to a person, whether they were male or female, adult or child. If you wanted to refer to an adult male specifically, you would say "were", and an adult woman was a "wif". Eventually, male defaultism shifted the language such that "man" referred to an adult male, and adult females were called "wifmen" to avoid confusion, which eventually evolved into "women".
Incidentally, we still see "were" used in modern English as part of the construction of the world "werewolf", literally meaning "man-wolf".
It still does, and it makes no logical sense for ignorant people to keep trying to force a binary divide for a non-binary population.
Just use "man" for anyone, if someone's demographic is ever relevant, that's why we have adjectives in the first place.
It's just weird when people have to shout:
Literally right after saying "everyone". And it's annoying because like most people who are the problem, they legitimately think they're the ethical ones.
In Anglo-Saxon, "man" meant "person," like Mensch in German still does.
"Woman" was "wyfman"-- female-human-person. And because sexism has ancient roots, the default gender assumption for a person was that they were male.
So it's not quite as straightforward as you propose, and the gender-neutrality you mention wasn't really all that wonderfully gender-neutral after all.
So how about this, based more on modern usage: "person" for a person, regardless of what their gender might be.
"Man" for those of male gender, however that gets socially assigned.
"Woman" for those of female gender, likewise.
And for all the edge and corner cases that make our world so richly diverse, well, we'll need to figure those out too, hopefully without being oppressive about it.
Actually, no I don't believe "congressmen" is gender neutral. Maybe I should have used "representatives" instead but there's nothing wrong with being all inclusive.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/congressman
It doesn't matter what you "believe". "Beliefs" are just opinions that someone can't defend logically.
You are wrong. And on some level you understand that or you'd come up with the femine version of "congress women" that doesn't immediately make an English speaker recognize it as nonsensical.
It's pattern recognition, not even conscious thought.
You not being able to admit you were wrong, is just tiresome honestly.
Sorry for English not being my first language I guess? Nice to see Lemmy has become as hostile as Reddit.
Also I can link the dictionary at you as well: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/congresswoman
Platforms don’t change people.
Right...
So you referred to two groups:
Everyone in Congress, literally all of them men, women, nonbinary, doesn't matter
Also, women in Congress
And you're acting smug, and like you're somehow correct?
If someone corrects you, listen.
Get mad and slap fight and someone that actually understands this shit and has shown a willingness to help you...
Someone who has absolutely zero to gain from ever helping you...
Is probably just gonna help someone else instead
Well at least with the Senate there's a Latin suffix system that is oft forgotten, that being tor trix suffix. So a male Senate member is a senator and female member is a senatrix.
Omg dude the tears lol