322
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 12 Apr 2024
322 points (97.4% liked)
News
39217 readers
3447 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Why not just get rid of gender altogether? No Mr or Ms/Mrs. What is the point of gendered pronouns. We don’t have pronouns or prefixes for other parts of our identity like race or age. Just call people the same thing and if you must have formalities like Sir or Mrs, just make them non-gendered.
In the long run, getting rid of gender in our society would be a good thing. However, that has to be a real change, not "we call everyone 'they' now and pretend gender doesn't exist".
Same with racism. Pretending it doesn't exist by refusing to talk about it doesn't solve anything.
Totally. Existing generations would have to die off and new gens would have to be raised without gender.
The only thing conservatives hate more than women are men that think and look like women.
Yeah. Anything that makes them question their sexuality even the slightest. Lots of straight gay dudes who are so afraid to be gay.
This is like commenting on a story about an innocent man being released from jail and saying "why can't we just abolish all prisons?". Like, everyone here likely agrees but you're also commenting on a story about why we can't. This woman barely, barely got the right to have others be able to use her basic pronouns. Why do you think they would be willing to jump right to eliminating gender altogether for her sake or those like her? People in power love gender and they love the rules it lets them impose, that's why.
Didn’t think we had to tip-toe on Lemmy. Let’s talk about the real problems and solutions.
What's the solution then?
We can’t start to erase gender until we solve sexism, but it might be a chicken or egg thing. Can’t protect women against men if we erase gender, but a lot of toxicity comes from the gendering of men and grooming of men in our society. Idk the answer, but it’s not to be afraid to talk about it.
That's not an objective thing to decide. I'm sure this particular teacher would love for us to consider her day to day life a real problem. Work on abolishing gender, sure, but I don't expect it within my lifetime and we all have stuff to do to make life better in the interim.
Fair enough. Just feels like the deeper we go towards ensuring everybody gets the gender they want, the further we are from fixing the actual problem.
I would argue the opposite is true. The entire idea of "abolishing gender" is to remove the forced expectations and norms, not to force everyone to be androgynous or uniform. Freeing this woman to have her gender expression respected by the state is a small, concrete step towards that end.
But what does it mean to be a woman or a man? To wear dresses? To be tough and never cry? Aside from our biological differences, gender is just defined by societal norms. Without gender distinction, there would be no need to fight for people to recognize you as one or the other.
I agree that it would be best to just expand what it means to be a man or a woman, but in order for it to be really effective you’d have to go so far that really only the biological differences matter.
"Professor"
Although I think there are a certain set of requirements to be called that legally.
"Instructor"
We can go cool 90’s kid and call teachers “teach”.
Agreed. I don't really understand the point of them. Similarly, I've never understood the point of gendered professions (actor/actress, waiter/waitress, etc). It seems like it only exists to divide.
Using gendered professions mostly fell out of style years ago. Waiter/waitress became server. Steward/stewardess became flight attendant. Actor/actress is still used but I hear "actor" used for all genders more frequently these days.
My favorite is the replacement of Chairman/chairwoman with either Chairperson or just "Chair" , like the sit-table object 🪑.
I prefer network administratrix, actually.
/s
Totally. I can understand preferring a specific gender for a doctor, but we don’t have gendered terms for that for some reason.
Why would that matter?
Some people feel more comfortable talking to or being touched by a person of a specific gender. Sometimes that's for a bigoted reason but sometimes it's not. For example, I've always had an easier time opening up about emotional stuff with women so I would prefer speaking to a female counselor or therapist. This isn't because I dislike or distrust men, I just had more conversations like that with my female friends growing up so it feels more natural.
There's doctrix and doctress, but wiktionary lists one as archaic and the other as obsolete.
Woah never heard of that haha. Sounds kinky.