Actually, I said I support being tolerant of people who express their thoughts as they think them, even if they happen to sound offensive at first.
Actually, you said: (emphasis added)
That women would generally use different words to describe the same thing does not mean that the man was in error to use those words. Those are the most correct and concise words in male language for what was said.… Many things that are said by men in few words must be said in many words for a woman to understand them, just as the reverse is true for things that women can say briefly to each other but require a lengthier explanation for a man to understand. This is normal and expected, since each gender has different common reference experiences, and therefore different shorthand....What doesn’t make any bloody sense is to insist that men (OR women) translate their every utterance into the other gender’s language in advance of any question
I’m saying that the person speaking offensively was not doing so merely because he was a male, and the people taking offense were not only females. Gender does not seem to factor heavily into the problem. I don’t see how appeal to ‘gendered language’ helps, and I take offense to you implicitly associating me with such people.
I’m saying that the person speaking offensively was not doing so merely because he was a male, and the people taking offense were not only females.
Did I ever say that all women only ever speak or comprehend female-specific language, or that men only ever speak or comprehend male-specific language? If language is based on reference experiences, then not all men and all women will share precisely the same language, even if there are general tendencies by gender (whether cultural or genetic).
That is, not all men share the same reference experiences—and geeky guys in particular are more likely to share certain classes of reference experience with women. Hell, I used to find the same sort of talk offensive, myself.
I take offense to you implicitly associating me with such people.
If you take offense to implicit associations every time somebody omits to adequately delineate their generalizations, you’re going to be offended a LOT around here. ;-)
(Personally, I just didn’t feel the need to disclaim each and every instance of a gendered term with “sombunall” or “BOCTAOE”—it’s more than a little tedious, especially since ANY gender-based generalization should be considered to have sombunalls and BOCTAOE’s liberally sprinkled throughout.)
Actually, you said: (emphasis added)
I’m saying that the person speaking offensively was not doing so merely because he was a male, and the people taking offense were not only females. Gender does not seem to factor heavily into the problem. I don’t see how appeal to ‘gendered language’ helps, and I take offense to you implicitly associating me with such people.
Did I ever say that all women only ever speak or comprehend female-specific language, or that men only ever speak or comprehend male-specific language? If language is based on reference experiences, then not all men and all women will share precisely the same language, even if there are general tendencies by gender (whether cultural or genetic).
That is, not all men share the same reference experiences—and geeky guys in particular are more likely to share certain classes of reference experience with women. Hell, I used to find the same sort of talk offensive, myself.
If you take offense to implicit associations every time somebody omits to adequately delineate their generalizations, you’re going to be offended a LOT around here. ;-)
(Personally, I just didn’t feel the need to disclaim each and every instance of a gendered term with “sombunall” or “BOCTAOE”—it’s more than a little tedious, especially since ANY gender-based generalization should be considered to have sombunalls and BOCTAOE’s liberally sprinkled throughout.)