I’m all for having a community that is inclusive of both men and women. I’m not so enthusiastic about a community that welcomes only women and emascalated husks who have to talk like women lest they give offence.
[snip quote]
Miss out sex as an example? Hell no! When we’re talking about those things that we can experience as humans that distinguish us from intelligent, epistimcally rational AI bots or sims then why on earth would I leave out the primary one?
I totally agree that this situation would be awful. But it’s certainly not what I’m advocating, and I don’t see anyone else advocating that we force everyone to “talk like women”. (Do you realise just how disparaging that sounds, incidentally? Because women are obviously just a homogenous bunch who all talk in exactly the same way.) Surely there’s some middle ground here where no one feels excluded?
force everyone to “talk like women”. (Do you realise just how disparaging that sounds, incidentally? Because women are obviously just a homogenous bunch who all talk in exactly the same way.)
I actually didn’t think that was the controversial part of my statement. There is a well documented difference in the level of sensory experience women tend to convey through their communication, and it is a difference that I would suggest is more disparaging to males!
It did seem significant to me that “The touch of another person’s skin will still be wonderfully sensuous” was presented as an equivalent substitution to “the allure of a woman”. While both are valid they are definitely conveying a different experience and are a whole different form of communication. I do support additions such as “or the appeal of ”, to make the statement balanced. I can not agree that replacing lustful allure should be replaced with the appeal of intimate touch. Those are different experiences and the former is more likely to be used publicly by males than by females prior to any social sanctions on the use.
Surely there’s some middle ground here where no one feels excluded?
“Do you realise just how disparaging that sounds, incidentally? Because women are obviously just a homogenous bunch...”
-- The original statement is offensive to women, doesn’t that also mean that you assume that women are “just a homogenous bunch”? You seem to want to homogenise women for supporting points, but consider them heterogeneous for opposing points.
Hi Alicorn,
Thanks for the response. But if we interpret that only she is offended by it, or any nonspecified group, then I think scotherns’ examples such as
“”The touch of another person’s skin will still be wonderfully sensuous”—you can’t say that—you are discriminating against those without a sense of touch!”
also are valid. It seems to me that we have to assume that she bases her case on some sizeable homogeneous group (that gets offended). Women? - perhaps she can clarify.
I’m not sure I understand exactly what you’re getting at. As Alicorn pointed out, when I called that phrase disparaging, I didn’t mean to imply that all women would be offended by it—just that it’s very dismissive (and for that matter not really very rationally sound) to make sweeping generalisations about the way 50% of the population talk. (I’m honestly not quite sure what the original poster of that comment, which has since been deleted, even meant by it.) I’d certainly be opposed to sweeping, dismissive generalisations about people without a sense of touch as well, though I’m not sure I’ve ever come across one.
It seems to me that you might be conflating two different arguments here:
We should avoid using language that excludes a group of the population when there exists a straightforward alternative.
We should avoid making generalisations about people based on their membership in a group sharing a single feature.
I think 2 is a pretty solid, sensible rule in general, but 1 obviously carries more weight when a) the group in question is a particularly large or contextually-salient one, and b) the point can be made just as easily without marginalising people. Both a) and b) apply to the original example in the post that was being discussed. Neither are quite so readily applicable to the “no sense of touch” example that you mentioned, so personally I’d be a lot more inclined to leave that one as it is.
I totally agree that this situation would be awful. But it’s certainly not what I’m advocating, and I don’t see anyone else advocating that we force everyone to “talk like women”. (Do you realise just how disparaging that sounds, incidentally? Because women are obviously just a homogenous bunch who all talk in exactly the same way.) Surely there’s some middle ground here where no one feels excluded?
I actually didn’t think that was the controversial part of my statement. There is a well documented difference in the level of sensory experience women tend to convey through their communication, and it is a difference that I would suggest is more disparaging to males!
It did seem significant to me that “The touch of another person’s skin will still be wonderfully sensuous” was presented as an equivalent substitution to “the allure of a woman”. While both are valid they are definitely conveying a different experience and are a whole different form of communication. I do support additions such as “or the appeal of ”, to make the statement balanced. I can not agree that replacing lustful allure should be replaced with the appeal of intimate touch. Those are different experiences and the former is more likely to be used publicly by males than by females prior to any social sanctions on the use.
Absolutely
“Do you realise just how disparaging that sounds, incidentally? Because women are obviously just a homogenous bunch...”
-- The original statement is offensive to women, doesn’t that also mean that you assume that women are “just a homogenous bunch”? You seem to want to homogenise women for supporting points, but consider them heterogeneous for opposing points.
She didn’t specify that it sounded offensive to women only, let alone to all women.
Hi Alicorn, Thanks for the response. But if we interpret that only she is offended by it, or any nonspecified group, then I think scotherns’ examples such as
“”The touch of another person’s skin will still be wonderfully sensuous”—you can’t say that—you are discriminating against those without a sense of touch!”
also are valid. It seems to me that we have to assume that she bases her case on some sizeable homogeneous group (that gets offended). Women? - perhaps she can clarify.
Hi phaedrus,
I’m not sure I understand exactly what you’re getting at. As Alicorn pointed out, when I called that phrase disparaging, I didn’t mean to imply that all women would be offended by it—just that it’s very dismissive (and for that matter not really very rationally sound) to make sweeping generalisations about the way 50% of the population talk. (I’m honestly not quite sure what the original poster of that comment, which has since been deleted, even meant by it.) I’d certainly be opposed to sweeping, dismissive generalisations about people without a sense of touch as well, though I’m not sure I’ve ever come across one.
It seems to me that you might be conflating two different arguments here:
We should avoid using language that excludes a group of the population when there exists a straightforward alternative.
We should avoid making generalisations about people based on their membership in a group sharing a single feature.
I think 2 is a pretty solid, sensible rule in general, but 1 obviously carries more weight when a) the group in question is a particularly large or contextually-salient one, and b) the point can be made just as easily without marginalising people. Both a) and b) apply to the original example in the post that was being discussed. Neither are quite so readily applicable to the “no sense of touch” example that you mentioned, so personally I’d be a lot more inclined to leave that one as it is.