Alternative: Girls (females) in D&D/ Roleplaying

[Krensky]

Joking aside: my case has never been that it is wrong.

My case has always been that it is bad.

- Why is it bad? Because it never helps, and it sometimes hurts.

- How does it hurt? By increasing ambiguity.

As has been pointed out, sometimes ambiguity is a good thing, because what you're dealing with is ambiguous. All pronouns can increase ambiguity. Abandoning thou for the singular you can increase ambiguity. It certainly led to the hilarious use of thou as a respectful and formal form of address.

I gave you an example. It helps because it doesn't annoy people like pawsplay who feel the generic masculine is offensive or off putting. It doesn't offend... well I don't think anyone's admitted to being annoyed at using she as a generic pronoun in this thread but it won't annoy them. It doesn't annoy people like me by using clumsy constructions, avoiding pronouns, or (worst of all) alternating between he and she as the generic pronoun (seriously people, pick one, run with it, and take your lumps).

It only seems to ignore a tiny group of people, like yourself, who insist it's wrong on purely proscriptive grounds despite common usage since the fourteenth century. Again, in a living language common use is the primary determiner of correctness or (since you moved the goal posts) goodness.

Don't be coy. Whip it out. Let's take a gander at whatever you're talking about.

Also: please address the observation that letting an assumption fester will increase surprise upon unveiling. Show how letting an assumption fester decreases stereotypes.

As an extreme case, a trans-gender person who does not identify as either male or female, or (even more extreme) identifies as non-gendered.

Anther would be a corporate person.

As a less extreme case when talking about a generic individual of indeterminate sex or in some cases gender, although I'm not sure if gendered pronouns in things like medical advice and products relating to sex specific items annoy trans-gendered people or not.

"When the candidate is finished with the written exam, they should be directed to the physical examination room." You don't know the gender (presumably) of the candidate and because, logically, the sentence means "For all candidates, the candidate was directed to the physical examination room upon finishing the candidate's written exam.".

Now one for you. 'Fix' this:


Mary saw everyone before John noticed them.


As for the other thing, that's pawsplay's beef not mine. Unlike pawsplay (making what I feel is a safe assumption here) I am not really a fan of gender-neutral English since in my personal experience it's often either a tool and justification to belittle others (Hello Professor Smithwicke! ) or (more typically) is stirring up annoyance over small things instead of addressing large issues. That said, if you are attempting to be unbiased in language you have two choices when you need a gender neutral pronoun. They or one stolen from another language. While English has a reputation for muggling other languages for vocabulary, it never really seems to take when it's intentionally done for this sort of thing. Mu hasn't caught on, for instance.

However, I think you read pawsplay wrong. The interrogative responses showed bias. It would, barring knowledge not presented in the example, have been more correct and unbiased to use the epicene they in them because the interrogator (or interrogatrix) doesn't know the gender of the subject.

As an aside, I think we need more gender specific titles. Words ending in -rix are fun.

 

[pawsplay]

Maybe you're not, but I am. I am asserting that ambiguity among THREE objects is MORE AMBIGUITY than ambiguity among TWO objects.

That's a very strange position. How do you measure ambiguity?

So, people haven't exterminated rats. You would argue that this means people like rats?

How is a pronoun like a rat?

Same deal with the appendix, by the way. It has NO BENEFIT, but neither does it kill enough of us to get itself ejected from the gene pool.

Much like mandatory gendering of pronouns.

Yeah, you're going to have to show me very clearly how leaving the subject's sex ambiguous for the maximum duration downplays any stereotypes.

Why? I already believe it. Whether or not you choose to respect this viewpoint in other people is really your concern. It does not matter to me very much that you agree with my position, only that you understand what it is and that my justifications mean I am unlikely to change it.

I don't see any evidence that you are well-informed in linguistics or sociology. The vibe I get is, "I prefer that language not change, and I assert that a narrow utility in clarifying certain sentences trumps any and all questions of social justice." Can you clarify for me if that is your position?

 

[Dausuul]

To the gods of gaming and the mighty demons of the Internet, I offer abject apologies and the sacrifice of a flumph in penance for my part in starting this insane pronoun tangent.

 

[Nifft]

It only seems to ignore a tiny group of people, like yourself, who insist it's wrong on purely proscriptive grounds

It takes someone very special to make an argument which is directly contradicted by the text he quoted in his own post.

"When the candidate is finished with the written exam, they should be directed to the physical examination room." You don't know the gender (presumably) of the candidate and because, logically, the sentence means "For all candidates, the candidate was directed to the physical examination room upon finishing the candidate's written exam.".

Make "candidate" plural, or pick one ("he" or "she"), or just use "he or she" if you expect your proctor to be a nit-picky twit.

Now one for you. 'Fix' this:

Mary saw everyone before John noticed them.

What's to fix? "Them" is plural in this case, referring to either everyone or (everyone + Mary).

That's a very strange position. How do you measure ambiguity?

There is a ball in one of these boxes:
[_] [_] <-- uncertainty amongst two things

There is a ball in one of these boxes:
[_] [_] [_] <-- uncertainty amongst three things

There's nothing tricky going on here. Are we able to get past this one now?

The vibe I get is, "I prefer that language not change, and I assert that a narrow utility in clarifying certain sentences trumps any and all questions of social justice." Can you clarify for me if that is your position?

Reading for content would probably help you more than looking for "vibe"s.

In specific, this content, posted right here in this thread: http://www.enworld.org/forum/5279479-post153.html

Cheers, -- N

PS: Since I have to keep repeating the same very basic things, it's becoming hard to consider this a discussion any more.

 

[nedjer]

Whip it out.

wtf? No Dolly Mixtures for you

 

[pawsplay]

There is a ball in one of these boxes:
[_] [_] <-- uncertainty amongst two things

There is a ball in one of these boxes:
[_] [_] [_] <-- uncertainty amongst three things

There's nothing tricky going on here. Are we able to get past this one now?

Sorry. To me it still looks like you're making an unfounded leap that more numeric possibilities means there is more ambiguity.

This glass contains either delicious soda or deadly poison.
This glass contains either delicious soda or a dark brown solution laced with potassium cyanide.

Which is more ambiguous? Should I drink the soda?

I don't know how much statistics you know, but you seem to be confusing a categorical variable with a scaling one.

Reading for content would probably help you more than looking for "vibe"s.

In specific, this content, posted right here in this thread: http://www.enworld.org/forum/5279479-post153.html

I read. I asked you a direct question. If you don't have anything to say, don't push that on me.

PS: Since I have to keep repeating the same very basic things, it's becoming hard to consider this a discussion any more.

Maybe if you're repeating the same basic things over and over while other people are raising new objections, it means your argument isn't persuasive. Maybe it's time to let go of that frustration, and focus on saying what is really important to you.

 

[nedjer]

I don't know how much statistics you know

The more I learned about statistics the less I knew

 

[Nifft]

wtf? No Dolly Mixtures for you

but we hunger for dolly mixture

This glass contains either delicious soda or deadly poison.
This glass contains either delicious soda or a dark brown solution laced with potassium cyanide.

Which is more ambiguous? Should I drink the soda?

I don't know how much statistics you know, but you seem to be confusing a categorical variable with a scaling one.

I'm saying that one word which can map to THREE referents is more ambiguous than one word which can map to TWO referents.

I read. I asked you a direct question. If you don't have anything to say, don't push that on me.

If you read, then you should already know the answer. But I'll humor you, in the hope that this time it sticks:

I prefer that language not change,
False, and directly contradicted by previous statements.

and I assert that a narrow utility in clarifying certain sentences trumps any and all questions of social justice
HA HA HA HA HA.

There may be ways for language to influence social justice, but muddying the pronoun pool isn't one of them.

Maybe if you're repeating the same basic things over and over while other people are raising new objections

You certainly aren't raising any new objections.
- "Ambiguity can be measured? NO WAY!" -> this marks your 5th time raising this "new objection"
- "Aren't you just some prescriptivist?"

Go get some new objections, let me see what they look like.

The more I learned about statistics the less I knew

5 out of 4 dentists agree.

Cheers, -- N

 

[pawsplay]

I'm saying that one word which can map to THREE referents is more ambiguous than one word which can map to TWO referents.

It is more ambiguous if I don't know which particular poison might be in the non-soda? Please answer.

 

[nedjer]

but we hunger for dolly mixture

By chance the gods have favoured me tonight. I've a bag of Pick n'Mix here with . . . lets have a look: some cola bottles, jelly worms, (now I'm getting somewhere), there are strawberry bonbons in here and a few lemon sherbets . . . a bright blue jelly and foam snake . . . time to explore the meaning of self-indulgence