![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
A poll for the gents on reading
Please only participate in this poll if you self-identify as having a male gender.
I know it's hard to remember what-all you've read recently, but please try.
UPDATE: for anthologies, please count them as the gender of the majority of the authors.
FURTHER UPDATE: Please don't eliminate books from reporting in this poll based on their topic or genre, then comment afterward to tell me how the stats would be different if you hadn't done that. The poll is not intended to be aimed only at fiction, or SF - the question at the end is an add-on. The goal of the poll is to survey the genders of the authors of ANY BOOKS you read in the past 2 months.
[Poll #1450130]
I know it's hard to remember what-all you've read recently, but please try.
UPDATE: for anthologies, please count them as the gender of the majority of the authors.
FURTHER UPDATE: Please don't eliminate books from reporting in this poll based on their topic or genre, then comment afterward to tell me how the stats would be different if you hadn't done that. The poll is not intended to be aimed only at fiction, or SF - the question at the end is an add-on. The goal of the poll is to survey the genders of the authors of ANY BOOKS you read in the past 2 months.
[Poll #1450130]
Re: "Gender"
The use of gender meaning sexual identity (behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex) will be the second definition in the dictionary from now on - that is a chronological order, not an indication of recency (it does not indicate exactly how recently it was adopted), range of use, or preference. In just this way, the first definition of tarmac (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tarmac) is the trademarked brand you probably didn't even know existed, while the second definition is the one in common use, meaning "a road, airport runway, parking area, etc., paved with Tarmac, tarmacadam, or a layer of tar." Hand in the dictionary is only described as the set of cards being held by a player in the 9th definition of the term. Does that mean it is less true than earlier definitions? Not at all. Would you insist hand can only mean a part of the anatomy, and not a group of cards, or a worker in a ship's crew? Many words are like that in the dictionary. The dictionary is useful for a lot of things, but debates of this sort are not one of them.
Re: "Gender"
I understood her reference and am one of the non-cisgendered people she is talking about as I can and have identified as both.
Re: "Gender"
But you are right in your historical comment that much of this is about the embedded connotations of words. To my ears, the word 'gender' in the non-linguistic sense is filled with connotations of euphemism, political correctness and bowdlerizing.
I didn't have a problem understanding her, I just felt I needed to raise awareness on a point I feel strongly about.
Re: "Gender"
Re: "Gender"
Re: "Gender"
cisgender
The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above.
---
Next, allow me to make very clear that my point is about Semantics - the meanings of words.
In particular, I take considerable exception to this remark: "Your resistance to the term seems to reflect a view that those who are not cisgendered are not worth recognizing or accounting for in our use of language."
There is absolutely no need to go making up words and then misrepresenting the viewpoint of those who prefer not to adopt such coinages. There is nothing wrong with the following rewrite of your sentence:
"Your resistance to the term seems to reflect a view that those who have different biological and social identities are not worth recognizing or accounting for in our use of language."
I should add, of course, that I STRONGLY disagree with said sentiment - I am in the LGBT family and have many friends who have such distinctions in their lives. We just don't choke the language with neologisms.
---
Here's an epistemological question for you. Why would you assume that I probably don't know where tarmac comes from (I can even cite an Elvis Costello song with the original 'tarmacadam')? Do you think that such an assumption might be offensive or irritating to the reader?
---
As I said, my point is about Semantics. The dictionary is the authority on the current meaning of words. If you can't accept a factual authority in debate, we should stop now.
Re: "Gender"
What do you propose the word sex should mean with regard to the masculine and the feminine, if you insist that one ought to use only sex and not gender when describing a person? Do you think it better to make the term sex nebulous (meaning non-specific as to body parts) than to use other terms? Is that what you propose?
Does your epistemological question actually contradict the truth of my assertion as to the information contained in a dictionary entry?
(I am so pleased you know the word 'tarmacadam'. I didn't. Very few paved spaces these days are actually paved with tarmacadam. The patent was established in 1901. Do you know the name of the patent holder too? )
*shrug* knowing the whole word doesn't actually mean your first thought was that the definition was solely of a patented product and not the material generally or surfaces laid with it. In any case, I would assume you probably didn't know that for a very simple reason: I didn't know it. Tarmac was simply the first word that came to mind for which I thought I probably didn't know the original meaning of the word, and when I looked it up I found I was correct.
Since you were already irritated by my use of the word "gender" there was little cause for me to expect to be able to avoid irritating you while making further statements. What I was mainly aiming for was for us to approach some logical common ground.
The dictionary is *an* authority on the current definition of words, *and* the most recent definition in the dictionary - e.g. the current definition - is generally not the first one - by the rules published in the front matter of the dictionary. You seemed to be arguing earlier that the original definition in the dictionary was somehow the strongest definition and not merely the oldest one. Did I mistake your earlier implication?
Re: "Gender"
I think this is critical to understanding our different viewpoints. I am a staunch believer in democracy as a form of government, but not as definition of truth or reality. I get over 1.2 million hits from googling 'pr0n' but I do not consider that a word.
---
On the wikipedia article: Interesting reading. Prior to this discussion, I hadn't heard the term before. It is true that dictionaries take a while to catch up, but I think this is a feature, not a bug. It keeps fads from creating chaos in the language.
----
Regarding what I propose. Fair enough, it is reasonable to ask for a constructive approach beyond just criticism. In my view, there is nothing wrong with the statement: "I'm a male, but feel more comfortable doing rather than ."
In other words, I think it is more productive if we describe ourselves in our particular details rather than create yet more categories to box people in.
"I'm a Holly." ;)
---
The intent of the epistemological question was simply to raise your awareness that I felt you were making untoward assumptions about me. It is orthogonal to the discussion at hand.
But, while we are here, no, I don't know who the patent holder is. I would guess it was someone named MacAdam or similar, no?
---
"What I was mainly aiming for was for us to approach some logical common ground."
Indeed. This is my hope, too. And to clarify, I wasn't irritated by your use of the word 'gender' as you did. Life is waaaay to short for that. I just felt I needed to raise my wee hand in objection.
---
"You seemed to be arguing earlier that the original definition in the dictionary was somehow the strongest definition and not merely the oldest one. Did I mistake your earlier implication?"
Yes, I think so. As Rileybear pointed out, the word 'gender' has developed an awful lot of baggage over the years. I am not saying that one definition is stronger than another, but rather that I would really like to drop that usage (and the baggage that goes with it) in favor of an older usage which is plainer, clearer and less euphemistic.
I'm jus' talkin' 'bout plain talkin', ma'm. ;)
Re: "Gender"
Regarding what I propose. Fair enough, it is reasonable to ask for a constructive approach beyond just criticism. In my view, there is nothing wrong with the statement: "I'm a male, but feel more comfortable doing [ insert tradional female roles of choice here ] rather than [ insert contrasting male roles here ]."