![[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"
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 ]."