Okay, call me sexist, rascist, homophobe, xenophobe........

Larry in TN said:
I wish they'd hurry up and find the right words for everything so that all of our problems will finally be solved!


I don't like "partner" because it doesn't tell me what kind of partner. I have to try to get that from the context but it's often ambiguous. Is it a business partner? Tennis partner? Airplane partner? Training partner? Romantic partner? I can't tell.
Click to expand...
 
.
Leslie Nielsen in Airplane movie.... please don't call me Shirley ....

 
Larry in TN said:
I wish they'd hurry up and find the right words for everything so that all of our problems will finally be solved!


I don't like "partner" because it doesn't tell me what kind of partner. I have to try to get that from the context but it's often ambiguous. Is it a business partner? Tennis partner? Airplane partner? Training partner? Romantic partner? I can't tell.
Click to expand...
Often it’s an ambiguous partner.
 
Half Fast said:
I can see how this would provide a simple resume screening process: Oregon graduate = don’t hire.
Click to expand...

As if anyone’s actually seeking employment anymore.

Half Fast said:
You need to read Fahrenheit 451.
Click to expand...

Don’t we all? But, it’s too late - the message would be utterly and completely lost, now.

In fact, in current context, I believe there are a great many who would cheer on the behavior written-about in that (shockingly prescient) book.
 
Larry in TN said:
I don't like "partner" because it doesn't tell me what kind of partner. I have to try to get that from the context but it's often ambiguous. Is it a business partner? Tennis partner? Airplane partner? Training partner? Romantic partner? I can't tell.
Click to expand...

THIS^^^^^. Drives me insane. Even “significant other” is better than that, and I don’t like that either. Or “SO” which is even worse. Before gays could marry, we (I used to hang with gays) used to go with “lover” or just boyfriend or girlfriend, because you couldn’t use husband or wife. Or maybe you did but not in the literal sense. Lover kind of references just the physical union and doesn’t really address a complete domestic commitment but the word was used anyway. Now gays can marry and everybody can use “spouse”. But that doesn’t work in today’s society where half the people don’t bother to marry at all, so you’re back to “partner”. Ugh.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
Why do they call them “Firemen”?…..they put out fires right? shouldn’t they be called something like “Extinguishers”?
Click to expand...

More like rescuers or ambulance assistants nowadays. They go more for accidents and injuries, or to help medics move very large people into the ambulance. Occasionally there's a fire.
 
wilkersk said:
Oh, it was worse than that.

I remember that both "history" and "civics" were included in the "social studies" requirements for high school general education. There was even a 1 semester required course called "Capitalism vs Comunism".

The modern educator would surely be apoplectic at the thought of these abominations being required in our, now, kinder and gentler primary education system.
Click to expand...
Civics is a required grade 10 course in Ontario high schools now; it didn't even exist as an option when I was there in the 1970s.
 
Rushie said:
THIS^^^^^. Drives me insane. Even “significant other” is better than that, and I don’t like that either. Or “SO” which is even worse. Before gays could marry, we (I used to hang with gays) used to go with “lover” or just boyfriend or girlfriend, because you couldn’t use husband or wife. Or maybe you did but not in the literal sense. Lover kind of references just the physical union and doesn’t really address a complete domestic commitment but the word was used anyway. Now gays can marry and everybody can use “spouse”. But that doesn’t work in today’s society where half the people don’t bother to marry at all, so you’re back to “partner”. Ugh.
Click to expand...
Or just let people use whatever term they prefer and don't worry about it? If someone wants to call their romantic counterpart a husband/wife, partner, spouse, significant-other, épouse, conjoint, or sidekick, it's no skin off my back. I'll try to respect their preference, as long as I remember it.
 
Last edited:
So....I guess when John Wayne says....."Howdy partner..." that doesn't have the same meaning today? lol :D
Rushie said:
THIS^^^^^. Drives me insane. Even “significant other” is better than that, and I don’t like that either. Or “SO” which is even worse. Before gays could marry, we (I used to hang with gays) used to go with “lover” or just boyfriend or girlfriend, because you couldn’t use husband or wife. Or maybe you did but not in the literal sense. Lover kind of references just the physical union and doesn’t really address a complete domestic commitment but the word was used anyway. Now gays can marry and everybody can use “spouse”. But that doesn’t work in today’s society where half the people don’t bother to marry at all, so you’re back to “partner”. Ugh.
Click to expand...
 
Timbeck2 said:
Now they’re more of a hall monitor than a flight attendant. No more “coffee, tea or…”

I can’t say that I blame them with the behavior of the people who fly now
Click to expand...
Two weeks ago, I was offered snacks and beverage on my UAL flights 2 weeks ago. Except for the masks, it was pretty much like pre-pandemic including delayed flights :rolleyes:

Since we are discussing how language changes, can emoticons be used in place of a period to end a sentence?
 
David Megginson said:
Or just let people do use whatever term they prefer and don't worry about it? If someone wants to call their romantic counterpart a husband/wife, partner, spouse, significant-other, épouse, conjoint, or sidekick, it's no skin off my back. I'll try to respect their preference, as long as I remember it.
Click to expand...
You forgot to include concubine.:D
 
Consort! That should cover all genders and legal statuses.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
Why do they call them “Firemen”?…..they put out fires right? shouldn’t they be called something like “Extinguishers”?
Click to expand...
Firefighters, these days. I haven't heard one called a fireman in a while now, other than with very small children.

Larry in TN said:
I wish they'd hurry up and find the right words for everything so that all of our problems will finally be solved!


I don't like "partner" because it doesn't tell me what kind of partner. I have to try to get that from the context but it's often ambiguous. Is it a business partner? Tennis partner? Airplane partner? Training partner? Romantic partner? I can't tell.
Click to expand...
Meh. None of my business, partner.
 
Rushie said:
Consort! That should cover all genders and legal statuses.
Click to expand...
The Consort (with a capital "C") passed earlier this year.
gG6pucyD1U.jpg
 
Larry in TN said:
I don't like "partner" because it doesn't tell me what kind of partner. I have to try to get that from the context but it's often ambiguous. Is it a business partner? Tennis partner? Airplane partner? Training partner? Romantic partner? I can't tell.
Click to expand...
Yeah I agree. Sometimes it’s easy to decipher and other times the context is left up for debate. Generally, when I hear someone say ‘my partner and I’ I automatically assume a same-sex relationship.
 
Larry in TN said:
I wish they'd hurry up and find the right words for everything so that all of our problems will finally be solved!
Click to expand...
In a society with people who consistently take offense to everything, it’s unlikely the right set of terms will ever be agreed upon.
 
Half Fast said:
So what gender-neutral term is the UK now using to refer to their monarch?
Click to expand...
The trend hasn't hit hereditary titles yet: there are still duchesses, marchionesses, etc. However, I have noticed more gender-neutral terms to refer to them generally — "peeress" seems to have died out (the people in the House of Lords are all "peers" now most of the time), and the media seems to like the term "royals", which doesn't make a gender distinction.

But because we use royal or aristocratic titles so rarely in ordinary speech, they're much slower to change (if at all). Just like with genes, you need opportunity for mutations to creep in. How many times have you used the word "marchioness" in ordinary speech so far in 2021? :)
 
Larry in TN said:
I don't like "partner" because it doesn't tell me what kind of partner. I have to try to get that from the context but it's often ambiguous. Is it a business partner? Tennis partner? Airplane partner? Training partner? Romantic partner? I can't tell.
Click to expand...
I like the ambiguous nature. Let people think what they want. ;)
 
RyanB said:
In a society with people who consistently take offense to everything, it’s unlikely the right set of terms will ever be agreed upon.
Click to expand...
A million years ago (or so), when early human language first emerged, I suspect the first thing they used it for was arguing about language. :) We are, after all, the chattering apes.

Or, to give a more-recent example, Winston Churchill (American mother, British father) said "The United States and Great Britain are two countries separated by a common language."
 
DaleB said:
Firefighters, these days. I haven't heard one called a fireman in a while now, other than with very small children.
Click to expand...

It's more of a honorific. 'He is a good fireman' and its reserved for the person who goes into the house when the smoke pours out rather than finding an excuse not to go. Only matters if spoken by someone with 20+ years in the fire service.
 
I think, in order to be inclusive with the least effort, we should now say, as an example, "fire-anthropo" or maybe just "firehuman", as long as it doesn't offend someone because that name contains the letters "m", "a", and "n" in the same order the word "man" contains them. Unfortunately, that probably still wouldn't work, because it would exclude those who identify as animals. Hmm. Maybe we should just go back using representative language and not be so offended and persnickety about it?
 
SkyChaser said:
I think, in order to be inclusive with the least effort, we should now say, as an example, "fire-anthropo" or maybe just "firehuman", as long as it doesn't offend someone because that name contains the letters "m", "a", and "n" in the same order the word "man" contains them. Unfortunately, that probably still wouldn't work, because it would exclude those who identify as animals. Hmm. Maybe we should just go back using representative language and not be so offended and persnickety about it?
Click to expand...

You opened a can of worms here by pointing out that “human” contains “man”. We can’t have that. Homo Sapiens Sapiens must now be referred to as huperson.

You also make a good point about it being huperson-centric to assume animals are excluded from being fireanthrops.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top