Lingusitics What is the Impact of Gendered Language in Science?

[ZapperZ]

Seriously, the way most of you are reacting, it's like I've popped on here saying the Moon landings were faked. "SHOW US THE EVIDENCE!"

ZapperZ, how about addressing my point earlier about how you changed tact halfway through the course of this thread?

What tact? What did I changed?

How about you admitting that you have zero evidence to back your claim? That this issue is actually rather moot since it is all made up?

Remember, YOU were the one who claimed to want to do Science. When the specific scientific methodology was applied to you, you balked.

Zz.

 

[Cryptonic]

Vanadium 50, what exactly are you & your chums asking of me? You want me to provide evidence of gendered language in science? In other words, you don't believe it exists whatsoever? Or, even if it does, it's completely unimportant?

I think I mentioned very early on that my issue isn't about "political correctness", it is about using language properly in science. So please, don't throw the "PC" thing at me. That is just plain childish.

You want evidence? Just open your eyes & ears. Go to NASA website & look up "manned spaceflight". You can find some glaring examples right there.

Look here - http://womeninplanetaryscience.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/gender-neutral-language-matters/

So it's just me being silly? C'mon...

 

[Cryptonic]

ZapperZ, I was querying why at the start of this thread you were saying "gendered language? big deal = trivial", but later on you were saying "gendered language? doesn't exist"

 

[ZapperZ]

ZapperZ, I was querying why at the start of this thread you were saying "gendered language? big deal = trivial", but later on you were saying "gendered language? doesn't exist"

No, I've been saying BOTH all along.

1. It is trivial IF it is true, because we see no effect of it. So I asked you for evidence that this is not, say, 1st order or even 2nd order effect. If it is trivial, why are you so concerned, considering that we can make a significantly more effect tackling 1st order issues?

2. It "doesn't exist" because I haven't seen it being cited. Based on my anecdotal survey of the high school girls that I encounter, many of which don't even consider not having a female role model in science as influential, I made a reasonable guess that not using a non-gendered term would have an even smaller influence, if any. The FACT that you could not show any evidence, even after repeated request, led me to conclude that this might as well not exist.

Do you understand this now?

Zz.

 

[ZapperZ]

Vanadium 50, what exactly are you & your chums asking of me? You want me to provide evidence of gendered language in science? In other words, you don't believe it exists whatsoever? Or, even if it does, it's completely unimportant?

I think I mentioned very early on that my issue isn't about "political correctness", it is about using language properly in science. So please, don't throw the "PC" thing at me. That is just plain childish.

You want evidence? Just open your eyes & ears. Go to NASA website & look up "manned spaceflight". You can find some glaring examples right there.

Look here - http://womeninplanetaryscience.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/gender-neutral-language-matters/

So it's just me being silly? C'mon...

C'mon yourself! This is what you call "evidence"? I mean, you could write the same letter to NASA, and then someone would be justified to cite this as evidence?

What about someone like me writing to NASA and tell them that there is no evidence to show that gender-specific reference causes harm. Would this then qualify as a valid reference to be used by someone else who wants to argue that gender-specific reference doesn't affect anything?

Again, consider the nature of your sources!. You are confusing someone's personal OPINION as if it is a valid evidence! This is almost as bad as a political campaign!

Zz.

 

[Cryptonic]

No, I'm afraid I'm not seeing your "logic" whatsoever. I think you are grasping onto some flimsy kind of counter-argument, which in turn belies a hidden political agenda of yours. You see my original post as some sort of "political correctness gone mad", and you are reacting emotionally to it, and trying to disguise your irrational emotional reactionism behind some strange mis-application of the "scientific method". Sorry ZapperZ, no dice.

 

[Cryptonic]

What about someone like me writing to NASA and tell them that there is no evidence to show that gender-specific reference causes harm.

OK, so you're falling back to your original argument? That gender-bias in language is ok & has no repercussions whatsoever?

 

[micromass]

No, I'm afraid I'm not seeing your "logic" whatsoever. I think you are grasping onto some flimsy kind of counter-argument, which in turn belies a hidden political agenda of yours. You see my original post as some sort of "political correctness gone mad", and you are reacting emotionally to it, and trying to disguise your irrational emotional reactionism behind some strange mis-application of the "scientific method". Sorry ZapperZ, no dice.

All that ZZ is a shred of evidence about what you're claiming here. You did not yet provide any.

 

[ZapperZ]

No, I'm afraid I'm not seeing your "logic" whatsoever. I think you are grasping onto some flimsy kind of counter-argument, which in turn belies a hidden political agenda of yours. You see my original post as some sort of "political correctness gone mad", and you are reacting emotionally to it, and trying to disguise your irrational emotional reactionism behind some strange mis-application of the "scientific method". Sorry ZapperZ, no dice.

Countering your argument using emotional reactionism is perfectly valid. After all, your original argument IS based on such a thing as well (no evidence). Thus, you are objecting to my doing exactly what you are doing.

I have no political agenda. I'm simply concerned that all the hard work many of us are doing in promoting science to girls and women will be trivialized by such triviality.

Zz.

 

[ZapperZ]

OK, so you're falling back to your original argument? That gender-bias in language is ok & has no repercussions whatsoever?

No, I'm just illustrating the NATURE of the "evidence" that you are using, i.e. someone emotional objection. When you do that, one can also do the same thing to counter it, using the same type of evidence.

You really have a tough time following the central point of an argument, don't you?

Zz.

 

[WannabeNewton]

Lol this is too funny. The language isn't hurting anyone nor is it worth a single ounce of effort or the time considering there are much more important things to be done in the domain of science. Simply put, who cares? If Weinberg wasted this much time making sure all his textbooks had gender - neutral language then his awesome texts on QFT would have never come out within his lifetime.

 

[Cryptonic]

You really have a tough time following the central point of an argument, don't you?

Not at all, but this debate has devolved into childish bickering. I mean, seriously. I expected a more mature discussion here. Not pseudo-intellectual wordgames & pedanticness.

Just google "gender-neutral language" - most of the early hits are university guidelines for essay writing. So this is trivial nonsense & unnecessary? Why then are universities adopting this practice? Political correctness out-of-control, perhaps?

My point, in my original post, in this "General Discussion" forum (no, not the "Beyond The Standard Model" forum lol), was to express an annoyance at gendered language STILL in use in science today. It's all quite simple, really. I mean, really.

 

[ZapperZ]

Not at all, but this debate has devolved into childish bickering. I mean, seriously. I expected a more mature discussion here. Not pseudo-intellectual wordgames & pedanticness.

Just google "gender-neutral language" - most of the early hits are university guidelines for essay writing. So this is trivial nonsense & unnecessary? Why then are universities adopting this practice? Political correctness out-of-control, perhaps?

My point, in my original post, in this "General Discussion" forum (no, not the "Beyond The Standard Model" forum lol), was to express an annoyance at gendered language STILL in use in science today. It's all quite simple, really. I mean, really.

Expressing annoyance is WAY different than saying that you have evidence for the harmfulness of something. I'm annoyed by a lot of things. This doesn't mean that there's anything of substance by it. I can't push a policy simply because I'm annoyed by something! I'm annoyed at people eating with their mouth open and making slopping noise. Do I want to push a policy to force others to not do it? Think about it!

Trying to make us do something simply because you are annoyed by it is rather arrogant. And your inability to distinguish between valid evidence versus simply annoyance/opinion is very troublesome.

Zz.

 

[Cryptonic]

Whatever, ZapperZ. All I'm saying is that using the pronoun "he" in scientific literature wipes out half the world's population at a glance. You think that is perfectly fine. I don't. I guess we can't really continue this discussion, can we?

 

[Cryptonic]

BTW feel free to grieve your personal annoyances in your own thread.

 

[ZapperZ]

Whatever, ZapperZ. All I'm saying is that using the pronoun "he" in scientific literature wipes out half the world's population at a glance. You think that is perfectly fine. I don't. I guess we can't really continue this discussion, can we?

And how many PRL paper, for example, have you seen use this?

We can't continue a discussion based on simply a matter of tastes IF you insist that something is done because of it.

BTW, what have you done, other than expressing your annoyance, to help improve the involvement of women in science? I asked you this before, you didn't answer.

Zz.

 

[Cryptonic]

BTW, what have you done, other than expressing your annoyance, to help improve the involvement of women in science? I asked you this before, you didn't answer.

Well I brought this issue up on a public forum, didn't I? That must account for something - not you, obviously, as you consider this issue a complete waste of time.

Please, ZapperZ, don't drag this down to "I'm better than you". That would take the cake. I mean, really.

 

[D H]

Just google "gender-neutral language" - most of the early hits are university guidelines for essay writing. So this is trivial nonsense & unnecessary? Why then are universities adopting this practice? Political correctness out-of-control, perhaps?

Don't discount that "perhaps" as a distinct possibility.

Part of the problem here is that English, being a hodge-podge language, has some terms that are gender neutral and some that are not. Your argument would carry little weight in a language such as French or German where everything, even tables and chairs, have a gender. Because English does have some gender-neutral terms, it is possible at times to come up with gender-neutral equivalents to what would otherwise be gender-laden expressions. Sometimes those gender-neutral equivalents just sound awful. "Manhole cover" becomes either "personhole cover" or something even worse. Sometimes those gender-neutral equivalents sound better than their gender-laden counterparts. 1960s Star Trek: "To go where no man has gone before". The latest movie: "To go where no one has gone before".Speaking of space, you mentioned NASA. What you didn't mention was that if you google "human spaceflight site:nasa.gov" you will get "About 46,000 results" while if you google "manned spaceflight site:nasa.gov" you will only get "About 17,100 results". In a similar vein, "unmanned spaceflight site:nasa.gov" versus "robotic spaceflight site:nasa.gov" yields 32,300 versus 164,000 hits.

There are good reasons to use the term "manned spaceflight" versus "human spaceflight". The Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs officially were the manned space program. To use anything but that term is despicable historical revisionism. The current name of the program is the human spaceflight program. That is the term to use for the future of people in space (if any such future exists).

There are also good reasons to use the term "unmanned spaceflight" versus "robotic spaceflight". Many prefer the term "unmanned probe" versus "robotic probe" when it comes to some simple satellite that just spins around and takes pictures. "Robotic" means something that does a lot more than just spinning around and taking pictures.

 

[ZapperZ]

Well I brought this issue up on a public forum, didn't I? That must account for something - not you, obviously, as you consider this issue a complete waste of time.

Please, ZapperZ, don't drag this down to "I'm better than you". That would take the cake. I mean, really.

Note that you were the one who tried to belittle my argument by calling it "... posts reek of a childish vindictiveness here... "

I'm not sure what I was "vindictive" against, but never mind.

It does matter that someone has more experience in something else, versus someone who simply MADE UP something. It isn't the case of "I'm better than you". It is the case of that I've worked in such-and-such an area and have more first-hand knowledge of what it is. I'm more skilled than a lot of people in some things, and I'm horrible than many people in others.

I asked you because, for someone who wants to show a lot of "passion" for such a cause, I find it hard to believe that your only effort in such a thing is to come on a public forum and express your annoyance. I mean, really! And then, you turn around and belittle my point of view as being vindictive, considering that I have done considerably more than you for this cause! I find this very strange. That's like a crackpot telling a physicist he/she (notice the dual use of gender here) doesn't know enough physics.

Zz.

 

[D H]

That's like a crackpot telling a physicist he/she (notice the dual use of gender here) doesn't know enough physics.

"He/she" is one of those (to me) ugly P.C. terms. There are ways to make this gender neutral:

• That's like a crackpot telling a physicist they don't know enough physics.
• That's like a crackpot telling physicists they don't know enough physics.

The latter is gender neutral and is grammatically correct. The former (singular "they" but plural "don't") goes back to The Bard, if not earlier.

 

[Cryptonic]

Don't discount that "perhaps" as a distinct possibility.

In some matters, sure. But not here IMHO.

Your argument would carry little weight in a language such as French or German where everything, even tables and chairs, have a gender.

Sure, but I'm referring to my language, which happens to be English.

Because English does have some gender-neutral terms, it is possible at times to come up with gender-neutral equivalents to what would otherwise be gender-laden expressions.

Most definitely.

Sometimes those gender-neutral equivalents just sound awful. "Manhole cover" becomes either "personhole cover" or something even worse.

A fair example.

Sometimes those gender-neutral equivalents sound better than their gender-laden counterparts. 1960s Star Trek: "To go where no man has gone before". The latest movie: "To go where no one has gone before".

Which I always thought quite admirable!

Speaking of space, you mentioned NASA. What you didn't mention was that if you google "human spaceflight site:nasa.gov" you will get "About 46,000 results" while if you google "manned spaceflight site:nasa.gov" you will only get "About 17,100 results". In a similar vein, "unmanned spaceflight site:nasa.gov" versus "robotic spaceflight site:nasa.gov" yields 32,300 versus 164,000 hits.

Great! This is a good thing, yes? Do you think this is insidious "PC" doublespeak, or actually a worthwhile change of consciousness? I think the latter. I'm sure NASA did too.

There are good reasons to use the term "manned spaceflight" versus "human spaceflight". The Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs officially were the manned space program. To use anything but that term is despicable historical revisionism. The current name of the program is the human spaceflight program. That is the term to use for the future of people in space (if any such future exists).

No way am I advocating historical revisionism. But you still raise a dilemma here. You can say the Freedom 7 space capsule was manned by Alan Shepard. Yes? But can you say that Vostok 6 was "manned" by Valentina Tereshkova? Hmm. Vostok 6 was "womanned" by Valentina Tereshkova? Again, hmm. OK, let's say "crewed" or "piloted". That's a lot better, yes? But then, why one set of rules for good ol' Al Shepard and another set for Valentina? Isn't consistency of language use extremely important in science? ZapperZ (and others here) seem to think it trivial - but I was always under the assumptioon that accurate, precise use of language was CRUCIAL in science & the expression of scientific ideas? So alas, maybe we should rewrite "manned" as "piloted"? It's just an idea. I can see the difficulty in this.

My main gripe (in my original post) was the continuing (albeit less prominent today, granted) use of the "he" pronoun in science today. Also the continuing use of the word "mankind", or even just "Man".

But yes, you raise good points.

Once again, I reiterate that I am not coming from some fanatical PC-zealout point-of-view, I am coming from the mindset that use of language in science should be a disciplined, self-aware thing. I think it's very important.

 

[D H]

Once again, I reiterate that I am not coming from some fanatical PC-zealout point-of-view, I am coming from the mindset that use of language in science should be a disciplined, self-aware thing. I think it's very important.

It might be very important in the social sciences, which is where out of control political correctness is most rampant. Unfortunately, who says what still carries a lot of weight in the social sciences. It carries a lot less weight in the physical sciences, where equations and experimental results rule the day and where equations and experimental results are inherently genderless.

 

[Pythagorean]

I smell a warped sense of equality

 

[Cryptonic]

I smell a warped sense of equality

So do I, my friend, so do I.