US college course bans the words 'male' and 'female'

zeffabelli · 31-08-2015 3:16pm

Overheal wrote: »

Well, I live in it, and am confident I have interpreted the First Amendment correctly.

I think given they are state employees, there would be a case for a1st amendment argument.

jimgoose · 31-08-2015 3:16pm

You didn't have any of this kind of carry-on in the Good Old Days when the pathetic lot of the overwhelming majority of the Hoi-Polloi was to spend eighteen hours a day whacking the ground with a stick for half a rotten potato, while wearing filthy rags, and to expire in their own filth in unspeakable agony of Bubonic Plague or the tuberculosis. We need more real problems like that to keep people usefully occupied, or at any rate away from media. I blames that meddling Kraut Gutenberg and his infernal contraption, so I does.

DoYouEvenLift · 31-08-2015 3:20pm

It's funny because stuff like this is seeping into Ireland as well. At first we used to be able to laugh about this sh!t because "haha, America's so stupid at times" but now that we know there actually are some tumblr feminists and SJWs in Ireland buying into the bullsh!t it's more depressing and disheartening than anything...thought we were better and smarter than all that.

Akrasia · 31-08-2015 3:23pm

orubiru wrote: »

I agree with you here and also don't really see the problem with courses being introduced that are genuinely educational and informative.

The main problem I have is with the potential consequences of using a banned word or phrase. Who is enforcing the correct usage of language and how is someone punished if they use the wrong pronoun or phrase or whatever?

Yep. There is danger in these kinds of courses which are pushing a shallow and one sided interpretation of society onto its students

The danger is that the students will believe the crap that they're being taught and develop into the thought gestapo who go around telling others what they should and should not think or believe, or say.

Tim Hunt lost his job because of an inappropriate joke. The enforcers, the thought police are a mob of outraged 'social justice warriers' and a media that are just controversy generating machines.

Words are supposed to be tools to convey meaning and intent, but instead they have become the objects themselves.

If I use the wrong pronouns for someone should I lose my job? Or should I just be publicly shamed or maybe hounded on the internet?

What if I hear an old person using the banned phrase "colored person"? Should I tell them to say "person of color" from now on or should I contact the authorities so that they can be properly dealt with?

I realize it may be a slippery slope fallacy but how much of a leap is it from words being banned in college to people being prosecuted for using banned words?

Banning words is so pointless because the underlying sentiment remains. Its just a merry go round of words that are tainted by their abusive associations and thus become offensive, so polite people use different words which then get tainted and around and around in circles it goes.

People should focus more on the message and the intent behind the words and base their opinion on this, and not how 'politically correct' the person is.

zeffabelli · 31-08-2015 3:25pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You're dancing on the head of a pin. Comparing these people to the Nazis is utterly ridiculous, whether the comparison be aims, thought processes etc.

Ok I'll give it a shot.

It's the product of a culture obsessed with power from top to bottom, it's a culture obsessed with identity, it's citizens have become immune to violence, it's humanities departments, the intellectuals, are putting tighter reigns in free thought and language.

This trend in the humanities, as well as the filtering through of bdsm into mainstream culture, the high approval rating of water boarding, the militarisation of local law enforcement, the glorification of violence as a first solution(by this I mean gun shootings over stupid stuff)....would start ringing some bells as they are all responses, mimicry, and articulations of the obsession with power.

Akrasia · 31-08-2015 3:31pm

OiL RiG wrote: »

I think you'll find it's 'people of the Jewish faith.' Wouldn't want to offend anyone.
Also, 'members of the Nazi party,' not 'Nazis.'

Honestly, why anyone thinks a simple grammatical manipulation of the label makes it less offensive is beyond me.

It's the same reason people think bleeping swear words does anything

Everyone knows what the word is. What's the point?

Akrasia · 31-08-2015 3:32pm

psinno wrote: »

I'm confident concepts exist outside of one countries constitutional restrictions on government action. Usually they even pre-date them. Anyhow https://xkcd.com/386/

https://xkcd.com/1022/

[Deleted User] · 31-08-2015 3:48pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Dancing on the head of a pin? It it had any relevance to anything being discussed it might even sound clever rather than someone who wants to sound clever...
...
...The only one who sounds ridiculous at this stage is you, in fairness.

You seem to be getting angry.

Thanks for the analysis of me. Good man. Now let's return to the topic, which actually isn't me!

Mourinho · 31-08-2015 3:51pm

Wibbs wrote: »

Better stop using the words fool, imbecile, cretin among many others in common usage that were medical terms in the past. We can wrap ourselves up in knots trying to be "politically correct" when it comes to language.

Another one of my favourites and this is coming from a person who works in this area.

If you take the terms retard, disabled and special needs. At one time or another these were perfectly acceptable medical terms, however they then were labelled as offensive and hurtful and all that jazz and a new term is coined.

But you see here's where the brain hasn't been engaged, these words were turned into insults from the playground to the workplace by regular people, for instance the kid that lets in the losing goal at lunch time "Paddy you retard!"

Or even adults discussing a very stupid workmate or a local eejit "That fellas one disabled bastard"

So a new PC term is coined, for instance the current intellectually challenged term I have heard been used as an insult a few times, well guess what that then becomes an insult and will no doubt lead to new term being coined as someone will in turn say how offensive it is, it really beggars belief.

If you really want to try and change things then keep one phrase from now on and forever more and encourage its proper use and let older terms like retard fall away into the category of eejit, gob****e, etc Which IMO is the way these words are used anyway, 99.9% in a context not referring to an actual person with special needs.

Skullface McGubbin · 31-08-2015 3:52pm

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Unfortunately it is far from limited to the US.Sweden's 'gender-neutral' pre-school

Some have called it "gender madness", but the Egalia pre-school in Stockholm says its goal is to free children from social expectations based on their sex.

On the surface, the school in Sodermalm - a well-to-do district of the Swedish capital - seems like any other. But listen carefully and you'll notice a big difference.

The teachers avoid using the pronouns "him" and "her" when talking to the children.

Instead they refer to them as "friends", by their first names, or as "hen" - a genderless pronoun borrowed from Finnish.

The books have been carefully selected to avoid traditional presentations of gender and parenting roles.

So, out with the likes of Sleeping Beauty and Cinderella, and in with, for example, a book about two giraffes who find an abandoned baby crocodile and adopt it.

Sweden takes gender issues seriously, and for a number of years now, the government has been taking its battle to the playground.

Gender advisers are now common in schools, and it is part of the national curriculum to work against discrimination of all kinds.

It sounds like these types want to eliminate gender distinctions much like the way Marxists want to eliminate class distinctions. While Marxists dream of a classless society, these Swedish feminists appear to dream of a genderless society. So they're basically like some sort of Gender Marxists.

andrew · 31-08-2015 3:54pm

TBH I can sort of see why a college class focused on gender might do this. If the point of the class it to get students thinking about gender (and class, race etc.) in ways they might have not done before, then forcing students to use different pronouns or no pronouns or whatever, is a way to accomplish this.

For example, suppose you're reading a book. If you're into thinking about literature and writing and gender and race etc., then it's a bit interesting to think about how your enjoyment or interpretation of the book is affected by the gender of the characters, and the assumptions you have about gender. So using gender neutral pronouns is a way of encouraging people to think about that; what if you don't know the gender of the characters at all? Do you assume some are male and some female? How is your interpretation different to other people's? In turn what causes those differences etc. So in the context of the course in question, I don't see what the issue is.

The Corinthian · 31-08-2015 3:56pm

Deleted User wrote: »

You seem to be getting angry.

Not at all - not sure where you got that. I actually rather enjoy shining the spotlight on someone who gets caught talking through their arse.

Thanks for the analysis of me.

And thanks for abandoning your ridiculous defense of your posts.

Rym Shanley · 31-08-2015 3:59pm

Mourinho wrote: »

Another one of my favourites and this is coming from a person who works in this area.

If you take the terms retard, disabled and special needs. At one time or another these were perfectly acceptable medical terms, however they then were labelled as offensive and hurtful and all that jazz and a new term is coined.

But you see here's where the brain hasn't been engaged, these words were turned into insults from the playground to the workplace by regular people, for instance the kid that lets in the losing goal at lunch time "Paddy you retard!"

Or even adults discussing a very stupid workmate or a local eejit "That fellas one disabled bastard"

So a new PC term is coined, for instance the current intellectually challenged term I have heard been used as an insult a few times, well guess what that then becomes an insult and will no doubt lead to new term being coined as someone will in turn say how offensive it is, it really beggars belief.

If you really want to try and change things then keep one phrase from now on and forever more and encourage its proper use and let older terms like retard fall away into the category of eejit, gob****e, etc Which IMO is the way these words are used anyway, 99.9% in a context not referring to an actual person with special needs.

Like shouting "spastic" at people in school.

But nobody would ever do it do a real spastic.

The Corinthian · 31-08-2015 4:12pm

Rym Shanley wrote: »

But nobody would ever do it do a real spastic.

That response is too funny.

Boom_Bap · 31-08-2015 4:55pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Not at all - not sure where you got that. I actually rather enjoy shining the spotlight on someone who gets caught talking through their arse.

And thanks for abandoning your ridiculous defense of your posts.

Deleted User wrote: »

You seem to be getting angry.

Thanks for the analysis of me. Good man. Now let's return to the topic, which actually isn't me!

MOD
The 2 of you need to stop engaging with each other in this manner on this thread. Keep it civil and on the topic please.

Cuban Pete · 31-08-2015 5:09pm

Skullface McGubbin wrote: »

It sounds like these types want to eliminate gender distinctions much like the way Marxists want to eliminate class distinctions. While Marxists dream of a classless society, these Swedish feminists appear to dream of a genderless society. So they're basically like some sort of Gender Marxists.

You're so close! Just a little more and we can look forward to "cultural marxist" among the many insults directed towards anyone stupid enough to dare uttering a left-wing opinion on AH.

cowboyBuilder · 31-08-2015 5:16pm

More PC madness from the USA, absolutely nuts.

This sh*t is killing progress , I hope it can't last

strelok · 31-08-2015 5:18pm

Cuban Pete wrote: »

You're so close! Just a little more and we can look forward to "cultural marxist" among the many insults directed towards anyone stupid enough to dare uttering a left-wing opinion on AH.

ah is heavily left wing, it just isn't your particular uber progressive death to the white man brand of left wing.

Overheal · 31-08-2015 5:18pm

psinno wrote: »

I'm confident concepts exist outside of one countries constitutional restrictions on government action. Usually they even pre-date them. Anyhow https://xkcd.com/386/

In this case I wager you will find no legal action is available to be taken. Also, its just the terms male and female removed from an arts class.

zeffabelli wrote: »

I think given they are state employees, there would be a case for a 1st amendment argument.

Not likely. State-funded universities have the freedom to do lots of things, like prohibit racially motivated speech. Such things are common in a code of conduct. This isn't even barring the students from using the term outside of the classroom, just in this classroom and during the coursework presumably. Its as much of a violation as advanced-level language courses mandating you do not speak natively/English in the classroom at all, and falls under the same academic rationale.

zeffabelli · 31-08-2015 5:27pm

Overheal wrote: »

In this case I wager you will find no legal action is available to be taken. Also, its just the terms male and female removed from an arts class.

Not likely. State-funded universities have the freedom to do lots of things, like prohibit racially motivated speech. Such things are common in a code of conduct. This isn't even barring the students from using the term outside of the classroom, just in this classroom and during the coursework presumably. Its as much of a violation as advanced-level language courses mandating you do not speak natively/English in the classroom at all, and falls under the same academic rationale.

Yes I know that, but it is arguable a constitutional issue...what I mean is I could see viability in a constitutional law case over it.

Overheal · 31-08-2015 5:30pm

It might make it to a lower court before dismissal and would likely never make it to the SCOTUS.

Seen too many cases and know of too many things that are being gotten away with to assume this is different.

SeanW · 31-08-2015 5:32pm

Cienciano wrote: »

They were right, a fúcking college course in america and people are going mad over it like it's the end of the world and it actually effects their lives :rolleyes:

The problem is that people come out of these nut houses and into positions of power, which may be as little as whipping up a Twitter hate mob to destroy a scientist, or as much as getting into political office and actually passing laws. So yes, crap like this does affect our lives.

Overheal · 31-08-2015 5:38pm

To wit, for those interested, Texas teaches Creationism, bashes Evolution and instructs children on the dangers of vaccinations:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/01/creationism_in_texas_public_schools_undermining_the_charter_movement.html

In 1987, the Supreme Court ruled in Edwards v. Aguillard that teaching creationism is unconstitutional. In the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover case, Judge John Jones III ruled in federal district court that intelligent design is still creationism and equally unconstitutional.

To get around court rulings, Responsive Ed and other creationists resort to rhetoric about teaching “all sides” of “competing theories” and claiming that this approach promotes “critical thinking.”

In response to a question about whether Responsive Ed teaches creationism, its vice president of academic affairs, Rosalinda Gonzalez, told me that the curriculum “teaches evolution, noting, but not exploring, the existence of competing theories.”
...

The only study linking vaccines to autism was exposed as a fraud and has been retracted, and the relationship has been studied exhaustively and found to be nonexistent. But a Responsive Ed workbook teaches, “We do not know for sure whether vaccines increase a child’s chance of getting autism, but we can conclude that more research needs to be done.”

On the scientific method, Responsive Ed confuses scientific theories and laws. It argues that theories are weaker than laws and that there is a natural progression from theories into laws, all of which is incorrect.

The Responsive Ed curriculum undermines Texas schoolchildren’s future in any possible career in science.

Their history text is similarly bad:

In the section on the causes of World War I, the study materials suggest that “anti-Christian bias” coming out of the Enlightenment helped create the foundations for the war. The workbook states, “[T]he abandoning of religious standards of conduct and the breakdown in respect for governmental authority would lead to one of two options: either anarchy or dictatorship would prevail in the absence of a monarch.” Responsive Ed also asserts that a person’s values are based on solely his or her religious beliefs.

A section on World War II suggests that Japan’s military aggression was led by the samurai. They write, “Following World War I, Japan attempted to solve its economic and social problems by military means. The Samurai, a group promoting a military approach to create a vast Japanese empire in Asia, wanted to expand Japan’s influence along the Chinese mainland including many Pacific Islands.”

I asked one of my former professors about this. Rich Smith, an East Asia scholar at Rice University, said, “There were no samurai in Japan after WWI; the samurai class was effectively abolished in 1876, after the Meiji Restoration in 1868.”

Responsive Ed continues to demonstrate its religious and cultural biases in a section on the Philippines, describing the population as made up of “Catholics, Moslems (Muslims), and pagans in various stages of civilization.”

When discussing stem cells, it claims President George W. Bush banned stem-cell research because it was done “primarily with the cells from aborted babies.” The California Institute for Regenerative Medicine debunks this on its website: “A common misconception is that the cells can come from aborted fetuses, which is in fact not possible.”

About LGBTQ rights, Responsive Ed says, “Laws against the homosexual lifestyle had been repealed in many states, but some states continued to ban the behavior.” The homosexual lifestyle?

About President Franklin Roosevelt, it teaches, “The New Deal had not helped the economy. However, it ushered in a new era of dependency on the Federal government.”

Perhaps the workbook’s best line comes when it explains that President Jimmy Carter pardoned Vietnam War draft dodgers out of “a misguided sense of compassion.”

suicide_circus · 31-08-2015 5:41pm

Deleted User wrote: »

They want to kill all Jewish people and take over the world?

To quote Voltaire;those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities

andrew · 31-08-2015 5:42pm

zeffabelli wrote: »

Yes I know that, but it is arguable a constitutional issue...what I mean is I could see viability in a constitutional law case over it.

It's no more a constitutional issue than an Econmics course penalising someone for using the word 'rational' in an incorrect way, or using any other terminology in the wrong way. For the purposes of that class, male/female aren't the right words to use, and if you use those words you lose marks. It's as simple as that. College essays and marking schemes aren't covered under free speech. The first amendment specifically refers to congress making a law that restricts freedom of speech; this doesn't even approach a freedom of speech issue.

SeanW wrote: »

The problem is that people come out of these nut houses and into positions of power, which may be as little as whipping up a Twitter hate mob to destroy a scientist, or as much as getting into political office and actually passing laws. So yes, crap like this does affect our lives.

So it affects our lives insofar as it has affected the life of one specific scientist who wore a certain shirt, and that's about it. Ireland is probably years away from repealing the ban on abortion, and the constitution still says women's place is in the home; I doubt there's a chance we'll be getting into diminising returns regaring people being 'liberal' any time soon.

Gbear · 31-08-2015 5:51pm

It's a third level education problem, isn't it?

Third level education has a bit of a monopoly on adult education but too much of what's studied really doesn't need to be in such a formal setting.

You don't need to go to college to learn to be a chef, a hairdresser or a barman, nor do you need it for academic pursuits that are studied purely for their own sake.

Whether they are or are not bollocks isn't really important. They shouldn't be treated the same way as technical degrees that are designed to equip you for a career in that field.
The alternative is this inevitable trivialsation of third level education, or, the over-formalistion of what are either hobbies or crafts.

Between the internet, apprenticeships and social clubs, our bases are plenty covered.

Wibbs · 31-08-2015 6:27pm

super_furry wrote: »

God help you if you ever have to listen to someone rant and rave about how you're a huge raving sexist for using the word hysterical due to it's obscure etymology. I got up and walked away two minutes in.

It's happened on Boards a couple of times. Hell I got stick from a couple of the Offended(™) by using the word "histrionic", as they thought it had the same root.

K4t · 31-08-2015 7:15pm

strelok wrote: »

ah is heavily left wing, it just isn't your particular uber progressive death to the white man brand of left wing.

Ah is left wing on the things it is easy to be left wing about. Its true middle class Irish conservative nature shines through on issues such as the dole, travellers, immigration etc however.

Cuban Pete · 31-08-2015 7:26pm

strelok wrote: »

ah is heavily left wing, it just isn't your particular uber progressive death to the white man brand of left wing.

AH isn't any kind of left wing. If it was, d'ya think there'd be so many (and such lengthy) threads full of people whipping themselves into a frenzy about immigration? Any time there's a thread about crime it's full of torture fantasies and calls for all sorts of cruel punishments.

Those are just two of the most obvious examples, there's a lot of smaller stuff that makes it clear most left-wing opinions are not welcome.

The_Valeyard · 31-08-2015 7:48pm

I think AH is bi polar.

US college course bans the words 'male' and 'female'

Comments