Still a more minor point than using 'he' alone. The problem with invented words is putting them into use. Until they are commonly recognized, they aren't typically useful. Just to review, I have no issue with seeing the singular 'they'. I just don't choose to use it. You keep defending the plural 'they' which I have no issue with. So I'm going to assune you aren't addressing the argument to me. Denial is such an amazing thing. I asked, if older laws referred to Caucasian men instead of all men, would you value fixing that archaic racism? You replied that racist and vulgar words like (NSFW or sensitive people) Spoiler nigger, skank? and cunt were a different issue. Go back and look at the posts. You changed my argument and argued against the straw man. You can deny it, but the evidence is right in front of you. You never answered the actual question, do you "think the changed legislative language would be important if the word Caucasian was in front of every reference to men or a man? If the law was written so that ethnicity instead of gender was the issue, would you see why it needed to be changed?" It would be very helpful to this discussion if you would think about this question and why I asked it. The analogy is "white men vs all men", and "men vs men and women". Since you dodged the question with your (NSFW or sensitive people) Spoiler nigger, skank? and cunt straw man, it suggests you do see my point but don't want to admit it. You can see the importance of changing the language if the law referred only to white men, but you can't see the importance of changing the language when it leaves out women. It's getting nice and muddled here, needs a bit of parsing. A straw man is changing an argument then arguing against the changed argument. A straw man is not adding more supporting evidence to one's own argument. Since I asked about Caucasian men, not (NSFW or sensitive people) Spoiler nigger, skank? and cunt , you substituted racial and vulgar slurs as a straw man to argue against. What did I make up that you didn't say? The point of talking about the effect of legislative language on nursing was to provide an example where words mattered. Nurses were undervalued because they lacked words describing what they did. And connotation in laws related to nurses have a significant impact on how nurses are perceived. Your argument, if I read you right, is there will be no immediate change by changing to gender neutral legislative language. But an immediate direct effect is not a true measure of total effect of this change. There is value in the state setting an example. There is value in chipping away at non-gender neutral language in occupations. I cited Liz Watson, a National Women's Law Center senior adviser who said the legislation "is important in changing hearts and minds," supporting my position. You can only measure the benefit over time. Social change can be very slow. We do have evidence that gender specific language does have an impact on the way people see the world. So you don't know the difference between saying that is a sexist remark and saying you are a sexist? Where'd you pull that data out of? Women in the fire service are ~4% of the total in the US. Women in construction constitute ~9-10% according to all the sources I just looked at. ...
I am not offended, but I appreciate when the writer varies it skilfully. For example, a book on writing I'm reading at the moment, the author refers to "the writer" as a "she" throughout the book. Initially it was strange, I felt like "hey, not only women are writers!" Then I realised it's weird only because I'm used to seeing "he" and I always thought that's sexist. So I quite enjoy seeing "she" instead of "he" sometimes. But not mixing it up because that can get confusing like you said. On the topic of doctors, when I was working in the hospital, both my male colleagues and I were wearing white coats and stethoscopes. But it was me who got constantly asked by patients over 70 to bring them a bed pan or a cup of coffee, because they couldn't believe that a "young, blond little thing like me" is even old enough to be a doctor (I was as old as everybody else). It's not offensive, it just testifies to the subjugation of women they grew up with. Like when Whoopy Goldberg decided to be an actress when at the age of 5 she saw a black lady on tv for the first time ever (in Star Trek). Discrimination is a fact, we just need to recognise it and endeavour to improve things with time.
