Maz
Guru
Reminds me of when I was about to rebuke my 7 y/o daughter once:
"Er, excuse me, young lady!"
"Yes, old dad?" she replied.
I just couldn't tell her off after that.
Was it necessary to put female in the title?
- Thread starter User
- Start date
- Status
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
"Er, excuse me, young lady!"
"Yes, old dad?" she replied.
I just couldn't tell her off after that.
glasgowcyclist
Charming but somewhat feckless
- Location
- Scotland
Militant feminists - I take my hat off to them. They don’t like that.
Spinney
Bimbleur extraordinaire
- Location
- Back up north
Why not - don't you comb your hair or something?
Spinney
Bimbleur extraordinaire
- Location
- Back up north
Just out of (serious) interest, what defines a militant feminist, as opposed to a normal one?
asterix
Comrade Member
- Location
- Limoges or York
Spinney
Bimbleur extraordinaire
- Location
- Back up north
@Shaun if you are reading this - may I ask a question about Cyclist Down?
If we have another fatality at the Bow Roundabout the response is likely to be fast and furious. Lady's anatomy and the Mayor may be linked in an unromantic way. It may be that some see being respectful to the victim may include being less than respectful to those with some responsibility for safety on the road. I do understand that you may be feeling your way on this but when a KSI sparks controversey should it be within that forum or taken elsewhere?
If we have another fatality at the Bow Roundabout the response is likely to be fast and furious. Lady's anatomy and the Mayor may be linked in an unromantic way. It may be that some see being respectful to the victim may include being less than respectful to those with some responsibility for safety on the road. I do understand that you may be feeling your way on this but when a KSI sparks controversey should it be within that forum or taken elsewhere?
Not really, my assumption is "normal", I think 4 out of 5 cyclists hurt are male? So, "male", "female", or no sex at all in the header, I simply don't care, however, it may have been an appropriate time to use an adjective.
Great idea to have a "cyclist down" forum, I loathe those headlines and usually make sure that I avoid the threads.
Risex4
Dropped by the autobus
- Location
- The Green/Gray Hills Of Debunshire
As sickening trivial as this is compared to the tragic occurrence which created this argument, mildly interesting in a consideration of ethical language use.
The term "female" is - on its own - a descriptor; it described a detail about the subject. It is fair and accurate, just as it would be to have titled the thread "middle-aged cyclist..." or "Mancunian cyclist...". You could quantify it as sexist through precedence. If the originator of the statement had started many similar topics before and had always habitually omitted descriptors for male subjects you could argue that it was sexist on the basis of needless gender definition, but that to my mind would be tenuous at best and I don't believe such precedence exists. If there was any implication that the female part of the sentence had any bearing on the outcome, that could be hypothetically sexist (for example, "yet another female cyclist down") as there is then wiggle room for implied causation based on gender. If the thread opened up into a discussion on female cyclists being more, I don't know, prone to accidents, that's sexist. I didn't see any of that.
Simply pointing out that a cyclist down is of female gender I don't think reflects anything like sexism; unintended, unknowing, latent or otherwise. Its a needless detail at worst.
Someone argued somewhere in this thread that because someone had taken exception to the inclusion of the descriptor "female" it made the statement sexist regardless of the original intent. I'd say thats bulhooey, just because someone perceives that a discrimination has taken place, (a perception they are free to form) it doesn't make it automatically so. Perceptions can be wrong.
Just my own thoughts.
The term "female" is - on its own - a descriptor; it described a detail about the subject. It is fair and accurate, just as it would be to have titled the thread "middle-aged cyclist..." or "Mancunian cyclist...". You could quantify it as sexist through precedence. If the originator of the statement had started many similar topics before and had always habitually omitted descriptors for male subjects you could argue that it was sexist on the basis of needless gender definition, but that to my mind would be tenuous at best and I don't believe such precedence exists. If there was any implication that the female part of the sentence had any bearing on the outcome, that could be hypothetically sexist (for example, "yet another female cyclist down") as there is then wiggle room for implied causation based on gender. If the thread opened up into a discussion on female cyclists being more, I don't know, prone to accidents, that's sexist. I didn't see any of that.
Simply pointing out that a cyclist down is of female gender I don't think reflects anything like sexism; unintended, unknowing, latent or otherwise. Its a needless detail at worst.
Someone argued somewhere in this thread that because someone had taken exception to the inclusion of the descriptor "female" it made the statement sexist regardless of the original intent. I'd say thats bulhooey, just because someone perceives that a discrimination has taken place, (a perception they are free to form) it doesn't make it automatically so. Perceptions can be wrong.
Just my own thoughts.
Providing people are respectful and considerate I don't see why they cannot discuss the specifics of an incident. We also have a Campaign and Public Policy forum for some of the wider, more general issues.
This discussion didn't relate to the report or the incident, so I moved it. Now that the new forum is in place we will have the opportunity to separate any similar side discussions earlier.
Had it been "Welsh cyclist down", "Black cyclist down", "Muslim cyclist down", "Married cyclist down", "Fat cyclist down" or "Gay cyclist down" would you be making the same argument about each of those descriptors?
Risex4
Dropped by the autobus
- Location
- The Green/Gray Hills Of Debunshire
A counter argument I was expecting. Actually yes, I would. As in all of those cases the argument is the same, it is a needless addition of detail, not a discrimination.
"Black, lesbian, muslim, female cyclist down" - if used in the same context as the original thread in question I would argue is neither racist, homophobic or sexist as the statement alone doesn't imply that either the colour of the skin, sexual orientation, religion or gender was a factor in the outcome. It is, again, just needlessly descriptive, not prejudicial.
ayceejay
Guru
- Location
- Rural Quebec
What if the cyclist was all six of those categories? In which order would you put them, so as to be PC?
If I am ever killed while on my bike the wake amongst my my friends fat and thin, married and single from all over the world of various religions and sexual orientation will hopefully bypass any of that when giving their drunken eulogies.
That's discrimination against the teetotal ;-)
To address the question: I wouldn't. Which is fortunate as I have very little idea what you mean by "PC" anyway
- Status
