[patrickyeon]

Gendered terms are becoming less popular to describe people in situations where their gender doesn't matter. So we might say "mail person" or "mail carrier", the same as we say "firefighter" instead of "fireman".

It's not "cancel culture" as the sibling comment suggests; it's rarely people being outraged about imagined attacks. It's just language evolving as society evolves. As an added bonus, sticking with non-gendered terms means you don't accidentally insult someone by assuming something based on their body type or haircut, and it leaves space for non-binary or non-conforming people to not be accidentally made to feel unwelcome.

[xioxox]

The US should take up the nice UK gender-neutral term of Postie.

[asquabventured]

I'd like to unsubscribe from this alternative reality of the world please.

[anoncake]

Why do you have a problem with this "alternative" reality?

[creato]

It's annoying to have to constantly wonder if I'm saying something offensive when I absolutely do not intend that.

In this case, I wouldn't have thought anything was wrong with "mail lady" and might have said the same thing if my mail carrier were a woman (which she is). Now I read this thread and realize that some people would think it is a problem.

This cultural wave of making seemingly harmless language into problems is one more barrier to speaking anything at all unless I'm talking to people I know well.

[tolbish]

It's not that the term "mail lady" offends anyone. It doesn't.

The point is that singling out her gender is needless, and kinda seems a bit strange if gender was never really pertinent to the story in the first place.

"Cancel culture" would be going through high school recommended reading lists and removing books that focused "wrongly" on gender or something.

[Evidlo]

> It's not that the term "mail lady" offends anyone. It doesn't.

I think that's too generous. I've definitely met people who just enjoy feeling indignation at anything.

[delecti]

Lets be realistic, that's most people. Everyone thinks their pet causes to get offended about are justified. Even people getting indignant about cancel culture are enjoying their indignation.

[CathedralBorrow]

Funny; since you are right now bringing up this group of people to express indignation towards their behavior.

[Rule35]

It would be weird if you were just saying "the female-mail carrier" for no reason. But we usually describe people to differentiate them from someone else for conversation.

Like "the mail lady says she likes our cat", differentiating from the mail guy who we also don't know personally, but who doesn't like the animals.

Also, it's sex not gender people are referring to.

> "Cancel culture" would be going through high school recommended reading lists and removing books that focused "wrongly" on gender or something.

That certainly is, but it doesn't end with their most egregious actions.

[anoncake]

> Also, it's sex not gender people are referring to.

I don't think so. "The mail carrier follows female gender roles" is bad enough, but why would you describe someone as "the mail carrier with a vagina"?

[CathedralBorrow]

It's easy to offend without intending to, so I don't get how your intentions are relevant. Yes it can be annoying and difficult to consider the impact of your words and how they might be perceived by other, different, people. It would be simpler if you didn't have to think about that at all. But is that really the argument? It's a big hassle and you'd rather not have to do it?

[lordloki]

It is too big of a hassle. We should not have to overanalyze everything we say. It is not even possible. We don't speak in code, we speak in highly interprative languages. Many meanings and interpretations of a statement can be made. People from different ages, regions, religions, etc. will interpret things different ways. It is literally impossible to view everything you say through all possible interpretations. There is no way that any single person can know every possible interpretation of what they say.

[CathedralBorrow]

> It is literally impossible to view everything you say through all possible interpretations. There is no way that any single person can know every possible interpretation of what they say.

100% agreed. Don't see how it relates to what I wrote however.

[creato]

For me, it's a minor hassle and I move on. I think for many people, it's an easy thing to rebel against, and generates conflict where there is no need for it.

Instead of people correcting mistaken assumptions about themselves and moving on (which happens to everyone in many ways, not just trans peoples' gender), we have this stupid culture war about the topic.

[Rule35]

> But is that really the argument? It's a big hassle and you'd rather not have to do it?

No, that the people "being offended" are just lying to get their way. You know it's true.

> so I don't get how your intentions are relevant.

Right, because the baying mob never has time for relevance or subtlety.

[anoncake]

> might have said the same thing if my mail carrier were a woman (which she is).

Probably. Most people who look like women are. But some are actually closeted non-binary people or trans men. In which case calling them a lady isn't offensive, but it hurts.

[totalZero]

Because it's newspeak that treats innocuous language like evidence of thoughtcrime.