[67726e]

I just tend to tune out whatever is on the sidebar of a website as it tends to be ads or other things I probably don't care enough to read. As for the "by Stacy", well it is rather small and gray. Of course I have a feeling the poster of the comment that sparked this little flame-war didn't read the article.

[DanBC]

defending a sexist assumption by claiming a lack of attention to detail and an unwillingness to read the whole pages feels sub-optimal.

[67726e]

Again, I don't really see using "he" as sexist. It's just the English language.

From Merriam-Webster:

1: prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women

2: behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex

I can understand an argument that the author of the comment said "he" because of some assumption that anyone doing stats must be a man. However I'm making the counterargument that using "he" is a standard default in English and that such usage is not sexist, but rather as a result of how the English language is used.

[moocowduckquack]

That's an astoundingly crap argument.

You are saying that using he as a default isn't sexist because it is a default.

However saying that a default position is a default position tells us very little indeed and nothing whatsoever about if that default position is sexist.

[67726e]

Perhaps we're coming at the situation from different viewpoints. You appear to be judging the situation based off of how "he" came to be a default while I'm coming at the situation from the viewpoint of intentions.

Honestly, I caught myself using "he" several times writing this response but went back and "refactored" my response. Does the fact that I use "he" automatically make me a sexist? No. That's just how everyone around me spoke English and thus how I learned to use it.

[moocowduckquack]

Honestly, I caught myself using "he" several times writing this response but went back and "refactored" my response.

But you didn't use the word she in any of your response, so how could have you have needed to refactor anything from he? You might make at least some effort to keep your story straight from one sentence to the next. Honestly.

Also, you have a sexist learned behaviour as part of your language, you know about this and can decide yourself if it is worth giving a shit about. Learning the behaviour doesn't make you sexist, but not giving a shit about it might.

[67726e]

> But you didn't use the word she in any of your response, so how could have you have needed to refactor anything from he? You might make at least some effort to keep your story straight from one sentence to the next. Honestly.

I refactored all usages of "he" to be completely neutral. There is no "he" or "she" being used, except when referencing the word itself. Perhaps you should think critically before insinuating someone else is a liar. Honestly.

> Also, you have a sexist learned behaviour as part of your language, you know about this and can decide yourself if it is worth giving a shit about. Learning the behaviour doesn't make you sexist, but not giving a shit about it might.

I guess I must be a sexist since I use the word "he" by default since my native tongue doesn't have a gender neutral singular pronoun. Sorry for being a lazy bastard and taking the "he" shortcut instead of the other linguistically cumbersome routes English offers to be gender neutral and thus not an irredeemable sexist.

[jaachan]

If you see "he" everywhere, you assume being a man is the standard, and being a woman is somehow not applicable. This is a subtle affect that, if applied to everything, will change your perspective on the world.

And it's not that hard to just use "they" instead.

[67726e]

> If you see "he" everywhere, you assume being a man is the standard, and being a woman is somehow not applicable.

I don't quite follow. Are you saying that, by using "he" everywhere, I'm going to subconsciously exclude women?

> And it's not that hard to just use "they" instead

I cannot speak for anyone but myself but, being a native English speaker, using "they" to refer to a single person sounds wrong. I understand the tendency to use it given the lack of a gender-neutral singular pronoun but it doesn't change how grammatically incorrect it sounds to me.

[jaachan]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/they

  often used with an indefinite third person singular antecedent <everyone knew where they stood — E. L. Doctorow> <nobody has to go to school if they don't want to — N. Y. Times>

If it's good enough for the NY Times, it's good enough for you and me

[67726e]

> If it's good enough for the NY Times, it's good enough for you and me

Speak for yourself.

I've just gotten through with about 16 years of English courses, with professors who are most certainly not in agreement with your opinion. Hell, I remember having a German professor correct a student for using "they" incorrectly.

Just because a large newspaper uses it doesn't make it any more correct. Many people say "irregardless" and I am sure I could find the usage of it in a major publication, but it doesn't make the word any less illogical.

[moocowduckquack]

using "they" to refer to a single person sounds wrong

Yeah, well the person you are replying to, they may disagree.

[67726e]

The use of "they" to refer to one person is incorrect. Maybe things have changed since I was in school, though I'm 20 so I doubt it, but it was never correct to use "they" instead of "he" or "she". The reason it sounds wrong is because it is wrong.