Support NeoGAF

[iamshadowlark]

WTF is this shit?

 

[Kwixotik]

My school already does this. We use "first-year".

 

[samus i am]

A girl that is in her first year of college is called a freshman. It IS a gender neutral term.

 

[Zoe]

Why not just say:

1st year student
2nd year student
3rd year student
4th year student

?

Or is that not convoluted enough?

Come on, that's just begging to shame the 8th year students.

 

[ColtraineGF]

Eh, no problem to me, really.

I see the same reasoning behind this as any other [-man] -> [gender-neutral term] reference change. No reason to be upset at being more inclusive with language usage.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

I was talking about the people in this thread, but I see how that could be taken either way. Seriously, no one is making a word illegal or anything.

You don't understand what's at stake. Seriously, I can't fathom how strained my eyes are going to get after having no choice but to constantly roll my eyes back into my head in a very exaggerated fashion every time I see the phrase "first-year student" in place of 'freshman' in documentation I was never going to read to begin with.

It's a pretty big deal.

 

[Justin Timberlake]

UVA has been doing this forever. Everyone is a "1st/2nd/3rd/4th/etc year".

But not for the same reasons (something about there are no freshmen or seniors in the classroom; everyone is equal in the pursuit of learning)

meh

 

[Dude Abides]

It didn't hurt anyone in the first place. This is an overreaction to an overreaction.

It's a bit silly but if they want to make a minor harmless change in an effort to promote inclusiveness I don't see the harm.

Intelligence and common sense are under attack by idiots who think this is something worth addressing. Not only is it not worth addressing, it's not an issue. It's only an issue for people who somehow think having "man" at the end of a word somehow means the word defers to men first. It refers to a human, not a man, and we shouldn't have to change things just because some people don't know that. Our society shouldn't defer to the thoughts and opinions of the lowest common denominator.

I don't think so. The plural of "freshman" is "freshmen," not "freshmans."

 

[ThisWreckage]

Intelligence and common sense are under attack by idiots who think this is something worth addressing. Not only is it not worth addressing, it's not an issue. It's only an issue for people who somehow think having "man" at the end of a word somehow means the word defers to men first. It refers to a human, not a man, and we shouldn't have to change things just because some people don't know that. Our society shouldn't defer to the thoughts and opinions of the lowest common denominator.

You nailed it.

 

[out0v0rder]

the world is going to be so boring in the future.

 

[Anatopism]

It's amusing how many people are seemingly outraged at this. What, is the university not using freshman going to key their cars or something? You have to wonder, if people's only complaint was that it wasn't necessary why are some of them getting so bent out of shape by this?

 

[Atrus]

It's a bit silly but if they want to make a minor harmless change in an effort to promote inclusiveness I don't see the harm.

The harm comes from accommodating stupidity. Everyone is within their right to change something, especially something so innocuous, but doing so on the basis of stupidity is completely uncalled for, especially from an educational institution.

Also the plural of 'men' is also a gender neutral term.

It is not Policeman and Policewoman. It is Policeman and Policemen. It is not Chairman and Chairwoman, it is Chairman and Chairmen. People who have issue need to get their heads extricated from the recesses of their ass.

 

[Angry Grimace]

Up next, mailmen ----> personperson

 

[MuzzledBasher]

Is chair a proper gender neutral term, or did they just take out the man out of chairman? 'Vice Chair' just sounds silly

 

[ColtraineGF]

And just as a note, I wonder if people have as much of a problem with this as they do with firefighter, police officer, equestrian, flight attendant, news anchor, pilot, chairperson, letter carrier, and all the other various neutral terms that have come about through language shift.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

The harm comes from accommodating stupidity. Everyone is within their right to change something, especially something so innocuous, but doing so on the basis of stupidity is completely uncalled for, especially from an educational institution.

Why is it fair to presume that this was a stupid suggestion. Mind you, it could have been one person getting worked up about nothing and making a mountain out of a molehill until the powers that be acquiesced, but it seems equally likely to me that it was just an innocent suggestion that was implemented because it required next to no effort.

 

[Empyrean Heaven]

But if we don't call them freshmen, we won't be allowed to do this!

 

[Dude Abides]

The harm comes from accommodating stupidity. Everyone is within their right to change something, especially something so innocuous, but doing so on the basis of stupidity is completely uncalled for, especially from an educational institution.

Also the plural of 'men' is also a gender neutral term.

It is not Policeman and Policewoman. It is Policeman and Policemen. It is not Chairman and Chairwoman, it is Chairman and Chairmen. People who have issue need to get their heads extricated from the recesses of their ass.

The plural of man is men. The plural of woman is not men.

You are also begging the question here. The fact that other titles may default to the male gender form does not mean that they, and terms like them such as freshman, are actually gender-neutral. And, as an aside, Chairwoman is certainly a term.

So it's a minor issue but they are correct that the term is gendered.

 

[Atrus]

Is chair a proper gender neutral term, or did they just take out the man out of chairman? 'Vice Chair' just sounds silly

It's technically Chairman. One Chairs but one is not a Chair, but because of silly nonsense it is now common to hear a Chair who Chairs.

Mr. and Madame Chairman is the accepted and correct way of addressing someone much like Mr. and Madame President.

 

[Atrus]

The plural of man is men. The plural of woman is not men.

You are also begging the question here. The fact that other titles may default to the male gender form does not mean that they, and terms like them such as freshman, are actually gender-neutral. And, as an aside, Chairwoman is certainly a term.

So it's a minor issue but they are correct that the term is gendered.

You are speaking complete nonsense. Only a morons refer to someone as a Chairwoman. The proper address is Madame Chairman not Madame Chairwoman.

The plural of man may be men but so is the plurality of human when it relates to the qualification of said humans.

 

[Double D]

Women will now be refereed to as Wo.

 

[Dude Abides]

You are speaking complete nonsense. Only a morons refer to someone as a Chairwoman. The proper address is Madame Chairman not Madame Chairwoman.

The plural of man may be men but so is the plurality of human when it relates to the qualification of said humans.

You saying something is nonsense or only done by morons does not establish that it is so.

Here are some morons at the Associated Press using the word chairwoman.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma...-chairwoman/vhmF2MU57I3KPye2dCKDBP/story.html

And some morons at the New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/06/business/avon-chairwoman-to-step-down.html?_r=0

So, your umbrage notwithstanding, it appears to be an actual term that is used.

I don't understand what you think you're saying in the last sentence. The plurality of human is not "humen." "Humen" isn't a word.

 

[Fritz]

Just call them Mentos.

Studentos

But my mom said addressing people by "it" is not educated. ((

cutmeastudentgo

This is the best one

Tnedutso

 

[ThisWreckage]

There's a supreme irony in a university (a place that is supposed to be a bastion for free speech) telling their staff that they now have to use gender neutral language in letters and such.

 

[eznark]

lol at now having to call one and done basketball players first year "students"

Or football players: Jim Jones, fifth year fourth year quarterback who was red shirted as a first year student

Go fuuuuuuuuck yourselves PC police

 

[Steve Youngblood]

There's a supreme irony in a university (a place that is supposed to be a bastion for free speech) telling their staff that they now have to use gender neutral language in letters and such.

My suspicion is that there are probably many, many more guidelines in regards to what is permissible that preceded this that are probably even more supremely ironic. However, I don't even know if I concede that this is all that ironic to begin with.

 

[Atrus]

You saying something is nonsense or only done by morons does not establish that it is so.

Here are some morons at the Associated Press using the word chairwoman.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma...-chairwoman/vhmF2MU57I3KPye2dCKDBP/story.html

And some morons at the New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/06/business/avon-chairwoman-to-step-down.html?_r=0

So, your umbrage notwithstanding, it appears to be an actual term that is used.

I don't understand what you think you're saying in the last sentence. The plurality of human is not "humen." "Humen" isn't a word.

Just because people use it as a measure of nonsensical gender neutrality does not make the underlying basis anything but nonsense. So yes, people who ascribe to such things for such reasons are morons. Completely so.

Just because people use the phrase animal epidemic it does not mean it's a correct term to use. The correct term being epizootic.

Also, I did not say the plural of human is humen.

Policeman does not refer to male who polices, it refers to Human who polices. The plural of the word is 'men' hence policemen and this applies to any human being who is a police officer regardless of gender.

 

[SolKane]

Freshman, sophomore, junior and senior are outdated terms anyway at universities. Just give everyone a badge with a number on it and be done.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

Policeman does not refer to male who polices, it refers to Human who polices. The plural of the word is 'men' hence policemen and this applies to any human being who is a police officer regardless of gender.

Personally, I've just long adjusted to using the bolded term pretty much exclusively. If that seems like too much typing/vocalizing syllables, cop(s) also works.

 

[Dude Abides]

Just because people use it as a measure of nonsensical gender neutrality does not make the underlying basis anything but nonsense. So yes, people who ascribe to such things for such reasons are morons. Completely so.

Just because people use the phrase animal epidemic it does not mean it's a correct term to use. The correct term being epizootic.

Also, I did not say the plural of human is humen.

Policeman does not refer to male who polices, it refers to Human who polices. The plural of the word is 'men' hence policemen and this applies to any human being who is a police officer regardless of gender.

"Everyone who disagrees with me is a stupid doo-doo head" is not an argument that I can really respond to. Since the propriety of a particular term is subject to whether it is popularly used, rather than the preference of individual NeoGAF user Atrus, I'm going to have to conclude that the examples I provided above demonstrate that Chairwoman is perfectly cromulent.

You're begging the question again in your last paragraph. The notion here is that the term "Policeman" arose at a time when the only humans who policed were in fact male, so it made sense to use a gendered term, but now that there are also women who perform police duties, a non-gendered term is more appropriate. The idea that the "man" at the end of such words is some kind of contraction of "human" is pretty dubious.

 

[WarMacheen]

Lets just call them n00bs and be done with this shit

 

[Atrus]

"Everyone who disagrees with me is a stupid doo-doo head" is not an argument that I can really respond to. Since the propriety of a particular term is subject to whether it is popularly used, rather than the preference of individual NeoGAF user Atrus, I'm going to have to conclude that the examples I provided above demonstrate that Chairwoman is perfectly cromulent.

You're begging the question again in your last paragraph. The notion here is that the term "Policeman" arose at a time when the only humans who policed were in fact male, so it made sense to use a gendered term, but now that there are also women who perform police duties, a non-gendered term is more appropriate. The idea that the "man" at the end of such words is some kind of contraction of "human" is pretty dubious.

This is completely insane and asinine on your part and is example of nonsense spiraling out of control and if you want to go toe to toe on tangible points we can do so and you will lose.

Firstly, the classification of man is not dubious. The term of Man and Woman both originate with the 'Man' suffix as they originate from German, Wifman and Werman. Hence the classification of Policeman is not in reference to the gender.

This is why we have Police Dog and not Police Dog and Police Bitch. Man is a classifier for human and your hand waving achieves nothing.

Secondly, just because there is an accepted colloquial term does not mean that the usage is technically correct, as the term animal epidemic is understood but is also nonsensical. The prevalence of a belief does not make it correct.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

I'm going to have to conclude that the examples I provided above demonstrate that Chairwoman is perfectly cromulent.

The spirit of Jebadiah embiggens us all.

 

[Tom_Cody]

Freshmyn.

Came to post this.

 

[Dude Abides]

This is completely insane and asinine on your part and is example of nonsense spiraling out of control and if you want to go toe to toe on tangible points we can do so and you will lose.

Firstly, the classification of man is not dubious. The term of Man and Woman both originate with the 'Man' suffix as they originate from German, Wifman and Werman. Hence the classification of Policeman is not in reference to the gender.

This is why we have Police Dog and not Police Dog and Police Bitch. Man is a classifier for human and your hand waving achieves nothing.

Secondly, just because there is an accepted colloquial term does not mean that the usage is technically correct, as the term animal epidemic is understood but is also nonsensical. The prevalence of a belief does not make it correct.

You seem pretty upset and dickwaving over this extremely trivial matter.

In English, man is male, woman is female. A term that ends in "man" thus refers to male. I don't know why you keep insisting that "human" has something to do with it. The term is Policeman, not Policehuman. I don't see the relevance of Old English or German or whatever because terms like "Policeman" or "Chairman" arose long after "man" had been firmly established as male.

 

[Metrotab]

Is there any benefit in doing this? Who would potentially be offended by the term 'freshman', used for male and female first-year students alike, and why? Is the term 'freshman' gender-exclusive now?

This is the kind of "overbearing political correctness" I simply can't find any reason to support for.

 

[Stet]

And the converse is true.

"I'm offended that they continue to use the word Freshman because..."

How can you conclude that statement without looking overly defensive?

"I'm offended that they continue to use the word Freshman because I'd rather not have that term refer to me"?

You can't really say the opposite. You can't demand that someone accept a term that describes themselves.

 

[A.E Suggs]

I'm personally of the opinion that no matter which way you approach this from, it's not a big deal and really isn't newsworthy. On the one hand, I don't think many people were probably all that bothered by 'freshman', so "why bother?" isn't an altogether unreasonable question. But on the other, if even one person was remotely bothered by it, changing the documentation is a simple "Find & Replace" endeavor, so it also seems pointless to react as though this was a gargantuan undertaking that was enacted at the expense of more pressing concerns.

Pretty much and this whole thing doesn't really make sense because we are all man anyway as a species.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

Is there any benefit in doing this? Who would potentially be offended by the term 'freshman', used for male and female first-year students alike, and why? Is the term 'freshman' gender-exclusive now?

The idea -- at least on paper -- is that it's a more inclusive term that can be implemented with little effort. While the efficacy of such a decision may be completely inconclusive and it may not be unreasonable to suggest that such a move is pointless, it strikes me as equally pointless to cling to the old words as something that deserves opposition.

I don't think that the campus police are going to crack down on students using the term freshman in conversation, for instance. Therefore, this probably has next to no impact on anyone.

 

[Metrotab]

The idea -- at least on paper -- is that it's a more inclusive term that can be implemented with little effort. While the efficacy of such a decision may be completely inconclusive and it may not be unreasonable to suggest that such a move is pointless, it strikes me as equally pointless to cling to the old words as something that deserves opposition.

I don't think that the campus police are going to crack down on students using the term freshman in conversation, for instance. Therefore, this probably has next to no impact on anyone.

This implies 'freshman' is a more exclusive term. And I simply disagree on that, and that point alone.

 

[Stet]

This implies 'freshman' is a more exclusive term. And I simply disagree on that, and that point alone.

But are you hurt by it being removed? If someone is upset over the term freshman because it offends them, changing it to a more specific term doesn't really affect anyone negatively, does it?

 

[Atrus]

You seem pretty upset and dickwaving over this extremely trivial matter.

In English, man is male, woman is female. A term that ends in "man" thus refers to male. I don't know why you keep insisting that "human" has something to do with it. The term is Policeman, not Policehuman. I don't see the relevance of Old English or German or whatever because terms like "Policeman" or "Chairman" arose long after "man" had been firmly established as male.

Let me say this in bullet point then:

1. The ENGLISH term has an origin.
2. This origin is the FOUNDATION of the application of that English.
3. This application is gender neutral like Hatter or Furrier was gender neutral.
4. The only time when it becomes gender specific is when people, like you, insist on needing a separate term to refer to woman other than human being.

At no point so far did you dispute the specific examples I gave you in how language works. By your understanding, we should now refer to Police Dogs by their respective gender as well solely because of this blind belief that we're not classifying human beings but genders.

 

[ZombieSupaStar]

I am offended that others are offended about people being offended over words that could somehow be seen as offensive.

 

[A.E Suggs]

But are you hurt by it being removed? If someone is upset over the term freshman because it offends them, changing it to a more specific term doesn't really affect anyone negatively, does it?

Nope but the fact that people can be offended by anything people will just want to change everything for the sake of change.

 

[Metrotab]

But are you hurt by it being removed? If someone is upset over the term freshman because it offends them, changing it to a more specific term doesn't really affect anyone negatively, does it?

The university can use whichever term they want. But their dialogue of 'gender inclusive language' implies freshman is 'gender exclusive language'. And that's, frankly speaking, nonsense.

 

[Slavik81]

lol at now having to call one and done basketball players first year "students"

Or football players: Jim Jones, fifth year fourth year quarterback who was red shirted as a first year student

Go fuuuuuuuuck yourselves PC police

How about "Jim Jones, fifth-year quarterback who was red shirted in his first year."?

 

[Dude Abides]

Let me say this in bullet point then:

1. The ENGLISH term has an origin.
2. This origin is the FOUNDATION of the application of that English.
3. This application is gender neutral like Hatter or Furrier was gender neutral.
4. The only time when it becomes gender specific is when people, like you, insist on needing a separate term to refer to woman other than human being.

At no point so far did you dispute the specific examples I gave you in how language works. By your understanding, we should now refer to Police Dogs by their respective gender as well solely because of this blind belief that we're not classifying human beings but genders.

Because you haven't established that Policeman, Freshman, or Chairman arose before it was the case in ENGLISH that "man" refers to male and "woman" to female. Unless you can, all this business about 13th century meanings and police dogs is so much irrelevant hand-waving that does not establish the FOUNDATION of anything.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

Nope but the fact that people can be offended by anything people will just want to change everything for the sake of change.

I can see why this might seem like a valid reason to invoke the slippery slope, by I often find such an invocation disingenuous. I'd be more open to the notion that political correctness is running amok when we're discussing a more consequential change. As it stands, we're talking about something that happened three years ago the probably had next to no impact on the UNC campus, but was latched onto simply because it sounds like something that anti-PC advocates can get behind as egregious.

 

[Trey]

This is the best one

Yes it is.

 

[eznark]

How about "Jim Jones, fifth-year quarterback who was red shirted in his first year."?

Such an improvement over "fifth year senior" and my overwhelming sense of moral outrage is not stoked. Thank you.