[Ads-l] [Non-DoD Source] "man" avoidance

[Barretts Mail]

Many others feel that way as well and they will probably avoid the word “pregnant person.” See "'The word you're looking for is women’” (https://tinyurl.com/mvxu3ezs <https://tinyurl.com/mvxu3ezs>, Ronny Reyes, Daily Mail, 1 April 2022).

While “pregnant person” avoidance does imply a dislike of gender fluidity, the use of “pregnant person” certainly does not qualify as “woman” avoidance. BB

> On 27 Jun 2022, at 15:43, Jonathan Lighter <wuxxmupp2000 at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
> 
> Whatever your psychological gender, I think if you're pregnant you count as
> a woman, at least for the purposes of idiom.
> 
> Which isn't to say I endorse M. Taylor-Greene's belief that trans men are
> responsible for a tampon shortage.
> 
> JL
> 
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 2:27 PM Barretts Mail <mail.barretts at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> That’s not avoidance. It’s including people who are pregnant whose gender
>> is not female (e.g., seahorse parents).
>> 
>> Benjamin Barrett (he/his/him)
>> Formerly of Seattle, WA
>> 
>>> On 26 Jun 2022, at 05:20, Jonathan Lighter <wuxxmupp2000 at GMAIL.COM>
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Cf. "woman" avoidance in the (more recent?) "pregnant people."
>>> 
>>> JL
>>> 
>>> On Sat, Jun 25, 2022 at 3:51 PM Peter Reitan <pjreitan at hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Now that’s a person of a different color.
>>>> 
>>>> Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for
>> Windows
>>>> 
>>>> From: Jonathan Lighter<mailto:wuxxmupp2000 at GMAIL.COM>
>>>> Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2022 11:37 AM
>>>> To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU<mailto:ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
>>>> Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: "man" avoidance
>>>> 
>>>> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
>>>> -----------------------
>>>> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
>>>> Poster:       Jonathan Lighter <wuxxmupp2000 at GMAIL.COM>
>>>> Subject:      Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: "man" avoidance
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> 
>>>> JIm Acosta, CNN:
>>>> 
>>>> "But isn't that a bit of a strawhorse argument?"
>>>> 
>>>> JL
>>>> 
>>>> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 5:58 PM Jonathan Lighter <
>> wuxxmupp2000 at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> So retro.
>>>>> 
>>>>> "A *human* named..." is undoubtedly what we prefer today.
>>>>> 
>>>>> JL
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 1:49 PM, Laurence Horn <laurence.horn at yale.edu
>>> 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Sep 26, 2016, at 12:42 PM, MULLINS, WILLIAM D (Bill) CIV USARMY
>>>>>> RDECOM AMRDEC (US) <william.d.mullins18.civ at MAIL.MIL> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> It's like the middle-schooler who writes, _Ulysses_ is a book by a
>>>> man
>>>>>> named James Joyce."
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> "A man named" adds nothing to the sentence . .  .
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Unless the assignment is "Give me a 100 word book report."  "A man
>>>>>> named " gets you 3% farther down the road.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> But "...a human being named...", while less informative than "...a man
>>>>>> named...", does add an additional word.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> LH


------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org