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

[Jonathan Lighter]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ufo-us-shot-down-three-150008476.html :
<https://www.yahoo.com/news/ufo-us-shot-down-three-150008476.html>

"As a space policy expert, I'm often confronted with questions about UFOs
and little green people. "

JL

On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 10:36 PM Barretts Mail <mail.barretts at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
>


-- 
"If the truth is half as bad as I think it is, you can't handle the truth."

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