I don't want to start a fight, and basically agree with your comment. It's probably because I'm trans that I really notice pointlessly gendered language, and I just want to mildly make you aware that if you wrote 'hey man' to me (by mistake, no malice presumed) then I'd be a little crestfallen.
I know old habits die hard - I myself used to use such language. So I don't want to be too harsh, and equally, maybe you know more details such that the 'man' is justified. But your comment is ultimately about manners, so I think it's appropriate for me to point this out.
I don't think these phrases are referring to the subject they are addressing.
Someone's life obviously takes priority over gender sensitivity :)
Again, I realize it's a bit of (cognitive) work, and takes some getting used to. But this is hacker news - a certain intellectual pedigree is assumed.
The point is to avoid a situation where a (usually cis) person inadvertently invalidates a trans person's gender identity.
> This kinda stuff hurts your cause
So iiuc, what you're saying is, asking to use language that respects someone's gender identity hurts the cause of respecting people's gender identity.
I see your point though and can understand how it may make you feel as a transwoman.
How might one achieve the same effect with different phrasing?
To answer your question, I would (did, hihi) drop the 'man'. If you want to remain 'folksy', you could say 'my friend, ...'.
Finally, I agree that it was used endearingly - that's why my comment was pretty milquetoast :)
I recognize I'm asking you to do something 'extra'. I really appreciate it!
Might be a regional thing but "my friend" sounds very condescending / patronising to me! I'd personally feel quite upset if somebody began a critique of my behaviour with that.
I guess "buddy" or "mate" might work though!
There seems to be something about the English language where people think gendered language relates to gender. But in other languages, a table or a bridge may have a gender. A cat may be referred to as a she, despite its physical sex or gender identity.
This.
Sometimes when people talk about using gender-neutral terms, I wonder how it would work in other languages.
As you said, for some languages there is a gender for inanimate objects.
In Arabic for example, apparently everything is either feminine or masculine. All countries are feminine, table is masculine, and chair is feminine [1], book is masculine, and car is feminine [2].
Other languages such as French, Russian, and Spanish also seems to assign genders to objects.
The Sanskrit language on the other hand seems designed with feminine, masculine, and neuter, but some objects have a non-neuter gender anyway.
Quoting from [3] (on Sanskrit):
> "Fruit" is neuter, but "tree" is masculine! "City" is neuter, but "village" is masculine! "Army" and "knowledge" are feminine, but "action" is neuter! In truth, most nouns take a certain gender by default, and we cannot guess a noun's gender just by looking at a noun's meaning.
[1] https://blogs.transparent.com/arabic/noun-gender-in-arabic/
[2] https://openbooks.lib.msu.edu/arb101/chapter/vocabulary-and-...
Those languages assign gender to words, I think, not objects. A car in German can be "der Wagen", "die Karre" or "das Auto".
There may be languages that assign genders to objects. Perhaps Dyirbal, which Lakoff refers to in "Women, fire and dangerous things"? I'm not familiar with any such language so I can't say.
Btw, of all the languages that I mentioned above, Sanskrit is the only one that I know atleast a little of. And that was because I took a Sanskrit 101 class in college many years ago.
(And I’m not piling on to the parent because I’m certain I make similar missteps with language sometimes)