![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
conulyThere's the deeply personal type, as in: "When I had Covid, these were my symptoms".
And there's the more broad type, as in: "People are more likely to say firefly than lightning bug".
I really don't like the second type much, especially when talking about things of actual import, because you're not really talking about your own experience anymore. You're talking about your perception of how things are, and I actually *do* know from my own experience that people's perceptions of how things are, at least with regards to language, are very often wrong. People will often say "I only started hearing this last year!" and then a cursory glance at the material shows that whatever term or phrase it is appeared in popular media that they definitely read/watched/heard like, 30 years ago, and it's been widespread ever since. Or they'll say that a certain baby name is more or less popular after a specific event, but when you go and check the data you'll see that their perception has no relation to reality.
If this is the case for language and language-related things, it may be the case for other things as well, but as it happens I gave this whole intro to talk about something language related!
Elsewhere several months ago, some people were talking about inclusive language, for example, "pregnant people". (For the record, I maintain that the only reason to object to the phrase "pregnant people" is because you don't actually think anybody who can be pregnant is a person. Given the overlap between transphobia and straight-up misogyny, you know I'm right.)
Anyway, one of the people on that thread said something along the lines of "blah blah blah, obviously it's just reducing women to parts and about erasing women, and that's obvious by the fact that you hear people talk about saying 'people with vaginas' or 'uterus havers' but nobody ever suggests 'people with penises' so...."
And I thought at the time that she was totally wrong, that I definitely see phrases like "penis owner" more often than the other, or at least as often.
But I didn't say it because of the aforementioned irritation with that flavor of anecdata and also, honestly, that thread was going nowhere good.
But it's still in the back of my mind.
And even though I really, really don't like this sort of anecdata, especially with regards to language use, I'm gonna solicit it anyway. In your perception, do you think that you see the one more than the other from sympathetic sources? Obviously whatever transphobes say when they're quoting or mocking doesn't count!
Obligatory endnote: I've said it before and I'll say it again, probably by the end of this week. If your natural allies are the far right, you need to seriously sit down and reconsider the life choices that have brought you to this place. You've clearly stepped wrong somewhere.
And there's the more broad type, as in: "People are more likely to say firefly than lightning bug".
I really don't like the second type much, especially when talking about things of actual import, because you're not really talking about your own experience anymore. You're talking about your perception of how things are, and I actually *do* know from my own experience that people's perceptions of how things are, at least with regards to language, are very often wrong. People will often say "I only started hearing this last year!" and then a cursory glance at the material shows that whatever term or phrase it is appeared in popular media that they definitely read/watched/heard like, 30 years ago, and it's been widespread ever since. Or they'll say that a certain baby name is more or less popular after a specific event, but when you go and check the data you'll see that their perception has no relation to reality.
If this is the case for language and language-related things, it may be the case for other things as well, but as it happens I gave this whole intro to talk about something language related!
Elsewhere several months ago, some people were talking about inclusive language, for example, "pregnant people". (For the record, I maintain that the only reason to object to the phrase "pregnant people" is because you don't actually think anybody who can be pregnant is a person. Given the overlap between transphobia and straight-up misogyny, you know I'm right.)
Anyway, one of the people on that thread said something along the lines of "blah blah blah, obviously it's just reducing women to parts and about erasing women, and that's obvious by the fact that you hear people talk about saying 'people with vaginas' or 'uterus havers' but nobody ever suggests 'people with penises' so...."
And I thought at the time that she was totally wrong, that I definitely see phrases like "penis owner" more often than the other, or at least as often.
But I didn't say it because of the aforementioned irritation with that flavor of anecdata and also, honestly, that thread was going nowhere good.
But it's still in the back of my mind.
And even though I really, really don't like this sort of anecdata, especially with regards to language use, I'm gonna solicit it anyway. In your perception, do you think that you see the one more than the other from sympathetic sources? Obviously whatever transphobes say when they're quoting or mocking doesn't count!
Obligatory endnote: I've said it before and I'll say it again, probably by the end of this week. If your natural allies are the far right, you need to seriously sit down and reconsider the life choices that have brought you to this place. You've clearly stepped wrong somewhere.
no subject
Date: 2022-07-28 12:44 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2022-07-28 03:01 am (UTC)