[Closed] Why distinguish based on sex?

I actually like a bit of detail. If it was a matter a pertinence a black man in a red micra becomes someone in a car.

Not quite sure why I'm responding since you are clearly being deliberate in missing the point, which is that typically the only people who get their ethnicity mentioned are the non-white ones, the only drivers whos genders gets specified are women, and the only people whos sexual orientation is worthy of mention are the non-heterosexual. Feel free to point me to the black-man-in-micra thread if I've got it wrong on that one occasion, but I've seen many, many other examples on here (and elsewhere of course) where that is the reality - the blackness of the man is worthy of mention because it differentiates him from the "norm". The majority of posters on here seem to be straight, white men, so I can see how it doesn't even get noticed, as it doesn't generally, but the flip side is that it sends a message that you are "other", "not normal" if you are black, or gay, or female. Although we're all (okay, nearly all) white straight men, it shouldn't be to hard to understand how this works - just go to the bottom of the internet and remember that, for all you are part of the "in" group most of the time you are also, first and foremost when the abuse is being dished out, a "cyclist"...

I heard John Humphrys do this, and get away with it too, on the Today programme a while ago - it was after the Pussy Riot thing blew up and Putin brought in that homophobic law, Humphrys was interviewing an LBGT activist who described how, government sanctioned discrimination go hang, he was going to continue walking hand-in-hand down the street with his boyfriend. Humphrys wanted to know how that was now, with the oppressive climate and all, so did he ask how "other passers by" reacted? Did he specify "straight people", and how they reacted? No, here's what he said, to an LGBT activist who was literally taking his life in his hands by standing up for who he was:

How do [b]normal[/b] people react?

I have a good friend (a GP) who runs an online resource for transgender people. It's been humbling to hear some of the stories she has. I cannot imagine how horrendous it must be to be trapped in a body that isn't the right sex. The thing I found most sad was that medical treatment is far more effective if undertaken prior to puberty however most parents won't seriously consider it because they are sure that their child is just confused. It's a very serious medical issue for a small but significant number of people and disgustingly used by many SJW's to further their agendas.

i think its an outrage that animals arent treated the same.. those poor drakes, ewes, c0cks and hens. Flippin outrage I tell ya!

I have a friend who is referred to as black Anthony and a friend who is referred to as white Anthony. Both know this and neither are bothered. I have a friend known as fat simon and another skinny simon.

No, here's what he said, to an LGBT activist who was literally taking his life in his hands by standing up for who he was:

He's not wrong though? He used the word normal, which means exactly what he intended t it to mean.

noun: the usual, typical, or expected state or condition.

Normal is the 95% of people not affected by this. In this case being straight is "usual, typical or expected".

In fact it could even be more nuanced and inclusive than that, normal could encompass those affected that were opting not to protest?

NB. I'm trying very hard to be unoffensive as it really isn't my intention. After an interesting and intelligent discussion.

@ edlong

How do normal people react?

But, there are normal people and therefore abnormal. Not as far as race, but for sex and sexuality, of course there are. None are better than the other, but there is a normal or typical. Binary? Isn't that the same as normal? Isn't typical (and atypical) the same as normal or abnormal. Average or um... non-average(?). Common or rare...

There's no implicit suggestion of better or worse in those words.

@joolsburger

There was a very interesting Louis Throux doc. where he met children who were all uh, ummm, 'not normal' (waiting for a better word). Some were taking hormones to change their sex. Some were cross dressers. Some were waiting for the op (in either direction). I was amazed at how young these people were and changed my mind. Having said that, the treatments are pretty irreversible aren't they? There are people who change their mind. How young is too young? What tests should a child go through before they are allowed to go through treatment? Very difficult to say. I get the reductio ad absurdum, but I had to tell my son last week that he wasn't a polar bear and had to use a knife for his sausages. My friend from prep school (we must have been about 6) wore girls clothes* at home for a few months. I remember being confused. He stopped and never went back to it. I guess just a phase.

*are we allowed to say that any more, or just say pink garments?

How do normal people react?

To be fair to John Humphrys, given that they were talking about public protests against [i]"government sanctioned discrimination"[/i], the term [i]"normal people"[/i] could mean [i]"people who aren't government representatives"[/i] or indeed just [i]"people who aren't protesting"[/i].

makecoldplayhistory - Member

There's no implicit suggestion of better or worse in those words.

I'll just leave these here:

ab·nor·mal (?b-nôr?m?l)
adj.
Not typical, usual, or regular; not normal;[b] deviant.[/b]

abnormal
?b?n??m(?)l/
adjective
adjective: abnormal

deviating from what is normal or usual, [b]typically in a way that is undesirable or worrying.[/b]

abnormaladjective uk /æb?n??.m?l/ us /-?n??r-/
C1 different from what is ?usual or ?average, ?[b]especially in a way that is ?bad[/b]:

Why should what constitutes a "normal" person be defined by who they want to f***? Is a gay man more or less normal than a straight man who wants to sleep with women thirty years younger than him, or doing it while wearing a nappy? Some of my colleagues (including the gay ones) would say I'm not the "normal" one because I ride a bike to work rather than driving a car like they all do. Since when does everyone have to defined by one particular characteristic (people still get referred to as being "a gay" rather than a characteristic of them being that they are gay) and who gets to decide what the characteristic is?

Sorry but I have a problem with anyone who seriously suggests that it's okay, and reasonable, that the population divides down into "gay" or "normal"

Apart from anything else, the gay people I know are about the most normal out of the lot of them, other than being in a minority regarding how they get their lovin'

Apart from anything else, the gay people I know are about the most normal out of the lot of them

edlong, that's exactly the point, riding a bike to work isn't "normal". It's not better or worse, it's just abnormal.

I think trying to find offence in the use of the word normal to describe "everyone else apart from a minority" is really stretching it and you'd be finding the same offence if he's used the word "other", "straight" (bear in mind the topic, using that would then exclude some other minorities). I think "Normal" neatly sums up the people he's describing, the 95% that sit between the interviewee and the Russian State.

The problem is that 'normal' can have two meanings. One just means a majority ("typical" as above); if I visited a gay club, I'd be abnormal in there. Atypical if you like.

The second meaning implies correctness, that if you're not "normal" there's something wrong with you. So on the whole it's probably a word best avoided for the sake of clarity even if your intentions are good.

It depends on how you define "normal" really, doesn't it?

In the Asperger's / Autistic world, the term for 'normal' is Neurotypical. That works quite well I think; typical is a much less ambiguous word.

I'll just leave these here

No. Come back and let me explain dictionaries to you. My lecturer was a fascinating OED lexicographer. They are [b]different[/b] and [b]distinct[/b] definitions. Alternatives, if you will. Exactly the same way that 'gay' can mean homosexual [b]or[/b] light-hearted.

_______________________

Some of my colleagues (including the gay ones) would say I'm not the "normal" one because I ride a bike to work rather than driving a car like they all do.

correct. riding a bike to work is not normal. We are an awesome minority.

Sorry but I have a problem with anyone who seriously suggests that it's okay, and reasonable, that the population divides down into "gay" or "normal"

Wasn't the point of this that there is no need to divide society. However, as a discription, I can see why you'd use normal (straight, man in mans body etc) and not-normal i.e. everyone else. Isn't that the same as the term 'binary'?

Can I be offended being described as binary or has an out-group become an all-powerful in-group who now decides what is offensive, who has the right to be offended and by whom?

In the Asperger's / Autistic world, the term for 'normal' is Neurotypical. That works quite well I think.

In the bi-polar world, we refer to you lot (general population, not aperger/autistic people) as non-mentals 🙂

Stop being so discriminatory to the living impaired.

😆 😆 😆

Just struggled to keep my lunch in my mouth*.

*No, this is not a euphemism.

try not to spill any...

Getting back to the OP's question.....

When I joined in 1994 my force had removed use of the term wpc, but female officers had collar numbers beginning with 6 to differentiate for the radio dispatcher. This also was removed in about 1996.

Male Nurse is still a well used term.

Or even worse "Murse"

I thought that murse was a man-purse. Could you say that you saw a 'Murse carrying a murse'??

Not quite sure why I'm responding since you are clearly being deliberate in missing the point, which is that typically the only people who get their ethnicity mentioned are the non-white ones

Following on from the 'normal' discussion above, I'd suggest that in a 'white-skin' caucasian majority country like the UK, it's a reasonable assumption that a driver in a car would be 'white'. To clarify otherwise would obviously require a descriptive adjective, and preferably one that cannot be altered (a 'red-shirt wearing driver' doesn't really cut it) - and unfortunately skin colour fits this nicely. I say 'unfortunately' as skin colour is also often used in an offensive context.

If everyone discussing this on here lived in Saudi Arabia I'd suggest that most drivers would be of middle-eastern descent (and male, but that's another can of worms) - in that instance describing a caucasian driver as 'white' to differentiate from middle-eastern drivers seems like fair game.

When I joined in 1994 my force had removed use of the term wpc, but female officers had collar numbers beginning with 6 to differentiate for the radio dispatcher. This also was removed in about 1996.

Surely it's necessary (or beneficial) for dispatcher's to know? Send in the burly men to a pub brawl. WPC to a female who's been sexually assaulted.

Just popped up on my facebook. Seems appropriate.

[img] ?oh=35c3edbf12ea6f1483587ea5e079d20c&oe=5747CE9A[/img]

Getting back to the OP's question.....
When I joined in 1994 my force had removed use of the term wpc, but female officers had collar numbers beginning with 6 to differentiate for the radio dispatcher. This also was removed in about 1996.

Langylad, I have bad news for you my friend, you are no longer a force but now a service.
I much prefere the term police force but some one probably deemed it offensive.

I have big hands!

You will make my knob look small. But will find it easier to play the piano.

makecoldplayhistory - Member

No. Come back and let me explain dictionaries to you.

You can't sensibly use as a defence "It has some possible definitions where it's not negative, therefore it's fine"- if a term has some negative connotations then it's very much handle with care even if only to avoid misunderstandings. Abnormal is a hugely weighted term, and can and often is used in a derogatory way, using it without consideration is tactless at best.

On consideration you're right though- when "abnormal" is used negatively it's not implicit; it's actually explicit.

I cannot imagine how horrendous it must be to be trapped in a body that isn't the right sex.

There's nothing more gender conforming than believing the way you think/feel can be mismatched with your physical features.

@makecoldplayhistory

Interesting questions about how to correctly diagnose the young with transgenderism, I simply do not know. Helen who runs the clinic I mentioned talks about a variety of tests that can be undertaken but of course nothing is fool proof. The one overriding factor that she made clear to me is that individuals with this condition speak very little about issues to do with sexuality but are much more about feeling trapped in the "wrong" body being the "wrong" sex externally. She says that most of the people she works with simply [b]know[/b] with a high degree of personal certainty that they ought to be the other gender, perhaps that's enough. It's very sad that the resources available for treatment in the UK are so very limited. Having said all that even more tragic when you hear of elderly people who have lived their whole lives trapped like that.

It throws up a world of interesting questions about what it is to be a man or a woman from a mental and self perception perspective rather than just the physical side of things. Especially now as gender roles are so outdated and the playing field levels.

I have big hands!

😆

Following on from the 'normal' discussion above, I'd suggest that in a 'white-skin' caucasian majority country like the UK, it's a reasonable assumption that a driver in a car would be 'white'. To clarify otherwise would obviously require a descriptive adjective, and preferably one that cannot be altered (a 'red-shirt wearing driver' doesn't really cut it) - and unfortunately skin colour fits this nicely. I say 'unfortunately' as skin colour is also often used in an offensive context.

If everyone discussing this on here lived in Saudi Arabia I'd suggest that most drivers would be of middle-eastern descent (and male, but that's another can of worms) - in that instance describing a caucasian driver as 'white' to differentiate from middle-eastern drivers seems like fair game.

Yes, I realise that most British drivers are white. That isn't something I'm disputing.

Perhaps it's easier with the other example I used than with ethnicity.

When we have a thread listing, for example, stupid things that drivers have done, why do you think sometimes people feel the need to specify "woman driver" when they rarely if ever in the same context would say "man driver?"

I'm assuming that the rates are close enough to even that if you just said "driver" I wouldn't be safe to assume man or woman...

The way that we categorize Gender, identity, sexuality etc is already obsolete. We have evolved from acceptance of heterosexuality to include bisexual, homosexual and more recently transexuality. But those categories are not correct. Gender / identity / sexuality is a very long sliding scale.

Some identify themselves as male, some as female and in-between those two is a huge scale. Same on sexual preference.

Eventually distinguishing anything based on sex will be defunct.

There's nothing more gender conforming than believing the way you think/feel can be mismatched with your physical features.

Sorry I don't understand this could you explain?

edlong, that's exactly the point, riding a bike to work isn't "normal". It's not better or worse, it's just abnormal.

Surely it's necessary (or beneficial) for dispatcher's to know? Send in the burly men to a pub brawl. WPC to a female who's been sexually assaulted.

If both have passed the same tests and received the same training in order to perform the same job, I really don't see why.

Buuut there are a lot of people who like to jump on a being offended bandwagon - for instance think of the reaction to many things Clarkson has said, now imagine Stephen Fry saying them and the lack of reaction he would receive. Just because one is a professional "red blooded oaf" people add meaning that may or may not have been there.

Langylad, I have bad news for you my friend, you are no longer a force but now a service.
I much prefere the term police force but some one probably deemed it offensive

You are quite right Chip, my mistake. Just as an aside a colleague is currently going through the process of gender change, she is getting great support from colleagues and bosses, but it is still very traumatic for her.

Surely it's necessary (or beneficial) for dispatcher's to know? Send in the burly men to a pub brawl. WPC to a female who's been sexually assaulted.

When there are only 3 of us covering 2 towns, we don't have the luxury any more to decide who to send.

If both have passed the same tests and received the same training in order to perform the same job, I really don't see why.

Fair enough if a male Officer was the only one available then yes he should be able to deal with it, but it would be more appropriate to despatch a female Officer if one was available. Yes?

[quote=philjunior ]Buuut there are a lot of people who like to jump on a being offended bandwagon - for instance think of the reaction to many things Clarkson has said, now imagine Stephen Fry saying them and the lack of reaction he would receive. Just because one is a professional "red blooded oaf" people add meaning that may or may not have been there.

Go on then, give us an example of something offensive JC has said which would be acceptable if SF said it? Just trying to check how professionally offended I am.

something offensive JC has said

Blimey, so many to choose from...

So hard to pick which one...

How to decide?

eeny meeny...

Hmm, struggling to imagine Fry mumbling the N word - maybe there is a real difference between the two of them. Presumably I'm adding meaning which JC didn't intend?