Posted on 06/29/2016 9:56:41 PM PDT by rickmichaels
The University of Pittsburgh is now teaching people how to be “gender-inclusive” and “non-sexist,” informing readers that the concept of "correct" English is merely a social construct.
The Gender, Sexuality, and Women’s Studies Program website has published a “Gender Inclusive and Non-Sexist Language Guide and Resources” guide, which includes advice for classrooms and other spaces.
“Have you ever been called by a name or gender that you don’t identify with?” the guide begins, followed by declaring that, “[m]isgendering someone is disrespectful and dismissive.”
Choosing words intentionally and with care is offered as a way to avoid misgendering and “creating a sexist and homophobic environment.”
Another suggestion include taking accountability for an error when one “slip[s] up” before continuing the conversation. The guide assures readers that everyone will be thankful for the effort.
“Terms to Use to Avoid Sexist Language” are also included in an attempt to steer students away from using words like “mankind,” “chairman,” and “freshman.” Instead, they ought to be replaced with gender-neutral options such as “humankind,” “chair or chairperson,” and “first year student.”
In an attempt to “foster an inclusive community at Pitt,” gender-inclusive pronouns for the third person singular tense are also given, along with example sentences, such as, “Ze loves coffee!” “I asked zim to meet me in the library,” “I read zir book in my composition class,” and “Ze taught zirself to play the guitar.”
There are also several sections on “Key Things to Know” about sex, gender, and sexuality.
“The sex binary assumes that all bodies are easily assigned to one of two sex categories, male or female, even when sex asymmetries are present,” the guide warns, going on to note that “[c]ultural norms determine which physical characteristics are fundamental to legal sex category assignment.”
As for gender, that term “refers to individual and cultural understandings of behaviors, roles, feelings, and activities.” In fact, “biological factors do not [emphasis in original] determine gender.” Instead, American cultural norms are what links sex to gender.
“Gender is not the natural [emphasis in original] result of sex,” according to the guide. “Recognizing ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ as discrete categories allows us to affirm all gender expressions irrespective of assigned sex.”
Another “key thing to know” is “Cultural norms shape hierarchies of sexual acts and desires.” Though “numerous binaries exist” around sexual acts and desires, these hierarchies “foster discrimination and violence.”
There are also several answers to given to common objections made about “gender-inclusive/non-sexist language.” When told that such language is not correct, one can respond by saying that, “Correct is a social and ideological construction that only began to become conceivable, especially for English, in the 17th century.”
The argument made is that correctness is a way to socially evaluate different groups to determine who has learned the language of a certain group, based on things like race or class. Also, since language is always changing, moving along with the changes is important. Instead of waiting for individuals’ ideologies to catch up, changing what people say is better because it is “part of making the world a more equitable place for people who don’t feel they fit into the gender binary.”
When told their/them/they are not singular or do not “make sense,” people can say, “Neither does marking gender when it doesn’t describe the person described…. By this argument, we should bring back singular thou/thee/thine!”
Requesting or promoting changes to people’s language is not an imposition to free speech, the guide argues, nor is it political correctness.
“No one is ordering you to use this language. However some people are asking you to be considerate of their wishes and sensibilities,” the guide states. Instead, it’s about politeness.
“You are free to not use this language (it is merely a suggestion)... You are also free to criticize the way someone is dressed,” the guide declares, “but then most people would probably think you are rude. Isn’t it nice to have a little guidance about how to be considerate and polite?”
Too much time on my hands, too much time on my hands
Too much time on my hands, too much time on my hands
Too much time on my hands, too much time on my hands
Too much time on my hands, too much time on my...(Styx)
The purpose of colleges has morphed, since I attended, into being a socialist/commie indoctrination center producing people who know how to parrot the phrases of others and how to react in a hypersensitive manner to supposed insults, while assuming a mental fetal position as a response. In other words, raising a nation of mental infants.
That isn't going to carry us forward into the next 200 years as a nation. Such weak minded products of college will easily fall prey to some smooth talking charismatic figure who has alliteration down pat to produce phrases the minions can learn to chant. Democracy demands educated adults to actively participate, to read, to discern, to make decisions. These psychologically arrested perpetual infants are not up to the task, now or ever.
Well, then. They can fire all the professors in the English Department.
Yes, it is. Which means each individual has the unchallengeable right to a) speak "English" however she wishes, and b) use the way others speak "English" to choose how to respond to them socially.
Zheir are retarded...
LOL!
The sentence “Correct English is a social construct” is an example of correct English.
These people are too dumb to know their own hypocrisy and logical failure.
“Well, then. They can fire all the professors in the English Department.”
Or declare them enemies of the people, and drag them into the street and beat them. Like what happened in China under Mao. I fear that’s where all this is heading.
It looks like Pitt has enough money to burn on nonsense like this. Next time they ask me for a donation, they’ll get a copy of this article and a “best of luck” note from me.
These scummy frauds that run this department make as much or more than engineering professors. If Pitt can afford these luxuries, they don’t need a dime from alumni.
Good reply. The concept of “correct [any language]” is a social construct. With modern languages of Europe and the Americas, we can neatly trace the process by which, in recent history, a particular version of the language was established as “correct” by the forces of academia, print, radio, and television.
What’s happening now is simply an attempt to enforce a new “correct,” the same way the previous version was established.
These days college is just an extension of high school. Same mind numbing lectures, asinine tests, expensive textbooks, and basically a lot of cliquey drama that just wastes time.
I think at some point it’ll get to where students will start taking to the streets and assaulting financiers, CEOs and other executives, and at some point, diplomats and heads of state. I think these students will make the Maoist students look like pansies.Occupy Wall Street was the beginning. It should have been nipped in the bud and basically had the students arrested and I wonder why execs didn’t sue the university for allowing this bull.
Right, social construct means social consequences.
Due to the numerous remedial courses contemporary "college" students have to take, because they don't belong in college in the first place, you are absolutely correct. Many peoples' "college" educations ARE high school material, albeit costing several times more.
Wait...wait...wait...hold on a tick.
In one sentence this professor says:
“The University of Pittsburgh is now teaching people how to be “gender-inclusive” and “non-sexist,””
In the next sentence this professor says
“..the concept of “correct” English is merely a social construct”
Am I the only one who sees the irony here? This learned, respected idiot says “correct” English is a social construct that should be ignored but “gender inclusivity” and “non-sexism” should be adhered to? It hasn’t occurred to this august, respected teacher of youth that “gender inclusivity” and “non-sexism” is ALSO A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT?
We hopped through the looking glass some time ago and continue further down the path every day.
Just call them “freaks”. That’s non-gender specific and covers all of them well enough.
“[m]isgendering someone is disrespectful and dismissive.”
.................
There are many confused people disrespecting themselves.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.