Re: Sexist changes

[James Michael Dumas <jmd9@crux3.cit.cornell.edu>]

On Fri, 28 Oct 1994, Matt Kuss wrote:

> Why dont we just change all references to people to read as "animals," so 
> then we can avoid sexist and anthro critiques? Or, maybe I should say, so we 
> can avoid the "desensitizing of collegiate debate towards gender issues and 
> animal rights."

If you can make a good argument why presumptively we could assume that 
the author intended "animals" and not people -- and just used the term 
"people" because our society thinks that that is the generic term to use, 
then all the more power to you.  BUT, I have yet to see any literature 
discussing anthropocentrism which argues that people use "people" when 
they mean animals...  I don't think this example is parallel.  

Further, if your argument depends on the "no absolute test" to determine 
if meaning is changed, then I would like to hear reasons why the mere 
process of cutting cards, which strips context, doesn't also change meaning.

--Jamey

---

References:

• Sexist changes
• From: qpwcnp@gulf.net (Matt Kuss)

---

• Prev by Date: the reward system
• Next by Date: kicking out
• Prev by thread: Sexist changes
• Next by thread: SE varsity debate partner needed for spring
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page