Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site reed.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!think!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!tektronix!reed!alexis
From: alexis@reed.UUCP (Alexis Dimitriadis)
Newsgroups: net.lang
Subject: Re: Orphaned Response
Message-ID: <1729@reed.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 25-Jul-85 20:46:39 EDT
Article-I.D.: reed.1729
Posted: Thu Jul 25 20:46:39 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 28-Jul-85 04:46:05 EDT
References: <520@leadsv.UUCP> <72200001@hpfclq.UUCP>
Reply-To: alexis@reed.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE)
Followup-To: net.nlang
Organization: Reed College, Portland, Oregon
Lines: 31

In article <72200001@hpfclq.UUCP> bct@hpfcla.UUCP (bct) writes:

> So it is with confidence that I say to you now. What does it matter if
> our language uses generic names like 'mankind' to refer to all of
> humanity? I do not see this as excluding women. Why should women take
> offense when I mean none? Why change the accepted meaning of such terms
> as 'he', when used in their generic sense?

 1.  This is net.lang.  By some absurd prejudice, it is intended for the
discussion of _computer_ languages.  Next time try net.nlang (Natural
languages), which is where followups to this posting will go.

 2.  Someone recently posted a nicely written piece that defended the
 use of "whitekind" and "whites" as a "generic" form denoting humankind
 and humans.  It satirized exactly the argument presented above.  I
 think it was a quotation from somewhere, not the poster's creation.
 At any rate, if someone has it, could you repost it, or mail a copy to
 the poster of the above?

 Alexis Dimitriadis
-- 
_______________________________________________
  As soon as I get a full time job, the opinions expressed above
will attach themselves to my employer, who will never be rid of
them again.

             alexis @ reed

	         ...teneron! \
...seismo!ihnp4! - tektronix! - reed.UUCP
     ...decvax! /