Xref: utzoo news.admin:3041 misc.legal:5283 soc.women:11991
Path: utzoo!utgpu!utfyzx!oscvax!lsuc!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!mordor!joyce!sri-unix!quintus!ok
From: ok@quintus.uucp (Richard A. O'Keefe)
Newsgroups: news.admin,misc.legal,soc.women
Subject: Re: Proposed lawsuit
Message-ID: <175@quintus.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 18-Jul-88 23:14:37 EDT
References: <12165@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <6278@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> <12180@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>
Sender: news@quintus.UUCP
Reply-To: ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe)
Organization: Quintus Computer Systems, Inc.
Lines: 54

In article <12180@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> era1987@violet.berkeley.edu writes:
>I am a person,
>a human being, a citizen, and my name is Mark.  Do you call everyone
>named Mark by diminutive pronouns, or are you doing it only to
>treat me differently from other people similarly situated, on the
>basis of my sex?

Disclaimer:
    It is not my intention to deprive Mark Ethan Smith or any other being
of the rights possessed by said being, nor to cause distress in any form
to any being whatsoever.  The _only_ intended meaning of the words in this
article is the usual meaning they bear in the dialect spoken in NZ.

(1) I am surprised to hear that "she" is a "diminutive pronoun".
    This is the first time that anyone has told me that.  I have seen a
    lot of CS papers which described the reader as "she", and while I
    dislike NewSpeak I did not realise that I was supposed to be offended
    at being referred to by a "diminutive" pronoun.  Has there been a US
    court case yet establishing that "she" has this status?

(2) Are authors to be forbidden ever to use "she" as the default
    in papers they publish, lest Mark Ethan Smith read them?  How is this
    to be done without offending women who _like_ that practice?  [This is
    only one step removed from referring directly to the plaintiff with
    the pronoun in question, because in a context like "The reader will
    note that this is a complex issue.  She can expect further surprises."
    the pronoun will refer to whoever happens to be reading the text.]

(3) What about references to classes of people, the majority of whom prefer
    to be referred to by the pronoun in question, when the class includes
    Mark Ethan Smith?

(4) An important ingredient in some legal questions is the "mens rea"--
    the guilty mind.  If the common practice is to refer to females by
    a particular pronoun, it can be hard to remember particular exceptions.
    (It is also impossible for people entering a discussion for the first
    time to know about exceptional cases unless the exceptions take care
    to include warnings in their messages.)  It could be hard for Smith
    to prove that any particular misreference was deliberate.

(5) What about languages other than English?  If Smith wants to be
    referred to by masculine pronouns, there are languages in which it
    is impossible to oblige.  (I refrain from providing an example for
    fear of giving offence.)

(6) While lies and insults are of course improper, an attempt to muzzle
    people speaking the truth is a blasphemy against the American religion.
    If Smith succeeds in getting indirect references to gender criminalised,
    how long before referring to someone's political affiliation becomes a
    crime against the State?

A lawyer whose opinion I respect once said that the best advice you could
give to a client who wanted to sue for libel is "don't".  Someone proceeding
with a suit such as Smith proposes could end up looking uncommonly foolish.
Smith's courage in facing that is worthy of a better cause.