• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

UK - Train firm apologise for "ladies and gentlemen" announcement

Ron Obvious said:
Constantly worrying about giving offence is harming communications and damaging social solidarity in order to benefit the type of people who will never be appeased anyway.
Click to expand...

Surely "social solidarity" would mean being inclusive of everybody? Saying that you don't think social solidarity should be damaged while simultaneously arguing that people shouldn't make an effort to be inclusive in what they say (by, for example, saying "ladies and gentlemen") is wholly contradictory. Unless by "social solidarity" you mean "the majority get to do whatever they want without thought and everybody else has to accept that that's just the way it is". But that's not social solidarity, that's the tyranny of the majority.
 
d4m10n said:
Hoping to find a friendly way to preserve a charming but antiquated phrase. Ah, well. :boxedin:
Click to expand...

Why, though? English is a living language. Like society, it changes all the time. Spending your time twisting yourself up into knots to try to stem the tide in a Knute-like manner seems like it can achieve nothing other than to cause frustration and upset. Much better to embrace the fact that times change, and put in the small amount of effort required to change along with them.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Surely "social solidarity" would mean being inclusive of everybody? Saying that you don't think social solidarity should be damaged while simultaneously arguing that people shouldn't make an effort to be inclusive in what they say (by, for example, saying "ladies and gentlemen") is wholly contradictory. Unless by "social solidarity" you mean "the majority get to do whatever they want without thought and everybody else has to accept that that's just the way it is". But that's not social solidarity, that's the tyranny of the majority.
Click to expand...

Social solidarity appears to be used as code for 'us normal people being allowed to call weirdos weirdos and use whatever epithets we want to do it. If you don't want to be abused don't be a ******* weirdo'
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Why, though?
Click to expand...
Because I like the sound of phrases such as "ladies and gentlemen" or "husband and wife" and doubt whether Anglophone society as a whole should agree to do away with them merely because a handful of people do not personally identify as ladies, gentlemen, husbands, wives, etc. Seems a bit odd to give .5% of the population linguistic veto power like that, especially since we don't yet understand whether non-binariness is something more than a social phenomenon.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
Because I like the sound of phrases such as "ladies and gentlemen" or "husband and wife" and doubt whether Anglophone society as a whole should agree to do away with them merely because a handful of people do not personally identify as ladies, gentlemen, husbands, wives, etc. Seems a bit odd to give .5% of the population linguistic veto power like that, especially since we don't yet understand whether non-binariness is something more than a social phenomenon.
Click to expand...

Why is your “moment in time” more important than anyone else’s?
 
Darat said:
I thought you were arguing against that? I.e. “… Because I like the sound of…”
Click to expand...
I'm not saying that my preferences must prevail, but I remain unconvinced that everyone should agree to abolish language which treats human beings as mostly male or female.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
I'm not saying that my preferences must prevail, but I remain unconvinced that everyone should agree to abolish language which treats human beings as mostly male or female.
Click to expand...

Seems to be rather contradictory - why should any changes depend on you being “convinced” if it isn’t about you wanting your moment of time to be the standard?
 
Darat said:
Seems to be rather contradictory - why should any changes depend on you being “convinced” if it isn’t about you wanting your moment of time to be the standard?
Click to expand...
I think everyone does (and should) have a say in the social (de)construction of language held in common. There is a proposal on the table to expunge various gendered/sexed phrases which were hitherto unobjectionable, e.g. "ladies and gentlemen" or "women's health services," and while I'm trying to keep an open mind about the proposal, so far I remain unconvinced and will not vote to support it by changing my own usage.
 
d4m10n said:
I think everyone does (and should) have a say in the social (de)construction of language held in common. There is a proposal on the table to expunge various gendered/sexed phrases which were hitherto unobjectionable, e.g. "ladies and gentlemen" or "women's health services," and while I'm trying to keep an open mind about the proposal, so far I remain unconvinced and will not vote to support it by changing my own usage.
Click to expand...

“Ladies” has been objected to since the first modern feminists i.e 1960s it is hardly something new for it to have “become” objectionable.

“Passengers” has been a term for those using the railways since they started so since around the 1830s!
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
“Ladies” has been objected to since the first modern feminists i.e 1960s it is hardly something new for it to have “become” objectionable.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. How did 60s feminists fare at convincing other English users to help them expunge the term?
 
d4m10n said:
I'm not going to deny your lived experience, but it does not match my own.

In my experience "ladies and gentlemen" is a fairly widely used phrase, even on this very website.
Click to expand...

I understood Darat's comment to be referring to the use of 'ladies' as a way to refer to a number of women, rather than the specific phrase 'Ladies and gentlemen, so that is what my reply was about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom