Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-20-2019, 02:24 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,397

Do the pros of Berkeley's gender-pronoun-ban outweigh the cons?


Don't want to start a debate on LGBT/genderism/non-genderism itself (we have many other threads,) but just want to ask about the practicality of this:


Does this mean that police will not be allowed to describe a suspect as a man or a woman, and can only say "person of interest" or something non-gendered like that? That wouldn't help the public in identifying the suspect. Are medical professionals allowed to say that a patient is a man or a woman? (makes a big difference if a patient needs a vasectomy or hysterectomy, for instance.)

If a child goes missing, are the authorities allowed to say that it's a boy missing or a girl missing, or does it have to be non-gendered pronoun child? Again, that wouldn't help the public in finding the missing kid at all. If a school prided itself on increasing its representation of women (i.e., "our student body used to be only 12% women, but now is 45%!") then doesn't this mean they couldn't convey such a fact anymore?

It sounds like from a practical standpoint, the cons significantly outweigh the pros, especially in light of all the names, policies, practices that would have to be changed.
  #2  
Old 07-20-2019, 02:32 PM
Thudlow Boink's Avatar
Thudlow Boink is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincoln, IL
Posts: 27,585
Is there a link missing from the OP?
  #3  
Old 07-20-2019, 10:20 PM
Monty's Avatar
Monty is offline
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Beijing, China
Posts: 23,491
nm

Last edited by Monty; 07-20-2019 at 10:23 PM.
  #4  
Old 07-20-2019, 02:49 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,864
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
[...] just want to ask about the practicality of this:

Does this mean that police will not be allowed to describe a suspect as a man or a woman, and can only say "person of interest" or something non-gendered like that? That wouldn't help the public in identifying the suspect. Are medical professionals allowed to say that a patient is a man or a woman? (makes a big difference if a patient needs a vasectomy or hysterectomy, for instance.)

If a child goes missing, are the authorities allowed to say that it's a boy missing or a girl missing, or does it have to be non-gendered pronoun child? Again, that wouldn't help the public in finding the missing kid at all. If a school prided itself on increasing its representation of women (i.e., "our student body used to be only 12% women, but now is 45%!") then doesn't this mean they couldn't convey such a fact anymore?

It sounds like from a practical standpoint, the cons significantly outweigh the pros, especially in light of all the names, policies, practices that would have to be changed.
If this is what you're talking about ("Berkeley plans to remove gendered pronouns from its municipal code"), then I fail to see how it would affect any of your examples at all.

AFAICT, the purpose is simply to make Berkeley's own code of municipal regulations non-gender-specific in its language. That is, the code would presumably refer to "firefighters" rather than "firemen" and "firewomen", "mail carriers" rather than "mailmen", "meter readers" instead of "meter maids", singular "they" rather than "he" or "she" as a gender-indefinite singular pronoun, and so on. Nowhere, AFAIK, is it proposed to restrict what municipal employees can say about the gender of individuals when it's pertinent to what they're talking about.

Is there some right-wing huffery-puffery making the rounds claiming that Berkeley police henceforth won't be allowed to mention the gender of a suspect, or something? If so, that sounds extremely implausible, but please link to it so we can check if it has any discernible merit (and if not, at least we'll get a good laugh out of it).
  #5  
Old 07-21-2019, 05:02 PM
Guinastasia's Avatar
Guinastasia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 52,907
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
If this is what you're talking about ("Berkeley plans to remove gendered pronouns from its municipal code"), then I fail to see how it would affect any of your examples at all.

AFAICT, the purpose is simply to make Berkeley's own code of municipal regulations non-gender-specific in its language. That is, the code would presumably refer to "firefighters" rather than "firemen" and "firewomen", "mail carriers" rather than "mailmen", "meter readers" instead of "meter maids", singular "they" rather than "he" or "she" as a gender-indefinite singular pronoun, and so on. Nowhere, AFAIK, is it proposed to restrict what municipal employees can say about the gender of individuals when it's pertinent to what they're talking about.

Is there some right-wing huffery-puffery making the rounds claiming that Berkeley police henceforth won't be allowed to mention the gender of a suspect, or something? If so, that sounds extremely implausible, but please link to it so we can check if it has any discernible merit (and if not, at least we'll get a good laugh out of it).
Considering they've been doing that kind of thing since the 1980s, why would anyone be so upset over this now? I can't remember the last time anyone freaked out about "firefighter" or "mail carrier"?

Yeesh.
  #6  
Old 07-22-2019, 08:48 AM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 41,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
AFAICT, the purpose is simply to make Berkeley's own code of municipal regulations non-gender-specific in its language. That is, the code would presumably refer to "firefighters" rather than "firemen" and "firewomen", "mail carriers" rather than "mailmen", "meter readers" instead of "meter maids", singular "they" rather than "he" or "she" as a gender-indefinite singular pronoun, and so on. Nowhere, AFAIK, is it proposed to restrict what municipal employees can say about the gender of individuals when it's pertinent to what they're talking about.
Many, many, many places have already done this, and why people are making such a big deal about this example is genuinely baffling. Local governments, quasigovernmental institutions, and private businesses have been excising sex-specific lingo from codes, regulations, SOPs, and official documents for a long time now. The sky has not yet fallen.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #7  
Old 07-22-2019, 09:56 AM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 1,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
Is there any compelling reason why such a code should not read "If one should litter on the highway, they shall be fined $500"?
"Littering on the highway shall be punished by a fine of $500 for each incident."

Or, considerably better, "Littering on the highway shall be punished by a fine to be set annually by [X Municipality]." (And you'd better make it clear somewhere whether the fine is per incident or per piece of litter.) If the code lists a specific fine, inflation will make it nonsensical over the years; so specifying the amount means you're going to need to rewrite the code every few years anyway.

OF course, IME, you're going to need to do that anyway; because no matter how hard you tried to address in the code every situation that was going to come up (if only to specifically allow it), somebody's going to come in two months after you finally got the revision through all the hearings and votes with something you never thought of, and/or with new information about something you did think of which means that, going off the information you had at the time, you got something wrong.

I think most places have cleaned up their gendered references in municipal codes while in the process of doing otherwise necessary rewriting. Saves printing as many versions, and simplifies the hearing process (I don't know whether this change in this Berkeley code requires a public hearing process.)
  #8  
Old 07-22-2019, 10:27 AM
JRDelirious is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Displaced
Posts: 15,963
Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
OF course, IME, you're going to need to do that anyway; because no matter how hard you tried to address in the code every situation that was going to come up (if only to specifically allow it), somebody's going to come in two months after you finally got the revision through all the hearings and votes with something you never thought of, and/or with new information about something you did think of which means that, going off the information you had at the time, you got something wrong.
Yep, it almost inevitably happens. Then there's the converse, how every new term you have some member thinking of proposing the exact same thing you already did last term because they did not catch that the last revision included that. Always fun to tell them "it already says that".
  #9  
Old 07-20-2019, 03:20 PM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,071
Ah, Berkeley! Or Berzerkly, as it is fondly known to us on the conservative wing of the extreme left! First city in America to have a foreign policy!
__________________
Law above fear, justice above law, mercy above justice, love above all.
  #10  
Old 07-20-2019, 10:31 PM
I Love Me, Vol. I's Avatar
I Love Me, Vol. I is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SF
Posts: 4,636
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
Ah, Berkeley! Or Berzerkly, as it is fondly known to us on the conservative wing of the extreme left! First city in America to have a foreign policy!
That's the People's Republik of Berzerkley to you, bub.
  #11  
Old 07-20-2019, 10:42 PM
Chimera is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Dreaming
Posts: 24,689
Typical right wing fear mongering over-reaction.

1. Do something minor.
2. Have Republicans take the issue to it's farthest, illogical conclusion and insist that this is what is happening.
3. Have it get distorted, further exaggerated with a pile of outright lies on top as the story makes its way through the right wing media and blog circus.

"We're changing Fireman to Firefighter in our policies and documentation."
becomes
"You won't be able to refer to someone as a man anymore, they're making it illegal."
  #12  
Old 07-21-2019, 11:18 AM
doreen is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Woodhaven,Queens, NY
Posts: 6,601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimera View Post
Typical right wing fear mongering over-reaction.

1. Do something minor.
2. Have Republicans take the issue to it's farthest, illogical conclusion and insist that this is what is happening.
3. Have it get distorted, further exaggerated with a pile of outright lies on top as the story makes its way through the right wing media and blog circus.

"We're changing Fireman to Firefighter in our policies and documentation."
becomes
"You won't be able to refer to someone as a man anymore, they're making it illegal."
And "Robinson’s office estimates it will cost only $600 to implement the change to the municipal code." prompted a long discussion on a local radio station about how that must mean $600/per taxpayer- because $600 total makes no sense ,according to one of the hosts and a bunch of callers.

Of course $600 total is perfectly reasonable total for what amounts to a search for : "he, she , him ,her, his , hers" and replacing them with " “the Title" , "“that Title” or "“the Title’s” as appropriate. My guess is that Berkeley went from "fireman" to "firefighter" years ago, so actual titles wouldn't need to be changed now.
  #13  
Old 07-20-2019, 03:41 PM
Northern Piper is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back, dammit!
Posts: 29,745
I know lawyers who do legal drafting here in Canada. They've been doing non-gender vocab on statutes for 30 years.
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #14  
Old 07-20-2019, 04:00 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,567
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Don't want to start a debate on LGBT/genderism/non-genderism itself (we have many other threads,) but just want to ask about the practicality of this:


Does this mean that police will not be allowed to describe a suspect as a man or a woman, and can only say "person of interest" or something non-gendered like that? That wouldn't help the public in identifying the suspect. Are medical professionals allowed to say that a patient is a man or a woman? (makes a big difference if a patient needs a vasectomy or hysterectomy, for instance.)

If a child goes missing, are the authorities allowed to say that it's a boy missing or a girl missing, or does it have to be non-gendered pronoun child? Again, that wouldn't help the public in finding the missing kid at all. If a school prided itself on increasing its representation of women (i.e., "our student body used to be only 12% women, but now is 45%!") then doesn't this mean they couldn't convey such a fact anymore?

It sounds like from a practical standpoint, the cons significantly outweigh the pros, especially in light of all the names, policies, practices that would have to be changed.
It sounds like you have no idea what you're talking about with respect to Berkeley's policies. No link, no description of what Berkeley is actually doing... nothing.
  #15  
Old 07-20-2019, 09:00 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,528
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
It sounds like you have no idea what you're talking about with respect to Berkeley's policies. No link, no description of what Berkeley is actually doing... nothing.
Srsly.
  #16  
Old 07-20-2019, 04:13 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,435
This is crazy! How are they gonna make babies if they neuter everyone! This is political correctness gone mad.

Eta: or, what iiandyiiii said.

Last edited by CarnalK; 07-20-2019 at 04:14 PM.
  #17  
Old 07-20-2019, 09:26 PM
Smapti is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 16,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
This is crazy! How are they gonna make babies if they neuter everyone! This is political correctness gone mad.
Just wait until you hear what they're planning to do to Manfred Mann.
  #18  
Old 07-20-2019, 07:22 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,687
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Don't want to start a debate on LGBT/genderism/non-genderism itself (we have many other threads,) but just want to ask about the practicality of this:


Does this mean that police will not be allowed to describe a suspect as a man or a woman, and can only say "person of interest" or something non-gendered like that? That wouldn't help the public in identifying the suspect. Are medical professionals allowed to say that a patient is a man or a woman? (makes a big difference if a patient needs a vasectomy or hysterectomy, for instance.)

If a child goes missing, are the authorities allowed to say that it's a boy missing or a girl missing, or does it have to be non-gendered pronoun child? Again, that wouldn't help the public in finding the missing kid at all. If a school prided itself on increasing its representation of women (i.e., "our student body used to be only 12% women, but now is 45%!") then doesn't this mean they couldn't convey such a fact anymore?

It sounds like from a practical standpoint, the cons significantly outweigh the pros, especially in light of all the names, policies, practices that would have to be changed.
Why didn't you ask if Berkeley was going to impose the death penalty on anyone who wears gendered clothing, like pants or a skirt?
  #19  
Old 07-20-2019, 08:14 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,567
Velocity, are you planning on explaining what the hell you're talking about with this OP? Maybe with a link?
  #20  
Old 07-20-2019, 08:31 PM
Ronald Raygun is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 204
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Velocity, are you planning on explaining what the hell you're talking about with this OP? Maybe with a link?
Berkeley is removing gender-specific language from its municipal code. This only affects about 40 or so words. "Fireman" is now "firefighter", "manhole" is now "maintenance hole", and so on. The updates will cost the city $600.

A police officer can certainly refer to someone as a man. I don't see why they wouldn't be able to.
  #21  
Old 07-20-2019, 08:41 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,567
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronald Raygun View Post
Berkeley is removing gender-specific language from its municipal code. This only affects about 40 or so words. "Fireman" is now "firefighter", "manhole" is now "maintenance hole", and so on. The updates will cost the city $600.

A police officer can certainly refer to someone as a man. I don't see why they wouldn't be able to.
Velocity, is this what you're referring to? If so, where did you get the fear-mongering nonsense in your OP?
  #22  
Old 07-21-2019, 08:24 AM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,239
Can I call bullshit, or by Berkeley rules is it now cattleshit?
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #23  
Old 07-21-2019, 08:29 AM
running coach's Avatar
running coach is online now
Arms of Steel, Leg of Jello
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 37,330
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
Can I call bullshit, or by Berkeley rules is it now cattleshit?
Ungulateshit is a lot more inclusive.
  #24  
Old 07-21-2019, 10:43 AM
Vinyl Turnip is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 20,407
Orderist.
  #25  
Old 07-21-2019, 01:10 PM
blindboyard is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Newark
Posts: 2,203
I feel like I should point out that "fireman" and "women" are not pronouns, they are nouns.
  #26  
Old 07-21-2019, 01:20 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,132
No conservative Bingo card is complete without a "Berkely" and an "AOC".
  #27  
Old 07-21-2019, 01:38 PM
allyn is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 107
I'm surprised Berkeley hadn't already done this. Wasn't the gender neutral pronoun debate done years ago?
  #28  
Old 07-21-2019, 01:49 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,245
For right wing demagoguery being wrong, even egregiously wrong, I irrelevant. Just drop a Bombay characterizing “the libs” as idiots and no after what the truth is, the targets’ “feelings” have been successfully reinforced.

It’s trolling as a political strategy and a way of life.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #29  
Old 07-21-2019, 01:50 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,567
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
For right wing demagoguery being wrong, even egregiously wrong, I irrelevant. Just drop a Bombay characterizing “the libs” as idiots and no after what the truth is, the targets’ “feelings” have been successfully reinforced.

It’s trolling as a political strategy and a way of life.
I think autocorrect may have murdered your post.
  #30  
Old 07-21-2019, 02:58 PM
leahcim is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Boulder, CO
Posts: 3,676
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
It’s trolling as a political strategy and a way of life.
And the goal of the trolling is not to convert liberals. The intended audience is backsliding conservatives, who need reassurance that the outside world is full of crazies.
  #31  
Old 07-21-2019, 02:53 PM
Ludovic is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 30,393
Maybe it's Cockney rhyming slang ... lemme make something up .. okay, it's a shortening of "Bombay Duck" to rhyme with clusterf*ck.
  #32  
Old 07-21-2019, 04:06 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,577
Good lord. Can this thread be put out of ēs misery, please?
  #33  
Old 07-21-2019, 04:40 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 1,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by allyn View Post
I'm surprised Berkeley hadn't already done this. Wasn't the gender neutral pronoun debate done years ago?
I'm also surprised Berkeley's just getting to it; maybe they haven't rewritten the relevant sections of code in a while? I got male-specific pronouns pretty well out of the town zoning book in, it must have been the revision done somewhere in the 1990's; though each time we go through the book again I seem to find an instance or two that got missed. (It's slightly more complicated than just doing a word search, as some sentences become awkward if not changed a bit otherwise; but I'd still expect $600 to have been used mostly for reprinting any needed hardcopies. It shouldn't cost much for what actual rewriting would be necessary. Changing text is otherwise a lot cheaper than it used to be.)

This is overall a very red area, full of conservative rural people, a number of whom are on the board. Back in the 90's I had to argue with the oldest planning board member, while everybody else on the board just waited for me to argue him down and then voted for the changes. Since he retired there hasn't even been an argument, just 'oh we did miss that one, didn't we? everybody approve [thorny's] rewrite of the sentence? OK then.'

Last edited by thorny locust; 07-21-2019 at 04:42 PM. Reason: spelling
  #34  
Old 07-21-2019, 06:17 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
Good lord. Can this thread be put out of ēs misery, please?
Heh. (But, "es" is for people)
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #35  
Old 07-21-2019, 06:27 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
Heh. (But, "es" is for people)
I see your trap, I am NOT calling for putting Velocity out of ēs misery. Nice try, but no warning for me!
  #36  
Old 07-21-2019, 06:31 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I think autocorrect may have murdered your post.
Well, certainly bruised it, anyway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
I see your trap, I am NOT calling for putting Velocity out of ēs misery. Nice try, but no warning for me!
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #37  
Old 07-22-2019, 01:08 AM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
It is still a waste of $600. Doesn't change a single thing and only makes liberals feel better. What is the pressing need for it?
  #38  
Old 07-22-2019, 01:11 AM
Smapti is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 16,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
It is still a waste of $600. Doesn't change a single thing and only makes liberals feel better. What is the pressing need for it?
It only costs $600 and makes liberals feel better. That's reason enough.
  #39  
Old 07-22-2019, 01:23 AM
Northern Piper is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back, dammit!
Posts: 29,745

Do the pros of Berkeley's gender-pronoun-ban outweigh the cons?


Actually, legislative drafters tell me it provides greater precision. Sometimes "he" and "him" can be ambiguous when there are several individuals or positions being referred to. If the statute always says things like "the complainant", "the licence-issuer", the "applicant", it's always clear exactly who is being referred to. If that greater precision prevents even one lawsuit, that will pay for the $600 cost.
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."

Last edited by Northern Piper; 07-22-2019 at 01:27 AM.
  #40  
Old 07-22-2019, 01:37 AM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
Actually, legislative drafters tell me it provides greater precision. Sometimes "he" and "him" can be ambiguous when there are several individuals or positions being referred to. If the statute always says things like "the complainant", "the licence-issuer", the "applicant", it's always clear exactly who is being referred to. If that greater precision prevents even one lawsuit, that will pay for the $600 cost.
That is a different issue, but it doesn't seem like what Berkeley is doing simply by eliminating gendered pronouns. They or them is even more ambiguous (as it could refer to the plural) than he or him or "he or she" or "him or her."

My state, whenever it amends a statute, substitutes "he or she" for "he" and "him or her" for "him." There is also a catch all provision that any gendered pronouns shall refer to either sex.

Many statutes also refer to "the county jail" even though we don't have county jails anymore and "the penitentiary" even though we have several prisons and don't refer to them as penitentiaries anymore (at least officially). But again, a catchall provision says basically that anytime you see "county jail" it means "regional jail" and when you see "penitentiary" it means in the custody of the Division of Corrections.

I have never heard a single individual see a statute like "If any person commits murder, he shall be imprisoned for life" and be outraged by it. If a handful of people are, it is not worth the cost of rewriting a code.
  #41  
Old 07-22-2019, 02:21 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,435
Why assume outrage is the motive rather than precision? You say your state has catch all's for improper verbiage. Did those catch alls cost less than $600 to write up? Is it a better solution?

Last edited by CarnalK; 07-22-2019 at 02:22 AM.
  #42  
Old 07-22-2019, 02:48 AM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Why assume outrage is the motive rather than precision? You say your state has catch all's for improper verbiage. Did those catch alls cost less than $600 to write up? Is it a better solution?
Whatever it costs, the catchall is cheaper that rewriting the whole code. And precision? Are you or anyone you know confused with something like "If a man litters on the highway he shall be fined $500"? Do you read that and believe that a woman can litter without penalty?

If nobody is confused by that, then it is a solution in search of a problem.
  #43  
Old 07-22-2019, 06:36 AM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,132
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
... Are you or anyone you know confused with something like "If a man litters on the highway he shall be fined $500"? Do you read that and believe that a woman can litter without penalty?

If nobody is confused by that, then it is a solution in search of a problem.
It's a good sentence structure if the intention is to make it sound like it was taken from the Bible, or an etched sacred stone or something.
  #44  
Old 07-22-2019, 06:42 AM
Smapti is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 16,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Whatever it costs, the catchall is cheaper that rewriting the whole code. And precision? Are you or anyone you know confused with something like "If a man litters on the highway he shall be fined $500"?
Is there any compelling reason why such a code should not read "If one should litter on the highway, they shall be fined $500"?
  #45  
Old 07-22-2019, 07:35 AM
Two Many Cats is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,963
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Are you or anyone you know confused with something like "If a man litters on the highway he shall be fined $500"? Do you read that and believe that a woman can litter without penalty?
If I'm a sovereign citizen, sure.
  #46  
Old 07-22-2019, 07:43 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,824
I for one am outraged. Not by this - this* is just stupid. I'm just generally outraged.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
It's a good sentence structure if the intention is to make it sound like it was taken from the Bible, or an etched sacred stone or something.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
Is there any compelling reason why such a code should not read "If one should litter on the highway, they shall be fined $500"?
"Woe unto them that cast their litter by the public wayside, for they shall have $500 taken from them."


*thread

Last edited by Gyrate; 07-22-2019 at 07:43 AM.
  #47  
Old 07-22-2019, 07:43 AM
Snarky_Kong is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 8,355
Imagine having such a deep thirst for hating liberals that you oppose $600 for proofreading.
  #48  
Old 07-22-2019, 07:55 AM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,132
Yeah, but Berkeley.
  #49  
Old 07-22-2019, 08:09 AM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,687
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Are you or anyone you know confused with something like "If a man litters on the highway he shall be fined $500"? Do you read that and believe that a woman can litter without penalty?
Wait -- if "woman" is implicitly part of "man," does that mean they were supposed to be registering for the draft all these years?
  #50  
Old 07-22-2019, 02:59 AM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Why assume outrage is the motive rather than precision? You say your state has catch all's for improper verbiage. Did those catch alls cost less than $600 to write up? Is it a better solution?
And to be fair, it is not really improper, but antiquated. AFAIK, the French still use the male form of a singular pronoun when the gender of the individual is unknown or generic, and the male form of the plural pronoun when the group is unknown or comprised of at least one male. We used to do that with the singular, and some old people still do it.

Yes, I have no problem changing that to meet with the custom of the times, but we can do that piecemeal without expending any money unnecessarily.
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:51 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017