6 ms·

Editorialization serves a valuable role of making writing better. IMO, language that is more inclusive is better than language that is less inclusive. Keeping n

Editorialization serves a valuable role of making writing better. IMO, language that is more inclusive is better than language that is less inclusive. Keeping needlessly gendered phrases around simply because they're a "set phrase" doesn't serve any compelling interest. Language evolves. You can fight the ocean with a rake, or you can be supportive of changes that make language better for your friends and neighbors.

bdowling 4y ago
“‘Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.’”
samatman 4y ago
There is nothing generic in the sentence "last man standing". It's referring to one person, who is, in this case, a man. The argument, which at least makes sense, is that a "Chairman", even if he's male, should be a "Chairperson" because the office is not male, and therefore the title shouldn't be gendered. That just doesn't apply here. "A Chairperson" makes sense, "a last man standing" doesn't. "Last person standing" is also something you could say, but the title didn't, and there is no cause to 'correct' it, because it isn't wrong.
Noumenon72 4y ago
I have no problem with calling a waitress a server or whatever, but when I clicked on this title I did spend some time thinking about the lost euphoniousness and wondering whether there is a special masculine quality to "last man standing". It sounds like it might come from some knockdown game that women would not play. Google says boxing.
jimmy-axod 4y ago
> IMO, language that is more inclusive is better than language that is less inclusive. Why say person then? Are you anti-other mammals? Not very inclusive is it! 'more inclusive' is not always better, because it's less specific and less exact.
chernevik 4y ago
Language has idioms and phrases, and over time these connect generations.
NotYourLawyer 4y ago
In what way is this better? We’re referring to a specific man. It’s ok to call him a man. Over-inclusivity serves no purpose in this situation. It makes the language clunky and needlessly unspecific.
- lowbloodsugar 4y ago
  Does it mean: 1. This is the last man standing, but there are women still standing. In which case there are still persons providing this service and it is not newsworthy. 2. This is a legacy saying from a period where only men could be involved in business enterprises. There may have been women running such businesses, but they are not worthy of record. If not 1, then the correct phrase is “last person standing”. The issue is not whether the last person standing is male or female. The issue of “last X standing” is about all the Xs except the last one.
  - NotYourLawyer 4y ago
    Honestly, I’d be fine just treating this (and similar) as skunked terms. Last man standing is gendered and old fashioned. Last person standing is clunky and weird. Just find a different way of expressing the idea.
    - bdowling 4y ago
      Last one standing.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

bdowling 4y ago

“‘Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.’”

samatman 4y ago

There is nothing generic in the sentence "last man standing". It's referring to one person, who is, in this case, a man. The argument, which at least makes sense, is that a "Chairman", even if he's male, should be a "Chairperson" because the office is not male, and therefore the title shouldn't be gendered. That just doesn't apply here. "A Chairperson" makes sense, "a last man standing" doesn't. "Last person standing" is also something you could say, but the title didn't, and there is no cause to 'correct' it, because it isn't wrong.

Noumenon72 4y ago

I have no problem with calling a waitress a server or whatever, but when I clicked on this title I did spend some time thinking about the lost euphoniousness and wondering whether there is a special masculine quality to "last man standing". It sounds like it might come from some knockdown game that women would not play. Google says boxing.

jimmy-axod 4y ago

> IMO, language that is more inclusive is better than language that is less inclusive. Why say person then? Are you anti-other mammals? Not very inclusive is it! 'more inclusive' is not always better, because it's less specific and less exact.

chernevik 4y ago

Language has idioms and phrases, and over time these connect generations.

NotYourLawyer 4y ago

In what way is this better? We’re referring to a specific man. It’s ok to call him a man. Over-inclusivity serves no purpose in this situation. It makes the language clunky and needlessly unspecific.

lowbloodsugar 4y ago
Does it mean: 1. This is the last man standing, but there are women still standing. In which case there are still persons providing this service and it is not newsworthy. 2. This is a legacy saying from a period where only men could be involved in business enterprises. There may have been women running such businesses, but they are not worthy of record. If not 1, then the correct phrase is “last person standing”. The issue is not whether the last person standing is male or female. The issue of “last X standing” is about all the Xs except the last one.
- NotYourLawyer 4y ago
  Honestly, I’d be fine just treating this (and similar) as skunked terms. Last man standing is gendered and old fashioned. Last person standing is clunky and weird. Just find a different way of expressing the idea.
  - bdowling 4y ago
    Last one standing.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]