Associated Press issues new guidance on gender: avoid referring to ‘both’ or ‘either’ sexes

originally posted by: ausername
Something like this?

... The suspect is on the loose in the area. The suspect is described as an it in its 20s, wearing a black hoodie and jeans. It is between 5'9" and 6' tall and weighing 180-200 lbs...

That's not reflective of what the AP requested either ... maybe you should read the actual source material as well?

Here, I'll help you out ... this is the relevant bit:



See? Still okay to refer to "boys and girls" or "women and men" if the situation calls for it.

More BS.

a reply to: Gryphon66

But since no one knows for sure in that situation what the suspect actually is, the situation does not call for it. If we have to avoid calling our suspects by their race for racial discrimination reasons, then we also have to avoid calling them by their gender because we likewise do not know what their gender preferences are and to make assumptions would be to risk offense.

Sure, we can all assume that the suspect is a black male or a white male, but you never know ... he might be feeling feminine and thus identifying as a she that day as a gender fluid individual. Also, she might be uncomfortable with the racial classification of black or white. You never know when you are dealing with a self-professed Martian or even Tiamat the dragon woman's long lost cousin. It would not do to get these things wrong and cause offense.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

But since no one knows for sure in that situation what the suspect actually is, the situation does not call for it. If we have to avoid calling our suspects by their race for racial discrimination reasons, then we also have to avoid calling them by their gender because we likewise do not know what their gender preferences are and to make assumptions would be to risk offense.

Sure, we can all assume that the suspect is a black male or a white male, but you never know ... he might be feeling feminine and thus identifying as a she that day as a gender fluid individual. Also, she might be uncomfortable with the racial classification of black or white. You never know when you are dealing with a self-professed Martian or even Tiamat the dragon woman's long lost cousin. It would not do to get these things wrong and cause offense.

Is any of that in the AP guidelines we're discussing, or are you trying to grind other off-topic axes (again)?

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: winterwind93
a reply to: seasonal

I'm saddened by this. Is there where we are as a society now? People are so sensitive they can't handle basic facts?

Honestly, I don't have a huge problem with transgender people, but they need to face the truth: I don't care if you've had a doctor cut off your wee-wee or make you a fake one, there are still 2 genders. Period.

I believe your argument intends to say there are "still 2 sexes" ... which isn't universally true either.

Sex is a determination of anatomical and biological differences which in most species differentiates by the terms male and female.

Gender is a matter of personal identity based on a number of factors including culturally-defined behaviors, etc.

Perhaps you should make sure you're dealing in reality yourself before citing someone else, eh?

This is absolute hogwash. Gender was redefined by thin-skinned people who couldn't deal with that someone might label them by their, and i'm going to use the word as it always has been, gender. f-ers need to grow a backbone.

I'm aware that transpeople exist, and that it's useful to have a word to refer to them which differentiates them from the other 99% of society. Because I would admit that calling someone a man who was born with a vagina but had some doctors re-scupt it is, probably, going to leave you surprised when you actually meet them and observe oddities in their appearance.

But if someone wants to refer to humans as being split into two categories, male and female, that is true. Completely true physically and behaviorally true 99% of the time.

a reply to: winterwind93

Nicely said. Forcing someone to categorize you by your categorized name is the pot calling the kettle black.


idiotic, but a good time waster

a reply to: Gryphon66

No.

It's the truth.

In newsrooms, they avoid bringing up the race of a perpetrator. So why wouldn't they now avoid bringing up gender and sex to?

It's the safest way to deal with any potentially uncomfortable topics.

a reply to: winterwind93

Perhaps you didn't read the OP either.

This is about a style change in AP writing requirements.

I even copied the relevant portion above.

If this is intended as yet another evidence free debate about what people believe abut gender and sex, then it seems OP was dishonest.

The AP style suggestion states clearly to refer to "boys and girls, men and women" etc. if the situation requires it.

What in the world are you people so enraged about that for???

DID NONE OF YOU READ THE OP???

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

No.

It's the truth.

In newsrooms, they avoid bringing up the race of a perpetrator. So why wouldn't they now avoid bringing up gender and sex to?

It's the safest way to deal with any potentially uncomfortable topics.

Does that have anything to do with the OP?

You were complaining about how changes in the AP style would affect your work. Is referring to dogs, cats, birds, etc. as "male and female" that big a problem with you?

Or are you, and others, merely looking for another opportunity to share your personal beliefs about other people's sexes and genders?

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: winterwind93

Nicely said. Forcing someone to categorize you by your categorized name is the pot calling the kettle black.


idiotic, but a good time waster

OP, perhaps you can clarify.

Did you want to talk about the AP standards for writing here or not?

Doesn't your source very clearly say that writers can use "boys and girls" "men and women" "male and female" if the situation demands it for clarity?

What is YOUR issue here exactly?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: winterwind93

DID NONE OF YOU READ THE OP???

Don't be idiotic. The OP says that reporters are being steered away from saying that there are only two genders or sexes. Very clearly, it says "don't use both, either, or other" when referring to such things.

But this is more PC nonsense. There are two genders/sexes.

tl;dr Screw their personal identity, they are men or they are women.

originally posted by: winterwind93

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: winterwind93

DID NONE OF YOU READ THE OP???

Don't be idiotic. The OP says that reporters are being steered away from saying that there are only two genders or sexes. Very clearly, it says "don't use both, either, or other" when referring to such things.

But this is more PC nonsense. There are two genders/sexes.

tl;dr Screw their personal identity, they are men or they are women.

LOL ... I find your use of the term "idiotic" humorous in light of the fact that you're complaining about something you apparently haven't read.

The AP style change very clearly states that the phrases "boys and girls" "men and women" and "males and females" should be used where needed.

All of this faux outrage misplaced.

originally posted by: winterwind93
-snip-

tl;dr Screw their personal identity, they are men or they are women.

Yes, that's your belief. It has nothing to do with the topic (or with medically accepted fact.)

Again, the AP says to use "male and female" when appropriate. What are you crying about?

a reply to: seasonal

I thought we have a term for the none descript in our mist, is call "It"

a reply to: Phage

Yes, being ignorant is also not someones fault, while basically arrogance is knowing you are ignorant of something, still not really understanding, but not caring you don't understand.

People act like the words are almost equal and confuse them, arrogance is way worse.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: winterwind93

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: winterwind93

DID NONE OF YOU READ THE OP???

Don't be idiotic. The OP says that reporters are being steered away from saying that there are only two genders or sexes. Very clearly, it says "don't use both, either, or other" when referring to such things.

But this is more PC nonsense. There are two genders/sexes.

tl;dr Screw their personal identity, they are men or they are women.

LOL ... I find your use of the term "idiotic" humorous in light of the fact that you're complaining about something you apparently haven't read.

The AP style change very clearly states that the phrases "boys and girls" "men and women" and "males and females" should be used where needed.

All of this faux outrage misplaced.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Yes, that's your belief. It has nothing to do with the topic (or with medically accepted fact.)

Again, the AP says to use "male and female" when appropriate. What are you crying about?

Are you being intentionally dense?

They are men, or they are women. There are two types, and only two types. And the AP suggestion is against that. So some of us object. What part of this is confusing to you?

"Trans-man" is a term for a woman who has had a lot of surgery, and talks, dresses, and acts funny. A trans-man is not a man. This is not just my belief, this is medical fact. I mean, you can get into all the complicated medical stuff about partial sex differentiation of the brain, bla-bla-bla, it doesn't change the essential binary nature of this. Binary as in, two. Two and only two. Both of them. Either of them. One or the other.

I'm not sure I can make this any clearer for you.

a reply to: winterwind93

You can't make it any clearer for me at all; you're repeating your own beliefs about an off-topic subject.

This is not another "I don't think them Transgendered people matter" thread ... this is about the AP's style changes.

The AP style changes include a reference to "men and women."

Do you want to talk about that topic, the topic of this thread, or do you want to rant about your beliefs?

originally posted by: winterwind93

I'm not sure I can make this any clearer for you.

What is a unisex and a hermaphrodite?

Sorry you just said two a lot, but even going soley by chromosomes, there are like 11.

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: seasonal

I thought we have a term for the none descript in our mist, is call "It"

The AP style guidelines under erstwhile discussion here encourage the use of "boys and girls" "men and women" "male and female" when appropirate, Marg.

I know you really just wanted to take a side-swipe at dehumanizing people, but that's not the topic.

a reply to: Gryphon66

A beautiful remark, but by the time the left is done, there will be some demanding to be called it.

Using a non-descript on purpose when knowing someone prefers an identity is just being an ass however. (42 for Trump is kind of mean IMO, not exactly related but to me its similar)

It's a fine line

originally posted by: MacK80
a reply to: Gryphon66

A beautiful remark, but by the time the left is done, there will be some demanding to be called it.

Using a non-descript on purpose when knowing someone prefers an identity is just being an ass however.

Not sure who "the left" is referring to specifically, but, people demand to be called a lot of things that have personal relevance to them.

However, in standard English, "it" is used to refer to things, not people. Yes, using it for a person is generally "being an ass" specifically in this context.

The AP, however, only asked for a minor change in the use of three words, and, encourages the use of binary reference when needed.

This whole side-show thread is just another excuse for ignorance to be paraded as relevance.