It's annoying to have to constantly wonder if I'm saying something offensive when I absolutely do not intend that.
In this case, I wouldn't have thought anything was wrong with "mail lady" and might have said the same thing if my mail carrier were a woman (which she is). Now I read this thread and realize that some people would think it is a problem.
This cultural wave of making seemingly harmless language into problems is one more barrier to speaking anything at all unless I'm talking to people I know well.
It's not that the term "mail lady" offends anyone. It doesn't.
The point is that singling out her gender is needless, and kinda seems a bit strange if gender was never really pertinent to the story in the first place.
"Cancel culture" would be going through high school recommended reading lists and removing books that focused "wrongly" on gender or something.
Lets be realistic, that's most people. Everyone thinks their pet causes to get offended about are justified. Even people getting indignant about cancel culture are enjoying their indignation.
There's a difference between laughing at and being outraged by. Pointing and laughing is perfectly reasonable, getting bent out of shape over imagined slights is paranoia.
Despite you using the word 'funny' I don't think you were laughing while posting that whereas the GP was.
It would be weird if you were just saying "the female-mail carrier" for no reason. But we usually describe people to differentiate them from someone else for conversation.
Like "the mail lady says she likes our cat", differentiating from the mail guy who we also don't know personally, but who doesn't like the animals.
Also, it's sex not gender people are referring to.
> "Cancel culture" would be going through high school recommended reading lists and removing books that focused "wrongly" on gender or something.
That certainly is, but it doesn't end with their most egregious actions.
> Also, it's sex not gender people are referring to.
I don't think so. "The mail carrier follows female gender roles" is bad enough, but why would you describe someone as "the mail carrier with a vagina"?
>> Also, it's sex not gender people are referring to.
> I don't think so.
You don't think lady in 'mail-lady' refers to woman?
> why would you describe someone as "the mail carrier with a vagina"?
Rude. I never would. But if I did it would be redundant after calling her a woman. What do you mean?
But maybe I'm trying to help my brother find a partner so I do want to point out available women, and that does imply people with vaginas. Again, so, and what do you think would be a more efficient way to do this?
> You don't think lady in 'mail-lady' refers to woman?
It can either refer to their sex or their gender.
> Rude. I never would. But if I did it would be redundant after calling her a woman. What do you mean?
If we refer to sex, a woman/lady is someone with a vagina. So yes, if you call someone a mail lady, you literally are describing her as a mail carrier with a vagina.
> But maybe I'm trying to help my brother find a partner so I do want to point out available women, and that does imply people with vaginas. Again, so, and what do you think would be a more efficient way to do this?
In that case, you might also talk about "the cute ginger mail lady with blue eyes" (or whatever your brother likes). But in most situations, that would be quite inappropriate.
> It can either refer to their sex or their gender
That seems unlikely and definitely unproven.
We're told gender expression is individual, so the gendered concepts you hold for 'woman' aren't going to be the ones I hold. Thus is seems unlikely that we're referring to gender or nobody would be able to understand each other.
Also, we refer to people by the same pronouns whether they're awake or sleeping, cross dressing or not, which changes their gender expression, but not their sex.
> If we refer to sex, a woman/lady is someone with a vagina.
Which we do. Yes.
> So yes, if you call someone a mail lady, you literally are describing her as a mail carrier with a vagina.
No. I'm also not describing her as a bipedal humanoid. Some things are just expected unless you say otherwise.
> the cute ginger mail lady with blue eyes
Yes, lady. Okay, so no suggestion.
> But in most situations, that would be quite inappropriate.
It's easy to offend without intending to, so I don't get how your intentions are relevant. Yes it can be annoying and difficult to consider the impact of your words and how they might be perceived by other, different, people. It would be simpler if you didn't have to think about that at all. But is that really the argument? It's a big hassle and you'd rather not have to do it?
It is too big of a hassle. We should not have to overanalyze everything we say. It is not even possible. We don't speak in code, we speak in highly interprative languages. Many meanings and interpretations of a statement can be made. People from different ages, regions, religions, etc. will interpret things different ways. It is literally impossible to view everything you say through all possible interpretations. There is no way that any single person can know every possible interpretation of what they say.
> It is literally impossible to view everything you say through all possible interpretations. There is no way that any single person can know every possible interpretation of what they say.
100% agreed. Don't see how it relates to what I wrote however.
For me, it's a minor hassle and I move on. I think for many people, it's an easy thing to rebel against, and generates conflict where there is no need for it.
Instead of people correcting mistaken assumptions about themselves and moving on (which happens to everyone in many ways, not just trans peoples' gender), we have this stupid culture war about the topic.
> might have said the same thing if my mail carrier were a woman (which she is).
Probably. Most people who look like women are. But some are actually closeted non-binary people or trans men. In which case calling them a lady isn't offensive, but it hurts.
