Well, yes, but terms of art are generally reserved for discussions among specialists. If I started using words like 'class' or 'object', I can be reasonably expected to be talking about OOP. Unless, that is, I'm attending a conference on Marxism, in which case nobody will assume that; they'll assume that I'm talking about sociological class and objectification. If I talk about 'master-slave hierarchies' on HN, I'm probably talking about database replication. In a race studies class, I'm talking about something entirely different.
I don't think it's entirely reasonable to say that people are 'mis-using' a word by adopting its most popular usage in a discussion between non-specialists, and I think it's doubly unreasonable to complain about the confusion being caused when you try to use the specialist definition.
If you're as aware of social science as you sound, then you'll be well-aware of the power of words, and the power of defining what a word means. By seeking to define a word, and implying that those who don't accept your definition as ignorant ("people who've never been forced to confront their privilege") and by insisting that it is they who need to change their vocabulary and not you who need to be more precise, you're behaving quite arrogantly; in the manner, if I might mischievously suggest, of a person who believes in the privileged position of their knowledge on the subject and their right to tell others how to speak.
When we're discussing the social implications of women in technology, it doesn't seem un-reasonable to me to use terms of art from social science. Maybe it does to you?
> implying that those who don't accept your definition as ignorant ("people who've never been forced to confront their privilege")
The point of privilege is that you don't notice it. I think the disconnect here is that you assume that I'm making some kind of judgement about ignorance. I don't think people who are ignorant are 'bad.' Everyone needs to learn these things sometime.
> in the manner, if I might mischievously suggest, of a person who believes in the privileged position of their knowledge on the subject and their right to tell others how to speak.
The thing is that in this case, it's (to switch back to CS ;) ) a leaky abstraction. If someone thinks "I get discriminated against too, as a man, so I've experienced sexism" they're totally talking past people who are discussing what it is for women to experience sexism, since they (the man) are only experiencing sexual discrimination. The 'pervasive' part is significant. It's not about policing words: it's about getting men to understand that they have not and will not be able to experience sexism in the way a woman does, even if they are, at times, discriminated against based on their gender. You're absolutely right that words have power: that's why we shouldn't let people use the wrong ones.
The problem is, at least superficially, you didn't have anything to say except for trying to shift the conversation from plain English to feminist jargon. (Of course, highlighting the specific shift you chose translated to rather substantial contribution, which I've unpacked elsewhere. I wonder why you had to be so oblique about it.)
> The point of privilege is that you don't notice it. I think the disconnect here is that you assume that I'm making some kind of judgement about ignorance. I don't think people who are ignorant are 'bad.' Everyone needs to learn these things sometime.
The question of whether one acknowledges one's own privilege is orthogonal to the question of word usage. I believe that I acknowledge my own privilege, but I do not see the benefit in trying to impose word usages on people, particularly in a threaded comment on a technology discussion forum. I don't believe that it's a good strategy for persuading people of anything, which is a shame as there is much persuading to do.
My interpretation is that these kinds of word usage distinctions serve as signals; you want to signal enlightenment through the "correct" usage of a word, but what you're not understanding is that this is going to piss off people who don't understand what you're trying to say. Insisting that the onus is on them to learn the "correct" meaning just pisses them off more, especially when they go off to read a dictionary or encyclopedia and it tells them that, in fact, they were right all along. This just creates an "us and them" scenario in which the two sides identify themselves by linguistic characteristics. We're doing this to each other right now even though I bet we agree a lot on the actual issues.
> If someone thinks "I get discriminated against too, as a man, so I've experienced sexism" they're totally talking past people who are discussing what it is for women to experience sexism, since they (the man) are only experiencing sexual discrimination.
Nope. It depends entirely on what you think the word means. What does the keyword "sexism" in the above statement represent? If you think "sexism" means "discrimination on the grounds of sex" then "I get discriminated against too, as a man, so I've experienced sexism" is a true statement (assuming said discrimination occurs). Nowhere does this imply that the experience for men is the same as the experience for women - sexism (defined as sexual discrimination) can differ by degree and by frequency, and we'd all acknowledge that it is of far greater degree and far more frequently experienced by women. It is not obvious that this presents any difficulty in discussing the matter accurately. You could easily say "pervasive sexism" or "systemic sexism" or "institutional sexism" when you want to make a further qualifying point about the nature of the discrimination taking place.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree, as neither of us is going to be proved right here. I'll conclude by saying that I think people often say quite reprehensible things about sexism on HN and elsewhere and I don't wish to encourage them by disagreeing with people who are obviously trying to do the right thing. That said, I am not sure the battle over semantics is the one we need to win and fighting it may well be counter-productive.
I don't think it's entirely reasonable to say that people are 'mis-using' a word by adopting its most popular usage in a discussion between non-specialists, and I think it's doubly unreasonable to complain about the confusion being caused when you try to use the specialist definition.
If you're as aware of social science as you sound, then you'll be well-aware of the power of words, and the power of defining what a word means. By seeking to define a word, and implying that those who don't accept your definition as ignorant ("people who've never been forced to confront their privilege") and by insisting that it is they who need to change their vocabulary and not you who need to be more precise, you're behaving quite arrogantly; in the manner, if I might mischievously suggest, of a person who believes in the privileged position of their knowledge on the subject and their right to tell others how to speak.