The Old Testament literally doesn’t contain gender neutral language, which is a large part of why this all is so messed up in the first place.
Hebrew didn’t have a neutral gender.
There was no ‘parent’ just ‘mother’ or ‘father.’
So a number of passages ended up super weird as a result, including the “he made them male and female” in Genesis 1 where a plural God makes humans male and female in ‘his’ image.
Which was the key line that’s been used for millennia now to prejudice against gender nonconformity, including its being cited in the NT regarding marriage in works written just a few years after the emperor of Rome married two different men.
Edit: Expanding on this as some people seem to be confused…
The article is only about the etymology of the word:
But the question of where the word woman comes from is also of interest, since, as is so often the case with everyday words whose etymologies we take for granted, the origins of the term ‘woman’ contains several surprising details.
The etymological fallacy is thinking that the etymology relates to the contemporary definition, which is what the commenter was doing in confusing the etymology of woman or man as being somehow connected to its meaning.
In general, the commenter was mistaken, as while it is true that a number of stories in the OT were likely based on earlier concepts of neutral or multiple genders (such as the example I originally gave), from the earliest Hebrew onwards there was literally no way of representing it.
So you ended up with later reinterpretation of passages with binary gender like the Genesis 1 example as having related to a hermaphroditic original man (Philio and the later Naassenes) given it was in the image of what was supposedly a singular God but rendered male and female both. Whereas what’s more likely was this passage dated back to the days of a divine power couple of Yahweh and his wife which was later reworked into a monotheistic form without updating the creation of men and women in their images.
But the topic of binary gender representation in the language is fairly broadly discussed and is distinct from what the commenter is trying to represent as being similar in languages with neutral gender representations with some bizarre appeal to etymology.
I suspect it was even the driving concept in the 1st century behind the comments about “make the male and female into a single one” in the Gospel of Thomas saying 22, which ironically still elsewhere referred to the ‘Father’ as opposed to ‘Parent.’ (Aramaic was also a binary gendered language.)
Do ya’ll think you’re being clever when you say this?
Nobody has an issue with using ‘they.’ The problem comes from those who want to force others to use ‘they’ instead of ‘he or she.’ It’s not about referring to a group of people or someone of unknown sex. It’s about a vocal minority getting really upset at statements like ‘only women can be pregnant.’
That would be the majority, and they’re not getting upset. They’re just choosing to use the language they want to use rather than letting others force them to use it.
Nah. They’re allowed to use whatever language they want.
If you have a problem with that, then you’re the one doing the ‘forcing.’
Something tells me you think “pregnant person” is okay but “pregnant woman” is not. I, personally, don’t really care and think they can use whatever language they want.
Amd now it becomes clear that “choice” isn’t what you actually care about.
Is it clear that I care about choice, now? What about you?
The article doesn’t say anything about anyone being forced to use gender-neutral language. The only forcing I see is the executive order from the government.
Somehow I doubt that this is really the most effective use of her time.
“Do men and women think men and women are being clever when men and women say men and women things?”
No Men or women have an issue with using “they”. The problem comes from men and women who want to force others to use “they” instead of “he or she.” Men and women are not about referring to a group of Men and women or men and women of unknown sex. Men and women are talking about a vocal minority of Men and women getting really upset at statements like “only women can be pregnant.”
I fixed all the gender neutral pronouns for you, now it makes much more sense.
Sorry, this man means: “This man fixed all the gender neutral men and women identifiers for the interlocutor who is either a man or a woman, now the man or woman text makes much more sense”
"Men and women are amazed at the amount of effort the man in front of this man or woman is willing to go through to show men and women that the man in front of this man or woman doesn’t understand the man or woman manning or womaning going on.
This man or woman is going to block this man. Tired of men and women like this man making this man’s argument thinking he is clever.
deleted by creator
The Old Testament literally doesn’t contain gender neutral language, which is a large part of why this all is so messed up in the first place.
Hebrew didn’t have a neutral gender.
There was no ‘parent’ just ‘mother’ or ‘father.’
So a number of passages ended up super weird as a result, including the “he made them male and female” in Genesis 1 where a plural God makes humans male and female in ‘his’ image.
Which was the key line that’s been used for millennia now to prejudice against gender nonconformity, including its being cited in the NT regarding marriage in works written just a few years after the emperor of Rome married two different men.
deleted by creator
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy
Edit: Expanding on this as some people seem to be confused…
The article is only about the etymology of the word:
The etymological fallacy is thinking that the etymology relates to the contemporary definition, which is what the commenter was doing in confusing the etymology of woman or man as being somehow connected to its meaning.
In general, the commenter was mistaken, as while it is true that a number of stories in the OT were likely based on earlier concepts of neutral or multiple genders (such as the example I originally gave), from the earliest Hebrew onwards there was literally no way of representing it.
So you ended up with later reinterpretation of passages with binary gender like the Genesis 1 example as having related to a hermaphroditic original man (Philio and the later Naassenes) given it was in the image of what was supposedly a singular God but rendered male and female both. Whereas what’s more likely was this passage dated back to the days of a divine power couple of Yahweh and his wife which was later reworked into a monotheistic form without updating the creation of men and women in their images.
But the topic of binary gender representation in the language is fairly broadly discussed and is distinct from what the commenter is trying to represent as being similar in languages with neutral gender representations with some bizarre appeal to etymology.
I suspect it was even the driving concept in the 1st century behind the comments about “make the male and female into a single one” in the Gospel of Thomas saying 22, which ironically still elsewhere referred to the ‘Father’ as opposed to ‘Parent.’ (Aramaic was also a binary gendered language.)
deleted by creator
When does the Bible use gender-neutral language?
The 10 Commandments, iirc.
Do ya’ll think you’re being clever when you say this?
Nobody has an issue with using ‘they.’ The problem comes from those who want to force others to use ‘they’ instead of ‘he or she.’ It’s not about referring to a group of people or someone of unknown sex. It’s about a vocal minority getting really upset at statements like ‘only women can be pregnant.’
deleted by creator
That would be the majority, and they’re not getting upset. They’re just choosing to use the language they want to use rather than letting others force them to use it.
None of your problems in life are the result of a person you know (or even a person you don’t know) wanting to be referred to as ‘they.’
NONE.
Okay.
I believe you have “who is doing the forcing” backwards here.
Amd now it becomes clear that “choice” isn’t what you actually care about.
Nah. They’re allowed to use whatever language they want.
If you have a problem with that, then you’re the one doing the ‘forcing.’
Something tells me you think “pregnant person” is okay but “pregnant woman” is not. I, personally, don’t really care and think they can use whatever language they want.
Is it clear that I care about choice, now? What about you?
How about you just have respect for people other than yourself and call others how they ask to be called?
“In official government documents, the following exclusionary and sexist terms shall be replaced with accurate, female-affirming alternatives"
deleted by creator
I think you are expecting too much from him.
What do you mean? Did Republicans lose the popular vote in the last 8 Arkansas elections? What elections are you talking about, specifically?
deleted by creator
Isn’t this a small vocal minority forcing people to use gendered language even if they don’t want to use it?
Looks like the majority forcing a minority to use gendered language even though they don’t want to.
Was this passed by referendum?
Nobody is being forced to use “they”. You can still be a disrespectful asshole if you want.
Looks like this issue stems from being forced to use gender-neutral language in government documents, but I’m not an expert on the situation.
The article doesn’t say anything about anyone being forced to use gender-neutral language. The only forcing I see is the executive order from the government.
Somehow I doubt that this is really the most effective use of her time.
I think the problem is that they were forced to use gender-neutral language in the first place.
Yeah, but that’s the case with most politicians.
Show me where it says that anyone was forced to use gender-neutral language.
I think you mean
“Do men and women think men and women are being clever when men and women say men and women things?”
No Men or women have an issue with using “they”. The problem comes from men and women who want to force others to use “they” instead of “he or she.” Men and women are not about referring to a group of Men and women or men and women of unknown sex. Men and women are talking about a vocal minority of Men and women getting really upset at statements like “only women can be pregnant.”
I fixed all the gender neutral pronouns for you, now it makes much more sense.
Sorry, this man means: “This man fixed all the gender neutral men and women identifiers for the interlocutor who is either a man or a woman, now the man or woman text makes much more sense”
🥱
It’s amazing the amount of effort you’re willing to go through to show us you don’t understand what’s going on.
Gonna block you now. Tired of you people making this argument thinking it’s clever.
Sorry reality bothers you so much.
I think you mean
"Men and women are amazed at the amount of effort the man in front of this man or woman is willing to go through to show men and women that the man in front of this man or woman doesn’t understand the man or woman manning or womaning going on.
This man or woman is going to block this man. Tired of men and women like this man making this man’s argument thinking he is clever.
Sorry reality bothers this man so much."
not the Bible but “in God we trust” is a gender-neutral pronoun.
“In God men and women trust”…?
First, that’s not the Bible. Second, “we” is not “gender-neutral”, it’s just the standard 1st person plural
huh. TIL. what gender is it?
Not one to refer to an individual, that’s for sure
Look, I know it’s sophistry, but so is the EO in the OP. But the fact of the matter is
are all gender-neutral. Some of them can’t logically refer to gender, true, but that doesn’t make them start being gendered either.
EDIT: ANNNND many of them do refer to an individual (I, me, you…)