hanspi wrote:It seems that the sex (female) vs gender (woman) debate rages in all sports. Here's a good article about this:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10 ... ccess=true
This I think is true. You can have the habit to be very precises or accurate about the meaning of certain words and not others. It could be perceived as pedantic if the more precise terminology is too different from common usage. On the other hand if this more precise terminology isn't distinct enough from regular usage, then this becomes a futile exercise. I don't really buy into the papers argument that recommendations that sound strange and may seem banal are as useful as the paper argues, but that is about scope, if you were already looking for recommendations about how to be more precises then that is different. Also, the paper points out that the recommendations don't work at all for languages other than English, this makes the recommendations somewhat redundant.We are aware that some of the recommended revisions may sound strange in contemporary English (and other languages), but this is a matter of habit.[...]
What the paper is talking about is precise usage of language but the paper ignores that it isn't arguments about accurate expressions or what serves the common good that is important when sports organizations communicate. Take the example of what the IOC calls "gender verification" which really should be called "female sex verification", like the paper mentions, but this is not what the IOC wants to communicate. With the rather disturbing history of adjudicating female athletes' sex with naked parades, medical examinations, chromosome tests (which I read were unreliable to the level of being pseudo-science) and hormone level tests, it is understandable that a euphemism was needed. Gender verification is a good euphemism, it sounds like it could be as simple as checking someone's passport, when it of course isn't that. Gender verification also implies, literally, that the gender is checked, not at all that there may be a medical test procedure that some women athletes can not reasonably pass. The IOC and the federations that have gender verification (I believe most, by far, don't) just don't wish to be more precises and that is why they use a phrase that neither evokes a description of the actual process nor that women athletes' can fail the verification without being involved in foul play. This is just one example of why it may not always be useful for everyone to use more accurate expressions or even to avoid misunderstandings; one may though find this use of a euphemism objectionable. Therefore, I find the argument unconvincing in the paper, it fails to consider that the sports movement and its organizations may have goals and motives that are their own and can't simply be subsumed by generic arguments about the common good and that clarity in communications would always be desired, it ignores that more accurate or appropriate communication may not be desired if it is not what the communicator wishes to communicate.
Anyway, interesting paper to share.
==edited noticed some missing words