<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
  </head>
  <body>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 09/11/2025 13:59, John Clark wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAJPayv2yNDCDqf5d856+FjkquYEHOgViK+vL9Y_Apy+6th7J_g@mail.gmail.com">
      <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
      <div dir="ltr">
        <div dir="ltr">
          <div class="gmail_default"
            style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span
              style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif">On Sat, Nov
              8, 2025 at 10:51 AM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat <<a
                href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org"
                moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>>
              wrote:</span></div>
        </div>
        <div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><br>
          <blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
            <div>
              <blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><b
                  style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;font-size:large"><span
                    class="gmail_default"
                    style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">>> </span>It
                  could be argued that <span class="gmail_default">"L</span>ady
                  <span class="gmail_default">C</span>hairman<span
                    class="gmail_default">" is self-contradictory
                    nonsense, unless you're talking about a
                    hermaphrodite. </span>How about <span
                    class="gmail_default">C</span>hairwoman<span
                    class="gmail_default">? I admit that doesn't sound
                    quite right but I think at least part of that is due
                    to the fact that the word "woman" has two syllables
                    but the word "man" only has one. </span></b></blockquote>
              <br>
              <font size="4"><i> <span class="gmail_default"
                    style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">> </span>It
                  could. If you assume that words containing 'man' refer
                  only to biological males (they don't).</i></font></div>
          </blockquote>
          <div><br>
          </div>
          <div><font size="4" face="tahoma, sans-serif"><b>It's
                ambiguous,<span class="gmail_default" style="">
                  sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't refer
                  exclusively to a male, but it <u>NEVER</u> refers
                  exclusively to a female. Do you think that sort of
                  asymmetry and ambivalence is a good thing? You've
                  never spelled it out, what exactly is your objection
                  to the word "chairwoman", why does it make you so
                  angry? </span> </b></font></div>
          <div><font size="4" face="tahoma, sans-serif"><b><br>
              </b></font></div>
          <div><font size="4" face="tahoma, sans-serif"><span
                class="gmail_default" style=""><b style="">John K Clark</b></span><br>
            </font></div>
          <blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br>
          </blockquote>
        </div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    <br>
    Angry? I'm anything but angry. Amused, maybe. Disappointed,
    certainly. Exasperated sometimes. But not angry.<br>
    <br>
    There's nothing particularly wrong with 'chairwoman', it's just
    unnecessary, and as you pointed out, sounds a bit awkward. It's in
    the same category as 'saleswoman', 'businesswoman', 'sportswoman',
    etc. They strike me as rather silly. I wouldn't use them, but
    neither would I strongly object so someone else using them (although
    I might roll my eyes!). I certainly wouldn't make them central to my
    opposition to enforced PC language in general. That /does/ make me
    angry.<br>
    <br>
    But "chair" on it's own just sounds stupid to me. And perhaps a bit
    insulting. Imagine calling a doorman a 'door', because some women
    start doing the job. Sure, use 'doorwoman' if you must, I don't
    really care, but I do care if someone starts saying I shouldn't or
    can't use 'doorman'.<br>
    <br>
    I was always a fan of the Star Trek convention of using 'Sir' for
    senior officers, regardless of their sex. I thought that was quite
    inspired, doing away with "Ma'am", which always sounds awkward or at
    least old-fashioned, I think.<br>
    <br>
    But against that is the decision to replace "...where no man..."
    with "...where no one...". Again, no great objection, at least it
    does make sense and doesn't sound artificial, but it still tends to
    draw the attention to these silly 'gender issues' that get people so
    riled up, and it's unnecessary. There are more important things to
    worry about.
    <pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">-- 
Ben</pre>
    <br>
  </body>
</html>