edlong, that's exactly the point, riding a bike to work isn't "normal". It's not better or worse, it's just abnormal.
I think trying to find offence in the use of the word normal to describe "everyone else apart from a minority" is really stretching it and you'd be finding the same offence if he's used the word "other", "straight" (bear in mind the topic, using that would then exclude some other minorities). I think "Normal" neatly sums up the people he's describing, the 95% that sit between the interviewee and the Russian State.
The problem is that 'normal' can have two meanings. One just means a majority ("typical" as above); if I visited a gay club, I'd be abnormal in there. Atypical if you like.
The second meaning implies correctness, that if you're not "normal" there's something wrong with you. So on the whole it's probably a word best avoided for the sake of clarity even if your intentions are good.
It depends on how you define "normal" really, doesn't it?
In the Asperger's / Autistic world, the term for 'normal' is Neurotypical. That works quite well I think; typical is a much less ambiguous word.
I'll just leave these here
No. Come back and let me explain dictionaries to you. My lecturer was a fascinating OED lexicographer. They are [b]different[/b] and [b]distinct[/b] definitions. Alternatives, if you will. Exactly the same way that 'gay' can mean homosexual [b]or[/b] light-hearted.
_______________________
Some of my colleagues (including the gay ones) would say I'm not the "normal" one because I ride a bike to work rather than driving a car like they all do.
correct. riding a bike to work is not normal. We are an awesome minority.
Sorry but I have a problem with anyone who seriously suggests that it's okay, and reasonable, that the population divides down into "gay" or "normal"
Wasn't the point of this that there is no need to divide society. However, as a discription, I can see why you'd use normal (straight, man in mans body etc) and not-normal i.e. everyone else. Isn't that the same as the term 'binary'?
Can I be offended being described as binary or has an out-group become an all-powerful in-group who now decides what is offensive, who has the right to be offended and by whom?
In the Asperger's / Autistic world, the term for 'normal' is Neurotypical. That works quite well I think.
In the bi-polar world, we refer to you lot (general population, not aperger/autistic people) as non-mentals 🙂
Stop being so discriminatory to the living impaired.
😆 😆 😆
Just struggled to keep my lunch in my mouth*.
*No, this is not a euphemism.
try not to spill any...
Getting back to the OP's question.....
When I joined in 1994 my force had removed use of the term wpc, but female officers had collar numbers beginning with 6 to differentiate for the radio dispatcher. This also was removed in about 1996.
Male Nurse is still a well used term.Or even worse "Murse"
I thought that murse was a man-purse. Could you say that you saw a 'Murse carrying a murse'??
Not quite sure why I'm responding since you are clearly being deliberate in missing the point, which is that typically the only people who get their ethnicity mentioned are the non-white ones
Following on from the 'normal' discussion above, I'd suggest that in a 'white-skin' caucasian majority country like the UK, it's a reasonable assumption that a driver in a car would be 'white'. To clarify otherwise would obviously require a descriptive adjective, and preferably one that cannot be altered (a 'red-shirt wearing driver' doesn't really cut it) - and unfortunately skin colour fits this nicely. I say 'unfortunately' as skin colour is also often used in an offensive context.
If everyone discussing this on here lived in Saudi Arabia I'd suggest that most drivers would be of middle-eastern descent (and male, but that's another can of worms) - in that instance describing a caucasian driver as 'white' to differentiate from middle-eastern drivers seems like fair game.
When I joined in 1994 my force had removed use of the term wpc, but female officers had collar numbers beginning with 6 to differentiate for the radio dispatcher. This also was removed in about 1996.
Surely it's necessary (or beneficial) for dispatcher's to know? Send in the burly men to a pub brawl. WPC to a female who's been sexually assaulted.
Just popped up on my facebook. Seems appropriate.
[img] 
?oh=35c3edbf12ea6f1483587ea5e079d20c&oe=5747CE9A[/img]
Getting back to the OP's question.....
When I joined in 1994 my force had removed use of the term wpc, but female officers had collar numbers beginning with 6 to differentiate for the radio dispatcher. This also was removed in about 1996.
Langylad, I have bad news for you my friend, you are no longer a force but now a service.
I much prefere the term police force but some one probably deemed it offensive.
I have big hands!
You will make my knob look small. But will find it easier to play the piano.
makecoldplayhistory - MemberNo. Come back and let me explain dictionaries to you.
You can't sensibly use as a defence "It has some possible definitions where it's not negative, therefore it's fine"- if a term has some negative connotations then it's very much handle with care even if only to avoid misunderstandings. Abnormal is a hugely weighted term, and can and often is used in a derogatory way, using it without consideration is tactless at best.
On consideration you're right though- when "abnormal" is used negatively it's not implicit; it's actually explicit.
I cannot imagine how horrendous it must be to be trapped in a body that isn't the right sex.
There's nothing more gender conforming than believing the way you think/feel can be mismatched with your physical features.
Interesting questions about how to correctly diagnose the young with transgenderism, I simply do not know. Helen who runs the clinic I mentioned talks about a variety of tests that can be undertaken but of course nothing is fool proof. The one overriding factor that she made clear to me is that individuals with this condition speak very little about issues to do with sexuality but are much more about feeling trapped in the "wrong" body being the "wrong" sex externally. She says that most of the people she works with simply [b]know[/b] with a high degree of personal certainty that they ought to be the other gender, perhaps that's enough. It's very sad that the resources available for treatment in the UK are so very limited. Having said all that even more tragic when you hear of elderly people who have lived their whole lives trapped like that.
It throws up a world of interesting questions about what it is to be a man or a woman from a mental and self perception perspective rather than just the physical side of things. Especially now as gender roles are so outdated and the playing field levels.
I have big hands!
😆
Following on from the 'normal' discussion above, I'd suggest that in a 'white-skin' caucasian majority country like the UK, it's a reasonable assumption that a driver in a car would be 'white'. To clarify otherwise would obviously require a descriptive adjective, and preferably one that cannot be altered (a 'red-shirt wearing driver' doesn't really cut it) - and unfortunately skin colour fits this nicely. I say 'unfortunately' as skin colour is also often used in an offensive context.If everyone discussing this on here lived in Saudi Arabia I'd suggest that most drivers would be of middle-eastern descent (and male, but that's another can of worms) - in that instance describing a caucasian driver as 'white' to differentiate from middle-eastern drivers seems like fair game.
Yes, I realise that most British drivers are white. That isn't something I'm disputing.
Perhaps it's easier with the other example I used than with ethnicity.
When we have a thread listing, for example, stupid things that drivers have done, why do you think sometimes people feel the need to specify "woman driver" when they rarely if ever in the same context would say "man driver?"
I'm assuming that the rates are close enough to even that if you just said "driver" I wouldn't be safe to assume man or woman...
The way that we categorize Gender, identity, sexuality etc is already obsolete. We have evolved from acceptance of heterosexuality to include bisexual, homosexual and more recently transexuality. But those categories are not correct. Gender / identity / sexuality is a very long sliding scale.
Some identify themselves as male, some as female and in-between those two is a huge scale. Same on sexual preference.
Eventually distinguishing anything based on sex will be defunct.
There's nothing more gender conforming than believing the way you think/feel can be mismatched with your physical features.
Sorry I don't understand this could you explain?
edlong, that's exactly the point, riding a bike to work isn't "normal". It's not better or worse, it's just abnormal.
But that's a recent phenomena; when I was a kid pretty much [i]everyone[/i]rode a bike to work! At lunchtime or teatime in Chippenham, the roads would be crammed with a solid stream of workers pouring out of Westinhouse Brake & Signal, now hardly anyone does, relatively speaking, so what was overwhelmingly normal is now abnormal, from society's point of view.
Surely it's necessary (or beneficial) for dispatcher's to know? Send in the burly men to a pub brawl. WPC to a female who's been sexually assaulted.
If both have passed the same tests and received the same training in order to perform the same job, I really don't see why.
Buuut there are a lot of people who like to jump on a being offended bandwagon - for instance think of the reaction to many things Clarkson has said, now imagine Stephen Fry saying them and the lack of reaction he would receive. Just because one is a professional "red blooded oaf" people add meaning that may or may not have been there.
Langylad, I have bad news for you my friend, you are no longer a force but now a service.
I much prefere the term police force but some one probably deemed it offensive
You are quite right Chip, my mistake. Just as an aside a colleague is currently going through the process of gender change, she is getting great support from colleagues and bosses, but it is still very traumatic for her.
Surely it's necessary (or beneficial) for dispatcher's to know? Send in the burly men to a pub brawl. WPC to a female who's been sexually assaulted.
When there are only 3 of us covering 2 towns, we don't have the luxury any more to decide who to send.
If both have passed the same tests and received the same training in order to perform the same job, I really don't see why.
Do you really think that a woman that has just been sexually assaulted would be as comfortable discussing the events with a male as she would with a female?
Fair enough if a male Officer was the only one available then yes he should be able to deal with it, but it would be more appropriate to despatch a female Officer if one was available. Yes?
[quote=philjunior ]Buuut there are a lot of people who like to jump on a being offended bandwagon - for instance think of the reaction to many things Clarkson has said, now imagine Stephen Fry saying them and the lack of reaction he would receive. Just because one is a professional "red blooded oaf" people add meaning that may or may not have been there.
Go on then, give us an example of something offensive JC has said which would be acceptable if SF said it? Just trying to check how professionally offended I am.
something offensive JC has said
Blimey, so many to choose from...
So hard to pick which one...
How to decide?
eeny meeny...
Hmm, struggling to imagine Fry mumbling the N word - maybe there is a real difference between the two of them. Presumably I'm adding meaning which JC didn't intend?
