HomeBlogJargon and Gender

Comments

Jargon and Gender — 160 Comments

  1. For some reason “take” in my head goes more with “the helm” than “the weapons console”. The latter would make me go “where do you want me to take it?”
    Of course, “the guns” would be shorter than “the weapons console” but Picard would never say that.

  2. For some reason “take” in my head goes more with “the helm” than “the weapons console”. The latter would make me go “where do you want me to take it?”
    Of course, “the guns” would be shorter than “the weapons console” but Picard would never say that.

  3. For some reason “take” in my head goes more with “the helm” than “the weapons console”. The latter would make me go “where do you want me to take it?”
    Of course, “the guns” would be shorter than “the weapons console” but Picard would never say that.

  4. For some reason “take” in my head goes more with “the helm” than “the weapons console”. The latter would make me go “where do you want me to take it?”
    Of course, “the guns” would be shorter than “the weapons console” but Picard would never say that.

  5. For some reason “take” in my head goes more with “the helm” than “the weapons console”. The latter would make me go “where do you want me to take it?”
    Of course, “the guns” would be shorter than “the weapons console” but Picard would never say that.

  6. For some reason “take” in my head goes more with “the helm” than “the weapons console”. The latter would make me go “where do you want me to take it?”
    Of course, “the guns” would be shorter than “the weapons console” but Picard would never say that.

  7. For some reason “take” in my head goes more with “the helm” than “the weapons console”. The latter would make me go “where do you want me to take it?”
    Of course, “the guns” would be shorter than “the weapons console” but Picard would never say that.

  8. For some reason “take” in my head goes more with “the helm” than “the weapons console”. The latter would make me go “where do you want me to take it?”
    Of course, “the guns” would be shorter than “the weapons console” but Picard would never say that.

  9. Troi is only half-human, is it speciesist? What if it was Jadzia Dax, a Trill symbiont of uncertain (if any) gender who has been linked with a variety of males and females, currently symbiotically linked with a female Trill-humanoid host? Early ST:TNG Data, when he hadn’t integrated the collective-personality background as well or adapted to society as a “person” nearly as well as he did eventually? A photonic lifeform such as The Doctor or an Organian? I’m sure the more trivia-oriented fan can come up with more complicated cases yet, where our rather quaint language is ill-equipped to deal with the diversity of 24th century life… or 21st. (And don’t get me started on time-travel tenses! 🙂

    From a more naval-history standpoint, Starfleet maintains some of the concept that the helm is a “special” position; even though it may sometimes be operated by a comparatively young and junior individual, there’s a certain amount of residual ritual protocol involved. This is similar to the situation on a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier, as I understand it.

    In many ways it’s operationally the direct second to the officer of the watch, and both of them use the “take” / “have” phrasing, where other stations usually do not, to reflect some of the mantle-of-responsibility aspect. At some level, while someone operating a science, communications, engineering, weapons, etc. console is operating a *part* of the ship, the person with the con and the person operating the helm *are* the ship.

    You could probably make a pretty good case that on some ship designs and with some individuals the lead engineering spot should qualify as well, but the traditions Starfleet inherited (both in-fiction and in terms of the original writer’s backgrounds) tend to regard the engine room crew with a certain amount of faint residual class disdain. It would have probably been more appropriate for Starfleet to end up with a more nuclear submarine rather than oil-fired surface combatant (inherited from the black gangs of the coal years of the British Navy) view of such things, but for whatever reason they didn’t.

    So, ordering Troi (or anyone) to “take tactical” has implications beyond merely operating the console and attendant weapon systems; it would probably imply in context that Troi was supposed to be directing the overall combat of the entire ship, with possibly some implication that tactical decisions such as weapons arcs, shield sectors, etc. should dictate the ship’s posture; basically, sending the ship into “dogfight” mode under the direction of Troi, with helm and energy allocation answering to the needs of combat. Whereas in context ordering Troi (or anyone) to “man the weapons console” would imply that whoever has the helm is still controlling where the ship goes and to a certain degree power allocation, with weapons fire from Troi as energy is available and arcs permit.

    Looking at other phrasing, “operate” is pretty clumsy for battle-speak. In a setting where things go bizarrely wrong on the bridge *way* more often than they should, ordering someone to “cover tactical” might be misunderstood as instructions to draw their sidearm and aim it in that direction. Instructions to “relieve Worf” would imply that even if Worf recovers partially, he should check into sick bay rather than remain on the bridge; this is probably a good idea in reality and a likely actual command from Picard, but not fitting the usual cinematic flow of a televised episode.

    Besides, it’s all Federation Standard, not English, anyway… blame the people who translated / localized it :p

  10. Troi is only half-human, is it speciesist? What if it was Jadzia Dax, a Trill symbiont of uncertain (if any) gender who has been linked with a variety of males and females, currently symbiotically linked with a female Trill-humanoid host? Early ST:TNG Data, when he hadn’t integrated the collective-personality background as well or adapted to society as a “person” nearly as well as he did eventually? A photonic lifeform such as The Doctor or an Organian? I’m sure the more trivia-oriented fan can come up with more complicated cases yet, where our rather quaint language is ill-equipped to deal with the diversity of 24th century life… or 21st. (And don’t get me started on time-travel tenses! 🙂

    From a more naval-history standpoint, Starfleet maintains some of the concept that the helm is a “special” position; even though it may sometimes be operated by a comparatively young and junior individual, there’s a certain amount of residual ritual protocol involved. This is similar to the situation on a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier, as I understand it.

    In many ways it’s operationally the direct second to the officer of the watch, and both of them use the “take” / “have” phrasing, where other stations usually do not, to reflect some of the mantle-of-responsibility aspect. At some level, while someone operating a science, communications, engineering, weapons, etc. console is operating a *part* of the ship, the person with the con and the person operating the helm *are* the ship.

    You could probably make a pretty good case that on some ship designs and with some individuals the lead engineering spot should qualify as well, but the traditions Starfleet inherited (both in-fiction and in terms of the original writer’s backgrounds) tend to regard the engine room crew with a certain amount of faint residual class disdain. It would have probably been more appropriate for Starfleet to end up with a more nuclear submarine rather than oil-fired surface combatant (inherited from the black gangs of the coal years of the British Navy) view of such things, but for whatever reason they didn’t.

    So, ordering Troi (or anyone) to “take tactical” has implications beyond merely operating the console and attendant weapon systems; it would probably imply in context that Troi was supposed to be directing the overall combat of the entire ship, with possibly some implication that tactical decisions such as weapons arcs, shield sectors, etc. should dictate the ship’s posture; basically, sending the ship into “dogfight” mode under the direction of Troi, with helm and energy allocation answering to the needs of combat. Whereas in context ordering Troi (or anyone) to “man the weapons console” would imply that whoever has the helm is still controlling where the ship goes and to a certain degree power allocation, with weapons fire from Troi as energy is available and arcs permit.

    Looking at other phrasing, “operate” is pretty clumsy for battle-speak. In a setting where things go bizarrely wrong on the bridge *way* more often than they should, ordering someone to “cover tactical” might be misunderstood as instructions to draw their sidearm and aim it in that direction. Instructions to “relieve Worf” would imply that even if Worf recovers partially, he should check into sick bay rather than remain on the bridge; this is probably a good idea in reality and a likely actual command from Picard, but not fitting the usual cinematic flow of a televised episode.

    Besides, it’s all Federation Standard, not English, anyway… blame the people who translated / localized it :p

  11. Troi is only half-human, is it speciesist? What if it was Jadzia Dax, a Trill symbiont of uncertain (if any) gender who has been linked with a variety of males and females, currently symbiotically linked with a female Trill-humanoid host? Early ST:TNG Data, when he hadn’t integrated the collective-personality background as well or adapted to society as a “person” nearly as well as he did eventually? A photonic lifeform such as The Doctor or an Organian? I’m sure the more trivia-oriented fan can come up with more complicated cases yet, where our rather quaint language is ill-equipped to deal with the diversity of 24th century life… or 21st. (And don’t get me started on time-travel tenses! 🙂

    From a more naval-history standpoint, Starfleet maintains some of the concept that the helm is a “special” position; even though it may sometimes be operated by a comparatively young and junior individual, there’s a certain amount of residual ritual protocol involved. This is similar to the situation on a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier, as I understand it.

    In many ways it’s operationally the direct second to the officer of the watch, and both of them use the “take” / “have” phrasing, where other stations usually do not, to reflect some of the mantle-of-responsibility aspect. At some level, while someone operating a science, communications, engineering, weapons, etc. console is operating a *part* of the ship, the person with the con and the person operating the helm *are* the ship.

    You could probably make a pretty good case that on some ship designs and with some individuals the lead engineering spot should qualify as well, but the traditions Starfleet inherited (both in-fiction and in terms of the original writer’s backgrounds) tend to regard the engine room crew with a certain amount of faint residual class disdain. It would have probably been more appropriate for Starfleet to end up with a more nuclear submarine rather than oil-fired surface combatant (inherited from the black gangs of the coal years of the British Navy) view of such things, but for whatever reason they didn’t.

    So, ordering Troi (or anyone) to “take tactical” has implications beyond merely operating the console and attendant weapon systems; it would probably imply in context that Troi was supposed to be directing the overall combat of the entire ship, with possibly some implication that tactical decisions such as weapons arcs, shield sectors, etc. should dictate the ship’s posture; basically, sending the ship into “dogfight” mode under the direction of Troi, with helm and energy allocation answering to the needs of combat. Whereas in context ordering Troi (or anyone) to “man the weapons console” would imply that whoever has the helm is still controlling where the ship goes and to a certain degree power allocation, with weapons fire from Troi as energy is available and arcs permit.

    Looking at other phrasing, “operate” is pretty clumsy for battle-speak. In a setting where things go bizarrely wrong on the bridge *way* more often than they should, ordering someone to “cover tactical” might be misunderstood as instructions to draw their sidearm and aim it in that direction. Instructions to “relieve Worf” would imply that even if Worf recovers partially, he should check into sick bay rather than remain on the bridge; this is probably a good idea in reality and a likely actual command from Picard, but not fitting the usual cinematic flow of a televised episode.

    Besides, it’s all Federation Standard, not English, anyway… blame the people who translated / localized it :p

  12. Troi is only half-human, is it speciesist? What if it was Jadzia Dax, a Trill symbiont of uncertain (if any) gender who has been linked with a variety of males and females, currently symbiotically linked with a female Trill-humanoid host? Early ST:TNG Data, when he hadn’t integrated the collective-personality background as well or adapted to society as a “person” nearly as well as he did eventually? A photonic lifeform such as The Doctor or an Organian? I’m sure the more trivia-oriented fan can come up with more complicated cases yet, where our rather quaint language is ill-equipped to deal with the diversity of 24th century life… or 21st. (And don’t get me started on time-travel tenses! 🙂

    From a more naval-history standpoint, Starfleet maintains some of the concept that the helm is a “special” position; even though it may sometimes be operated by a comparatively young and junior individual, there’s a certain amount of residual ritual protocol involved. This is similar to the situation on a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier, as I understand it.

    In many ways it’s operationally the direct second to the officer of the watch, and both of them use the “take” / “have” phrasing, where other stations usually do not, to reflect some of the mantle-of-responsibility aspect. At some level, while someone operating a science, communications, engineering, weapons, etc. console is operating a *part* of the ship, the person with the con and the person operating the helm *are* the ship.

    You could probably make a pretty good case that on some ship designs and with some individuals the lead engineering spot should qualify as well, but the traditions Starfleet inherited (both in-fiction and in terms of the original writer’s backgrounds) tend to regard the engine room crew with a certain amount of faint residual class disdain. It would have probably been more appropriate for Starfleet to end up with a more nuclear submarine rather than oil-fired surface combatant (inherited from the black gangs of the coal years of the British Navy) view of such things, but for whatever reason they didn’t.

    So, ordering Troi (or anyone) to “take tactical” has implications beyond merely operating the console and attendant weapon systems; it would probably imply in context that Troi was supposed to be directing the overall combat of the entire ship, with possibly some implication that tactical decisions such as weapons arcs, shield sectors, etc. should dictate the ship’s posture; basically, sending the ship into “dogfight” mode under the direction of Troi, with helm and energy allocation answering to the needs of combat. Whereas in context ordering Troi (or anyone) to “man the weapons console” would imply that whoever has the helm is still controlling where the ship goes and to a certain degree power allocation, with weapons fire from Troi as energy is available and arcs permit.

    Looking at other phrasing, “operate” is pretty clumsy for battle-speak. In a setting where things go bizarrely wrong on the bridge *way* more often than they should, ordering someone to “cover tactical” might be misunderstood as instructions to draw their sidearm and aim it in that direction. Instructions to “relieve Worf” would imply that even if Worf recovers partially, he should check into sick bay rather than remain on the bridge; this is probably a good idea in reality and a likely actual command from Picard, but not fitting the usual cinematic flow of a televised episode.

    Besides, it’s all Federation Standard, not English, anyway… blame the people who translated / localized it :p

  13. Troi is only half-human, is it speciesist? What if it was Jadzia Dax, a Trill symbiont of uncertain (if any) gender who has been linked with a variety of males and females, currently symbiotically linked with a female Trill-humanoid host? Early ST:TNG Data, when he hadn’t integrated the collective-personality background as well or adapted to society as a “person” nearly as well as he did eventually? A photonic lifeform such as The Doctor or an Organian? I’m sure the more trivia-oriented fan can come up with more complicated cases yet, where our rather quaint language is ill-equipped to deal with the diversity of 24th century life… or 21st. (And don’t get me started on time-travel tenses! 🙂

    From a more naval-history standpoint, Starfleet maintains some of the concept that the helm is a “special” position; even though it may sometimes be operated by a comparatively young and junior individual, there’s a certain amount of residual ritual protocol involved. This is similar to the situation on a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier, as I understand it.

    In many ways it’s operationally the direct second to the officer of the watch, and both of them use the “take” / “have” phrasing, where other stations usually do not, to reflect some of the mantle-of-responsibility aspect. At some level, while someone operating a science, communications, engineering, weapons, etc. console is operating a *part* of the ship, the person with the con and the person operating the helm *are* the ship.

    You could probably make a pretty good case that on some ship designs and with some individuals the lead engineering spot should qualify as well, but the traditions Starfleet inherited (both in-fiction and in terms of the original writer’s backgrounds) tend to regard the engine room crew with a certain amount of faint residual class disdain. It would have probably been more appropriate for Starfleet to end up with a more nuclear submarine rather than oil-fired surface combatant (inherited from the black gangs of the coal years of the British Navy) view of such things, but for whatever reason they didn’t.

    So, ordering Troi (or anyone) to “take tactical” has implications beyond merely operating the console and attendant weapon systems; it would probably imply in context that Troi was supposed to be directing the overall combat of the entire ship, with possibly some implication that tactical decisions such as weapons arcs, shield sectors, etc. should dictate the ship’s posture; basically, sending the ship into “dogfight” mode under the direction of Troi, with helm and energy allocation answering to the needs of combat. Whereas in context ordering Troi (or anyone) to “man the weapons console” would imply that whoever has the helm is still controlling where the ship goes and to a certain degree power allocation, with weapons fire from Troi as energy is available and arcs permit.

    Looking at other phrasing, “operate” is pretty clumsy for battle-speak. In a setting where things go bizarrely wrong on the bridge *way* more often than they should, ordering someone to “cover tactical” might be misunderstood as instructions to draw their sidearm and aim it in that direction. Instructions to “relieve Worf” would imply that even if Worf recovers partially, he should check into sick bay rather than remain on the bridge; this is probably a good idea in reality and a likely actual command from Picard, but not fitting the usual cinematic flow of a televised episode.

    Besides, it’s all Federation Standard, not English, anyway… blame the people who translated / localized it :p

  14. Troi is only half-human, is it speciesist? What if it was Jadzia Dax, a Trill symbiont of uncertain (if any) gender who has been linked with a variety of males and females, currently symbiotically linked with a female Trill-humanoid host? Early ST:TNG Data, when he hadn’t integrated the collective-personality background as well or adapted to society as a “person” nearly as well as he did eventually? A photonic lifeform such as The Doctor or an Organian? I’m sure the more trivia-oriented fan can come up with more complicated cases yet, where our rather quaint language is ill-equipped to deal with the diversity of 24th century life… or 21st. (And don’t get me started on time-travel tenses! 🙂

    From a more naval-history standpoint, Starfleet maintains some of the concept that the helm is a “special” position; even though it may sometimes be operated by a comparatively young and junior individual, there’s a certain amount of residual ritual protocol involved. This is similar to the situation on a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier, as I understand it.

    In many ways it’s operationally the direct second to the officer of the watch, and both of them use the “take” / “have” phrasing, where other stations usually do not, to reflect some of the mantle-of-responsibility aspect. At some level, while someone operating a science, communications, engineering, weapons, etc. console is operating a *part* of the ship, the person with the con and the person operating the helm *are* the ship.

    You could probably make a pretty good case that on some ship designs and with some individuals the lead engineering spot should qualify as well, but the traditions Starfleet inherited (both in-fiction and in terms of the original writer’s backgrounds) tend to regard the engine room crew with a certain amount of faint residual class disdain. It would have probably been more appropriate for Starfleet to end up with a more nuclear submarine rather than oil-fired surface combatant (inherited from the black gangs of the coal years of the British Navy) view of such things, but for whatever reason they didn’t.

    So, ordering Troi (or anyone) to “take tactical” has implications beyond merely operating the console and attendant weapon systems; it would probably imply in context that Troi was supposed to be directing the overall combat of the entire ship, with possibly some implication that tactical decisions such as weapons arcs, shield sectors, etc. should dictate the ship’s posture; basically, sending the ship into “dogfight” mode under the direction of Troi, with helm and energy allocation answering to the needs of combat. Whereas in context ordering Troi (or anyone) to “man the weapons console” would imply that whoever has the helm is still controlling where the ship goes and to a certain degree power allocation, with weapons fire from Troi as energy is available and arcs permit.

    Looking at other phrasing, “operate” is pretty clumsy for battle-speak. In a setting where things go bizarrely wrong on the bridge *way* more often than they should, ordering someone to “cover tactical” might be misunderstood as instructions to draw their sidearm and aim it in that direction. Instructions to “relieve Worf” would imply that even if Worf recovers partially, he should check into sick bay rather than remain on the bridge; this is probably a good idea in reality and a likely actual command from Picard, but not fitting the usual cinematic flow of a televised episode.

    Besides, it’s all Federation Standard, not English, anyway… blame the people who translated / localized it :p

  15. Troi is only half-human, is it speciesist? What if it was Jadzia Dax, a Trill symbiont of uncertain (if any) gender who has been linked with a variety of males and females, currently symbiotically linked with a female Trill-humanoid host? Early ST:TNG Data, when he hadn’t integrated the collective-personality background as well or adapted to society as a “person” nearly as well as he did eventually? A photonic lifeform such as The Doctor or an Organian? I’m sure the more trivia-oriented fan can come up with more complicated cases yet, where our rather quaint language is ill-equipped to deal with the diversity of 24th century life… or 21st. (And don’t get me started on time-travel tenses! 🙂

    From a more naval-history standpoint, Starfleet maintains some of the concept that the helm is a “special” position; even though it may sometimes be operated by a comparatively young and junior individual, there’s a certain amount of residual ritual protocol involved. This is similar to the situation on a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier, as I understand it.

    In many ways it’s operationally the direct second to the officer of the watch, and both of them use the “take” / “have” phrasing, where other stations usually do not, to reflect some of the mantle-of-responsibility aspect. At some level, while someone operating a science, communications, engineering, weapons, etc. console is operating a *part* of the ship, the person with the con and the person operating the helm *are* the ship.

    You could probably make a pretty good case that on some ship designs and with some individuals the lead engineering spot should qualify as well, but the traditions Starfleet inherited (both in-fiction and in terms of the original writer’s backgrounds) tend to regard the engine room crew with a certain amount of faint residual class disdain. It would have probably been more appropriate for Starfleet to end up with a more nuclear submarine rather than oil-fired surface combatant (inherited from the black gangs of the coal years of the British Navy) view of such things, but for whatever reason they didn’t.

    So, ordering Troi (or anyone) to “take tactical” has implications beyond merely operating the console and attendant weapon systems; it would probably imply in context that Troi was supposed to be directing the overall combat of the entire ship, with possibly some implication that tactical decisions such as weapons arcs, shield sectors, etc. should dictate the ship’s posture; basically, sending the ship into “dogfight” mode under the direction of Troi, with helm and energy allocation answering to the needs of combat. Whereas in context ordering Troi (or anyone) to “man the weapons console” would imply that whoever has the helm is still controlling where the ship goes and to a certain degree power allocation, with weapons fire from Troi as energy is available and arcs permit.

    Looking at other phrasing, “operate” is pretty clumsy for battle-speak. In a setting where things go bizarrely wrong on the bridge *way* more often than they should, ordering someone to “cover tactical” might be misunderstood as instructions to draw their sidearm and aim it in that direction. Instructions to “relieve Worf” would imply that even if Worf recovers partially, he should check into sick bay rather than remain on the bridge; this is probably a good idea in reality and a likely actual command from Picard, but not fitting the usual cinematic flow of a televised episode.

    Besides, it’s all Federation Standard, not English, anyway… blame the people who translated / localized it :p

  16. Troi is only half-human, is it speciesist? What if it was Jadzia Dax, a Trill symbiont of uncertain (if any) gender who has been linked with a variety of males and females, currently symbiotically linked with a female Trill-humanoid host? Early ST:TNG Data, when he hadn’t integrated the collective-personality background as well or adapted to society as a “person” nearly as well as he did eventually? A photonic lifeform such as The Doctor or an Organian? I’m sure the more trivia-oriented fan can come up with more complicated cases yet, where our rather quaint language is ill-equipped to deal with the diversity of 24th century life… or 21st. (And don’t get me started on time-travel tenses! 🙂

    From a more naval-history standpoint, Starfleet maintains some of the concept that the helm is a “special” position; even though it may sometimes be operated by a comparatively young and junior individual, there’s a certain amount of residual ritual protocol involved. This is similar to the situation on a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier, as I understand it.

    In many ways it’s operationally the direct second to the officer of the watch, and both of them use the “take” / “have” phrasing, where other stations usually do not, to reflect some of the mantle-of-responsibility aspect. At some level, while someone operating a science, communications, engineering, weapons, etc. console is operating a *part* of the ship, the person with the con and the person operating the helm *are* the ship.

    You could probably make a pretty good case that on some ship designs and with some individuals the lead engineering spot should qualify as well, but the traditions Starfleet inherited (both in-fiction and in terms of the original writer’s backgrounds) tend to regard the engine room crew with a certain amount of faint residual class disdain. It would have probably been more appropriate for Starfleet to end up with a more nuclear submarine rather than oil-fired surface combatant (inherited from the black gangs of the coal years of the British Navy) view of such things, but for whatever reason they didn’t.

    So, ordering Troi (or anyone) to “take tactical” has implications beyond merely operating the console and attendant weapon systems; it would probably imply in context that Troi was supposed to be directing the overall combat of the entire ship, with possibly some implication that tactical decisions such as weapons arcs, shield sectors, etc. should dictate the ship’s posture; basically, sending the ship into “dogfight” mode under the direction of Troi, with helm and energy allocation answering to the needs of combat. Whereas in context ordering Troi (or anyone) to “man the weapons console” would imply that whoever has the helm is still controlling where the ship goes and to a certain degree power allocation, with weapons fire from Troi as energy is available and arcs permit.

    Looking at other phrasing, “operate” is pretty clumsy for battle-speak. In a setting where things go bizarrely wrong on the bridge *way* more often than they should, ordering someone to “cover tactical” might be misunderstood as instructions to draw their sidearm and aim it in that direction. Instructions to “relieve Worf” would imply that even if Worf recovers partially, he should check into sick bay rather than remain on the bridge; this is probably a good idea in reality and a likely actual command from Picard, but not fitting the usual cinematic flow of a televised episode.

    Besides, it’s all Federation Standard, not English, anyway… blame the people who translated / localized it :p

  17. Interesting points. As for speciesist, I keep thinking back to the line in Men at Arms.
    A troll says to a (currently posing as human) werewolf something like “That’s different, you’re a man.”
    The werewolf says: “…A woman.”
    Either the troll or a dwarf says “Same thing.”
    (I can’t find the book to quote directly.)

    Also, in Babylon 5 at least once an adult male alien was referred to as a “man”.

  18. Interesting points. As for speciesist, I keep thinking back to the line in Men at Arms.
    A troll says to a (currently posing as human) werewolf something like “That’s different, you’re a man.”
    The werewolf says: “…A woman.”
    Either the troll or a dwarf says “Same thing.”
    (I can’t find the book to quote directly.)

    Also, in Babylon 5 at least once an adult male alien was referred to as a “man”.

  19. Interesting points. As for speciesist, I keep thinking back to the line in Men at Arms.
    A troll says to a (currently posing as human) werewolf something like “That’s different, you’re a man.”
    The werewolf says: “…A woman.”
    Either the troll or a dwarf says “Same thing.”
    (I can’t find the book to quote directly.)

    Also, in Babylon 5 at least once an adult male alien was referred to as a “man”.

  20. Interesting points. As for speciesist, I keep thinking back to the line in Men at Arms.
    A troll says to a (currently posing as human) werewolf something like “That’s different, you’re a man.”
    The werewolf says: “…A woman.”
    Either the troll or a dwarf says “Same thing.”
    (I can’t find the book to quote directly.)

    Also, in Babylon 5 at least once an adult male alien was referred to as a “man”.

  21. Interesting points. As for speciesist, I keep thinking back to the line in Men at Arms.
    A troll says to a (currently posing as human) werewolf something like “That’s different, you’re a man.”
    The werewolf says: “…A woman.”
    Either the troll or a dwarf says “Same thing.”
    (I can’t find the book to quote directly.)

    Also, in Babylon 5 at least once an adult male alien was referred to as a “man”.

  22. Interesting points. As for speciesist, I keep thinking back to the line in Men at Arms.
    A troll says to a (currently posing as human) werewolf something like “That’s different, you’re a man.”
    The werewolf says: “…A woman.”
    Either the troll or a dwarf says “Same thing.”
    (I can’t find the book to quote directly.)

    Also, in Babylon 5 at least once an adult male alien was referred to as a “man”.

  23. Interesting points. As for speciesist, I keep thinking back to the line in Men at Arms.
    A troll says to a (currently posing as human) werewolf something like “That’s different, you’re a man.”
    The werewolf says: “…A woman.”
    Either the troll or a dwarf says “Same thing.”
    (I can’t find the book to quote directly.)

    Also, in Babylon 5 at least once an adult male alien was referred to as a “man”.

  24. Interesting points. As for speciesist, I keep thinking back to the line in Men at Arms.
    A troll says to a (currently posing as human) werewolf something like “That’s different, you’re a man.”
    The werewolf says: “…A woman.”
    Either the troll or a dwarf says “Same thing.”
    (I can’t find the book to quote directly.)

    Also, in Babylon 5 at least once an adult male alien was referred to as a “man”.

  25. It’s promoting a 20th/21st century worldview. What if in a couple hundred years, “man” becomes a generic term for “adult sentient”, “woman” falls into disuse and… well we’d have to have invented something else to mean “male/female adult human” then because I don’t think the concepts will fall into disuse. Blah.

  26. It’s promoting a 20th/21st century worldview. What if in a couple hundred years, “man” becomes a generic term for “adult sentient”, “woman” falls into disuse and… well we’d have to have invented something else to mean “male/female adult human” then because I don’t think the concepts will fall into disuse. Blah.

  27. It’s promoting a 20th/21st century worldview. What if in a couple hundred years, “man” becomes a generic term for “adult sentient”, “woman” falls into disuse and… well we’d have to have invented something else to mean “male/female adult human” then because I don’t think the concepts will fall into disuse. Blah.

  28. It’s promoting a 20th/21st century worldview. What if in a couple hundred years, “man” becomes a generic term for “adult sentient”, “woman” falls into disuse and… well we’d have to have invented something else to mean “male/female adult human” then because I don’t think the concepts will fall into disuse. Blah.

  29. It’s promoting a 20th/21st century worldview. What if in a couple hundred years, “man” becomes a generic term for “adult sentient”, “woman” falls into disuse and… well we’d have to have invented something else to mean “male/female adult human” then because I don’t think the concepts will fall into disuse. Blah.

  30. It’s promoting a 20th/21st century worldview. What if in a couple hundred years, “man” becomes a generic term for “adult sentient”, “woman” falls into disuse and… well we’d have to have invented something else to mean “male/female adult human” then because I don’t think the concepts will fall into disuse. Blah.

  31. It’s promoting a 20th/21st century worldview. What if in a couple hundred years, “man” becomes a generic term for “adult sentient”, “woman” falls into disuse and… well we’d have to have invented something else to mean “male/female adult human” then because I don’t think the concepts will fall into disuse. Blah.

  32. It’s promoting a 20th/21st century worldview. What if in a couple hundred years, “man” becomes a generic term for “adult sentient”, “woman” falls into disuse and… well we’d have to have invented something else to mean “male/female adult human” then because I don’t think the concepts will fall into disuse. Blah.

  33. It’s promoting a 20th/21st century worldview.

    And that worldview is inherently sexist. (Also, I’d argue for “18th/19th century worldview,” myself, I’m pretty sure it’s a term handed down from the archaic British Navy.)

    The only way “man” becomes a generic term for “adult sentient” again is if we all pack up and move to Gilead.

  34. It’s promoting a 20th/21st century worldview.

    And that worldview is inherently sexist. (Also, I’d argue for “18th/19th century worldview,” myself, I’m pretty sure it’s a term handed down from the archaic British Navy.)

    The only way “man” becomes a generic term for “adult sentient” again is if we all pack up and move to Gilead.

  35. It’s promoting a 20th/21st century worldview.

    And that worldview is inherently sexist. (Also, I’d argue for “18th/19th century worldview,” myself, I’m pretty sure it’s a term handed down from the archaic British Navy.)

    The only way “man” becomes a generic term for “adult sentient” again is if we all pack up and move to Gilead.

  36. It’s promoting a 20th/21st century worldview.

    And that worldview is inherently sexist. (Also, I’d argue for “18th/19th century worldview,” myself, I’m pretty sure it’s a term handed down from the archaic British Navy.)

    The only way “man” becomes a generic term for “adult sentient” again is if we all pack up and move to Gilead.

  37. It’s promoting a 20th/21st century worldview.

    And that worldview is inherently sexist. (Also, I’d argue for “18th/19th century worldview,” myself, I’m pretty sure it’s a term handed down from the archaic British Navy.)

    The only way “man” becomes a generic term for “adult sentient” again is if we all pack up and move to Gilead.

  38. It’s promoting a 20th/21st century worldview.

    And that worldview is inherently sexist. (Also, I’d argue for “18th/19th century worldview,” myself, I’m pretty sure it’s a term handed down from the archaic British Navy.)

    The only way “man” becomes a generic term for “adult sentient” again is if we all pack up and move to Gilead.

  39. It’s promoting a 20th/21st century worldview.

    And that worldview is inherently sexist. (Also, I’d argue for “18th/19th century worldview,” myself, I’m pretty sure it’s a term handed down from the archaic British Navy.)

    The only way “man” becomes a generic term for “adult sentient” again is if we all pack up and move to Gilead.

  40. It’s promoting a 20th/21st century worldview.

    And that worldview is inherently sexist. (Also, I’d argue for “18th/19th century worldview,” myself, I’m pretty sure it’s a term handed down from the archaic British Navy.)

    The only way “man” becomes a generic term for “adult sentient” again is if we all pack up and move to Gilead.

  41. Making it worse, whoever wrote the code for TrekMUSE was confused about naval terms, to control the weapons console the command was “man helm”; navigation – “man nav”.

    IMHO these issues can’t be completely solved until we dump English (and it’s “legacy code” issues) altogether. Marain anyone?

  42. Making it worse, whoever wrote the code for TrekMUSE was confused about naval terms, to control the weapons console the command was “man helm”; navigation – “man nav”.

    IMHO these issues can’t be completely solved until we dump English (and it’s “legacy code” issues) altogether. Marain anyone?

  43. Making it worse, whoever wrote the code for TrekMUSE was confused about naval terms, to control the weapons console the command was “man helm”; navigation – “man nav”.

    IMHO these issues can’t be completely solved until we dump English (and it’s “legacy code” issues) altogether. Marain anyone?

  44. Making it worse, whoever wrote the code for TrekMUSE was confused about naval terms, to control the weapons console the command was “man helm”; navigation – “man nav”.

    IMHO these issues can’t be completely solved until we dump English (and it’s “legacy code” issues) altogether. Marain anyone?

  45. Making it worse, whoever wrote the code for TrekMUSE was confused about naval terms, to control the weapons console the command was “man helm”; navigation – “man nav”.

    IMHO these issues can’t be completely solved until we dump English (and it’s “legacy code” issues) altogether. Marain anyone?

  46. Making it worse, whoever wrote the code for TrekMUSE was confused about naval terms, to control the weapons console the command was “man helm”; navigation – “man nav”.

    IMHO these issues can’t be completely solved until we dump English (and it’s “legacy code” issues) altogether. Marain anyone?

  47. Making it worse, whoever wrote the code for TrekMUSE was confused about naval terms, to control the weapons console the command was “man helm”; navigation – “man nav”.

    IMHO these issues can’t be completely solved until we dump English (and it’s “legacy code” issues) altogether. Marain anyone?

  48. Making it worse, whoever wrote the code for TrekMUSE was confused about naval terms, to control the weapons console the command was “man helm”; navigation – “man nav”.

    IMHO these issues can’t be completely solved until we dump English (and it’s “legacy code” issues) altogether. Marain anyone?

  49. Yeah, my thought was “take over” being longer than “man” but “take” would do, if it was the standard phrasing. The thing is besides conciseness, in a crisis you want people to respond without having to think, and words that are clear and carry. Because of the need for the reaction to be immediate and instinctive, it has to be how the commands are drilled.

    So the fault, such as it is, is not Picard’s but Starfleet’s.

    However! There’s the matter of complexity of word meanings and how they change over time. “Man” as in “hand” rather than “human” or “male” goes to the very root of the word AND the purpose of ‘manning’ machinery. It may be that the culture has changed so much that the word has gotten back to its roots for such purpose and no one even thinks of manning machinery as a gendered thing.

  50. Yeah, my thought was “take over” being longer than “man” but “take” would do, if it was the standard phrasing. The thing is besides conciseness, in a crisis you want people to respond without having to think, and words that are clear and carry. Because of the need for the reaction to be immediate and instinctive, it has to be how the commands are drilled.

    So the fault, such as it is, is not Picard’s but Starfleet’s.

    However! There’s the matter of complexity of word meanings and how they change over time. “Man” as in “hand” rather than “human” or “male” goes to the very root of the word AND the purpose of ‘manning’ machinery. It may be that the culture has changed so much that the word has gotten back to its roots for such purpose and no one even thinks of manning machinery as a gendered thing.

  51. Yeah, my thought was “take over” being longer than “man” but “take” would do, if it was the standard phrasing. The thing is besides conciseness, in a crisis you want people to respond without having to think, and words that are clear and carry. Because of the need for the reaction to be immediate and instinctive, it has to be how the commands are drilled.

    So the fault, such as it is, is not Picard’s but Starfleet’s.

    However! There’s the matter of complexity of word meanings and how they change over time. “Man” as in “hand” rather than “human” or “male” goes to the very root of the word AND the purpose of ‘manning’ machinery. It may be that the culture has changed so much that the word has gotten back to its roots for such purpose and no one even thinks of manning machinery as a gendered thing.

  52. Yeah, my thought was “take over” being longer than “man” but “take” would do, if it was the standard phrasing. The thing is besides conciseness, in a crisis you want people to respond without having to think, and words that are clear and carry. Because of the need for the reaction to be immediate and instinctive, it has to be how the commands are drilled.

    So the fault, such as it is, is not Picard’s but Starfleet’s.

    However! There’s the matter of complexity of word meanings and how they change over time. “Man” as in “hand” rather than “human” or “male” goes to the very root of the word AND the purpose of ‘manning’ machinery. It may be that the culture has changed so much that the word has gotten back to its roots for such purpose and no one even thinks of manning machinery as a gendered thing.

  53. Yeah, my thought was “take over” being longer than “man” but “take” would do, if it was the standard phrasing. The thing is besides conciseness, in a crisis you want people to respond without having to think, and words that are clear and carry. Because of the need for the reaction to be immediate and instinctive, it has to be how the commands are drilled.

    So the fault, such as it is, is not Picard’s but Starfleet’s.

    However! There’s the matter of complexity of word meanings and how they change over time. “Man” as in “hand” rather than “human” or “male” goes to the very root of the word AND the purpose of ‘manning’ machinery. It may be that the culture has changed so much that the word has gotten back to its roots for such purpose and no one even thinks of manning machinery as a gendered thing.

  54. Yeah, my thought was “take over” being longer than “man” but “take” would do, if it was the standard phrasing. The thing is besides conciseness, in a crisis you want people to respond without having to think, and words that are clear and carry. Because of the need for the reaction to be immediate and instinctive, it has to be how the commands are drilled.

    So the fault, such as it is, is not Picard’s but Starfleet’s.

    However! There’s the matter of complexity of word meanings and how they change over time. “Man” as in “hand” rather than “human” or “male” goes to the very root of the word AND the purpose of ‘manning’ machinery. It may be that the culture has changed so much that the word has gotten back to its roots for such purpose and no one even thinks of manning machinery as a gendered thing.

  55. Yeah, my thought was “take over” being longer than “man” but “take” would do, if it was the standard phrasing. The thing is besides conciseness, in a crisis you want people to respond without having to think, and words that are clear and carry. Because of the need for the reaction to be immediate and instinctive, it has to be how the commands are drilled.

    So the fault, such as it is, is not Picard’s but Starfleet’s.

    However! There’s the matter of complexity of word meanings and how they change over time. “Man” as in “hand” rather than “human” or “male” goes to the very root of the word AND the purpose of ‘manning’ machinery. It may be that the culture has changed so much that the word has gotten back to its roots for such purpose and no one even thinks of manning machinery as a gendered thing.

  56. Yeah, my thought was “take over” being longer than “man” but “take” would do, if it was the standard phrasing. The thing is besides conciseness, in a crisis you want people to respond without having to think, and words that are clear and carry. Because of the need for the reaction to be immediate and instinctive, it has to be how the commands are drilled.

    So the fault, such as it is, is not Picard’s but Starfleet’s.

    However! There’s the matter of complexity of word meanings and how they change over time. “Man” as in “hand” rather than “human” or “male” goes to the very root of the word AND the purpose of ‘manning’ machinery. It may be that the culture has changed so much that the word has gotten back to its roots for such purpose and no one even thinks of manning machinery as a gendered thing.

  57. Thank you for the details. I think that you touch on much of why I think this would not be an issue, largely because in a military context words take on meanings that most laymen wouldn’t understand, which is why writing for that type of situation is so difficult and why so many consultants are used for that type of show/film to nail down authenticity.

    The words they use in the military may have had sexist origins, but at this point they have a meaning and a context, and in a battle situation, Picard needs to speak quickly, concisely, and in the accepted phrasing that everybody knows/has heard before. That’s the military.

  58. Thank you for the details. I think that you touch on much of why I think this would not be an issue, largely because in a military context words take on meanings that most laymen wouldn’t understand, which is why writing for that type of situation is so difficult and why so many consultants are used for that type of show/film to nail down authenticity.

    The words they use in the military may have had sexist origins, but at this point they have a meaning and a context, and in a battle situation, Picard needs to speak quickly, concisely, and in the accepted phrasing that everybody knows/has heard before. That’s the military.

  59. Thank you for the details. I think that you touch on much of why I think this would not be an issue, largely because in a military context words take on meanings that most laymen wouldn’t understand, which is why writing for that type of situation is so difficult and why so many consultants are used for that type of show/film to nail down authenticity.

    The words they use in the military may have had sexist origins, but at this point they have a meaning and a context, and in a battle situation, Picard needs to speak quickly, concisely, and in the accepted phrasing that everybody knows/has heard before. That’s the military.

  60. Thank you for the details. I think that you touch on much of why I think this would not be an issue, largely because in a military context words take on meanings that most laymen wouldn’t understand, which is why writing for that type of situation is so difficult and why so many consultants are used for that type of show/film to nail down authenticity.

    The words they use in the military may have had sexist origins, but at this point they have a meaning and a context, and in a battle situation, Picard needs to speak quickly, concisely, and in the accepted phrasing that everybody knows/has heard before. That’s the military.

  61. Thank you for the details. I think that you touch on much of why I think this would not be an issue, largely because in a military context words take on meanings that most laymen wouldn’t understand, which is why writing for that type of situation is so difficult and why so many consultants are used for that type of show/film to nail down authenticity.

    The words they use in the military may have had sexist origins, but at this point they have a meaning and a context, and in a battle situation, Picard needs to speak quickly, concisely, and in the accepted phrasing that everybody knows/has heard before. That’s the military.

  62. Thank you for the details. I think that you touch on much of why I think this would not be an issue, largely because in a military context words take on meanings that most laymen wouldn’t understand, which is why writing for that type of situation is so difficult and why so many consultants are used for that type of show/film to nail down authenticity.

    The words they use in the military may have had sexist origins, but at this point they have a meaning and a context, and in a battle situation, Picard needs to speak quickly, concisely, and in the accepted phrasing that everybody knows/has heard before. That’s the military.

  63. Thank you for the details. I think that you touch on much of why I think this would not be an issue, largely because in a military context words take on meanings that most laymen wouldn’t understand, which is why writing for that type of situation is so difficult and why so many consultants are used for that type of show/film to nail down authenticity.

    The words they use in the military may have had sexist origins, but at this point they have a meaning and a context, and in a battle situation, Picard needs to speak quickly, concisely, and in the accepted phrasing that everybody knows/has heard before. That’s the military.

  64. Thank you for the details. I think that you touch on much of why I think this would not be an issue, largely because in a military context words take on meanings that most laymen wouldn’t understand, which is why writing for that type of situation is so difficult and why so many consultants are used for that type of show/film to nail down authenticity.

    The words they use in the military may have had sexist origins, but at this point they have a meaning and a context, and in a battle situation, Picard needs to speak quickly, concisely, and in the accepted phrasing that everybody knows/has heard before. That’s the military.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *