Discussion:
Neutered child
Add Reply
Quinn C
2017-03-28 21:53:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
| Sir Philip is represented as both noble and tolerant, but as
| Anna imagines her child as 'blemished, unworthy, maimed
| reproduction' of its father, the mother's narrow sympathies are
| exposed.

David Glover and Cora Kaplan: Genders, p.34

I think this would have slipped by, had I not just the day before
had a conversation on when you can use "it" to refer to a person,
and why this is so insulting to some, but not all.

However, as a speaker of German (where a child is "it" by grammar)
I'm not the best judge, so I'd like to hear if others find this
problematic, or indicative of any subtext.
--
In the old days, the complaints about the passing of the
golden age were much more sophisticated.
-- James Hogg in alt.usage.english
Robert Bannister
2017-03-29 00:24:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quinn C
| Sir Philip is represented as both noble and tolerant, but as
| Anna imagines her child as 'blemished, unworthy, maimed
| reproduction' of its father, the mother's narrow sympathies are
| exposed.
David Glover and Cora Kaplan: Genders, p.34
I think this would have slipped by, had I not just the day before
had a conversation on when you can use "it" to refer to a person,
and why this is so insulting to some, but not all.
However, as a speaker of German (where a child is "it" by grammar)
I'm not the best judge, so I'd like to hear if others find this
problematic, or indicative of any subtext.
I think perhaps it is a bit old-fashioned, but using "it" to describe a
baby whose sex you don't know doesn't seem odd to me. In the 19th
century, they used it of older children too.
--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972
Quinn C
2017-03-29 13:22:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Bannister
Post by Quinn C
| Sir Philip is represented as both noble and tolerant, but as
| Anna imagines her child as 'blemished, unworthy, maimed
| reproduction' of its father, the mother's narrow sympathies are
| exposed.
David Glover and Cora Kaplan: Genders, p.34
I think this would have slipped by, had I not just the day before
had a conversation on when you can use "it" to refer to a person,
and why this is so insulting to some, but not all.
However, as a speaker of German (where a child is "it" by grammar)
I'm not the best judge, so I'd like to hear if others find this
problematic, or indicative of any subtext.
I think perhaps it is a bit old-fashioned, but using "it" to describe a
baby whose sex you don't know doesn't seem odd to me.
That's my observation - some people still do this, very naturally,
but some others get very worked up about it. I think on TV it's
sometimes used as a marker of a person uninterested in children,
although I'm not sure that it signifies that in real life.

However, I don't think the passage above refers to a baby. The
issue of the mother becomes serious when the child starts looking
like a boy outwardly.
Post by Robert Bannister
In the 19th
century, they used it of older children too.
So in the quote, could it be a reflex of the 1920s novel it's
referring to?
--
*Multitasking* /v./ Screwing up several things at once
Sam Plusnet
2017-03-30 22:42:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Bannister
Post by Quinn C
| Sir Philip is represented as both noble and tolerant, but as
| Anna imagines her child as 'blemished, unworthy, maimed
| reproduction' of its father, the mother's narrow sympathies are
| exposed.
David Glover and Cora Kaplan: Genders, p.34
I think this would have slipped by, had I not just the day before
had a conversation on when you can use "it" to refer to a person,
and why this is so insulting to some, but not all.
However, as a speaker of German (where a child is "it" by grammar)
I'm not the best judge, so I'd like to hear if others find this
problematic, or indicative of any subtext.
I think perhaps it is a bit old-fashioned, but using "it" to describe a
baby whose sex you don't know doesn't seem odd to me. In the 19th
century, they used it of older children too.
In my youth, some schools had pupils who were "Mixed Infants".
--
Sam Plusnet
Quinn C
2017-03-31 16:56:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Robert Bannister
Post by Quinn C
| Sir Philip is represented as both noble and tolerant, but as
| Anna imagines her child as 'blemished, unworthy, maimed
| reproduction' of its father, the mother's narrow sympathies are
| exposed.
David Glover and Cora Kaplan: Genders, p.34
I think this would have slipped by, had I not just the day before
had a conversation on when you can use "it" to refer to a person,
and why this is so insulting to some, but not all.
However, as a speaker of German (where a child is "it" by grammar)
I'm not the best judge, so I'd like to hear if others find this
problematic, or indicative of any subtext.
I think perhaps it is a bit old-fashioned, but using "it" to describe a
baby whose sex you don't know doesn't seem odd to me. In the 19th
century, they used it of older children too.
In my youth, some schools had pupils who were "Mixed Infants".
Meaning?
--
The trouble some people have being German, I thought,
I have being human.
-- Margaret Atwood, Surfacing (novel), p.130
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2017-03-31 19:49:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 12:56:11 -0400, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Robert Bannister
Post by Quinn C
| Sir Philip is represented as both noble and tolerant, but as
| Anna imagines her child as 'blemished, unworthy, maimed
| reproduction' of its father, the mother's narrow sympathies are
| exposed.
David Glover and Cora Kaplan: Genders, p.34
I think this would have slipped by, had I not just the day before
had a conversation on when you can use "it" to refer to a person,
and why this is so insulting to some, but not all.
However, as a speaker of German (where a child is "it" by grammar)
I'm not the best judge, so I'd like to hear if others find this
problematic, or indicative of any subtext.
I think perhaps it is a bit old-fashioned, but using "it" to describe a
baby whose sex you don't know doesn't seem odd to me. In the 19th
century, they used it of older children too.
In my youth, some schools had pupils who were "Mixed Infants".
Meaning?
Infants are the youngest schoolchildren from age 4 to 7 (or
thereabouts). "Mixed" just means boys and girls together. The
implication is that the school has separate Boys and Girls departments
for the children older than infants.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_school
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Tony Cooper
2017-03-31 20:55:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 20:49:08 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 12:56:11 -0400, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Robert Bannister
Post by Quinn C
| Sir Philip is represented as both noble and tolerant, but as
| Anna imagines her child as 'blemished, unworthy, maimed
| reproduction' of its father, the mother's narrow sympathies are
| exposed.
David Glover and Cora Kaplan: Genders, p.34
I think this would have slipped by, had I not just the day before
had a conversation on when you can use "it" to refer to a person,
and why this is so insulting to some, but not all.
However, as a speaker of German (where a child is "it" by grammar)
I'm not the best judge, so I'd like to hear if others find this
problematic, or indicative of any subtext.
I think perhaps it is a bit old-fashioned, but using "it" to describe a
baby whose sex you don't know doesn't seem odd to me. In the 19th
century, they used it of older children too.
In my youth, some schools had pupils who were "Mixed Infants".
Meaning?
Infants are the youngest schoolchildren from age 4 to 7 (or
thereabouts). "Mixed" just means boys and girls together. The
implication is that the school has separate Boys and Girls departments
for the children older than infants.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_school
A term I'd avoid here. If you say a school has "mixed children", many
would take that to mean "mixed race" and consider it to be a racist
observation. Here, we use "infant" to mean "baby", and "child" to
mean past the baby stage. Four to 7 year-olds would be "children",
and "mixed children" would sound very racist.

It is getting increasingly difficult to describe some things without
inadvertently sounding bigoted in some area.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Peter T. Daniels
2017-04-01 13:21:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
A term I'd avoid here. If you say a school has "mixed children", many
would take that to mean "mixed race" and consider it to be a racist
observation. Here, we use "infant" to mean "baby", and "child" to
mean past the baby stage. Four to 7 year-olds would be "children",
and "mixed children" would sound very racist.
How is it "racist" to observe that some people are mixed-race?
Janet
2017-04-01 14:02:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@4ax.com>, tonycooper214
@gmail.com says...
Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 20:49:08 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 12:56:11 -0400, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Robert Bannister
Post by Quinn C
| Sir Philip is represented as both noble and tolerant, but as
| Anna imagines her child as 'blemished, unworthy, maimed
| reproduction' of its father, the mother's narrow sympathies are
| exposed.
David Glover and Cora Kaplan: Genders, p.34
I think this would have slipped by, had I not just the day before
had a conversation on when you can use "it" to refer to a person,
and why this is so insulting to some, but not all.
However, as a speaker of German (where a child is "it" by grammar)
I'm not the best judge, so I'd like to hear if others find this
problematic, or indicative of any subtext.
I think perhaps it is a bit old-fashioned, but using "it" to describe a
baby whose sex you don't know doesn't seem odd to me. In the 19th
century, they used it of older children too.
In my youth, some schools had pupils who were "Mixed Infants".
Meaning?
Infants are the youngest schoolchildren from age 4 to 7 (or
thereabouts). "Mixed" just means boys and girls together. The
implication is that the school has separate Boys and Girls departments
for the children older than infants.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_school
A term I'd avoid here. If you say a school has "mixed children", many
would take that to mean "mixed race" and consider it to be a racist
observation. Here, we use "infant" to mean "baby", and "child" to
mean past the baby stage. Four to 7 year-olds would be "children",
and "mixed children" would sound very racist.
<shrug> (shoulders). Not here.

All our infants were mixed.

Janet
Quinn C
2017-03-31 21:14:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 12:56:11 -0400, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Robert Bannister
I think perhaps it is a bit old-fashioned, but using "it" to describe a
baby whose sex you don't know doesn't seem odd to me. In the 19th
century, they used it of older children too.
In my youth, some schools had pupils who were "Mixed Infants".
Meaning?
Infants are the youngest schoolchildren from age 4 to 7 (or
thereabouts). "Mixed" just means boys and girls together. The
implication is that the school has separate Boys and Girls departments
for the children older than infants.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_school
Thanks. Though "mixed" in a school context usually has that
meaning, I wasn't familiar with "Infant school", and the fact that
where I live, "infants" are usually only a few months old didn't
help.
--
The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to
chance.
Robert R. Coveyou
Sam Plusnet
2017-04-01 23:13:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 12:56:11 -0400, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Robert Bannister
I think perhaps it is a bit old-fashioned, but using "it" to describe a
baby whose sex you don't know doesn't seem odd to me. In the 19th
century, they used it of older children too.
In my youth, some schools had pupils who were "Mixed Infants".
Meaning?
Infants are the youngest schoolchildren from age 4 to 7 (or
thereabouts). "Mixed" just means boys and girls together. The
implication is that the school has separate Boys and Girls departments
for the children older than infants.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_school
Thanks. Though "mixed" in a school context usually has that
meaning, I wasn't familiar with "Infant school", and the fact that
where I live, "infants" are usually only a few months old didn't
help.
Back quite a few decades, I first went to Infant's School (starting @
around 4.5 years old) for two years, followed by Junior School for 4
years & Secondary School after that.
I'm sure names and structure varied within the UK back then, and the
whole structure has been changed more than once since then.
--
Sam Plusnet
Peter T. Daniels
2017-04-01 03:18:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 12:56:11 -0400, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Robert Bannister
Post by Quinn C
| Sir Philip is represented as both noble and tolerant, but as
| Anna imagines her child as 'blemished, unworthy, maimed
| reproduction' of its father, the mother's narrow sympathies are
| exposed.
David Glover and Cora Kaplan: Genders, p.34
I think this would have slipped by, had I not just the day before
had a conversation on when you can use "it" to refer to a person,
and why this is so insulting to some, but not all.
However, as a speaker of German (where a child is "it" by grammar)
I'm not the best judge, so I'd like to hear if others find this
problematic, or indicative of any subtext.
I think perhaps it is a bit old-fashioned, but using "it" to describe a
baby whose sex you don't know doesn't seem odd to me. In the 19th
century, they used it of older children too.
In my youth, some schools had pupils who were "Mixed Infants".
Meaning?
Infants are the youngest schoolchildren from age 4 to 7 (or
< Lat. infans, 'non-speaking'. That's what it means in AmE.
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
thereabouts). "Mixed" just means boys and girls together. The
implication is that the school has separate Boys and Girls departments
for the children older than infants.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_school
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2017-04-01 14:39:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 20:18:33 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 12:56:11 -0400, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Robert Bannister
Post by Quinn C
| Sir Philip is represented as both noble and tolerant, but as
| Anna imagines her child as 'blemished, unworthy, maimed
| reproduction' of its father, the mother's narrow sympathies are
| exposed.
David Glover and Cora Kaplan: Genders, p.34
I think this would have slipped by, had I not just the day before
had a conversation on when you can use "it" to refer to a person,
and why this is so insulting to some, but not all.
However, as a speaker of German (where a child is "it" by grammar)
I'm not the best judge, so I'd like to hear if others find this
problematic, or indicative of any subtext.
I think perhaps it is a bit old-fashioned, but using "it" to describe a
baby whose sex you don't know doesn't seem odd to me. In the 19th
century, they used it of older children too.
In my youth, some schools had pupils who were "Mixed Infants".
Meaning?
Infants are the youngest schoolchildren from age 4 to 7 (or
< Lat. infans, 'non-speaking'. That's what it means in AmE.
It is similar in BrE. The sense in the context of schools is different
from the non-school sense:
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/infant

1 A very young child or baby.
‘healthy infants’
as modifier ‘infant mortality’

1.1 British A schoolchild between the ages of about four and eight.
as modifier ‘their first year at infant school’
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
thereabouts). "Mixed" just means boys and girls together. The
implication is that the school has separate Boys and Girls departments
for the children older than infants.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_school
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
b***@aol.com
2017-04-01 15:53:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 12:56:11 -0400, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Robert Bannister
Post by Quinn C
| Sir Philip is represented as both noble and tolerant, but as
| Anna imagines her child as 'blemished, unworthy, maimed
| reproduction' of its father, the mother's narrow sympathies are
| exposed.
David Glover and Cora Kaplan: Genders, p.34
I think this would have slipped by, had I not just the day before
had a conversation on when you can use "it" to refer to a person,
and why this is so insulting to some, but not all.
However, as a speaker of German (where a child is "it" by grammar)
I'm not the best judge, so I'd like to hear if others find this
problematic, or indicative of any subtext.
I think perhaps it is a bit old-fashioned, but using "it" to describe a
baby whose sex you don't know doesn't seem odd to me. In the 19th
century, they used it of older children too.
In my youth, some schools had pupils who were "Mixed Infants".
Meaning?
Infants are the youngest schoolchildren from age 4 to 7 (or
< Lat. infans, 'non-speaking'. That's what it means in AmE.
What is "it", "infant" or "infans"? (The two words exist in English.)
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
thereabouts). "Mixed" just means boys and girls together. The
implication is that the school has separate Boys and Girls departments
for the children older than infants.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_school
Peter T. Daniels
2017-04-01 21:26:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 12:56:11 -0400, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Robert Bannister
Post by Quinn C
| Sir Philip is represented as both noble and tolerant, but as
| Anna imagines her child as 'blemished, unworthy, maimed
| reproduction' of its father, the mother's narrow sympathies are
| exposed.
David Glover and Cora Kaplan: Genders, p.34
I think this would have slipped by, had I not just the day before
had a conversation on when you can use "it" to refer to a person,
and why this is so insulting to some, but not all.
However, as a speaker of German (where a child is "it" by grammar)
I'm not the best judge, so I'd like to hear if others find this
problematic, or indicative of any subtext.
I think perhaps it is a bit old-fashioned, but using "it" to describe a
baby whose sex you don't know doesn't seem odd to me. In the 19th
century, they used it of older children too.
In my youth, some schools had pupils who were "Mixed Infants".
Meaning?
Infants are the youngest schoolchildren from age 4 to 7 (or
< Lat. infans, 'non-speaking'. That's what it means in AmE.
What is "it", "infant" or "infans"? (The two words exist in English.)
There is no "infans" in AHD5 (American Heritage Dictionary, 5th ed.).

That indicates that the word has not been in use at least since 1600 (or maybe
they even go back a bit further to include Spenser).
b***@aol.com
2017-04-01 22:26:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 12:56:11 -0400, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Robert Bannister
Post by Quinn C
| Sir Philip is represented as both noble and tolerant, but as
| Anna imagines her child as 'blemished, unworthy, maimed
| reproduction' of its father, the mother's narrow sympathies are
| exposed.
David Glover and Cora Kaplan: Genders, p.34
I think this would have slipped by, had I not just the day before
had a conversation on when you can use "it" to refer to a person,
and why this is so insulting to some, but not all.
However, as a speaker of German (where a child is "it" by grammar)
I'm not the best judge, so I'd like to hear if others find this
problematic, or indicative of any subtext.
I think perhaps it is a bit old-fashioned, but using "it" to describe a
baby whose sex you don't know doesn't seem odd to me. In the 19th
century, they used it of older children too.
In my youth, some schools had pupils who were "Mixed Infants".
Meaning?
Infants are the youngest schoolchildren from age 4 to 7 (or
< Lat. infans, 'non-speaking'. That's what it means in AmE.
What is "it", "infant" or "infans"? (The two words exist in English.)
There is no "infans" in AHD5 (American Heritage Dictionary, 5th ed.).
That indicates that the word has not been in use at least since 1600 (or maybe
they even go back a bit further to include Spenser).
MW says otherwise: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infans
Richard Tobin
2017-04-01 23:12:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
There is no "infans" in AHD5 (American Heritage Dictionary, 5th ed.).
Nor in the OED.
Post by b***@aol.com
MW says otherwise: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infans
Are you trying some kind of April fool?

-- Richard

Tak To
2017-04-01 16:01:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 12:56:11 -0400, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Robert Bannister
Post by Quinn C
| Sir Philip is represented as both noble and tolerant, but as
| Anna imagines her child as 'blemished, unworthy, maimed
| reproduction' of its father, the mother's narrow sympathies are
| exposed.
David Glover and Cora Kaplan: Genders, p.34
I think this would have slipped by, had I not just the day before
had a conversation on when you can use "it" to refer to a person,
and why this is so insulting to some, but not all.
However, as a speaker of German (where a child is "it" by grammar)
I'm not the best judge, so I'd like to hear if others find this
problematic, or indicative of any subtext.
I think perhaps it is a bit old-fashioned, but using "it" to describe a
baby whose sex you don't know doesn't seem odd to me. In the 19th
century, they used it of older children too.
In my youth, some schools had pupils who were "Mixed Infants".
Meaning?
Infants are the youngest schoolchildren from age 4 to 7 (or
thereabouts). "Mixed" just means boys and girls together. The
implication is that the school has separate Boys and Girls departments
for the children older than infants.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_school
FYI,

In contemporary US usage, "infant" has a restricted
definition that ranges from a newborn to one just before
walking -- after which the term would be "toddler".

Thus, to many Americans, an "infant school" would be a fancy
term for "day care".
--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ***@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
b***@aol.com
2017-03-29 18:19:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quinn C
| Sir Philip is represented as both noble and tolerant, but as
| Anna imagines her child as 'blemished, unworthy, maimed
| reproduction' of its father, the mother's narrow sympathies are
| exposed.
David Glover and Cora Kaplan: Genders, p.34
I think this would have slipped by, had I not just the day before
had a conversation on when you can use "it" to refer to a person,
and why this is so insulting to some, but not all.
However, as a speaker of German (where a child is "it" by grammar)
I'm not the best judge, so I'd like to hear if others find this
problematic, or indicative of any subtext.
I'm not sure the verb "neuter" can be used as in the title of this topic.
The question that sprung to my mind reading "Neutered child" was: castrated
or spayed?
Post by Quinn C
--
In the old days, the complaints about the passing of the
golden age were much more sophisticated.
-- James Hogg in alt.usage.english
Harrison Hill
2017-03-29 20:20:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Quinn C
| Sir Philip is represented as both noble and tolerant, but as
| Anna imagines her child as 'blemished, unworthy, maimed
| reproduction' of its father, the mother's narrow sympathies are
| exposed.
David Glover and Cora Kaplan: Genders, p.34
I think this would have slipped by, had I not just the day before
had a conversation on when you can use "it" to refer to a person,
and why this is so insulting to some, but not all.
However, as a speaker of German (where a child is "it" by grammar)
I'm not the best judge, so I'd like to hear if others find this
problematic, or indicative of any subtext.
I'm not sure the verb "neuter" can be used as in the title of this topic.
The question that sprung to my mind reading "Neutered child" was: castrated
or spayed?
Exactly; "rendered neutral" :(
Loading...