Neutered child

[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.

[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.

[Quinn C]

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?

[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".

[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?

[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

[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.

It is getting increasingly difficult to describe some things without
inadvertently sounding bigoted in some area.

[Peter T. Daniels]

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?

[Robert Bannister]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

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?

Why is "race" of any importance or even interest unless you are a
racist? Sex is a different matter.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by Peter T. Daniels

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?

Why is "race" of any importance or even interest unless you are a
racist? Sex is a different matter.

Oh Jeez. Do we have to have the Heathfield fiasco all over again? Four
hundred years of American history.

[Cheryl]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by Peter T. Daniels

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?

Why is "race" of any importance or even interest unless you are a
racist? Sex is a different matter.

Oh Jeez. Do we have to have the Heathfield fiasco all over again? Four
hundred years of American history.

Let's short-cut to the point at which someone says that not everyone is
American, not everyone lives with the result of four hundred years of
American history, and not everyone thinks that the current American
approach to race is applicable to their own situations.

I'll leave it tot the Americans to discuss their own state of race
relations.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Cheryl

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by Peter T. Daniels

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?

Why is "race" of any importance or even interest unless you are a
racist? Sex is a different matter.

Oh Jeez. Do we have to have the Heathfield fiasco all over again? Four
hundred years of American history.

Let's short-cut to the point at which someone says that not everyone is
American, not everyone lives with the result of four hundred years of
American history, and not everyone thinks that the current American
approach to race is applicable to their own situations.

Let's look at what was being talked about. Apparently there is a category in
Britain called "mixed children." Tony Cooper equated that with "mixed race"
and announced that acknowledging the existence of such a thing is, IN HIS
COUNTRY (that was the purport of "Here"), racist. That's nonsense. As RH
noted -- not jocularly -- identification with a particular race is grounds for
membership in a "protected class," a class which by law is exempt from discrimination
-- BECAUSE OF THOSE 400 YEARS OF HISTORY.

It's entirely possible that there are no historically oppressed populations
anywhere in Canada. But that seems unlikely. Or that all traces of historical
oppression have been obliterated. But that too seems unlikely. Let's not
even consider British categories of discrimination.

Post by Cheryl
I'll leave it tot the Americans to discuss their own state of race
relations.

And that is indeed what happened. But a comment from Australia -- not
exactly lily-white in this context -- intervened.

[Katy Jennison]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Cheryl

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by Peter T. Daniels

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?

Why is "race" of any importance or even interest unless you are a
racist? Sex is a different matter.

Oh Jeez. Do we have to have the Heathfield fiasco all over again? Four
hundred years of American history.

Let's short-cut to the point at which someone says that not everyone is
American, not everyone lives with the result of four hundred years of
American history, and not everyone thinks that the current American
approach to race is applicable to their own situations.

Let's look at what was being talked about. Apparently there is a category in
Britain called "mixed children."

No. There was a category of British *school* called "Mixed infants"
(not "children"). This is a standard BrE phrase which denoted mixed-sex
state schools for children aged approximately 4-7. The term is almost
entirely historic today. When it was current, it was not uncommon for
classes for children over the age of 7 to be separated by sex. Schools
which were built around the turn of the century (ie 100+ years ago) may
still have evidence of three separate entrances, labelled Infants, Boys,
and Girls. By the time I was at school the doors were used for
different groups, although the carved stone signs over the doors were
still there.

[Tony Cooper]

On Sun, 2 Apr 2017 15:37:57 +0100, Katy Jennison

Post by Katy Jennison

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Cheryl

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by Peter T. Daniels

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?

Why is "race" of any importance or even interest unless you are a
racist? Sex is a different matter.

Oh Jeez. Do we have to have the Heathfield fiasco all over again? Four
hundred years of American history.

Let's short-cut to the point at which someone says that not everyone is
American, not everyone lives with the result of four hundred years of
American history, and not everyone thinks that the current American
approach to race is applicable to their own situations.

Let's look at what was being talked about. Apparently there is a category in
Britain called "mixed children."

No. There was a category of British *school* called "Mixed infants"
(not "children"). This is a standard BrE phrase which denoted mixed-sex
state schools for children aged approximately 4-7.

Yes, I understand, but I used "mixed children" because we do not
classify children who are of school-age as "infants".

If I was looking at a row of bassinets of new-borns in a hospital, I
would not say that it's a row of "mixed infants" meaning it was a row
of male and female infants. It's too likely that someone would take
that to mean that I was observing that some of the infants are of
mixed race. I'm not supposed to notice or comment on that. As typed
above "Why is 'race' of any importance or even interest unless you are
a racist?".

It's the unintended, and unfelt, association with racism that stops me
from using a term that can be taken to be racist.

I think I'm still allowed to say it's row of male and female infants,
but there are those who would want me wait until those infants decide
which gender they identify as before throwing out terms like "male"
and "female".

[Katy Jennison]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sun, 2 Apr 2017 15:37:57 +0100, Katy Jennison

Post by Katy Jennison

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Let's look at what was being talked about. Apparently there is a category in
Britain called "mixed children."

No. There was a category of British *school* called "Mixed infants"
(not "children"). This is a standard BrE phrase which denoted mixed-sex
state schools for children aged approximately 4-7.

Yes, I understand, but I used "mixed children" because we do not
classify children who are of school-age as "infants".
If I was looking at a row of bassinets of new-borns in a hospital, I
would not say that it's a row of "mixed infants" meaning it was a row
of male and female infants. It's too likely that someone would take
that to mean that I was observing that some of the infants are of
mixed race. I'm not supposed to notice or comment on that. As typed
above "Why is 'race' of any importance or even interest unless you are
a racist?".
It's the unintended, and unfelt, association with racism that stops me
from using a term that can be taken to be racist.

Yes: I assumed all along that what you were saying was that the term
"mixed infants", however unremarkable in the UK, wouldn't be acceptable
in an American context. It seemed to me that a little extra
clarification of the BrE usage was needed by, ahem, another reader, who
appeared to have misunderstood it.

[David Kleinecke]

Post by Katy Jennison

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sun, 2 Apr 2017 15:37:57 +0100, Katy Jennison

Post by Katy Jennison

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Let's look at what was being talked about. Apparently there is a category in
Britain called "mixed children."

No. There was a category of British *school* called "Mixed infants"
(not "children"). This is a standard BrE phrase which denoted mixed-sex
state schools for children aged approximately 4-7.

Yes, I understand, but I used "mixed children" because we do not
classify children who are of school-age as "infants".
If I was looking at a row of bassinets of new-borns in a hospital, I
would not say that it's a row of "mixed infants" meaning it was a row
of male and female infants. It's too likely that someone would take
that to mean that I was observing that some of the infants are of
mixed race. I'm not supposed to notice or comment on that. As typed
above "Why is 'race' of any importance or even interest unless you are
a racist?".
It's the unintended, and unfelt, association with racism that stops me
from using a term that can be taken to be racist.

Yes: I assumed all along that what you were saying was that the term
"mixed infants", however unremarkable in the UK, wouldn't be acceptable
in an American context. It seemed to me that a little extra
clarification of the BrE usage was needed by, ahem, another reader, who
appeared to have misunderstood it.

Speaking as a more-or-less average US citizen "mixed infants"
can only mean "infants of several different races" and is
something I would not say (or expect to hear) for obvious
reasons. I would cut some slack for a wandering Brit who
used the phrase innocently - but not everybody here, again
for obvious reasons, is guaranteed to grant much slack.

But AUE is not in the US.

[Katy Jennison]

Post by David Kleinecke

Post by Katy Jennison

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sun, 2 Apr 2017 15:37:57 +0100, Katy Jennison

Post by Katy Jennison

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Let's look at what was being talked about. Apparently there is a category in
Britain called "mixed children."

No. There was a category of British *school* called "Mixed infants"
(not "children"). This is a standard BrE phrase which denoted mixed-sex
state schools for children aged approximately 4-7.

Yes, I understand, but I used "mixed children" because we do not
classify children who are of school-age as "infants".
If I was looking at a row of bassinets of new-borns in a hospital, I
would not say that it's a row of "mixed infants" meaning it was a row
of male and female infants. It's too likely that someone would take
that to mean that I was observing that some of the infants are of
mixed race. I'm not supposed to notice or comment on that. As typed
above "Why is 'race' of any importance or even interest unless you are
a racist?".
It's the unintended, and unfelt, association with racism that stops me
from using a term that can be taken to be racist.

Yes: I assumed all along that what you were saying was that the term
"mixed infants", however unremarkable in the UK, wouldn't be acceptable
in an American context. It seemed to me that a little extra
clarification of the BrE usage was needed by, ahem, another reader, who
appeared to have misunderstood it.

Speaking as a more-or-less average US citizen "mixed infants"
can only mean "infants of several different races" and is
something I would not say (or expect to hear) for obvious
reasons. I would cut some slack for a wandering Brit who
used the phrase innocently - but not everybody here, again
for obvious reasons, is guaranteed to grant much slack.

Happily, no wandering Brit is likely to say it, because (as I said
before) a) the term is now outdated (historic) and b) it was applied to
the type of school, not to the children.

[Janet]

Post by David Kleinecke

Post by Katy Jennison

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sun, 2 Apr 2017 15:37:57 +0100, Katy Jennison

Post by Katy Jennison

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Let's look at what was being talked about. Apparently there is a category in
Britain called "mixed children."

No. There was a category of British *school* called "Mixed infants"
(not "children"). This is a standard BrE phrase which denoted mixed-sex
state schools for children aged approximately 4-7.

Yes, I understand, but I used "mixed children" because we do not
classify children who are of school-age as "infants".
If I was looking at a row of bassinets of new-borns in a hospital, I
would not say that it's a row of "mixed infants" meaning it was a row
of male and female infants. It's too likely that someone would take
that to mean that I was observing that some of the infants are of
mixed race. I'm not supposed to notice or comment on that. As typed
above "Why is 'race' of any importance or even interest unless you are
a racist?".
It's the unintended, and unfelt, association with racism that stops me
from using a term that can be taken to be racist.

Yes: I assumed all along that what you were saying was that the term
"mixed infants", however unremarkable in the UK, wouldn't be acceptable
in an American context. It seemed to me that a little extra
clarification of the BrE usage was needed by, ahem, another reader, who
appeared to have misunderstood it.

Speaking as a more-or-less average US citizen "mixed infants"
can only mean "infants of several different races" and is
something I would not say (or expect to hear) for obvious
reasons. I would cut some slack for a wandering Brit who
used the phrase innocently -

It would be perfectly innocent for a wandering Brit in USA, to mention
"Mixed infants" when describing that part of the British education
system.

They would not mention it in relation to the US educational system
because that has a different structure from ours.

Janet

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Katy Jennison

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sun, 2 Apr 2017 15:37:57 +0100, Katy Jennison

Post by Katy Jennison

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Let's look at what was being talked about. Apparently there is a category in
Britain called "mixed children."

No. There was a category of British *school* called "Mixed infants"
(not "children"). This is a standard BrE phrase which denoted mixed-sex
state schools for children aged approximately 4-7.

Yes, I understand, but I used "mixed children" because we do not
classify children who are of school-age as "infants".
If I was looking at a row of bassinets of new-borns in a hospital, I
would not say that it's a row of "mixed infants" meaning it was a row
of male and female infants. It's too likely that someone would take
that to mean that I was observing that some of the infants are of
mixed race. I'm not supposed to notice or comment on that. As typed
above "Why is 'race' of any importance or even interest unless you are
a racist?".
It's the unintended, and unfelt, association with racism that stops me
from using a term that can be taken to be racist.

Yes: I assumed all along that what you were saying was that the term
"mixed infants", however unremarkable in the UK, wouldn't be acceptable
in an American context. It seemed to me that a little extra
clarification of the BrE usage was needed by, ahem, another reader, who
appeared to have misunderstood it.

Not unacceptable, but uninterpretable, because (as Tony also said) an "infant
school" would be called "daycare."

"Infant" simply _cannot_ be used for 'child old enough to go to school' or even
'child old enough to be learning to walk'.

[Katy Jennison]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Katy Jennison

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sun, 2 Apr 2017 15:37:57 +0100, Katy Jennison

Post by Katy Jennison

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Let's look at what was being talked about. Apparently there is a category in
Britain called "mixed children."

No. There was a category of British *school* called "Mixed infants"
(not "children"). This is a standard BrE phrase which denoted mixed-sex
state schools for children aged approximately 4-7.

Yes, I understand, but I used "mixed children" because we do not
classify children who are of school-age as "infants".
If I was looking at a row of bassinets of new-borns in a hospital, I
would not say that it's a row of "mixed infants" meaning it was a row
of male and female infants. It's too likely that someone would take
that to mean that I was observing that some of the infants are of
mixed race. I'm not supposed to notice or comment on that. As typed
above "Why is 'race' of any importance or even interest unless you are
a racist?".
It's the unintended, and unfelt, association with racism that stops me
from using a term that can be taken to be racist.

Yes: I assumed all along that what you were saying was that the term
"mixed infants", however unremarkable in the UK, wouldn't be acceptable
in an American context. It seemed to me that a little extra
clarification of the BrE usage was needed by, ahem, another reader, who
appeared to have misunderstood it.

Not unacceptable, but uninterpretable, because (as Tony also said) an "infant
school" would be called "daycare."
"Infant" simply _cannot_ be used for 'child old enough to go to school' or even
'child old enough to be learning to walk'.

You'd better fire up your time machine and head back to late 19th-early
20th century Britain, and set everyone straight, then.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Katy Jennison

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Katy Jennison

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sun, 2 Apr 2017 15:37:57 +0100, Katy Jennison

Post by Katy Jennison

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Let's look at what was being talked about. Apparently there is a category in
Britain called "mixed children."

No. There was a category of British *school* called "Mixed infants"
(not "children"). This is a standard BrE phrase which denoted mixed-sex
state schools for children aged approximately 4-7.

Yes, I understand, but I used "mixed children" because we do not
classify children who are of school-age as "infants".
If I was looking at a row of bassinets of new-borns in a hospital, I
would not say that it's a row of "mixed infants" meaning it was a row
of male and female infants. It's too likely that someone would take
that to mean that I was observing that some of the infants are of
mixed race. I'm not supposed to notice or comment on that. As typed
above "Why is 'race' of any importance or even interest unless you are
a racist?".
It's the unintended, and unfelt, association with racism that stops me
from using a term that can be taken to be racist.

Yes: I assumed all along that what you were saying was that the term
"mixed infants", however unremarkable in the UK, wouldn't be acceptable
in an American context. It seemed to me that a little extra
clarification of the BrE usage was needed by, ahem, another reader, who
appeared to have misunderstood it.

Not unacceptable, but uninterpretable, because (as Tony also said) an "infant
school" would be called "daycare."
"Infant" simply _cannot_ be used for 'child old enough to go to school' or even
'child old enough to be learning to walk'.

You'd better fire up your time machine and head back to late 19th-early
20th century Britain, and set everyone straight, then.

Why are you pretending not to understand that Tony is referring to American
English?

Why are you pretending that you don't know that his "we" refers to 'Americans'?

If your sense of "infant" goes back only to 1890ish, then clearly it's yet
another innovation in the supposedly time-hallowed British English.

[Katy Jennison]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Katy Jennison

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Katy Jennison

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sun, 2 Apr 2017 15:37:57 +0100, Katy Jennison

Post by Katy Jennison

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Let's look at what was being talked about. Apparently there is a category in
Britain called "mixed children."

No. There was a category of British *school* called "Mixed infants"
(not "children"). This is a standard BrE phrase which denoted mixed-sex
state schools for children aged approximately 4-7.

Yes, I understand, but I used "mixed children" because we do not
classify children who are of school-age as "infants".
If I was looking at a row of bassinets of new-borns in a hospital, I
would not say that it's a row of "mixed infants" meaning it was a row
of male and female infants. It's too likely that someone would take
that to mean that I was observing that some of the infants are of
mixed race. I'm not supposed to notice or comment on that. As typed
above "Why is 'race' of any importance or even interest unless you are
a racist?".
It's the unintended, and unfelt, association with racism that stops me
from using a term that can be taken to be racist.

Yes: I assumed all along that what you were saying was that the term
"mixed infants", however unremarkable in the UK, wouldn't be acceptable
in an American context. It seemed to me that a little extra
clarification of the BrE usage was needed by, ahem, another reader, who
appeared to have misunderstood it.

Not unacceptable, but uninterpretable, because (as Tony also said) an "infant
school" would be called "daycare."
"Infant" simply _cannot_ be used for 'child old enough to go to school' or even
'child old enough to be learning to walk'.

You'd better fire up your time machine and head back to late 19th-early
20th century Britain, and set everyone straight, then.

Why are you pretending not to understand that Tony is referring to American
English?
Why are you pretending that you don't know that his "we" refers to 'Americans'?

I'm pretty sure Tony knows that I know that perfectly well. I even said
so, in what you quoted above, thus: "the term "mixed infants", however
unremarkable in the UK, wouldn't be acceptable in an American context."

It seems to be you who are asserting that a particular word cannot
possibly mean what, in BrE, it does mean. Once again, therefore, I
exhort you to preface your "cannot" with "in AmE".

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Katy Jennison

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Katy Jennison

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Katy Jennison

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sun, 2 Apr 2017 15:37:57 +0100, Katy Jennison

Post by Katy Jennison

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Let's look at what was being talked about. Apparently there is a category in
Britain called "mixed children."

No. There was a category of British *school* called "Mixed infants"
(not "children"). This is a standard BrE phrase which denoted mixed-sex
state schools for children aged approximately 4-7.

Yes, I understand, but I used "mixed children" because we do not
classify children who are of school-age as "infants".
If I was looking at a row of bassinets of new-borns in a hospital, I
would not say that it's a row of "mixed infants" meaning it was a row
of male and female infants. It's too likely that someone would take
that to mean that I was observing that some of the infants are of
mixed race. I'm not supposed to notice or comment on that. As typed
above "Why is 'race' of any importance or even interest unless you are
a racist?".
It's the unintended, and unfelt, association with racism that stops me
from using a term that can be taken to be racist.

Yes: I assumed all along that what you were saying was that the term
"mixed infants", however unremarkable in the UK, wouldn't be acceptable
in an American context. It seemed to me that a little extra
clarification of the BrE usage was needed by, ahem, another reader, who
appeared to have misunderstood it.

Not unacceptable, but uninterpretable, because (as Tony also said) an "infant
school" would be called "daycare."
"Infant" simply _cannot_ be used for 'child old enough to go to school' or even
'child old enough to be learning to walk'.

You'd better fire up your time machine and head back to late 19th-early
20th century Britain, and set everyone straight, then.

Why are you pretending not to understand that Tony is referring to American
English?
Why are you pretending that you don't know that his "we" refers to 'Americans'?

I'm pretty sure Tony knows that I know that perfectly well. I even said
so, in what you quoted above, thus: "the term "mixed infants", however
unremarkable in the UK, wouldn't be acceptable in an American context."
It seems to be you who are asserting that a particular word cannot
possibly mean what, in BrE, it does mean. Once again, therefore, I
exhort you to preface your "cannot" with "in AmE".

Are you now saying that somehow you're no longer aware that my languaeg is
American Engoish? And that when I add support to someone else writing explicitly
about American English, a repetition is not necessary?

[Tony Cooper]

On Sun, 2 Apr 2017 15:05:08 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Are you now saying that somehow you're no longer aware that my languaeg is
American Engoish?

I think you've identified the problem.

[Reinhold {Rey} Aman]

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Are you now saying that somehow you're no longer aware
that my languaeg is American Engoish?

^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^

Post by Tony Cooper
I think you've identified the problem.

"Not proofreading is 'poor typewriting skills'."
"Editor" PeteY, 12 Dec 2014

See the Sloppy "Editor":
http://aman.members.sonic.net/PeteY-Doody.jpg

[Tony Cooper]

On Sun, 2 Apr 2017 22:36:07 +0100, Katy Jennison

Post by Katy Jennison

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Katy Jennison

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Katy Jennison

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sun, 2 Apr 2017 15:37:57 +0100, Katy Jennison

Post by Katy Jennison

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Let's look at what was being talked about. Apparently there is a category in
Britain called "mixed children."

No. There was a category of British *school* called "Mixed infants"
(not "children"). This is a standard BrE phrase which denoted mixed-sex
state schools for children aged approximately 4-7.

Yes, I understand, but I used "mixed children" because we do not
classify children who are of school-age as "infants".
If I was looking at a row of bassinets of new-borns in a hospital, I
would not say that it's a row of "mixed infants" meaning it was a row
of male and female infants. It's too likely that someone would take
that to mean that I was observing that some of the infants are of
mixed race. I'm not supposed to notice or comment on that. As typed
above "Why is 'race' of any importance or even interest unless you are
a racist?".
It's the unintended, and unfelt, association with racism that stops me
from using a term that can be taken to be racist.

Yes: I assumed all along that what you were saying was that the term
"mixed infants", however unremarkable in the UK, wouldn't be acceptable
in an American context. It seemed to me that a little extra
clarification of the BrE usage was needed by, ahem, another reader, who
appeared to have misunderstood it.

Not unacceptable, but uninterpretable, because (as Tony also said) an "infant
school" would be called "daycare."
"Infant" simply _cannot_ be used for 'child old enough to go to school' or even
'child old enough to be learning to walk'.

You'd better fire up your time machine and head back to late 19th-early
20th century Britain, and set everyone straight, then.

Why are you pretending not to understand that Tony is referring to American
English?
Why are you pretending that you don't know that his "we" refers to 'Americans'?

I'm pretty sure Tony knows that I know that perfectly well. I even said
so, in what you quoted above, thus: "the term "mixed infants", however
unremarkable in the UK, wouldn't be acceptable in an American context."
It seems to be you who are asserting that a particular word cannot
possibly mean what, in BrE, it does mean. Once again, therefore, I
exhort you to preface your "cannot" with "in AmE".

While it is better to say "In AmE" or "In BrE" or "In the US" or "In
the UK", the use of "Here" or something that identifies as it being in
the writer's home place is sufficient for regulars.

What is to be avoided is the flat statement: "Ambassadors are
appointed by the current administration" or "Ambassadors are career
diplomats". Even though we may know what the writer's perspective is,
the flat statement is the perpetual burr under the aue saddle.

I do recognize that the reason a burr under the saddle is an annoyance
is that it is not flat.

[LFS]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Katy Jennison

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sun, 2 Apr 2017 15:37:57 +0100, Katy Jennison

Post by Katy Jennison

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Let's look at what was being talked about. Apparently there is a category in
Britain called "mixed children."

No. There was a category of British *school* called "Mixed infants"
(not "children"). This is a standard BrE phrase which denoted mixed-sex
state schools for children aged approximately 4-7.

Yes, I understand, but I used "mixed children" because we do not
classify children who are of school-age as "infants".
If I was looking at a row of bassinets of new-borns in a hospital, I
would not say that it's a row of "mixed infants" meaning it was a row
of male and female infants. It's too likely that someone would take
that to mean that I was observing that some of the infants are of
mixed race. I'm not supposed to notice or comment on that. As typed
above "Why is 'race' of any importance or even interest unless you are
a racist?".
It's the unintended, and unfelt, association with racism that stops me
from using a term that can be taken to be racist.

Yes: I assumed all along that what you were saying was that the term
"mixed infants", however unremarkable in the UK, wouldn't be acceptable
in an American context. It seemed to me that a little extra
clarification of the BrE usage was needed by, ahem, another reader, who
appeared to have misunderstood it.

Not unacceptable, but uninterpretable, because (as Tony also said) an "infant
school" would be called "daycare."
"Infant" simply _cannot_ be used for 'child old enough to go to school' or even
'child old enough to be learning to walk'.

It can, and has been so used for many years in the UK. Strangely, we
Brits seem to be able to distinguish between this usage and the sense of
the word that implies a babe in arms, without any difficulty at all.

[Janet]

Post by LFS

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Katy Jennison

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sun, 2 Apr 2017 15:37:57 +0100, Katy Jennison

Post by Katy Jennison

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Let's look at what was being talked about. Apparently there is a category in
Britain called "mixed children."

No. There was a category of British *school* called "Mixed infants"
(not "children"). This is a standard BrE phrase which denoted mixed-sex
state schools for children aged approximately 4-7.

Yes, I understand, but I used "mixed children" because we do not
classify children who are of school-age as "infants".
If I was looking at a row of bassinets of new-borns in a hospital, I
would not say that it's a row of "mixed infants" meaning it was a row
of male and female infants. It's too likely that someone would take
that to mean that I was observing that some of the infants are of
mixed race. I'm not supposed to notice or comment on that. As typed
above "Why is 'race' of any importance or even interest unless you are
a racist?".
It's the unintended, and unfelt, association with racism that stops me
from using a term that can be taken to be racist.

Yes: I assumed all along that what you were saying was that the term
"mixed infants", however unremarkable in the UK, wouldn't be acceptable
in an American context. It seemed to me that a little extra
clarification of the BrE usage was needed by, ahem, another reader, who
appeared to have misunderstood it.

Not unacceptable, but uninterpretable, because (as Tony also said) an "infant
school" would be called "daycare."
"Infant" simply _cannot_ be used for 'child old enough to go to school' or even
'child old enough to be learning to walk'.

It can, and has been so used for many years in the UK. Strangely, we
Brits seem to be able to distinguish between this usage and the sense of
the word that implies a babe in arms, without any difficulty at all.

http://brackensdalei.derby.sch.uk/

Janet.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Katy Jennison

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Cheryl

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by Peter T. Daniels

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?

Why is "race" of any importance or even interest unless you are a
racist? Sex is a different matter.

Oh Jeez. Do we have to have the Heathfield fiasco all over again? Four
hundred years of American history.

Let's short-cut to the point at which someone says that not everyone is
American, not everyone lives with the result of four hundred years of
American history, and not everyone thinks that the current American
approach to race is applicable to their own situations.

Let's look at what was being talked about. Apparently there is a category in
Britain called "mixed children."

In fact the sentence that Tony paraphrased was "In my youth, some schools had
pupils who were "Mixed Infants." Since infants in American English do not
attend school, he naturally translated that to "Mixed children."

Post by Katy Jennison
No. There was a category of British *school* called "Mixed infants"

But that's not what Sam Plusnet said. He said "pupils who were 'Mixed infants'."

Post by Katy Jennison
(not "children"). This is a standard BrE phrase which denoted mixed-sex
state schools for children aged approximately 4-7. The term is almost
entirely historic today. When it was current, it was not uncommon for
classes for children over the age of 7 to be separated by sex. Schools
which were built around the turn of the century (ie 100+ years ago) may
still have evidence of three separate entrances, labelled Infants, Boys,
and Girls. By the time I was at school the doors were used for
different groups, although the carved stone signs over the doors were
still there.

Our older public schools have separate Boys and Girls entrances. High schools,
by the 1930s, were single-sex; my mother went to Walton, which is at the other
end of the Reservoir from DeWitt Clinton, the associated boys' high school.
Her younger brother, after they'd moved to Manhattan, went to George Washington,
where he overlapped for about one year with Henry Kissinger (didn't know him).
My father graduated from Washington Irving, in the Gramercy Park neighborhood.
It's not clear to me how he qualified, since his parents lived in Mamaroneck
and he attended Mamaroneck High School for two or three years. The elite high
schools, such as Stuyvesant and Bronx Science, were probably co-ed from the
beginning. The vocational high schools (such as Aviation Trades, across the
highway from LaGuardia Airport) probably weren't. The several Performing Arts
high schools are necessarily co-ed.

[Reinhold {Rey} Aman]

Loony off-topic poster PeteY "Genital Herpes" Daniels drooled:
Since this "newsgroup [is] dedicated to the Usage of English"
[PeteY, 25 Mar 2017], what the fuck is all that personal off-topic shit
below doing here?
And:
"... you [Tony] have no business in a newsgroup dedicated to the
Usage of English."

And here comes loony off-topic poster PeteY's drool dedicated to the

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Our older public schools have separate Boys and Girls entrances. High
schools, by the 1930s, were single-sex; my mother went to Walton,
which is at the other end of the Reservoir from DeWitt Clinton, the
associated boys' high school. Her younger brother, after they'd moved
to Manhattan, went to George Washington, where he overlapped for
about one year with Henry Kissinger (didn't know him).
My father graduated from Washington Irving, in the Gramercy Park
neighborhood. It's not clear to me how he qualified, since his
parents lived in Mamaroneck and he attended Mamaroneck High School
for two or three years. The elite high schools, such as Stuyvesant
and Bronx Science, were probably co-ed from the beginning. The
vocational high schools (such as Aviation Trades, across the highway
from LaGuardia Airport) probably weren't. The several Performing Arts
high schools are necessarily co-ed.

See the Loony Drooler:
http://aman.members.sonic.net/PeteY-Doody.jpg

[Jack Campin]

Post by Katy Jennison
No. There was a category of British *school* called "Mixed infants"
(not "children"). This is a standard BrE phrase which denoted mixed-sex
state schools for children aged approximately 4-7. The term is almost
entirely historic today. When it was current, it was not uncommon for
classes for children over the age of 7 to be separated by sex. Schools
which were built around the turn of the century (ie 100+ years ago) may
still have evidence of three separate entrances, labelled Infants, Boys,
and Girls. By the time I was at school the doors were used for
different groups, although the carved stone signs over the doors were
still there.

Some primary schools, at least in Scotland, carried the segregation
further than the door. Boys and girls were taught on different
floors, and the floors for each sex connected only to the approved
door. (I presume the infants all stayed on the ground floor).
I've never seen a school like that actually operating - it must
have led to some odd social interactions.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
e m a i l : j a c k @ c a m p i n . m e . u k
Jack Campin, 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU, Scotland
mobile [phone] <http://www.campin.me.uk> Twitter: JackCampin

[Quinn C]

Post by Jack Campin

Post by Katy Jennison
No. There was a category of British *school* called "Mixed infants"
(not "children"). This is a standard BrE phrase which denoted mixed-sex
state schools for children aged approximately 4-7. The term is almost
entirely historic today. When it was current, it was not uncommon for
classes for children over the age of 7 to be separated by sex. Schools
which were built around the turn of the century (ie 100+ years ago) may
still have evidence of three separate entrances, labelled Infants, Boys,
and Girls. By the time I was at school the doors were used for
different groups, although the carved stone signs over the doors were
still there.

Some primary schools, at least in Scotland, carried the segregation
further than the door. Boys and girls were taught on different
floors, and the floors for each sex connected only to the approved
door. (I presume the infants all stayed on the ground floor).
I've never seen a school like that actually operating - it must
have led to some odd social interactions.

That seems odd - maybe an afterthought? It seems more natural to
me to split the building vertically. In the school buildings here
where I see the old "Boys"/"Girls" markers over the entrances, the
entrances are typically at the far ends of the building, so I
guess it was at least partially the way I suggested.

My first year in Japan, I lived in the International Students
Dorm, which had two floors for men and two floors for women. All
the university-run dorms for Japanese students I saw were
completely segregated. We were only segregated from the locals.

[Janet]

Post by Jack Campin

Post by Katy Jennison
No. There was a category of British *school* called "Mixed infants"
(not "children"). This is a standard BrE phrase which denoted mixed-sex
state schools for children aged approximately 4-7. The term is almost
entirely historic today. When it was current, it was not uncommon for
classes for children over the age of 7 to be separated by sex. Schools
which were built around the turn of the century (ie 100+ years ago) may
still have evidence of three separate entrances, labelled Infants, Boys,
and Girls. By the time I was at school the doors were used for
different groups, although the carved stone signs over the doors were
still there.

Some primary schools, at least in Scotland, carried the segregation
further than the door. Boys and girls were taught on different
floors, and the floors for each sex connected only to the approved
door. (I presume the infants all stayed on the ground floor).
I've never seen a school like that actually operating - it must
have led to some odd social interactions.

I taught in one of those old sandstone triple-decker schools, and
my sons attended two others. Two still in use and one closed.

They still had boys and girls entrances, and one of them still had
segregated boys and girls playgrounds, but inside the sexes were/are no
longer separated. Inside there was a very large central hall, two
stories high, with classrooms opening off it; and on the first floor a
gallery overlooking the hall, with more classrooms off it. Then a third
floor above that. It was a noisy building style but I believe the light
and airiness was intended as a health benefit, in days when TB was rife.

This is my sons' old school. When they were there the interior was
still an elegant building... the pupil roll had fallen below 100 (in a
school designed for 550), so it closed later and is very sadly derelict
now. The galleried main hall gives you some idea of the classic "triple
decker" layout. Originally, the infants would be on the ground floor,
juniors moving up to higher floors.

https://www.proj3ctm4yh3m.com/urbex/2015/10/02/urbex-sir-john-maxwell-
school-aka-the-skylight-school-scotland-february-2015/

https://tinyurl.com/kwf3zl2

Janet.

[Robert Bannister]

Post by Janet

Post by Jack Campin

Post by Katy Jennison
No. There was a category of British *school* called "Mixed infants"
(not "children"). This is a standard BrE phrase which denoted mixed-sex
state schools for children aged approximately 4-7. The term is almost
entirely historic today. When it was current, it was not uncommon for
classes for children over the age of 7 to be separated by sex. Schools
which were built around the turn of the century (ie 100+ years ago) may
still have evidence of three separate entrances, labelled Infants, Boys,
and Girls. By the time I was at school the doors were used for
different groups, although the carved stone signs over the doors were
still there.

Some primary schools, at least in Scotland, carried the segregation
further than the door. Boys and girls were taught on different
floors, and the floors for each sex connected only to the approved
door. (I presume the infants all stayed on the ground floor).
I've never seen a school like that actually operating - it must
have led to some odd social interactions.

I taught in one of those old sandstone triple-decker schools, and
my sons attended two others. Two still in use and one closed.
They still had boys and girls entrances, and one of them still had
segregated boys and girls playgrounds, but inside the sexes were/are no
longer separated. Inside there was a very large central hall, two
stories high, with classrooms opening off it; and on the first floor a
gallery overlooking the hall, with more classrooms off it. Then a third
floor above that. It was a noisy building style but I believe the light
and airiness was intended as a health benefit, in days when TB was rife.

Now you've got me thinking that my original memory could have been
false. I think we might have been mixed in class, but with separate
playgrounds. I'm really not sure now. Our school buildings were only two
stories, though, so it was perhaps a bit smaller than yours. We were
lucky in that we had a Bryant & May factory very close that had acres of
playing fields and they allowed the school to use them for sport. Most
British primary schools just had the asphalt playgrounds.

Post by Janet
This is my sons' old school. When they were there the interior was
still an elegant building... the pupil roll had fallen below 100 (in a
school designed for 550), so it closed later and is very sadly derelict
now. The galleried main hall gives you some idea of the classic "triple
decker" layout. Originally, the infants would be on the ground floor,
juniors moving up to higher floors.
https://www.proj3ctm4yh3m.com/urbex/2015/10/02/urbex-sir-john-maxwell-
school-aka-the-skylight-school-scotland-february-2015/
https://tinyurl.com/kwf3zl2
Janet.

[Jack Campin]

Post by Quinn C

Post by Jack Campin

Schools which were built around the turn of the century (ie 100+
years ago) may still have evidence of three separate entrances,
labelled Infants, Boys, and Girls. By the time I was at school
the doors were used for different groups, although the carved
stone signs over the doors were still there.

Some primary schools, at least in Scotland, carried the segregation
further than the door. Boys and girls were taught on different
floors, and the floors for each sex connected only to the approved
door. (I presume the infants all stayed on the ground floor).
I've never seen a school like that actually operating - it must
have led to some odd social interactions.

That seems odd - maybe an afterthought?

No, they had ingeniously interlaced staircases which were specified
by the Scottish education authority of the time. C.R. Mackintosh's
Scotland Street School is now a museum - the only one I know that you
can still see in its original connectivity, though I know of a couple
in Edinburgh (sold off or adapted).

Post by Quinn C
My first year in Japan, I lived in the International Students
Dorm, which had two floors for men and two floors for women.
All the university-run dorms for Japanese students I saw were
completely segregated. We were only segregated from the locals.

When I was a student in Auckland we heard rumours that the main
student hostel in Wellington was designed with men and women on
alternating floors. I have since seen the building but not been
inside it; I suspect the rumour was true.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
e m a i l : j a c k @ c a m p i n . m e . u k
Jack Campin, 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU, Scotland
mobile [phone] <http://www.campin.me.uk> Twitter: JackCampin

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by Jack Campin

Post by Katy Jennison
No. There was a category of British *school* called "Mixed infants"
(not "children"). This is a standard BrE phrase which denoted mixed-sex
state schools for children aged approximately 4-7. The term is almost
entirely historic today. When it was current, it was not uncommon for
classes for children over the age of 7 to be separated by sex. Schools
which were built around the turn of the century (ie 100+ years ago) may
still have evidence of three separate entrances, labelled Infants, Boys,
and Girls. By the time I was at school the doors were used for
different groups, although the carved stone signs over the doors were
still there.

Some primary schools, at least in Scotland, carried the segregation
further than the door. Boys and girls were taught on different
floors, and the floors for each sex connected only to the approved
door. (I presume the infants all stayed on the ground floor).
I've never seen a school like that actually operating - it must
have led to some odd social interactions.

I knew of one school which combined "Infants" and "Juniors" in one
building.
There had originally been three separate playgrounds.
One for the Mixed Infants, one for the Junior Boys and the third for
Junior Girls.
The arrangements had changed quite some time before I came across it, so
I don't know how things had been divided up within the building.

[Robert Bannister]

Post by Jack Campin

Post by Katy Jennison
No. There was a category of British *school* called "Mixed infants"
(not "children"). This is a standard BrE phrase which denoted mixed-sex
state schools for children aged approximately 4-7. The term is almost
entirely historic today. When it was current, it was not uncommon for
classes for children over the age of 7 to be separated by sex. Schools
which were built around the turn of the century (ie 100+ years ago) may
still have evidence of three separate entrances, labelled Infants, Boys,
and Girls. By the time I was at school the doors were used for
different groups, although the carved stone signs over the doors were
still there.

Some primary schools, at least in Scotland, carried the segregation
further than the door. Boys and girls were taught on different
floors, and the floors for each sex connected only to the approved
door. (I presume the infants all stayed on the ground floor).
I've never seen a school like that actually operating - it must
have led to some odd social interactions.

We had three totally separate buildings further separated by walls:
INFANTS (it didn't say "mixed", although they were), BOYS and GIRLS. In
my last or second last year, they mixed the boys and girls together and
split us into "junior primary" (in the old boys' school) and senior
primary (in the old girls' building). It was very exciting not only
using the same playground but also actually sitting next to a girl in class.

[Cheryl]

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by Jack Campin

Post by Katy Jennison
No. There was a category of British *school* called "Mixed infants"
(not "children"). This is a standard BrE phrase which denoted mixed-sex
state schools for children aged approximately 4-7. The term is almost
entirely historic today. When it was current, it was not uncommon for
classes for children over the age of 7 to be separated by sex. Schools
which were built around the turn of the century (ie 100+ years ago) may
still have evidence of three separate entrances, labelled Infants, Boys,
and Girls. By the time I was at school the doors were used for
different groups, although the carved stone signs over the doors were
still there.

Some primary schools, at least in Scotland, carried the segregation
further than the door. Boys and girls were taught on different
floors, and the floors for each sex connected only to the approved
door. (I presume the infants all stayed on the ground floor).
I've never seen a school like that actually operating - it must
have led to some odd social interactions.

INFANTS (it didn't say "mixed", although they were), BOYS and GIRLS. In
my last or second last year, they mixed the boys and girls together and
split us into "junior primary" (in the old boys' school) and senior
primary (in the old girls' building). It was very exciting not only
using the same playground but also actually sitting next to a girl in class.

Only the schools in the largest city in the province had enough students
to segregate them by sex in my day, and even there some schools were for
boys, some for girls, and some mixed. I knew about the boys and girls
schools in some places, but was a bit surprised when, in another
province, I came across a school building which, when originally built,
had separate girls and boys entrances. If any schools here had such an
arrangement, even in our Big City, it was well before time.

I did know a graduate of one of those boys' school systems who blamed
all his difficulties with girls on having never gone to school with one,
although most such men seemed to manage. I could have suggested one or
two other reasons for his difficulties, but it would have been unkind
and, as it turned out, unnecessary since before we lost touch he had
found a girlfriend.

[Quinn C]

Post by Robert Bannister
INFANTS (it didn't say "mixed", although they were), BOYS and GIRLS. In
my last or second last year, they mixed the boys and girls together and
split us into "junior primary" (in the old boys' school) and senior
primary (in the old girls' building). It was very exciting not only
using the same playground but also actually sitting next to a girl in class.

There are many co-educational classrooms, to this day, where this
almost never happens.

[Janet]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by Peter T. Daniels

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?

Why is "race" of any importance or even interest unless you are a
racist? Sex is a different matter.

Oh Jeez. Do we have to have the Heathfield fiasco all over again? Four
hundred years of American history.

400 years of American history have absolutely zero connection to the
British education system's use of the term "mixed infants".

Janet

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Janet

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by Peter T. Daniels

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?

Why is "race" of any importance or even interest unless you are a
racist? Sex is a different matter.

Oh Jeez. Do we have to have the Heathfield fiasco all over again? Four
hundred years of American history.

400 years of American history have absolutely zero connection to the
British education system's use of the term "mixed infants".

You really are as stupid as the sociopath says.

Or maybe you ignore everyone else's comments -- or at least Tony Cooper's --
merely to spit bile on mine.

[Reinhold {Rey} Aman]

Post by Peter T. Daniels
You really are as stupid as the sociopath says.

You *lying* cocksucker! I have *never* called Janet "stupid,"
because she isn't.

See the Loony Linguist:
Loading Image...

[RH Draney]

Post by Robert Bannister
Why is "race" of any importance or even interest unless you are a
racist? Sex is a different matter.

It might entitle one to special benefits....r

[Cheryl]

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by Peter T. Daniels

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?

Why is "race" of any importance or even interest unless you are a
racist? Sex is a different matter.

We recently had a public call for universities to find out more about
the race of their students. I am sure that the people behind this
request, who were deeply interested in the race of university students,
would be horrified to be called racists. They justify their demand by
saying that you can't prove if racism exists and is a problem unless you
know what race everyone is. Presumably they are following the American
approach to race issues.

I don't see any particular need for anyone to know my race, but I
suppose I won't be covered anyway, since the course I was taking out of
interest is finishing up and by next week or so, I won't even be a
part-time students.

[Quinn C]

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by Peter T. Daniels

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?

Why is "race" of any importance or even interest unless you are a
racist?

When there's widespread or even institutionalized racism in
society, you are liable to reproduce racist structures even
without being racist yourself, if you're not careful.

A bunch of people here don't seem to recognize that, though.

Post by Robert Bannister
Sex is a different matter.

Not nearly as much as most people think.

[Quinn C]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

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?

I also noticed on first reading that "mixed" could refer to race,
but in the context, I interpreted the word the same way as in the
case of sex: that the class is a mix of children of different
racial background. This sounds racist because it implies that
racial segregation is even an option.

[Janet]

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

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

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.

A term that irritated me no end when I first heard it was "co-ed" for a
girl at a co-educational school. It still irritates me, but it seems to
be less common than it was, and I'm more familiar with it.

Post by Tony Cooper
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]

On Sun, 2 Apr 2017 20:25:20 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
A term that irritated me no end when I first heard it was "co-ed" for a
girl at a co-educational school. It still irritates me, but it seems to
be less common than it was, and I'm more familiar with it.

The term "co-ed" for a female college student is very familiar to me,
and a term I've probably used on many occasions. I suppose it is
out-of-date now, but I haven't paid attention to the usage.

Back-in-the-day, many of our universities were either all-male or
all-female, so a co-educational university was almost remarkable. The
women who attended them were designated "co-eds" because they attended
one of the co-educational school. Later, the term was applied to all
females at a university.

STS strikes when I see the word. The song "Betty Co-ed" plays in my
mind. The tune remains, but the lyrics have faded. Looking them up:

Betty Co-ed has lips of red for Harvard,
Betty Co-ed has eyes of Yale's deep blue,
Betty Co-ed's a golden haired for Princeton,
Her dress I guess is black for old Purdue!

Betty Co-ed's a smile for Pennsylvania,
Her heart is Dartmouth's treasure, so 'tis said,
Betty Co-ed is loved by every college boy,
But I'm the one who's loved by Betty Co-ed!

How Purdue, that plebeian, Midwest, school gets in with those Eastern
elites is beyond me.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sun, 2 Apr 2017 20:25:20 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
A term that irritated me no end when I first heard it was "co-ed" for a
girl at a co-educational school. It still irritates me, but it seems to
be less common than it was, and I'm more familiar with it.

The term "co-ed" for a female college student is very familiar to me,
and a term I've probably used on many occasions. I suppose it is
out-of-date now, but I haven't paid attention to the usage.
Back-in-the-day, many of our universities were either all-male or
all-female, so a co-educational university was almost remarkable. The
women who attended them were designated "co-eds" because they attended
one of the co-educational school. Later, the term was applied to all
females at a university.
STS strikes when I see the word. The song "Betty Co-ed" plays in my
Betty Co-ed has lips of red for Harvard,
Betty Co-ed has eyes of Yale's deep blue,
Betty Co-ed's a golden haired for Princeton,
Her dress I guess is black for old Purdue!
Betty Co-ed's a smile for Pennsylvania,
Her heart is Dartmouth's treasure, so 'tis said,
Betty Co-ed is loved by every college boy,
But I'm the one who's loved by Betty Co-ed!
How Purdue, that plebeian, Midwest, school gets in with those Eastern
elites is beyond me.

They couldn't think of a rhyme for Cornell or Columbia or, er, Brown?

It was a hit for Rudy Vallee.

[Tony Cooper]

On Sun, 2 Apr 2017 15:03:10 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sun, 2 Apr 2017 20:25:20 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
A term that irritated me no end when I first heard it was "co-ed" for a
girl at a co-educational school. It still irritates me, but it seems to
be less common than it was, and I'm more familiar with it.

The term "co-ed" for a female college student is very familiar to me,
and a term I've probably used on many occasions. I suppose it is
out-of-date now, but I haven't paid attention to the usage.
Back-in-the-day, many of our universities were either all-male or
all-female, so a co-educational university was almost remarkable. The
women who attended them were designated "co-eds" because they attended
one of the co-educational school. Later, the term was applied to all
females at a university.
STS strikes when I see the word. The song "Betty Co-ed" plays in my
Betty Co-ed has lips of red for Harvard,
Betty Co-ed has eyes of Yale's deep blue,
Betty Co-ed's a golden haired for Princeton,
Her dress I guess is black for old Purdue!
Betty Co-ed's a smile for Pennsylvania,
Her heart is Dartmouth's treasure, so 'tis said,
Betty Co-ed is loved by every college boy,
But I'm the one who's loved by Betty Co-ed!
How Purdue, that plebeian, Midwest, school gets in with those Eastern
elites is beyond me.

They couldn't think of a rhyme for Cornell or Columbia or, er, Brown?

A verse not included in my post is:

Betty Co-ed has lips of red for Cornell,
Betty Co-ed has eyes of Navy blue,
Betty Co-ed, the golden haired for Amherst,
Her dress I guess is white for Georgia, too!

Betty seems to have changed her dress between verses.

Post by Peter T. Daniels
It was a hit for Rudy Vallee.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Sun, 02 Apr 2017 18:20:53 -0400, Tony Cooper

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sun, 2 Apr 2017 15:03:10 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sun, 2 Apr 2017 20:25:20 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
A term that irritated me no end when I first heard it was "co-ed" for a
girl at a co-educational school. It still irritates me, but it seems to
be less common than it was, and I'm more familiar with it.

The term "co-ed" for a female college student is very familiar to me,
and a term I've probably used on many occasions. I suppose it is
out-of-date now, but I haven't paid attention to the usage.
Back-in-the-day, many of our universities were either all-male or
all-female, so a co-educational university was almost remarkable. The
women who attended them were designated "co-eds" because they attended
one of the co-educational school. Later, the term was applied to all
females at a university.
STS strikes when I see the word. The song "Betty Co-ed" plays in my
Betty Co-ed has lips of red for Harvard,
Betty Co-ed has eyes of Yale's deep blue,
Betty Co-ed's a golden haired for Princeton,
Her dress I guess is black for old Purdue!
Betty Co-ed's a smile for Pennsylvania,
Her heart is Dartmouth's treasure, so 'tis said,
Betty Co-ed is loved by every college boy,
But I'm the one who's loved by Betty Co-ed!
How Purdue, that plebeian, Midwest, school gets in with those Eastern
elites is beyond me.

They couldn't think of a rhyme for Cornell or Columbia or, er, Brown?

Betty Co-ed has lips of red for Cornell,
Betty Co-ed has eyes of Navy blue,
Betty Co-ed, the golden haired for Amherst,
Her dress I guess is white for Georgia, too!

That briefly sent me up a Welsh garden path to the town of Betws-y-Coed.
http://www.visitbetwsycoed.co.uk/

Post by Tony Cooper
Betty seems to have changed her dress between verses.

Post by Peter T. Daniels
It was a hit for Rudy Vallee.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Mon, 03 Apr 2017 00:07:47 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sun, 02 Apr 2017 18:20:53 -0400, Tony Cooper

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sun, 2 Apr 2017 15:03:10 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sun, 2 Apr 2017 20:25:20 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
A term that irritated me no end when I first heard it was "co-ed" for a
girl at a co-educational school. It still irritates me, but it seems to
be less common than it was, and I'm more familiar with it.

The term "co-ed" for a female college student is very familiar to me,
and a term I've probably used on many occasions. I suppose it is
out-of-date now, but I haven't paid attention to the usage.
Back-in-the-day, many of our universities were either all-male or
all-female, so a co-educational university was almost remarkable. The
women who attended them were designated "co-eds" because they attended
one of the co-educational school. Later, the term was applied to all
females at a university.
STS strikes when I see the word. The song "Betty Co-ed" plays in my
Betty Co-ed has lips of red for Harvard,
Betty Co-ed has eyes of Yale's deep blue,
Betty Co-ed's a golden haired for Princeton,
Her dress I guess is black for old Purdue!
Betty Co-ed's a smile for Pennsylvania,
Her heart is Dartmouth's treasure, so 'tis said,
Betty Co-ed is loved by every college boy,
But I'm the one who's loved by Betty Co-ed!
How Purdue, that plebeian, Midwest, school gets in with those Eastern
elites is beyond me.

They couldn't think of a rhyme for Cornell or Columbia or, er, Brown?

Betty Co-ed has lips of red for Cornell,
Betty Co-ed has eyes of Navy blue,
Betty Co-ed, the golden haired for Amherst,
Her dress I guess is white for Georgia, too!

That briefly sent me up a Welsh garden path to the town of Betws-y-Coed.
http://www.visitbetwsycoed.co.uk/

Having recovered from that garden-pathing I was dragged up another
remembering my mother's friend Betty Coad (rhymes with road).

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by Tony Cooper
Betty seems to have changed her dress between verses.

Post by Peter T. Daniels
It was a hit for Rudy Vallee.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sun, 2 Apr 2017 15:03:10 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sun, 2 Apr 2017 20:25:20 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
A term that irritated me no end when I first heard it was "co-ed" for a
girl at a co-educational school. It still irritates me, but it seems to
be less common than it was, and I'm more familiar with it.

The term "co-ed" for a female college student is very familiar to me,
and a term I've probably used on many occasions. I suppose it is
out-of-date now, but I haven't paid attention to the usage.
Back-in-the-day, many of our universities were either all-male or
all-female, so a co-educational university was almost remarkable. The
women who attended them were designated "co-eds" because they attended
one of the co-educational school. Later, the term was applied to all
females at a university.
STS strikes when I see the word. The song "Betty Co-ed" plays in my
Betty Co-ed has lips of red for Harvard,
Betty Co-ed has eyes of Yale's deep blue,
Betty Co-ed's a golden haired for Princeton,
Her dress I guess is black for old Purdue!
Betty Co-ed's a smile for Pennsylvania,
Her heart is Dartmouth's treasure, so 'tis said,
Betty Co-ed is loved by every college boy,
But I'm the one who's loved by Betty Co-ed!
How Purdue, that plebeian, Midwest, school gets in with those Eastern
elites is beyond me.

They couldn't think of a rhyme for Cornell or Columbia or, er, Brown?

Betty Co-ed has lips of red for Cornell,
Betty Co-ed has eyes of Navy blue,
Betty Co-ed, the golden haired for Amherst,
Her dress I guess is white for Georgia, too!
Betty seems to have changed her dress between verses.

IIRC Cornell played 10 football games a year (there was never any fear of
getting into any bowl games or suchlike, even though we did have Heisman-
winner Ed Marinaro during my time, who after a few years in pro football
became an actor). Besides the seven other Ivies, the opponents were Colgate
(a couple of Finger Lakes over, in Alfred, NY) always the first of the season, either Army or Navy, and one other chosen in some way that would be unknown to
the uninterested.

[Jack Campin]

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
A term that irritated me no end when I first heard it was "co-ed"
for a girl at a co-educational school.

The term "co-ed" for a female college student is very familiar to
me, and a term I've probably used on many occasions. I suppose
it is out-of-date now, but I haven't paid attention to the usage.

It's not so much out of date as glaringly sexist in a way that
should have been stark staring obvious to anyone with a brain
in 1950. If the female students at a co-educational institution
can be described as "co-eds", the same word should apply to the
male students at the same place.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
e m a i l : j a c k @ c a m p i n . m e . u k
Jack Campin, 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU, Scotland
mobile [phone] <http://www.campin.me.uk> Twitter: JackCampin

[Tony Cooper]

On Mon, 03 Apr 2017 02:07:26 +0100, Jack Campin

Post by Jack Campin

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
A term that irritated me no end when I first heard it was "co-ed"
for a girl at a co-educational school.

The term "co-ed" for a female college student is very familiar to
me, and a term I've probably used on many occasions. I suppose
it is out-of-date now, but I haven't paid attention to the usage.

It's not so much out of date as glaringly sexist in a way that
should have been stark staring obvious to anyone with a brain
in 1950. If the female students at a co-educational institution
can be described as "co-eds", the same word should apply to the
male students at the same place.

Big yawn from this quarter, Jack. In 1950, I was just getting over
the idea that girls were yucky, but by 1953 or 1954 I was beginning to
look forward to going to college and dating co-eds. In 1957 I was
doing that.

I know the term was in use, but it wasn't something we went around
saying all of the time. I can't even think about what kind of
sentence I would have used in those days using "co-eds". I think it
primarily appeared in newspaper and magazine stories describing things
like Spring Break in Ft Lauderdale. An article might have mentioned
co-eds on the beach, but writing "female students" on the beach just
wasn't the style used then. It lacked punch.

And, of course it was "sexist" if the point is that the term refers
specifically to members of one sex. That's why it was used. It
wasn't of any interest, and didn't need to be stated, that there were
male students on the beach at Ft Lauderdale.

The co-eds of the 50's went on to be "housewives". How's that for a
sexist term?

[David Kleinecke]

Post by Jack Campin

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
A term that irritated me no end when I first heard it was "co-ed"
for a girl at a co-educational school.

The term "co-ed" for a female college student is very familiar to
me, and a term I've probably used on many occasions. I suppose
it is out-of-date now, but I haven't paid attention to the usage.

It's not so much out of date as glaringly sexist in a way that
should have been stark staring obvious to anyone with a brain
in 1950. If the female students at a co-educational institution
can be described as "co-eds", the same word should apply to the
male students at the same place.

Consider Stanford (now generally consider a world class school):
Back in 1950 (I am speaking from Berkeley) it was generally
understood that the only reason girls went to Stanford and
the only reason they were admitted there was to catch a husband.

Serious woman scholars went to Berkeley. But none of the girls
at any institution of higher learning in the Bay Area were called
"co-eds".

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Jack Campin

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
A term that irritated me no end when I first heard it was "co-ed"
for a girl at a co-educational school.

The term "co-ed" for a female college student is very familiar to
me, and a term I've probably used on many occasions. I suppose
it is out-of-date now, but I haven't paid attention to the usage.

It's not so much out of date as glaringly sexist in a way that
should have been stark staring obvious to anyone with a brain
in 1950. If the female students at a co-educational institution
can be described as "co-eds", the same word should apply to the
male students at the same place.

In such institutions, the girls were recent additions. Cornell was coeducational
from the beginning (in 1865) and "co-ed" was never used.

A more interesting case would be whether the boys who began to be admitted to
girls' colleges like Vassar and Bryn Mawr in the early 1970s were called co-eds.

AFAIK, however, neither Barnard nor Radcliffe, the women's colleges associated
with Columbia and Harvard Universities respectively, admits men, even though
Columbia and Harvard Colleges now admit women. Presumably men can register for
courses taught at Barnard or Radcliffe by faculty members who don't have joint
appointments in the eponymous Colleges.

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Jack Campin

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
A term that irritated me no end when I first heard it was "co-ed"
for a girl at a co-educational school.

The term "co-ed" for a female college student is very familiar to
me, and a term I've probably used on many occasions. I suppose
it is out-of-date now, but I haven't paid attention to the usage.

It's not so much out of date as glaringly sexist in a way that
should have been stark staring obvious to anyone with a brain
in 1950. If the female students at a co-educational institution
can be described as "co-eds", the same word should apply to the
male students at the same place.

In such institutions, the girls were recent additions. Cornell was coeducational
from the beginning (in 1865) and "co-ed" was never used.
A more interesting case would be whether the boys who began to be admitted to
girls' colleges like Vassar and Bryn Mawr in the early 1970s were called co-eds.

I've heard it said that etymology is a poor guide to meaning, so it
probably wouldn't seem appropriate.

[Quinn C]

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Jack Campin

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
A term that irritated me no end when I first heard it was "co-ed"
for a girl at a co-educational school.

The term "co-ed" for a female college student is very familiar to
me, and a term I've probably used on many occasions. I suppose
it is out-of-date now, but I haven't paid attention to the usage.

It's not so much out of date as glaringly sexist in a way that
should have been stark staring obvious to anyone with a brain
in 1950. If the female students at a co-educational institution
can be described as "co-eds", the same word should apply to the
male students at the same place.

In such institutions, the girls were recent additions. Cornell was coeducational
from the beginning (in 1865) and "co-ed" was never used.
A more interesting case would be whether the boys who began to be admitted to
girls' colleges like Vassar and Bryn Mawr in the early 1970s were called co-eds.

I've heard it said that etymology is a poor guide to meaning, so it
probably wouldn't seem appropriate.

And that in turn would indicate that the word is (was) indeed
sexist, in that it expresses that women getting a university
education are something remarkable, and at the same time not equal
to the men, and all that decades after it was actually a new
thing.

[Tony Cooper]

On Mon, 3 Apr 2017 18:07:22 -0400, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Jack Campin

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
A term that irritated me no end when I first heard it was "co-ed"
for a girl at a co-educational school.

The term "co-ed" for a female college student is very familiar to
me, and a term I've probably used on many occasions. I suppose
it is out-of-date now, but I haven't paid attention to the usage.

It's not so much out of date as glaringly sexist in a way that
should have been stark staring obvious to anyone with a brain
in 1950. If the female students at a co-educational institution
can be described as "co-eds", the same word should apply to the
male students at the same place.

In such institutions, the girls were recent additions. Cornell was coeducational
from the beginning (in 1865) and "co-ed" was never used.
A more interesting case would be whether the boys who began to be admitted to
girls' colleges like Vassar and Bryn Mawr in the early 1970s were called co-eds.

I've heard it said that etymology is a poor guide to meaning, so it
probably wouldn't seem appropriate.

And that in turn would indicate that the word is (was) indeed
sexist, in that it expresses that women getting a university
education are something remarkable, and at the same time not equal
to the men, and all that decades after it was actually a new
thing.

Why? All it indicated is that the female was attending a
co-educational university. There were exclusively woman's
universities before there were co-educational universities.

Vassar was founded in 1861 as a university exclusively for women. Bryn
Mawr was founded in 1865 as a university exclusively for women. Mount
Holyoke was founded in 1836 exclusively for women. The first
all-female tertiary school was Bethlehem Female Seminary (later
Moravian College) in 1742.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Mon, 3 Apr 2017 18:07:22 -0400, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Jack Campin

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
A term that irritated me no end when I first heard it was "co-ed"
for a girl at a co-educational school.

The term "co-ed" for a female college student is very familiar to
me, and a term I've probably used on many occasions. I suppose
it is out-of-date now, but I haven't paid attention to the usage.

It's not so much out of date as glaringly sexist in a way that
should have been stark staring obvious to anyone with a brain
in 1950. If the female students at a co-educational institution
can be described as "co-eds", the same word should apply to the
male students at the same place.

In such institutions, the girls were recent additions. Cornell was coeducational
from the beginning (in 1865) and "co-ed" was never used.
A more interesting case would be whether the boys who began to be admitted to
girls' colleges like Vassar and Bryn Mawr in the early 1970s were called co-eds.

I've heard it said that etymology is a poor guide to meaning, so it
probably wouldn't seem appropriate.

And that in turn would indicate that the word is (was) indeed
sexist, in that it expresses that women getting a university
education are something remarkable, and at the same time not equal
to the men, and all that decades after it was actually a new
thing.

Why? All it indicated is that the female was attending a
co-educational university. There were exclusively woman's
universities before there were co-educational universities.

Completely missing the point. As I noted, Cornell was never single-sex and was
never considered "co-educational." The question simply never arose. The term
exists _only_ when a few members of one sex begin to enter a college that had
been exclusively for the other sex. If it was in fact _not_ used in the
circumstances I named, then Quinn is absolutely correct and its use was (and
perhaps still is, if found anywhere) sexist.

Post by Tony Cooper
Vassar was founded in 1861 as a university exclusively for women. Bryn
Mawr was founded in 1865 as a university exclusively for women.

Neither of those was or is a university.

Post by Tony Cooper
Mount
Holyoke was founded in 1836 exclusively for women. The first
all-female tertiary school was Bethlehem Female Seminary (later
Moravian College) in 1742.

Note that Tony's contribution has nothing whatsoever to do with either the
topic or the question to which he responded.

[Cheryl]

Post by Quinn C

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Jack Campin

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
A term that irritated me no end when I first heard it was "co-ed"
for a girl at a co-educational school.

The term "co-ed" for a female college student is very familiar to
me, and a term I've probably used on many occasions. I suppose
it is out-of-date now, but I haven't paid attention to the usage.

It's not so much out of date as glaringly sexist in a way that
should have been stark staring obvious to anyone with a brain
in 1950. If the female students at a co-educational institution
can be described as "co-eds", the same word should apply to the
male students at the same place.

In such institutions, the girls were recent additions. Cornell was coeducational
from the beginning (in 1865) and "co-ed" was never used.
A more interesting case would be whether the boys who began to be admitted to
girls' colleges like Vassar and Bryn Mawr in the early 1970s were called co-eds.

I've heard it said that etymology is a poor guide to meaning, so it
probably wouldn't seem appropriate.

And that in turn would indicate that the word is (was) indeed
sexist, in that it expresses that women getting a university
education are something remarkable, and at the same time not equal
to the men, and all that decades after it was actually a new
thing.

Not to me. Admittedly, it's not a term that was used in my area, but I
knew it, and to me it was only a US term for women at university.

In the explanations above, it doesn't seem to even imply that being a
female university student was unusual - it didn't even refer to those
attending women's universities or ones that were traditionally mixed.

[Quinn C]

Post by Cheryl

Post by Quinn C

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Jack Campin

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
A term that irritated me no end when I first heard it was "co-ed"
for a girl at a co-educational school.

The term "co-ed" for a female college student is very familiar to
me, and a term I've probably used on many occasions. I suppose
it is out-of-date now, but I haven't paid attention to the usage.

It's not so much out of date as glaringly sexist in a way that
should have been stark staring obvious to anyone with a brain
in 1950. If the female students at a co-educational institution
can be described as "co-eds", the same word should apply to the
male students at the same place.

In such institutions, the girls were recent additions. Cornell was coeducational
from the beginning (in 1865) and "co-ed" was never used.
A more interesting case would be whether the boys who began to be admitted to
girls' colleges like Vassar and Bryn Mawr in the early 1970s were called co-eds.

I've heard it said that etymology is a poor guide to meaning, so it
probably wouldn't seem appropriate.

And that in turn would indicate that the word is (was) indeed
sexist, in that it expresses that women getting a university
education are something remarkable, and at the same time not equal
to the men, and all that decades after it was actually a new
thing.

Not to me. Admittedly, it's not a term that was used in my area, but I
knew it, and to me it was only a US term for women at university.
In the explanations above, it doesn't seem to even imply that being a
female university student was unusual - it didn't even refer to those
attending women's universities or ones that were traditionally mixed.

My judgment was based on the understanding that "co-ed" was in
practice mainly used for female students who were attending
formerly all-male institutions, or possibly in a wider sense, but
mainly at such institutions.

If that's not the case, I may revise my ideas. But the fact alone
that it's used for women only, despite its semantics, makes it an
easy vessel for sexist ideas, for those who have them already.

My original issue with the term is based partially on the co-
prefix, which often indicates a secondary position (as in
co-pilot), but mostly on actual usage: from the handful of texts
where I first encountered the term, none of them made me expect
that the next one would say "Wow, those co-eds, they're gonna make
fantastic doctors and lawyers." Instead, the term was used rather
like "College girls" these days, with "... gone wild" right under
the surface.

[Tony Cooper]

On Tue, 4 Apr 2017 14:15:26 -0400, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C

Post by Cheryl

Post by Quinn C

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Jack Campin

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
A term that irritated me no end when I first heard it was "co-ed"
for a girl at a co-educational school.

The term "co-ed" for a female college student is very familiar to
me, and a term I've probably used on many occasions. I suppose
it is out-of-date now, but I haven't paid attention to the usage.

It's not so much out of date as glaringly sexist in a way that
should have been stark staring obvious to anyone with a brain
in 1950. If the female students at a co-educational institution
can be described as "co-eds", the same word should apply to the
male students at the same place.

In such institutions, the girls were recent additions. Cornell was coeducational
from the beginning (in 1865) and "co-ed" was never used.
A more interesting case would be whether the boys who began to be admitted to
girls' colleges like Vassar and Bryn Mawr in the early 1970s were called co-eds.

I've heard it said that etymology is a poor guide to meaning, so it
probably wouldn't seem appropriate.

And that in turn would indicate that the word is (was) indeed
sexist, in that it expresses that women getting a university
education are something remarkable, and at the same time not equal
to the men, and all that decades after it was actually a new
thing.

Not to me. Admittedly, it's not a term that was used in my area, but I
knew it, and to me it was only a US term for women at university.
In the explanations above, it doesn't seem to even imply that being a
female university student was unusual - it didn't even refer to those
attending women's universities or ones that were traditionally mixed.

My judgment was based on the understanding that "co-ed" was in
practice mainly used for female students who were attending
formerly all-male institutions, or possibly in a wider sense, but
mainly at such institutions.

No, a "co-ed" was a term for any female student at any college or
university. The term was popularized in the 1930s and has drifted
into obscurity over the years since. Rudy Vallee wrote the lyrics to
the song "Betty Co-ed" in 1931 and the song became a hit.

Post by Quinn C
If that's not the case, I may revise my ideas. But the fact alone
that it's used for women only, despite its semantics, makes it an
easy vessel for sexist ideas, for those who have them already.
My original issue with the term is based partially on the co-
prefix, which often indicates a secondary position (as in
co-pilot),

Why would you make that association when the "co-" is explained as a
shortening of "co-educational" meaning a university or college that
admits both male and female students?

Do you feel that a grocery co-op or an apartment co-op are inferior
because of the prefix? Is a co-educational school secondary to one
that is not?

Post by Quinn C
but mostly on actual usage: from the handful of texts
where I first encountered the term, none of them made me expect
that the next one would say "Wow, those co-eds, they're gonna make
fantastic doctors and lawyers." Instead, the term was used rather
like "College girls" these days, with "... gone wild" right under
the surface.

Terms used in place of "male" or "female" are seldom followed by
phrases of promise of future achievements. You will find many written
references to college "fraternity boys" and "jocks" without a
following reference to what fantastic doctors and lawyers they will
be.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 4 Apr 2017 14:15:26 -0400, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C

Post by Cheryl

Post by Quinn C

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Jack Campin

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
A term that irritated me no end when I first heard it was "co-ed"
for a girl at a co-educational school.

The term "co-ed" for a female college student is very familiar to
me, and a term I've probably used on many occasions. I suppose
it is out-of-date now, but I haven't paid attention to the usage.

It's not so much out of date as glaringly sexist in a way that
should have been stark staring obvious to anyone with a brain
in 1950. If the female students at a co-educational institution
can be described as "co-eds", the same word should apply to the
male students at the same place.

In such institutions, the girls were recent additions. Cornell was coeducational
from the beginning (in 1865) and "co-ed" was never used.
A more interesting case would be whether the boys who began to be admitted to
girls' colleges like Vassar and Bryn Mawr in the early 1970s were called co-eds.

I've heard it said that etymology is a poor guide to meaning, so it
probably wouldn't seem appropriate.

And that in turn would indicate that the word is (was) indeed
sexist, in that it expresses that women getting a university
education are something remarkable, and at the same time not equal
to the men, and all that decades after it was actually a new
thing.

Not to me. Admittedly, it's not a term that was used in my area, but I
knew it, and to me it was only a US term for women at university.
In the explanations above, it doesn't seem to even imply that being a
female university student was unusual - it didn't even refer to those
attending women's universities or ones that were traditionally mixed.

My judgment was based on the understanding that "co-ed" was in
practice mainly used for female students who were attending
formerly all-male institutions, or possibly in a wider sense, but
mainly at such institutions.

No, a "co-ed" was a term for any female student at any college or
university.

Why do you keep repeating that falsehood?

Post by Tony Cooper
The term was popularized in the 1930s and has drifted
into obscurity over the years since. Rudy Vallee wrote the lyrics to
the song "Betty Co-ed" in 1931 and the song became a hit.

Post by Quinn C
If that's not the case, I may revise my ideas. But the fact alone
that it's used for women only, despite its semantics, makes it an
easy vessel for sexist ideas, for those who have them already.
My original issue with the term is based partially on the co-
prefix, which often indicates a secondary position (as in
co-pilot),

Why would you make that association when the "co-" is explained as a
shortening of "co-educational" meaning a university or college that
admits both male and female students?

It was not used of colleges or universities that had never been single-sex.

Post by Tony Cooper
Do you feel that a grocery co-op or an apartment co-op are inferior
because of the prefix? Is a co-educational school secondary to one
that is not?

Post by Quinn C
but mostly on actual usage: from the handful of texts
where I first encountered the term, none of them made me expect
that the next one would say "Wow, those co-eds, they're gonna make
fantastic doctors and lawyers." Instead, the term was used rather
like "College girls" these days, with "... gone wild" right under
the surface.

Terms used in place of "male" or "female" are seldom followed by
phrases of promise of future achievements. You will find many written
references to college "fraternity boys" and "jocks" without a
following reference to what fantastic doctors and lawyers they will
be.

[Jack Campin]

Post by Tony Cooper
No, a "co-ed" was a term for any female student at any college or
university.

Why do you keep repeating that falsehood? [...] It was not used
of colleges or universities that had never been single-sex.

You're making this up. Anybody who's read or watched American
cultural products from the relevant period will have seen the
term in use. The institutional nature and history of the
college/university/school didn't come into it - if its
business was education and it had women students, they were
"co-eds". (In print, anyway. I don't think I've heard anyone
use the term in conversation, and it never occurred to me that
anyone talked like Archie and Veronica in real life).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
e m a i l : j a c k @ c a m p i n . m e . u k
Jack Campin, 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU, Scotland
mobile [phone] <http://www.campin.me.uk> Twitter: JackCampin

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Jack Campin

Post by Tony Cooper
No, a "co-ed" was a term for any female student at any college or
university.

Why do you keep repeating that falsehood? [...] It was not used
of colleges or universities that had never been single-sex.

You're making this up. Anybody who's read or watched American
cultural products from the relevant period will have seen the
term in use. The institutional nature and history of the
college/university/school didn't come into it - if its
business was education and it had women students, they were
"co-eds". (In print, anyway. I don't think I've heard anyone
use the term in conversation, and it never occurred to me that
anyone talked like Archie and Veronica in real life).

Please stop flaunting your ignorance. Colleges were almost exclusively male
for most of their history. Colleges for women, often in a sibling relationship with
existing institutions (as in "Radcliffe is the sister college of Harvard"), came
along fairly late in the history of US higher education. A fully integrated college
-- IIRC Oberlin was the first; Cornell was a bit later -- was quite a rarity.

Co-eds were quite exceptional for most of the history of higher education, for a
long time after females began to be accepted.

When, BTW, did English colleges become sexually integrated?

[Quinn C]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 4 Apr 2017 14:15:26 -0400, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C
but mostly on actual usage: from the handful of texts
where I first encountered the term, none of them made me expect
that the next one would say "Wow, those co-eds, they're gonna make
fantastic doctors and lawyers." Instead, the term was used rather
like "College girls" these days, with "... gone wild" right under
the surface.

Terms used in place of "male" or "female" are seldom followed by
phrases of promise of future achievements. You will find many written
references to college "fraternity boys" and "jocks" without a
following reference to what fantastic doctors and lawyers they will
be.

But those are subsets of male students I'd avoid like the plague,
whereas you said "co-eds" were all female students.

I'm referring to stereotypical "frat boys" here, not all members
of all fraternities.

[Tony Cooper]

On Tue, 4 Apr 2017 15:26:53 -0400, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C

Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 4 Apr 2017 14:15:26 -0400, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C
but mostly on actual usage: from the handful of texts
where I first encountered the term, none of them made me expect
that the next one would say "Wow, those co-eds, they're gonna make
fantastic doctors and lawyers." Instead, the term was used rather
like "College girls" these days, with "... gone wild" right under
the surface.

Terms used in place of "male" or "female" are seldom followed by
phrases of promise of future achievements. You will find many written
references to college "fraternity boys" and "jocks" without a
following reference to what fantastic doctors and lawyers they will
be.

But those are subsets of male students I'd avoid like the plague,
whereas you said "co-eds" were all female students.

Who you might personally avoid has nothing to do with what is written
by other people about those people. And,this has been about what has
been written by other people using the words "co-ed", "fraternity
boys", and "jocks".

Post by Quinn C
I'm referring to stereotypical "frat boys" here, not all members
of all fraternities.

I'm not sure if I was a stereotypical "frat boy" or not. I have no
idea what you're conception is of that stereotype. I was never a
"jock", though.

[Tony Cooper]

On Tue, 04 Apr 2017 16:37:21 -0400, Tony Cooper

Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 4 Apr 2017 15:26:53 -0400, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C

Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 4 Apr 2017 14:15:26 -0400, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C
but mostly on actual usage: from the handful of texts
where I first encountered the term, none of them made me expect
that the next one would say "Wow, those co-eds, they're gonna make
fantastic doctors and lawyers." Instead, the term was used rather
like "College girls" these days, with "... gone wild" right under
the surface.

Terms used in place of "male" or "female" are seldom followed by
phrases of promise of future achievements. You will find many written
references to college "fraternity boys" and "jocks" without a
following reference to what fantastic doctors and lawyers they will
be.

But those are subsets of male students I'd avoid like the plague,
whereas you said "co-eds" were all female students.

Who you might personally avoid has nothing to do with what is written
by other people about those people. And,this has been about what has
been written by other people using the words "co-ed", "fraternity
boys", and "jocks".

Post by Quinn C
I'm referring to stereotypical "frat boys" here, not all members
of all fraternities.

I'm not sure if I was a stereotypical "frat boy" or not. I have no
idea what you're conception is of that stereotype. I was never a
"jock", though.

Of course, reading my post, the stereotypical view of a frat boy
(which I was) may be that they don't know the difference between
"you're" and "your".

[Robert Bannister]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Jack Campin

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
A term that irritated me no end when I first heard it was "co-ed"
for a girl at a co-educational school.

The term "co-ed" for a female college student is very familiar to
me, and a term I've probably used on many occasions. I suppose
it is out-of-date now, but I haven't paid attention to the usage.

It's not so much out of date as glaringly sexist in a way that
should have been stark staring obvious to anyone with a brain
in 1950. If the female students at a co-educational institution
can be described as "co-eds", the same word should apply to the
male students at the same place.

In such institutions, the girls were recent additions. Cornell was coeducational
from the beginning (in 1865) and "co-ed" was never used.
A more interesting case would be whether the boys who began to be admitted to
girls' colleges like Vassar and Bryn Mawr in the early 1970s were called co-eds.
AFAIK, however, neither Barnard nor Radcliffe, the women's colleges associated
with Columbia and Harvard Universities respectively, admits men, even though
Columbia and Harvard Colleges now admit women. Presumably men can register for
courses taught at Barnard or Radcliffe by faculty members who don't have joint
appointments in the eponymous Colleges.

Wiki: "Bedford College was founded in London in 1849 as the first higher
education college for the education of women in the United Kingdom. In
1900, the college became a constituent school of the University of
London. It played a leading role in the advancement of women in higher
education, and in public life in general. The college became fully
coeducational in the 1960s."

I was not even aware that Bedford had become coeducational, but in 1960
or 61, my (mixed) class from University College used to go there
occasionally for some obscure lecture - it might not have been obscure,
but I can't remember anything about it except that we had to go to
Bedford College.

[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.

[Sam Plusnet]

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.

[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.

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]]

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

[Robert Bannister]

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
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
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’

Reading the official version is interesting because just about everyone
says "infants school" or perhaps they say "infants' school" or maybe
"infantschool". It's hard to hear those spellings at times.

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

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

[Richard Tobin]

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
It is similar in BrE. The sense in the context of schools is different
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’

Reading the official version is interesting because just about everyone
says "infants school" or perhaps they say "infants' school" or maybe
"infantschool". It's hard to hear those spellings at times.

Since the contrast (in England) is with "junior school" and "secondary
school" it would be natural to take it as "infant school".

-- Richard

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Richard Tobin

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
It is similar in BrE. The sense in the context of schools is different
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’

Reading the official version is interesting because just about everyone
says "infants school" or perhaps they say "infants' school" or maybe
"infantschool". It's hard to hear those spellings at times.

Since the contrast (in England) is with "junior school" and "secondary
school" it would be natural to take it as "infant school".

Not really, since "infant" is mostly a noun and "junior/secondary" aren't.

[Richard Tobin]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Richard Tobin
Since the contrast (in England) is with "junior school" and "secondary
school" it would be natural to take it as "infant school".

Not really, since "infant" is mostly a noun and "junior/secondary" aren't.

The children in the infant school are infants, and the children in the
junior school are juniors. I would guess that these are by far
the most common uses of both words in England.

-- Richard

[Peter T. Daniels]

[no, he did not]

Post by Richard Tobin

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Richard Tobin
Since the contrast (in England) is with "junior school" and "secondary
school" it would be natural to take it as "infant school".

Not really, since "infant" is mostly a noun and "junior/secondary" aren't.

The children in the infant school are infants, and the children in the
junior school are juniors. I would guess that these are by far
the most common uses of both words in England.

Clearly "junior" (n.) is derived from "junior" (adj.). The next bunch aren't
called "secondaries"?

One hesitates between "infant" (adj.) and "infant" (attrib.) in the first case.

[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.)

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]

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]

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]

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

[b***@aol.com]

Post by Richard Tobin

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?

Not really, the definition the above link points to reads:

"infans
noun in·fans \ˈinˌfanz\
Popularity: Bottom 30% of words

Definition of infans
plural infantes \ə̇nˈfan‧ˌtēz\
civil law
: a child under seven years of age : a child not having the ability to speak"


Am I missing something?

Post by Richard Tobin
-- Richard

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Richard Tobin

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?

"infans
noun in·fans \ˈinˌfanz\
Popularity: Bottom 30% of words
Definition of infans
plural infantes \ə̇nˈfan‧ˌtēz\
civil law
: a child under seven years of age : a child not having the ability to speak"
Am I missing something?

Yes. That's Latin, not English. Saying "res ipsa loquitur" in a courtroom
doesn't make it English.

[Richard Tobin]

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Richard Tobin

Post by b***@aol.com
MW says otherwise: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infans

Are you trying some kind of April fool?

"infans
noun in·fans \ˈinˌfanz\
Popularity: Bottom 30% of words

[...]

When I follow that link, it doesn't show a word definition at all,
just something urging me to "join MWU". "infant" on the other hand
shows a definition.

A screen shot is at

Loading Image...

Post by b***@aol.com
Am I missing something?

Apparently it shows different things to different people.

-- Richard

[b***@aol.com]

Post by Richard Tobin

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Richard Tobin

Post by b***@aol.com
MW says otherwise: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infans

Are you trying some kind of April fool?

"infans
noun in·fans \ˈinˌfanz\
Popularity: Bottom 30% of words

[...]
When I follow that link, it doesn't show a word definition at all,
just something urging me to "join MWU". "infant" on the other hand
shows a definition.
A screen shot is at
http://www.cogsci.ed.ac.uk/~richard/infans.png

Post by b***@aol.com
Am I missing something?

Apparently it shows different things to different people.

Puzzling indeed. From within any MW page, typing "infans" in the input field sends me to the same page as shown in your screenshot. However, when I google "infans merriam", the first result shown is a working link to the above MW definition of "infans".

Here's a link to a screenshot of that page:

Loading Image...

As can be seen, no mention is made to the word not being English.

Post by Richard Tobin
-- Richard

[Richard Tobin]

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Richard Tobin
When I follow that link, it doesn't show a word definition at all,
just something urging me to "join MWU". "infant" on the other hand
shows a definition.

Puzzling indeed. From within any MW page, typing "infans" in the input
field sends me to the same page as shown in your screenshot. However,
when I google "infans merriam", the first result shown is a working link
to the above MW definition of "infans".

It doesn't do that for me.

But I have a Firefox add-on that gets rid of the redirection through
Google of search results[*]. If I disable that, I get your behaviour.
It appears that MW only shows me the definition when it appears to
them to be the result of a Google search.

[*] http://matagus.github.io/remove-google-redirects-addon/

-- Richard

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Richard Tobin

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Richard Tobin
When I follow that link, it doesn't show a word definition at all,
just something urging me to "join MWU". "infant" on the other hand
shows a definition.

Puzzling indeed. From within any MW page, typing "infans" in the input
field sends me to the same page as shown in your screenshot. However,
when I google "infans merriam", the first result shown is a working link
to the above MW definition of "infans".

It doesn't do that for me.
But I have a Firefox add-on that gets rid of the redirection through
Google of search results[*]. If I disable that, I get your behaviour.
It appears that MW only shows me the definition when it appears to
them to be the result of a Google search.
[*] http://matagus.github.io/remove-google-redirects-addon/

Bebercito found a back door! That's an entry in the Merriam-Webster
Unabridged, which is supposed to be available only to subscribers.

[Quinn C]

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.

Great - so English is far truer to the Latin original than the
successors of Latin, e.g. French "enfant" = child.

Compare also "infante/infanta", which made it into English.

[Tak To]

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".

[Pavel Svinchnik]

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.
--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972

[Pavel Svinchnik]

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.
--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972

As I recall from German class many years ago, "the child" was put in the neuter as "das Kind".

Paul

[musika]

Post by Pavel Svinchnik

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.

As I recall from German class many years ago, "the child" was put in
the neuter as "das Kind".

Der Tod und das Mädchen.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by musika

Post by Pavel Svinchnik

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.

As I recall from German class many years ago, "the child" was put in
the neuter as "das Kind".

Der Tod und das Mädchen.

Because the neuter suffix -chen was attached to die Magd.

[Robert Bannister]

Post by Pavel Svinchnik

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.
--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972

As I recall from German class many years ago, "the child" was put in the neuter as "das Kind".

Not "put" into the neuter. "Kind" just happens to be so just like
"Messer" (knife) is neuter, "Löffel" (spoon) masculine and "Gabel"
(fork) feminine. The reasons words belong to which group is lost in time.

However, if want consistency, in Macedonian, just about all young
(people or animals) are neuter: son, daughter, child, calf... presumably
because all diminutives are neuter, which is similar to the way all
German diminutives that end in -chen or -lein are neuter: Magd - maid
(feminine); Mä(g)dchen - girl (neuter).

[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?

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]

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" :(