Re: [issues] Re: Demographics - Reprise

[Rachel Greenham]

Sunnanvind wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2000, Michelle Peglar wrote:
> > I'm personally in favour of the webadmin idea.  I don't really see a need
> > for gender specific language in any job title or generic name..   It's one
> > of my personal soap box topics - I think we should all get rid of using
> > gender specific language when referring to something or someone that could
> > possibly be male or female.
> 
> I disagree - imagine having two regents instead of a king or a queen, or hm..
> perhaps it's not such a bad idea in english after all.
> Surely it will avoid sillinesses like 'mistress', which used to mean 'lover' in
> auld england if I'm not guessing totally wrong.
> How about the priest/priestess thing? We certainly can have a male priestess,
> but what to call that person?

Well, they used to be called gallae. :-)

-- 
Rachel

************
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.linuxchix.org