"That isn't to say that they can't participate, but they rarely, if ever, want to." - Why is that the case?

I know why!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projection_(psychology)

durr hurr that was to abge not mafia

Because, despite what you may think, different people have different interests. It's not always about society pressuring gender conformation.

There are two hardcore female gamers in the gaming community I'm in. We treat them just like everyone else. But that doesn't mean every girl needs to love video games.

Words mean what mean what we intend mean. The meaning is negotiated (for want of a better term) between the sender and the receiver. If neither party is offended or considers the term offensive or derogatory then its not offensive or derogatory regardless of what the word is or its history.

Thus the word "girl" may be sexist or affectionate or complimentary or derogatory. It depends entirely on the context.

"So, instead, why don't we just agree that "girl" isn't meant to be dismissive; it's just the female version of "guy"? Isn't that just as good (and just as realistic) solution to not using the world all together?" - It's not as good a solution for several reasons. Let me outline them.
1) We'd need to get everyone to agree for that to work. It is not within your power to get everyone else to agree to that. It is within your power to regulate your own word usage though.
2) We'd also need to erase any unconscious connotations the word "girl" may carry. And since they're unconscious...that's kinda tricky.
3) It kinda precludes the possibility of actually being conscious of the way your word usage can impact the world and perpetuate oppressive systems. Which is kinda the point of the entire practice.

@ President Eden - I was going to say, I'm not following you at all.

"We treat them just like everyone else. But that doesn't mean every girl needs to love video games." - OK, and so the presence of those two women in your circle should mean that gaming nights are not exactly the same thing as "boy's nights".

But Abg just got done saying that being aggressive wasn't a male trait. Yet women aren't lining up to play Diablo or Mortal Kombat, or pay $50 to watch MMA.

"Why do you immediately assume I'm trying to be underhanded with my questions?"

Because it's already been answered, and harping on "Girls Night Out" to justify continued use of the word "girl" to refer to adults is a red herring. How many times does the phrase "girls night out" come up in a context other than someone saying to you "we're having a girls night out tonight". Why would you even need to reference it?

@ spyman - That's kind of exactly the point that we're refuting. Way to just step in and try to undo like 2 pages of debate by just baldly stating the opposite position without actually supporting it. Rather than start over I'm just going to assume you didn't actually read the debate up till now.

@Mafia

1) Doesn't count. You need agreement for your solution to, so there's no difference there.
2) This will go away with time. Plus, I'm still not convinced there's any relation between "girl" and inequality in gender.
3) I disagree. I could be wrong, but isn't this exactly how the term "gay" was changed?

I think I might have been on the wrong page to start with. i thought I was replying to you but it looks it was a much earlier post. I'd love to join in, but I am work. So you'll just have to take my word for it that I am right ;-) (only kidding)

"The meaning is negotiated (for want of a better term) between the sender and the receiver."

I strongly disagree. Language isn't created between two people. Language is created by an entire culture, the entire linguistic community. History of words and the social meaning of words matters. Meanings do not change willy nilly. Words are either meant to reduce people or they're not. Why people are finding all sorts of reasons to oppose eradicating the use of words that reduce people is puzzling and troubling.

I actually hate MMA. I actually dislike almost all sports, so you won't make any room there. Again, individuals are different.

@Putin

I'm not arguing that dismissive words are wrong. I'm arguing that "girl" isn't dismissive.

"Again, individuals are different."

There are tendencies. 90% of the prison population is male, which roughly equates to the proportion of men identified as suspects in crimes. There's a reason for that. You can't dismiss group traits and reduce everything to the individual. There's a reason why it's a male tendency to play video games and not a female one. It's rooted in the long standing association between male behavior and aggression.

Please explain why calling an adult a child isn't dismissive.

"History of words and the social meaning of words matters. Meanings do not change willy nilly."

Words change *all the time*. That's why I can't call a bundle of sticks a faggot, or just a generally happy person gay. It's also why stupid and moron aren't medical terms any more.

I guess those aren't great examples because they all went from neutral words to negative words, but my point stands.

Words change, they do not change just because two people decided they changed. They change because society as a whole began using the term differently. That's the point.

"Please explain why calling an adult a child isn't dismissive."

Because girl =/= child in that context and both myself and the person I'm talking to understand that.

It's like if I were to call someone a gangster. They understand that I'm not actually accusing them of being a criminal.

"Words change, they do not change just because two people decided they changed. They change because society as a whole began using the term differently. That's the point."

Actually, 2 people deciding they changed is exactly how society as a whole begins using them differently. How else could it possibly happen?

But, I seriously do need to sleep now.

A pleasure, as always.

Two people do not create a critical mass to create socially accepted changes to language. You and I can agree to mutually call certain objects whatever we want, but it's not likely to catch on on a mass level.

Well that's probably where it starts, but it has to have moved beyond those two people for the change to stick in any meaningful way.

The example of gay is interesting and here's a point. Gay really has only one meaning. I mean officially in the OED it also means happy and joyous. But no one uses it thus anymore. It's not as though because girl means "woman" in a casual setting, we've also stopped using it to mean "female child". It's the double meaning in this context that creates the problem. If using the term girl to refer to little 12 year old Sally would seem as strange to us as saying "wow, Fred seems so gay that it's his birthday", then you might have a point.

"Language isn't created between two people."

Speech community's range in size between two people, small groups, up to millions of people.

So yes language can be created between two people. My girlfriend and I have a whole heap of nonsense words (nonsense to others but meaningful to us) that we use all the time.

When I was at boarding school slang words that started in my dormitory gradually spread throughout the entire year. We didn't need to have our words recognized by the Oxford English dictionary for it to be language.

In Australia the term "wog" used to be considered by all Australians of Mediterranean as offensive, but now most people are not bothered by it. My girlfriend who is Italian refers to her parents house as "the wog castle" and is does not mind her Anglo friends also calling by the same term. The meaning of the word "wog" is changing within the Australian speech community. This is normal. Language is dynamic.

The term "nigger" is universally considered offensive if used by a white person to a black person, but amongst some black people it is acceptable.

Of course you have to be conscious of your audience. Thus language that might be acceptable within a small speech community would not be acceptable if it appeared in a pamphlet for a government department. So I am not saying that we should completely disregard the concept of politically correct speech or gender neutral language, but there is a time and a place for everything. So yes public speech needs to be more careful. But this doesn't mean that people have to be pig-headed it and go looking for offense when clearly none was intended.

The pig-headed ones are those who refuse to accept that demeaning words are demeaning, just because a person they know isn't particularly offended. Language reinforces social norms and attitudes, so just because one person is so socialized into thinking being diminished is not a problem doesn't mean that the use of that language isn't reinforcing this problematic social attitude.

And yes you can have private nonsense words between small groups of people, but that's rather irrelevant. They're called nonsense words for a reason, because they have no point of reference or meaning in the linguistic community.

This, gentlemen, has been a truly interesting debate. I haven't the answer for you, but i think that if you will read back through all the posts, there have been some excellent points made. You've certainly made me think. However, i am not going to stop calling my better half "Her Majesty" or "wee one", because she does boss me around and she is small :)

I have heard some gay people refer to each other as "bitch". It is usually said in jest, and no one seems to be offended. Are these people failing to recognize "that demeaning words are demeaning".

Do you think there should be some kind of central committee that gets decide the meaning of words and then lets rest of us know what has been decreed. Is that what you would like to see?

I gave the word "wog" within the Australian speech community as example before. Italian's and Greeks were marginalized when they first came to Australia. The term "wog" was offensive because the anglo-australian majority viewed the immigrants as inferior. It was offensive because that is what they really thought and that is how they intended the term to be received. Words communicate thoughts.

But over time, the "new immigrants" ceased to became part of Australia, and they ceased to be marginalized. Thus "wog" as an offensive term no longer had currency. The the original "thoughts" about Italians and Greeks changed. And even though the word "wog" never went away, the negative thoughts did, and thus the meaning of the word changed.

In America black people are still marginalized. Thus the word "nigger" still conveys those negative thoughts. But in time, if black people cease to be marginalized then the "thought" will change and so will the meaning of the word. Thus it is conceivable that in the future the term "nigger" will not be offensive to anyone.

So I think you have it around the wrong way. The words don't create our thoughts, words communicate our thoughts. Change the thoughts and and the meaning of the words change. But it doesn't work the other way around. You can change the speech, but if those thoughts are still there, then those new "correct" terms will acquire those negative connotations (the euphemism treadmill).

typo... ut over time, the "new immigrants" ceased being new and they became part of Australia

I feel sorry for Redhouse's friend when she discovers this thread.