(no subject)
Jan. 4th, 2008 02:03 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackSimon and I were discussing, amongst other things, a term for non-mutants in X-Men.
(If you don't know, in X-Men, there's an X-gene which gives people various invariable useful if often inconvenient special powers. These people are called Mutants, and everyone else is referred to as Human by exclusion, although human would by any sane definition include both as well.)
Peter won, in my opinion, with a suggestion in the pub last night, "Wild type" which in biology means "members of a species not having interesting mutations" (very roughly, someone give a more precise definition below).
But it got me thinking. What do the following terms all have in common:
Human (as in non-mutant)
Carnivore/Omnivore (as in non-vegetarian)
Neurotypical (as in non-autistic)
Heteronormative
Cis (as opposed to trans- or trans-gender)
Atheist
They all define everyone apart from members of a specific group. And hence don't really have any cohesion within themselves. And so the terms can be used literally, but most are generally used with either a grin or a sneer, admitting non-X doesn't just mean non-X, but "what I find annoying about non-X people, particularly their opinions of X people" and "lets see how they like being labelled". To magneto, human is an insult.
I don't know if it's relevant, but I think no-one ever means vegans when they say "non-vegetarians" :) (So a term meaning sometimes-meat-eating is actually more accurate.)
"Wild type", apart from sounding a hell of a lot cooler than "human" and lacking existing prejudice, seems to do a nice job of describing a default state, without implying anything about it as a whole. Of course, it's probably too obscure a term to catch on, but I like it.
I know sometimes it can be difficult to decide which is a group and which isn't. For instance, traditionally religion-X might consider people not of religion X to have more in common than not (and to some extent be right, if religion X is true). But I was enchanted by the analogy between atheist and neurotypical, etc. I'm sure it says something (though I'm not yet sure what).
(If you don't know, in X-Men, there's an X-gene which gives people various invariable useful if often inconvenient special powers. These people are called Mutants, and everyone else is referred to as Human by exclusion, although human would by any sane definition include both as well.)
Peter won, in my opinion, with a suggestion in the pub last night, "Wild type" which in biology means "members of a species not having interesting mutations" (very roughly, someone give a more precise definition below).
But it got me thinking. What do the following terms all have in common:
Human (as in non-mutant)
Carnivore/Omnivore (as in non-vegetarian)
Neurotypical (as in non-autistic)
Heteronormative
Cis (as opposed to trans- or trans-gender)
Atheist
They all define everyone apart from members of a specific group. And hence don't really have any cohesion within themselves. And so the terms can be used literally, but most are generally used with either a grin or a sneer, admitting non-X doesn't just mean non-X, but "what I find annoying about non-X people, particularly their opinions of X people" and "lets see how they like being labelled". To magneto, human is an insult.
I don't know if it's relevant, but I think no-one ever means vegans when they say "non-vegetarians" :) (So a term meaning sometimes-meat-eating is actually more accurate.)
"Wild type", apart from sounding a hell of a lot cooler than "human" and lacking existing prejudice, seems to do a nice job of describing a default state, without implying anything about it as a whole. Of course, it's probably too obscure a term to catch on, but I like it.
I know sometimes it can be difficult to decide which is a group and which isn't. For instance, traditionally religion-X might consider people not of religion X to have more in common than not (and to some extent be right, if religion X is true). But I was enchanted by the analogy between atheist and neurotypical, etc. I'm sure it says something (though I'm not yet sure what).
no subject
Date: 2008-01-05 12:05 am (UTC)On the other hand I really don't think Atheist belongs on the list. However I might use the word differently than you. I use it to mean, someone who actively disbelieves in the supernatural, which isn't default state, because you have to know about the supernatural to disbelieve in it.
no subject
Date: 2008-01-05 01:12 am (UTC)The implausibility of the premise of X-men is so blatant I've stopped even bothering to mention it in posts about the subject. I can't remember if the idea of a single X-gene (which is presumably a switch) is how they describe it, I think so. I think it's less stupid than *not* being a single gene given that everyone either is or isn't X. But it's still stupid, for instance, why are the effects so precise? Where are the half-developed or unusable effects? (Of course, it's fiction, if you stuck to consistent physics and evolution you wouldn't have a story. But they still ride rougher-shod than they need to.)
On the other hand I really don't think Atheist belongs on the list.
I know what you mean. However, to use your terminology, I would say that atheist mean "not believing in any gods", not necessarily actively. However, due to the fact that most atheists *are* active (because until recently most communities were religious, and hence only active people became atheists) and because most atheists are atheist because they're rationalist, we use the term atheist to band together anyone rationalistic and anti-religious.
Of course, I may be wrong -- the word may have shifted to mean only those more active people. Some people claim so. But so far as I'm aware it still potentially includes Buddhists-who-don't-call-anything-god and spiritualists and flying-saucer-freaks.