I wasn't one of the responders who defended seminal. I was trying to be neutral. After rereading the comments, it appears that those who defended the proper use of the word are defending intellectualism.

That's why I referred to the urban dictionary. It seems to be the most established online authority for anti-intellectual POV.

I'm not surprised you got a lot of blowback - you're demanding people don't use a word based upon your own misunderstanding of it. You even make two conflicting arguments in this post. First you say that the shared Latin root of semen and seminal doesn't count because that's not contemporary understanding (even though lots of people, including your commenters, obviously do understand this root and thus the distinction between a seminal idea and a seminal emission). Then you say anyone who doesn't find it offensive is wrong, with reference to the word 'lame' -- a word whose problematic nature can not be understood if we refuse to examine the root of it.

It's valid to point out the unfortunate second meaning seminal has, and caution people to think twice about using it, but to call it sexist and to caricature your critics as blinded by patriarchy or having some agenda because they don't agree with you is pure solipsism.

I notice that you did not address a point I made in the comments, which is that there's nothing wrong with evoking the masculine by using semen as a metaphor. Semen and masculinity are not identical with patriarchal oppression. I oppose the categorical association of maleness with patriarchy. I oppose equating bodily functions and fluids with political agendas.

A writer using rape as a metaphor - ie "he intellectually raped his opponents" - is an example of using language in a way that supports patriarchy and could be reasonably deemed offensive to women (and other victims of rape). It is explicitly about sexual violence.

Other changes are neutral: I do not care that we now say "server" instead of waiter/waitress, or "actor" for both men and women. There has never been a campaign to make the gendered versions verboten.

The word "niggardly" descends etymologically from a totally different root (and language) than the word "nigger." But I refrain from using this word because very few people know that, or would care- I don't want to hurt people's feelings.

I'm open to refraining from language that hurts people despite being "technically not offensive" to a word-nerd. I am sensitive to the social perception of language. However, I still think you have failed to make your case that "seminal" is viscerally offensive in the same way.

I would hazard that the strong defense of seminal comes from people, like me, who love language and do not condone political attempts to scrub words from language for political reasons. I oppose it just as strongly from the right as from the left.

At the risk of my comment being perceived as a snipe, allow me to respond to your critique three. You're correct that saying that at this moment the word ovulary is not equally sexist. However, that's only a result of the times and society in which we currently live. I understand and support the goal of "leveling the playing field", but I strongly believe the means by which that is accomplished truly matter.

>Oppression occurs against those with relatively less power.
Also true. But think of how those systems of oppression came into being, through bias and perceived superiority.

The problem with positing ovulary as a replacement for seminal is that is inherently unequal. These systems of inequality engender oppression. I believe humans, regardless of race, gender, or any other constructs with which we differentiate ourselves, are functionally the same. As humans, we are subject to the same flaws and biases, particularly being supportive of those with whom we share commonalities with, at the exclusion of others.

Will there ever be a point where an oppressed class will come to a consensus and agree that through preference of their group, they have eliminated their oppression? If so, would they then use their new privilege not for their own benefit, but to create and maintain systems that equally advantage everyone? Given the conflicts of groups throughout history, I fnd that an unlikely scenario. Any group with sufficient power and privilege will seek to further strengthen that power and use it to oppress.

I believe in order to create a truly equal society, the structures that that society is built on must also be equal and inclusive. The privileges of certain gendered words are indeed real and can be perceived as oppressive. (Given my privilege as a male, I am not in a position to speak to the personal harm caused by those words.)

The main point of contention I and possibly others had with your original piece is your claim of ovulary as a superior and alternative word to seminal. This kind of thinking promotes and legitimizes the kinds of structures that enables certain groups to have oppressive power over societies.

Now i'm not saying i'm worried about the possibility that ovulary will be used in an oppressive way, but when you give bias to something at the exclusion of the other, that's the eventual outcome. If you create preference, if you create opposition, if you create divisiveness, there will always be conflict in a society.

However well meaning it may be, preference and implied superiority given to ANY group is an injustice and will only lead to further inequality. It creates conflict that further forces people to identify themselves with terms like race and gender when we should be recognizing that we are all human and those labels only perpetuate the cycle of oppressors and the oppressed.

"Critique three: “ovulary” as an alternate term is equally sexist.

The logic of this argument works only if we accept the premise that bias is symmetrical. Once again, this is a false premise. Oppression occurs against those with relatively less power. It cannot, by definition, occur in the reverse. While both ovulary and seminal are gender-laden terms, the former signifies femininity while the latter signifies masculinity. Feminine bias works towards leveling the playing field, while masculine bias perpetuates and extends existing power hierarchies. This is why “reverse isms” (i.e., reverse racism, reverse classism, reverse sexism, reverse ableism) are inherently flawed concepts."

I believe this paragraph is packed with several misconceptions.

Firstly, the argument could still work without conceding bias isn't symmetrical. Sexism against women may often appear different to sexism against men but they are both sexism.

Secondly, yes, by definition oppression occurs against someone who has relatively less power. If there is a situation in which a man or boy is being oppressed by a woman then it would be fair to say they have relatively less power than her.

Thirdly, feminine bias, or any sort of bias (masculine or otherwise) can take on a multitude of forms. These forms range from leveling a playing field to attempting to gain an advantage or attempting to impose a disadvantage.

Finally, in my experience, I have found that the word 'reverseism' is counter-productive. To describe someone's experience as a 'reverse version' of something else attempts to reposition victims who may share a common suffering. I think of racism, sexism, classism and ableism less as something that can be reversed and more as coming from the same place of ignorance.

Actually, you've misrepresented the etymology of the word. The word itself, "seminal," comes from the Latin word "seminalis," which meant exactly what we mean when we say "seminal" today, without any sexual connotations being innate to the use of the word.

Indeed, the sexual connotations which have become attached to the word are due to a lack of knowledge. Perhaps someday we'll realize the value of teaching Latin in secondary school again.

"Indeed, the sexual connotations which have become attached to the word" the point is that sexual connotations--with a masculine code--have become attached to the word.

Jenny, I think you also ignore cultural differences here. I honestly have no idea whether "seminal" means "sperm-like" to most Americans, but certainly, realizing that the word means that to at least some Americans will make me think twice about using it in future. But I still haven't found one European or Australian who had that association before being told so by an American. (Obviously I haven't done a representative survey here.)

By your own argument, without the association - if your culture does NOT see any connection between "seminal" and "sperm" - the term isn't sexist in that culture, right?

One of the things about the English language and the internet that is very easy to forget is that there isn't ONE way of using language that is correct. We come from many different places here - we don't all speak American English and even if we use American spellings we don't necessarily understand the world the way Americans do. And that's OK. The point isn't then that your use is idiosyncratic - clearly many people feel the way you do - but that to assume that everyone sees it that way, or uses it in a sexist manner, is to disregard the many DIFFERENCES in the world.

And being told your culture is wrong by Americans - or anyone else - can be quite annoying.

Having said that, I'm not likely to be using the word seminal too much in America :)

I'm still struggling to understand why the use of seminal is sexist. The only argument I've been able to clearly identify, across both posts, is that referring to something as 'seminal' is equivalent to using 'he' when one means 'person'. Except I can't see any equivalence. 'Seminal' is being used metaphorically and 'he' is being used literally. 'He', in the context of meaning 'person', is exclusionary of women whereas 'seminal' in the context of 'creating something influential' wouldn't make sense if it wasn't being used to mean the including both a male and female's biological role in procreation.

I can see a lot of other points being made about 'oppression not being symmetrical', 'men not being marginalized' and 'ovulary' being an acceptable alternative because of power differentials. However I don't see how these points support the initial criticism. They seem considerably off topic to me. There is a great deal of criticism in both posts but I'm having difficulty aiming it in right direction because I'm struggling to understand what the target is.

I think there is a certain worthwhile point here, but I don't fully agree with the way it's been made.

What does it mean to say that a word "is sexist"? Presumably that it has a clearly gendered definition and a well-established history of being used to imply the superiority of men and/or the inferiority of women. Neither point is clear in the case of this term. When it was adopted into the English language, was the intended metaphorical association with semen, or with plant seeds? It's impossible to say, and given the word's rarity in anything other than impersonal academic discourse, it's equally impossible to be sure which metaphorical association has been intended at different times over the course of the word's history of usage in English. You would have to survey a representative sample of all the people in history who have used the word.

Certainly you can make a valid argument that, given the word's other, medical definition, it is understandable that some people over time have concluded that the two definitions are related. But does that mean that the word is now unequivocally being used in a widespread way with sexist connotations, or does it simply mean that more people BELIEVE it is?

tl;dr: Rather than saying "Don't use 'seminal' because it's sexist" when there is no real evidence to support that claim, it might be better to say "You should avoid using 'seminal', because you may be mistaken for a misogynist by an increasingly large number of people who believe it has a sexist origin."