|
I do get it.
I might argue that the more progressive approach is to not use either the designation "men's" or "women's" unless it's unclear from context.
Your assumption seems to be that if I'd been discussing the women's Connecticut semifinal instead of the men's that I would have put the word "women's" in there. I'm not so sure I would have if it was equally clear from context what game I was talking about. What if I would have simply said, "In the second national semi, there was an interesting issue when the Minnesota player appeared to be allowed to check in, notwithstanding Auriemma's objection, although no time had expired on the clock"? Aren't I then permitted not to use the designation "men's" when talking about the men's tournament?
After all, I don't say that I'm going to the "men's room" when I try to explain to my wife why I'm getting up from the table at a restaurant. I would just say, "I'm going to the restroom." But that hardly means that I think of the "restroom" as being the place for men and the "women's restroom" for being the place where women go. It just means that it's clear from context -- just as when I refer to a national semi that was put away with three second left at the line by Emeka Okafor, I assume people will know which of the national semis I'm talking about.
I understand that there are lots of people who think of "basketball" as what the men play and "women's basketball" as what the women play. I'd like to think I'm not one of those people, and genuinely don't think I am. With all due respect, I think my post was hardly good evidence that I am, but I'm certainly willing to keep my mind open to the possibility I might be.
|