deal with a lawyer.

[hhtt21]

Would you please explain the phrase "deal with a lawyer" regarding this sentence:

"He’s a Muslim. That’s number one. Devout. So it’s tough for him when he’s got to deal with a woman lawyer."

P.S: Hard Muslims put distance between counter gender.

https://books.google.com.tr/books?id=QMLjAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA68&lpg=PA68&dq=%22So+it%E2%80%99s+tough+for+him+when+he%E2%80%99s+got+to+deal+with+a+woman+lawyer%22&source=bl&ots=R8tObjtxBv&sig=r4inwVpDZ8wczgHbH-p4wHx_O1c&hl=tr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiYxMmQutvTAhUSKlAKHXK6DfQQ6AEIJjAB#v=onepage&q=%22So%20it%E2%80%99s%20tough%20for%20him%20when%20he%E2%80%99s%20got%20to%20deal%20with%20a%20woman%20lawyer%22&f=false

Above link does not work and I can't find any which works. It can stay as the source name.

Is it 2 or 4 in the link?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deal with

Thank you.

 

[GoesStation]

Would you please explain the phrase "deal with a lawyer" regarding this sentence:

"He’s a Muslim. That’s number one. Devout. So it’s tough for him when he’s got to deal with a woman lawyer."

P.S: [STRIKE]Hard[/STRIKE] strict Muslims [STRIKE]put distance between[/STRIKE] avoid contact between the sexes [STRIKE]counter gender[/STRIKE].

<snip>

Is it 2 or 4 in the link?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deal with

Definition 2 works here.

 

[hhtt21]

Definition 2 works here.

Would you please look at this 3. "Rigid Muslims avoid contact between the genders."?

Can the genders never be used such a context or situation?

Thank you.

 

[emsr2d2]

"Rigid" doesn't work there. When we are talking about religions, we use "strict". "Genders" isn't impossible there but it has been said on the forum before that there is no real reason to use the word except in technical/medical contexts. Using "sexes" is perfectly acceptable in all other contexts.

 

[hhtt21]

"Rigid" doesn't work there. When we are talking about religions, we use "strict". "Genders" isn't impossible there but it has been said on the forum before that there is no real reason to use the word except in technical/medical contexts. Using "sexes" is perfectly acceptable in all other contexts.

I understand it to be gender is formal but sex is colloquial. Correct? And isn't there any synonym of "strict" when the context is religions? What about fundamentalist or radical?

Thank you.

 

[emsr2d2]

I didn't say anything about formal and colloquial, did I? I already said in what contexts I see them being used.

There is a big​ difference between "strict" and "fundamentalist/radical" when it comes to religion.

 

[hhtt21]

I didn't say anything about formal and colloquial, did I? I already said in what contexts I see them being used.

There is a big​ difference between "strict" and "fundamentalist/radical" when it comes to religion.

The following explanation, I think, implies that sex is colloquial and gender is formal. Correct?

"Genders" isn't impossible there but it has been said on the forum before that there is no real reason to use the word except in technical/medical contexts.

 

[jutfrank]

I understand it to be gender is formal but sex is colloquial. Correct?

No. They are both equally formal (academic) terms with different (academic) definitions.

And isn't there any synonym of "strict" when the context is religions? What about fundamentalist or radical?

No. These two words have quite different senses.

 

[hhtt21]

No. They are both equally formal (academic) terms with different (academic) definitions.



No. These two words have quite different senses.

If strict quite different than fundamentalist and radical. What about comparison between radical and fundametalist? Are they exactly the same or quite closer or quite different?

Thank you.

 

[jutfrank]

You should never assume that two words are exactly the same. To me, they are quite different.

Fundamentalism (applied to religion) is about belief, ie., that the words in scripture are literally true. Radicalism (applied to religion) is about people's political motivations as justified by their religious beliefs.

 

[jutfrank]

To say that there is a difference between 'strict' and 'fundamentalist' is splitting hairs. 'radical' is another issue completely.

I wouldn't say 'splitting hairs'. To me (and I think most others), they have clearly different senses. 'Strict' applies to limits of behaviour whereas 'fundamentalist' applies to limits of belief.

You have to be aware that a lot of what you read here is simply personal opinion, for example, sex versus gender.

There is a recognised difference between these terms in their academic senses. This is not opinion.

 

[tzfujimino]

Well, I think hhtt21's question concerning "dealing with a lawyer" has already been answered, so ...

 

[hhtt21]

Well, I think hhtt21's question concerning "dealing with a lawyer" has already been answered, so ...

Yes, but I have to ask other questions in this thread under this thread, otherwise is not permissible i.e to open a new thread and ask a different question about a different phrase for example.

Thank you.

 

[probus]

I very well know what 'sex' is, and I thought I knew what 'gender' was until some morons in the California legislature introduced a bill to include a 3rd classification on a driver's license, i.e. "non-binary", whatever that is. 'non-binary' because one day you may wake up feeling like a man, and the next day wake up feeling like a woman. Naturally you will dress that day accordingly. Be thankful you don't live here.

I don't think it has anything to do with the California legislature.

When we were young (50s 60s) animals had a sex and words had a gender. Some speakers of AmE back then began applying "gender" to people as a euphemism; they just didn't want to say the word "sex".

But a lot has happened since then. Nowadays, in respect to people, gender means what sex people feel they belong to or identify with, regardless of anatomy. A person's sex, on the other hand, is purely anatomical and of little impotsnce.

All part of the natural evolution of language.

 

[Tarheel]

Yes, but I have to ask other questions in this thread under this thread, otherwise is not permissible i.e to open a new thread and ask a different question about a different phrase for example.

I have trouble understanding that. However, if you are going to ask a new question you certainly should start a new thread.

It's best to avoid confusion.

(The term "gender" is definitely used in grammar terminology.)

(It's not hard to use the "Reply With Quote" feature.)

 

[probus]

The term "gender" is definitely used in grammar terminology.
[/QUOTE

It certainly is, and in modern grammar it embraces far more than the traditional masculine, feminine, neuter. In modern linguistics, any categorization of nouns is considered a gender.

My point is simply this: In contemporary English usage, a person may choose to be a he or she, without regard to anotomy. ",<,OTE]

adays in English usage

 

[emsr2d2]

adays in English usage

Part of your post has vanished (possibly due to the recent software upgrade).

 

[hhtt21]

I have trouble understanding that. However, if you are going to ask a new question you certainly should start a new thread.

It's best to avoid confusion.

(The term "gender" is definitely used in grammar terminology.)

(It's not hard to use the "Reply With Quote" feature.)

Yes, I think so as well. At first I opened new threads about new questions but they were moved under thread including that words or phrases. I had some notifications from moderators. I think this situation is very confusing. This makes thread much extended. I think asking them in a new thread would be better but moderators did not allow me. Because I am learner I check my old topics this rule also makes it hard. Can moderator change this rule please?

Thank you.

 

[emsr2d2]

Follow-up questions can stay in the same thread if they relate directly to the words/phrases being asked in post #1. If they are tenuously linked, they should go in their own thread.

 

[Tarheel]

Yes, I think so as well. At first I opened new threads about new questions but they were moved under thread including that words or phrases. I had some notifications from moderators. I think this situation is very confusing. This makes thread much extended. I think asking them in a new thread would be better but moderators did not allow me. Because I am learner I check my old topics this rule also makes it hard. Can moderator change this rule please?

Thank you.

It would probably be easier to understand your sentences if they were shorter and simpler. As it is, they are rather confusing.