Batters now in cricket and not batsmen

[AlargeClaret]

I can’t see the issue of batsmen for the blokes and “ batter” for the women ? As it’s simply natural terminology ie you wouldn’t call a woman a “ batsman “ . Though it’s rather ironic that the forums LGBT flag waver brings “ gay animals” into play ,as isn’t it sheep that like to “go at it” somewhat ?

[fatboy47]

Bowlers such as Bresnan and Bess have long been classed as "" tossers" in my language.

[TheFamilyCat]

I can’t see the issue of batsmen for the blokes and “ batter” for the women ? As it’s simply natural terminology ie you wouldn’t call a woman a “ batsman “ . Though it’s rather ironic that the forums LGBT flag waver brings “ gay animals” into play ,as isn’t it sheep that like to “go at it” somewhat ?

And, as has been posted before, there is nothing to stop anyone continuing to use "batsman/men"

It is the written laws which have been changed to be none gender specific (as the same laws apply to all). It really isn't a big deal.

[houseboy]

Yes - when it makes sense to differentiate. For jobs though an actress does the same thing as an actor - calling them all actors makes sense. Same with waitress really.

Stuff like that simply reinforces the difference for no reason and usually ends up demoting the female counterpart in some way. It's how the patriarchy works

I take your point, I do, I just fail to understand some of the thinking behind a lot of this stuff. The one for me is now not saying chairman or chairwoman. Why would anyone reject those terms in favour of the word chair, which then reduces the person concerned, male or female, to the level of an inanimate object. So much of this stuff is bizarre to me.

[dsr]

I can’t see the issue of batsmen for the blokes and “ batter” for the women ? As it’s simply natural terminology ie you wouldn’t call a woman a “ batsman “

The late lady chairman of a charity I was involved with would be cross if anyone referred to her as a "chair", or even "chairwoman". She believed, with good reason, that "man" (like so many other words in the English language) can have more than one meaning, and in this case it's a synonym for "person". Just as "mankind" does not mean men only, it means all of us.

So terms such as "third man" can still be used even in women's cricket because the fielder concerned doesn't have to be third, and doesn't have to be a man. The term "cover point" can still be used even if the covers are kept in a different part of the field and the fielder isn't pointing at anything. The term "long leg" can still be used even if the fielder has short legs, and "silly mid-off" can be used even if the fielder is quite sensible. (Though does "sensible" ever fit the description of anyone fielding there? )

Though I can't see any rational reason for objecting to this particular vocabulary change. It's inelegant, but harmless.

[dsr]

The cricketer's bible that is Wisden banned the term chinaman in 2018.

Surely they only decided not to use it themselves - they didn't ban it? Though I think it's a shame to try and wipe out the evidence of the significant cricketing influence made by a man of Chinese descent. China hasn't had a lot of influence on the game, but I'm not aware that Ellis Achong was ashamed of his origin, and nor should Wisden be.

I didn't realise Achong had played for Burnley.