In his Phys-L post of 14 Oct 2002 13:24:13-0500 titled "Gender Terms
(was MentorNet)" Brian Whatcott wrote:
"(sic) is the usual indication of a usage considered erroneous, but
faithfully copied all the same. Trouble is, 'girls' is a perfectly
useful construct."
Brian must be using his own definition of "sic," or else using a
dictionary that defines "sic" differently than mine. The electronic
version of "Webster's Third New International Dictionary Unabridged,"
has this entry for the adverb "sic":
WEBSTER'S-WEBSTER'S-WEBSTER'S-WEBSTER'S-WEBSTER'S-WEBSTER'S
sic
Function: adverb
Etymology: Latin, thus; akin to Latin "si" if, Old Latin "soc" so:
intentionally so written - used after a printed word or passage to
indicate that it is intended exactly as printed <it is better to say
. . . "Teusday" (sic) than "Choosdy" - R.S. Bridges> or to indicate
that it exactly reproduces an original <all that glisters [sic] is
not gold>.
WEBSTER'S-WEBSTER'S-WEBSTER'S-WEBSTER'S-WEBSTER'S-WEBSTER'S
Consistent with Webster's, I did NOT intend to imply that "girls" in
the passage:
"A site for Parents, Teachers, and Engineers, and others interested
in helping girls (sic) discover the opportunities of engineering
careers"
was necessarily an example of erroneous usage. I merely wanted to
assure the reader that the use of "girls" was put down exactly as
printed, i.e., was NOT my wording, and thus protect myself from the
criticism of those who think that using the word "girl" to describe
ANY female constitutes an insult.
The Association of American Colleges (1986) thinks that the word
"girl" stereotypes women and recommends that it be replaced by
"woman." No qualifications regarding e.g., physical maturity, mental
maturity, age, school grade, location of the word (as on doors),
state laws regarding executability, profession, rank, ethnicity, or
yearly income are given.