Talk:Bias against left-handed people

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Anatomy Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has not yet been associated with a particular anatomical discipline.

Universality

The author in this interview claims that left-handedness is not as stigmatized in Chinese culture. which to some degree contradicts the article. It would also be interesting to have some coverage of other cultures that don't have such a stigma, if any. -- Beland (talk) 15:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Examples from a few different cultures, including Chinese, have since been added. Thanks! -- Beland (talk) 19:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The section regarding Chinese characters is wholly and completely irrelevant. The characters evolved from a base drawing of an overhead view of a person's left and right side. As the characters were brushed in a different order, they appeared differently. The radical selection to formalize and standardize the characters is inherently irrelevant to the listed meanings beacause A: radicals don't necessarily denote meaning, and B: the characters aren't referring to handedness at all. Rather, they simply denote left and right. This portion of the document appears to be written in zeal or hopeful conjecture without any supporting linguistic reasoning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.220.164.91 (talk) 05:52, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quality of the article

This entire article suffers from an unencyclopedic tone and a lack of notoriety for the issues it discusses. Moreover, the section on language is only tangentially related to the subject at hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.151.73.109 (talk) 05:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Shunned in language"?

The lede says that left-handed people have been "shunned in language". Does that mean that some languages refuse to have any contact with left-handed people? Or that left-handed people have been barred from speaking and writing with others, but not from other social activities?

Kidding aside, though, what idea is the sentence trying to convey? The problem, it seems to me, goes beyond the mere misuse of the verb "to shun". The sentence might correctly say (if it's true) that left-handed people have been shunned, without more; but I can't think of any other verb that would make a lot more sense than "shunned" in connection with the phrase, "in language". If the idea to be expressed is that many languages use references to the left hand, or to left-handedness, in a derogatory way (e.g., gauche, sinister, a left-handed compliment), then the sentence needs to be recast altogether. I can think of no phrase on the model of [verb]+ing in language that expresses the concept of attributing derogatory meaning to words that connote left-handedness or the left hand.

Jdcrutch (talk) 22:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd imagine it means that language has codified discrimination against left-handed people within itself, specifically in its normal usage (like "right" meaning both "opposite of left" and "correct")... versus other words like "nigger" or "gay" or "ching chong", which are specific words used to discriminate others but AREN'T part of its normal use. As in, there's no way you can use words like "nigger" or "gay" without it specifically referring to discriminatory practices in some way... but you can use words/phrases that are discriminatory to left-handed people like "right", "sinister" and "two left feet" in normal speech without it intentionally being discriminatory. Or something like that. -- 71.141.96.132 (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, but it's not shunning. Shunning is ostracism, not mere insult or disparagement. I have rewritten the lede and cut out the term.

Jdcrutch (talk) 18:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, some of my friends refer to each other as "nigger" without thought of discrimination (guess which race they are). It's even in our pop music. And I use archaic terms like "gay", "snigger", and "niggardly" -specifically- to remind people that the words don't have to be discriminatory. Same with (Note that this is just fyi, not meant to chastise or anything.)

Weak Citations

The section about bias against left-handed children in Western school needs better citations. One citation is merely a reference to a personal comment to an article, and another is to an Italian definition of the word "sinister"! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.16.37 (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrote lede, 30 October 2013

I've rewritten the lede to eliminate the strange expression, "shunned in language", get rid of some non-sequiturs, and generally to make it flow more logically. I changed "forced to convert" to "forced to use the right hand", because one can't convert a left-handed person into a right-handed person: all one can do is to train him or her to use the right hand when she or he would naturally use the left. See Coren, The Left-Hander Syndrome (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2012) ISBN 1476728461.

The whole article could stand rewriting, with heavy reference to that book; but I don't have time to do it.

Jdcrutch (talk) 19:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Forced Use of Right Hand"

I reverted an anonymous editor's deletion of several quotations lifted from the web page "Gauche! Left-Handers in Society". It appears that the quotations are submitted by the public, but the page's author screens them according to posted criteria. I therefore think the quotations are equivalent to field research, such as might be published in any academic journal. If the author had merely paraphrased or summarized the statements, rather than quoting them, it's most unlikely that anybody would suggest that it was inappropriate to quote the information here.

J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 22:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't take back what I said above, but the section definitely needs work, and the quotations from "Gauche! Left-Handers in Society" need

to be placed in a context that makes their origin and subjectivity (as well as their uncertain dates) more evident; and
proper format in the citation.

As it stands now, the section is unclear as to whether or not the practices described are still current, where they exist or used to exist, how widespread they were, and so on. It accordingly gives a very partial and one-sided impression.

I'm left-handed, and I grew up in the 1960s and '70s in Virginia. I attended public schools, and nobody ever tried to persuade or force me to use my right hand for anything. I wasn't taught how to write properly, with my hand below the line, but from second grade on I was given left-handed scissors. (At any rate, they were called left-handed scissors, and they had a rubber coating on the handles, for a cushion. I don't know whether or not they were true left-handed scissors, with the left-blade on top, but at least there was some recognition that I needed different scissors.) I don't think my school was unusually liberal or forward-thinking, to say the least.

The first-person quotations in the section imply that harsh discrimination is still widespread in the United States, and I don't think it is. The section needs more up-to-date information. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 15:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Made some headline/organizational/tone changes, what about changing the title?

The current title is "Bias against left-handed people". I think controversy may stem from the word 'bias' (and the accompanying writing tone) conveying the impression that right-handers are at fault--partly true, partly not, but through its tone the article itself does a poor job of conveying an accurate picture (my dad was forced to convert to right-handedness, I was not, in the type of society which is the implicit focus). Compare this title, which is similarly 'accurate' but conveys an equally undesirable impression: "Disadvantages of left-handed people". I would suggest a title like "Handedness bias".

People have been saying the article needs work. I'm not the best writer but someone needs to do it. I hope my edits do improve organization and make the flow better. I also thought the tone of the article was itself biased and tried to fix some of it, but feel free to revert changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.41.54.132 (talk) 06:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bandsaw blades

In the section about the difficulty of using a bandsaw left handed, the article includes the text "This can be countered by using a blade with teeth on both sides." I've never heard of such a blade and I don't think it would work because of the way the bearings are set up on a bandsaw. A Google search only shows a few double-sided blades available for a very few specialized purposes - not for lefties. I'd remove it, but it's been there since the article was started in 2011. I'll add a citation needed tag, but does anyone have anything to support this? Thank you. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 19:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removed it. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 01:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Bias against left-handed people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spin-off to Left-handed tool?

I'd suggest a spin-off of Bias against left-handed people#Equipment to a new article, perhaps to be called Left-handed tool.--Pharos (talk) 04:29, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So... good or bad?

>Historically, the left side, and subsequently left-handedness, was considered negative.
>In Ancient Greek both words meaning "left" were euphemisms: the word ἀριστερός, aristerós (...) is derived from ἂριστος, áristos, "best" (...)

That does not add up, does it.

Also:

>(...) and the word εὺώνυμος, euōnymos, "of good name", is another euphemism used in lieu of "ill-named".

I'm not great at Ancient Greek, so I will not doubt it, but still... why. Shouldn't there be some kind of explanation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dziewięćsił (talk • contribs) 07:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beatings

There's nothing in this article, nor Handedness (except for what I added), on how left-handed people have been beaten throughout history for using their left hand, nor how it was considered a sign of evil. Why not? (https://medium.com/@Phaylen/the-children-who-were-beat-by-religious-leaders-for-being-left-handed-82e98a8048fe is just one example - people have written about this, it's not nonexistent.) AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 20:21, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article redundant and thus, should it be deleted?

Firstly, the limitation "bias against" disqualifies any mention of "bias towards", which makes for an unbalanced i.e. biased article. Secondly, bias is not the root of the prejudice, diffamation, discriminination, ignorance, neglect, disdain, ridicule and denial of equality left-handed people are constantly troubled with by living in a right-handed world. Lefthandedness itself has been a constant subject of research and speculation, involving a great deal of actual bias, none of which was included in the article, as if there weren't any biased or construed "findings" eagerly awaiting scrutiny and debunking.
Instead, the article widely strays from its subject and collects mere peculiarities of being left-handed. Right-handed designs of everday objects are neither examples nor expressions of bias against left-handed people. Even the fact, that the vast majority of products is made for right-handed people, is no grounds for complaint, since the vast majority of customers is right-handed, too. That's causality, not bias. Naturally, the same causality brings about the inconvenience left-handed people experience using those items. Which is, from a left-handed point of view, their inherent flaw.
Then there's the sports section, mostly concerned with listing more peculiarities, this time advantages and disadvantages left-handed sports players either experience or cause for the opposing team. Most of which is redundant, since it is already present in [Handedness|Handedness].
Meticulously researching languages that associate negative meaning with "left" and apply it to left-handedness, may have been self-gratifying... but, in general, the whole section keeps repeating a single fact over and over again: That an abundance of languages associate some negative meaning with "left" and apply it to left-handedness. Which is less sensational when considering that many languages are closely related. Also: The parts not being redundant in itself are mostly present in Handedness.
Lastly, since it's impossible not to notice: In addition to its many shortcomings, this article contains advertising and product placment.2003:CA:3F1E:3BB5:2DE9:644E:4C4F:F0CE (talk) 17:40, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From a left hander, agreed, there are major issues here. If I was to take this article as the whole picture, I'd think that left-handed people struggle to do basic tasks with right-handed tools. The article seems to assume that left-handed people can only use their left hand, and are therefore forced to use right-handed tools, appliances etc in a difficult and potentially dangerous manner (e.g using power tools from the ungaurded side). Seriously, does the right-handed majority think that left-handed people have no capacity to use their right hand whatsoever? Have they never tried to use their left hand for anything? How ironic that an article on bias against left-handed people was apparently written from the perspective of a right-handed person who sympathises with left-handed people (in a somewhat colonial-style "we have a duty to look after these poor people" kind of way), which has caused it to incorrectly portray left-handedness as a blight. It isn't. This article deserves a mention in itself, as it is (ironically) an example of bias against left handed people. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 22:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Writing?

The article fails to address: Do right-handed people who use R->L languages (e.g., Arabic, Hebrew) have the same problems as left-handed people do writing L->R languages? If so, did the R->L languages develop in societies where literate people were primarily left-handed? If not, why not? Other than possibly properties of the shapes of letters themselves, everything seems to be symmetric. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:72B4:3A00:808D:939D:1225:4837 (talk) 16:39, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Computer input devices section

As a left-hander myself, I find that the bias toward right-handed use of computer mouses is actually very helpful. I can write notes with my left, and manipulate the mouse with my right, no switching required. I know of at least one person who, despite being right-handed, bought a left-handed mouse for that exact reason (to be able to write and use the mouse at the same time), and that left-handed mouse is to this day the only one I have ever seen or heard of (have a think about that, left handed mice being used by right-handed people). I know many left-handed people, however none seem to find using a mouse with their right hand to be of any difficulty whatsoever, so is this actually even relevant to most left handers, or is there some minority who cannot use a mouse with their right hand? I personally find it odd to use a mouse with my left, I tried it out a few times when I was first introduced to desktop computers, and it just seemed weird, even though the mouse wasn't asymmetric. I was even encouraged to use the mouse with my left, as it was assumed I would find it easier. I did not. I often wonder if this is similar to what other have found too. Unfortunately this angle is missing from the article. Sure, there are asymmetric mice which are designed for right-handed people, but those are not particularly common anyway.

What I am trying to say is that this section seems to present a doom-and-gloom angle of this topic, which from personal experience, I have trouble believing. Since most left-handed people seem to get on just fine using their right hand for computer mice, I think that this is worth mentioning. Sure, a minority-of-the-minority might have trouble with it, but I just don't see the point of hightlighting a "bias" without mentioning that "oh, by the way, it isn't even a problem for most left-handers anyway, who get on just fine using a mouse with their right hand."

Now I recommend that we all go down to the hardware store and ask for a left-handed hammer. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 22:07, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated information?

"Among naturally left-handed Japanese senior high school students, only 0.7% and 1.7% of individuals used their left hand for writing and eating, respectively"

The source for this is from 1983. It is not unthinkable that these numbers might have changed substantially in the last 41 years, so it would be a good idea to replace this with more recent statistics, or at least to clarify that these numbers are from 1983. Therealviklo (talk) 23:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed that section from the article as yes, it is far too old of a source to be included when discussing the section's topic. Additionally, the section is too bloated as it is. FropFrop (talk) 01:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]