On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 11:59:21AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
> >> Happily for me, I can continue to write documents in a grammatically
> >> correct way, and no-one will read them and think I'm a grammar-nazi (or
> >> obstinate, or old-fashioned or whatever) because unless they're specifically
> >> looking for it no-one will notice that I'm avoiding the contentious usage
> >> altogether. On the other hand, there _will_ be a (perhaps significant)
> >> proportion of people who read your documents and think that you're incapable
> >> of writing a grammatically correct sentence.
> >
> > Wow, 1960s feminazis, eh? I originally thought you were just a narrow
> > minded, pedantic and antiquated grammarian. Now I realize that's the least
> > of your troubles. Please take your misogyny elsewhere. I hear the Rabid
> > Puppies have openings.
>
> I think this discussion could benefit from a little more light and a
> lot less heat.
>
> Here's my contribution: the use of they does sometimes seek awkward.
> However, it's not remotely new:
>
> https://stroppyeditor.wordpress.com/2015/04/21/everything-you-ever-wanted-to-know-about-singular-they/
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they#Older_usage_by_respected_authors
> http://englishbibles.blogspot.com/2006/09/singular-they-in-english-bibles.html
>
> And I do think it's generally worthwhile to avoid the use of "he"
> where possible. Would I have done it exactly the way that Peter did
> it here? Uh, no. Is it better than not doing anything? In my
> opinion, yes.
I agree, I think we should avoid gendered pronouns.
Also, the modern use of they/their absolutely fits here. It reflects a
deliberate considered choice of of the writer to be inclusive and correct.
Constructs like 'he or she' exclude people. Enumerating genders is not
inclusive. It leads to exclusion and erasure of people who have an non-binary
identities.
Garick
