Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Use gender-neutral language in documentation - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
| From | Christopher Browne |
|---|---|
| Subject | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Use gender-neutral language in documentation |
| Date | |
| Msg-id | CAFNqd5UMjT1ZMS83c+VxmjmosqAZW7=i4fmUXRJVHGfuzSWxqw@mail.gmail.com Whole thread Raw |
| In response to | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Use gender-neutral language in documentation (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
| Responses |
Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Use gender-neutral language in
documentation
(Gavin Flower <GavinFlower@archidevsys.co.nz>)
|
| List | pgsql-hackers |
On 22 September 2015 at 15:11, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
> > Good point. In the 18th and 19th centuries it was deemed by some grammarians
> > to be incorrect for some reason, (and yet Thackeray still used it in Vanity
> > Fair, for instance) and now some reactionaries and misogynists are fighting
> > to maintain that somewhat latter day rule. But I'm pretty certain their
> > numbers will dwindle, as they preach to an ever shrinking choir.
>
> I agree that this construction is grammatically acceptable in many if
> not all cases, but I still think that phrasing the sentences to avoid
> this construction is a good idea where we can do it easily. For
> example, this is clearly a good idea:
>
> So the database administrator can
> decide which languages are available in which databases and can make
> - some languages available by default if he chooses.
> + some languages available by default if desired.
>
> And so is this, which just gets rid of a sentence that really isn't needed:
>
> Possibly, your site administrator has already created a database
> - for your use. He should have told you what the name of your
> - database is. In that case you can omit this step and skip ahead
> + for your use. In that case you can omit this step and skip ahead
> to the next section.
>
> But consider this one:
>
> - return any user name he chooses. This authentication method is
> + return any user name they choose. This authentication method is
>
> You could say "any arbitrary user name" or "any username whatsoever".
Those all seem like they might improve the combination of>
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
> > Good point. In the 18th and 19th centuries it was deemed by some grammarians
> > to be incorrect for some reason, (and yet Thackeray still used it in Vanity
> > Fair, for instance) and now some reactionaries and misogynists are fighting
> > to maintain that somewhat latter day rule. But I'm pretty certain their
> > numbers will dwindle, as they preach to an ever shrinking choir.
>
> I agree that this construction is grammatically acceptable in many if
> not all cases, but I still think that phrasing the sentences to avoid
> this construction is a good idea where we can do it easily. For
> example, this is clearly a good idea:
>
> So the database administrator can
> decide which languages are available in which databases and can make
> - some languages available by default if he chooses.
> + some languages available by default if desired.
>
> And so is this, which just gets rid of a sentence that really isn't needed:
>
> Possibly, your site administrator has already created a database
> - for your use. He should have told you what the name of your
> - database is. In that case you can omit this step and skip ahead
> + for your use. In that case you can omit this step and skip ahead
> to the next section.
>
> But consider this one:
>
> - return any user name he chooses. This authentication method is
> + return any user name they choose. This authentication method is
>
> You could say "any arbitrary user name" or "any username whatsoever".
potential for confusion.
I'll throw in, for good measure, that "users" are not necessarily even
*human*; it is common for users to get attached to applications, and
the applications (presumably!) haven't got any gender.
I could visit French for a moment, where all nouns are expected to
have gender. (Where "la" indicates a "female she-ness", and "le"
indicates "masculinity.")
"La chaise est féminin, comme la table, alors que le sol est masculin."
The chair is feminine, as the table, however the floor is masculine.
And the explanation of the gendering of third person pronouns
(ils versus elles) always seemed very strange to me.
I think that using "he or she" (as has been suggested) heads down a
questionable path, as that's demanding (in somewhat the French
fashion!) a defined set of gender indicates. That would properly head,
in a baroque "PC" context, to sillyness like...
"The user should do [something]; he or she or it, or the cis/trans/asexual
personage or connection used by a web application, whether written in
C, Java, Perl, PHP, running on Windows or Unix or ..." as the increasing
inclusions heads to some pathological limit.
> Or here:
>
> or within a session via the <command>SET</> command. Any user is
> - allowed to change his session-local value. Changes in
> + allowed to change their session-local value. Changes in
>
> You could say "This requires no special privileges". This isn't
> really an exact rewrite of the sentence, but in context it means the
> same thing.
Notice that the changes you are suggesting tend to actually *shorten* the
text! I like that.
> Or here:
>
> - -- Who works for us when she must pay for it?
> + -- Who works for us when they must pay for it?
>
> You could say "-- We pay employees; they don't pay us."
>
> I don't think any of these changes are outright wrong except for
> "might not be the same as the database user that is to be connect as",
> which seems like a muddle. But I think some of them could be changed
> to use other wording that would read more smoothly.
>
> Of course, that is just my opinion, and I clearly feel a lot less
> strongly about this than some other people.
I'd be pleased to see (perhaps even help) patches to the documentation
that make it read better and perhaps "more kindly."
Doing a "let's run through and substitute some legalistic wording in
order to be politically correct" will irritate people; instead, make the
documentation *better*. Replacing "he" with "he/she/cis/trans/Unix/Windows"
(or some such) wouldn't make it *better*. (And probably that's a phrase
that's missing some legalistic wherefores whereases!)
--
When confronted by a difficult problem, solve it by reducing it to the
question, "How would the Lone Ranger handle this?"
question, "How would the Lone Ranger handle this?"
pgsql-hackers by date: