Thread: pgsql: Use gender-neutral language in documentation

Use gender-neutral language in documentation

Based on patch by Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>, although
I rephrased most of the initial work.

Branch
------
master

Details
-------
http://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/741ccd5015f82e31f80cdc5d2ae81263ea92d794

Modified Files
--------------
doc/src/sgml/catalogs.sgml                |    4 +--
doc/src/sgml/client-auth.sgml             |    6 ++--
doc/src/sgml/ddl.sgml                     |    6 ++--
doc/src/sgml/manage-ag.sgml               |    6 ++--
doc/src/sgml/nls.sgml                     |    2 +-
doc/src/sgml/plpgsql.sgml                 |    2 +-
doc/src/sgml/ref/alter_user_mapping.sgml  |    2 +-
doc/src/sgml/ref/create_schema.sgml       |    2 +-
doc/src/sgml/ref/create_user_mapping.sgml |    2 +-
doc/src/sgml/ref/drop_schema.sgml         |    2 +-
doc/src/sgml/ref/drop_user_mapping.sgml   |    2 +-
doc/src/sgml/ref/grant.sgml               |   14 ++++----
doc/src/sgml/ref/revoke.sgml              |    2 +-
doc/src/sgml/ref/set_role.sgml            |    2 +-
doc/src/sgml/rules.sgml                   |   50 ++++++++++++++---------------
doc/src/sgml/sepgsql.sgml                 |    2 +-
doc/src/sgml/sslinfo.sgml                 |    2 +-
doc/src/sgml/start.sgml                   |    3 +-
doc/src/sgml/user-manag.sgml              |    2 +-
doc/src/sgml/xplang.sgml                  |    2 +-
20 files changed, 57 insertions(+), 58 deletions(-)

On 2015-09-22 04:59, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Use gender-neutral language in documentation
>
> Based on patch by Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>,
> although
> I rephrased most of the initial work.
>
> Branch
> ------
> master
>
> Details
> -------
> http://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/741ccd5015f82e31f80cdc5d2ae81263ea92d794
>


I think this compulsive 'he'-avoiding is making the text worse.


-      environment variable); any user can make such a change for his
session.
+      environment variable); any user can make such a change for their
session.

Yuck.  even worse:

-   might not be the same as the database user he needs to connect as.
+   might not be the same as the database user that is to be connect as.


It is not an improvement.  I would like to see this change rolled back.


thanks,

Erik Rijkers

On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 9:32 PM, Erik Rijkers <er@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> I think this compulsive 'he'-avoiding is making the text worse.
>
>
> -      environment variable); any user can make such a change for his
> session.
> +      environment variable); any user can make such a change for their
> session.

-1. It seems fine to me.

> Yuck.  even worse:
>
> -   might not be the same as the database user he needs to connect as.
> +   might not be the same as the database user that is to be connect as.
>
>
> It is not an improvement.  I would like to see this change rolled back.

I think that this should be reworded, since there is a grammatical
error as things stand. I suggest the whole sentence be modified to
read:

When using an external authentication system such as Ident or GSSAPI,
the name of the operating system user that initiated the connection
might not be the same as the intended corresponding database user.

--
Peter Geoghegan

Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 9:32 PM, Erik Rijkers <er@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>> I think this compulsive 'he'-avoiding is making the text worse.
>>
>>
>> -      environment variable); any user can make such a change for his session.
>> +      environment variable); any user can make such a change for their session.
> 
> -1. It seems fine to me.

(Disclaimer: I am not a native speaker.)

Using the pronoun of the third person plural as a replacement for "his or her"
has become widely used, at least in the U.S., and the OED condones that use:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/they

Do we want to have that everywhere?

Yours,
Laurenz Albe 

On 22/09/15 21:33, Geoff Winkless wrote:
> On 22 September 2015 at 09:28, Albe Laurenz <laurenz.albe@wien.gv.at
> <mailto:laurenz.albe@wien.gv.at>>wrote:
>
>     Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>     > On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 9:32 PM, Erik Rijkers <er@xs4all.nl
>     <mailto:er@xs4all.nl>> wrote:
>     >> I think this compulsive 'he'-avoiding is making the text worse.
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> -      environment variable); any user can make such a change
>     for his session.
>     >> +      environment variable); any user can make such a change
>     for their session.
>     >
>     > -1. It seems fine to me.
>
>     (Disclaimer: I am not a native speaker.)
>
>     Using the pronoun of the third person plural as a replacement for
>     "his or her"
>     has become widely used, at least in the U.S., and the OED condones
>     that use:
>     http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/they
>
>
> Without wanting to get into a grammar war, ​I'm not so sure I agree
> that it "condones" it. Dictionaries reflect the current state of
> usage, they don't act as arbiters of correctness. The abuse of
> "literally" as an emphasiser (which usage is now listed in the OED) is
> a prime example.
>
> As an Englishman ​I would prefer "his or her" over "their". Perhaps
> our American cousins might disagree though.
>
> WRT the second, it probably doesn't help that "might not be the same
> as the database user that is to be connect as" is incorrect anyway -
> it should perhaps be "that is to be connect*ed *as" (although I still
> find the construction clumsy).
>
> Geoff
I am an Englishman.

I prefer "their" rather than "his or her", it is less clumsy & there is
no point in specifying gender unless it is relevant!

Besides, some people are neither, or their biological gender is
ambiguous - so a few people fit into neither the male nor the female
category (depending on precise definitions, about 0.5%)!


Cheers,
Gavin

On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 11:17:54 +0100
Geoff Winkless <pgsqladmin@geoff.dj> wrote:

> On 22 September 2015 at 10:52, Gavin Flower <GavinFlower@archidevsys.co.nz>
> wrote:
>
> > On 22/09/15 21:33, Geoff Winkless wrote:
> >> ??
> >> Without wanting to get into a grammar war, ?I'm not so sure I agree that
> >> it "condones" it. Dictionaries reflect the current state of usage, they
> >> don't act as arbiters of correctness. The abuse of "literally" as an
> >> emphasiser (which usage is now listed in the OED) is a prime example.
> >>
> >> I would prefer "his or her" over "their". Perhaps our American cousins
> >> might disagree though.
> >>
> >> I prefer "their" rather than "his or her", it is less clumsy & there is
> > no point in specifying gender unless it is relevant!
>
> I agree in that I prefer "their" in informal speech; however in a formal
> document I would find it sloppy.? I don't think "his or her" is inherently
> clumsy; m
> aybe I'm just showing my age.?
>
> Besides, some people are neither, or their biological gender is ambiguous -
> > so a few people fit into neither the male nor the female category
> > (depending on precise definitions, about 0.5%)!
>
> My understanding is that most intersex (and certainly all trans) people
> would identify with one or the other, and even those who don't select
> exclusively identify with a mix of both (and would therefore still be
> covered by "his or her", no?) although I don't pretend to be an expert.
>
> Perhaps it would be easier to avoid the controversy by actually rewording
> into the plural, where possible?
>
> So
>
> "any user can make such a change for his session."
>
> becomes
>
> "Users can make such a change for their individual sessions"
>
> or similar?

+1

As an American/native English speaker, I find the use of the plural pronoun
in combination with a singular noun (which is not grammatically correct)
in formal writing to be sloppy and jarring to read. The change you suggest
above reads more professionally while still avoiding offending anyone.

--
Bill Moran

On 22/09/15 22:17, Geoff Winkless wrote:
> On 22 September 2015 at 10:52, Gavin Flower
> <GavinFlower@archidevsys.co.nz
> <mailto:GavinFlower@archidevsys.co.nz>>wrote:
>
>     On 22/09/15 21:33, Geoff Winkless wrote:
>
>         ​ ​
>         Without wanting to get into a grammar war, ​I'm not so sure I
>         agree that it "condones" it. Dictionaries reflect the current
>         state of usage, they don't act as arbiters of correctness. The
>         abuse of "literally" as an emphasiser (which usage is now
>         listed in the OED) is a prime example.
>
>         I would prefer "his or her" over "their". Perhaps our American
>         cousins might disagree though.
>
>     I prefer "their" rather than "his or her", it is less clumsy &
>     there is no point in specifying gender unless it is relevant!
>
>
> I agree in that I prefer "their" in informal speech; however in a
> formal document I would find it sloppy.​ I don't think "his or her" is
> inherently clumsy; m
> aybe I'm just showing my age.​
>
>     Besides, some people are neither, or their biological gender is
>     ambiguous - so a few people fit into neither the male nor the
>     female category (depending on precise definitions, about 0.5%)!
>
>
> My understanding is that most intersex (and certainly all trans)
> people would identify with one or the other, and even those who don't
> select exclusively identify with a mix of both (and would therefore
> still be covered by "his or her", no?) although I don't pretend to be
> an expert.
>
> Perhaps it would be easier to avoid the controversy by actually
> rewording into the plural, where possible?
>
> So
>
> "any user can make such a change for his session."
>
> becomes
>
> "Users can make such a change for their individual sessions"
>
> or similar?
>
> Geoff
To me, the key things is NOT to specify gender, unless it is relevant -
and I don't think gender is relevant in describing how to use a database.

I was using "Gender Appropriate" language long before the Politically
Correct craze started (over 50 years ago)!  I was told references to
"he" in rules included females, which I thought was daft!


Cheers,
Gavin

On 09/22/2015 06:17 AM, Geoff Winkless wrote:
> On 22 September 2015 at 10:52, Gavin Flower
> <GavinFlower@archidevsys.co.nz
> <mailto:GavinFlower@archidevsys.co.nz>>wrote:
>
>     On 22/09/15 21:33, Geoff Winkless wrote:
>
>         ​ ​
>         Without wanting to get into a grammar war, ​I'm not so sure I
>         agree that it "condones" it. Dictionaries reflect the current
>         state of usage, they don't act as arbiters of correctness. The
>         abuse of "literally" as an emphasiser (which usage is now
>         listed in the OED) is a prime example.
>
>         I would prefer "his or her" over "their". Perhaps our American
>         cousins might disagree though.
>
>     I prefer "their" rather than "his or her", it is less clumsy &
>     there is no point in specifying gender unless it is relevant!
>
>
> I agree in that I prefer "their" in informal speech; however in a
> formal document I would find it sloppy.​ I don't think "his or her" is
> inherently clumsy; m
> aybe I'm just showing my age.​
>
>     Besides, some people are neither, or their biological gender is
>     ambiguous - so a few people fit into neither the male nor the
>     female category (depending on precise definitions, about 0.5%)!
>
>
> My understanding is that most intersex (and certainly all trans)
> people would identify with one or the other, and even those who don't
> select exclusively identify with a mix of both (and would therefore
> still be covered by "his or her", no?) although I don't pretend to be
> an expert.
>
> Perhaps it would be easier to avoid the controversy by actually
> rewording into the plural, where possible?
>
> So
>
> "any user can make such a change for his session."
>
> becomes
>
> "Users can make such a change for their individual sessions"
>
> or similar?
>
>


You are fighting a losing battle. Think of they/them/their/theirs as
being indefinitely gendered third person singular pronouns, as well as
being third person plural pronouns. Yes it's a relatively new usage, but
I don't think its at all unreasonable (speaking as someone who has been
known to dislike some new usages and neologisms). It's not at all
sloppy. On the contrary, it's quite deliberate. It's just not quite
traditional. You need to get over that.

Your proposed style would make writing docs a lot harder, forcing us to
avoid use of the singular in cases where it is quite natural. I'm
strongly opposed to such a style rule.

cheers

andrew

On 09/22/2015 12:32 AM, Erik Rijkers wrote:
>
>
> -   might not be the same as the database user he needs to connect as.
> +   might not be the same as the database user that is to be connect as.
>
>
> It is not an improvement.  I would like to see this change rolled back.
>
>
>

I agree this is awkward.

I would use "might not be the same as the database user they need to
connect as." Let's be consistent about the use of they/them/their/theirs
as indefinitely gendered singular pronouns.

cheers

andrew

On 09/22/2015 09:25 AM, Geoff Winkless wrote:
>  If someone sends me a document that uses "their" in a singular usage,
> I will think that person is lazy. That will continue to be the case,
> whether people tell me that it's accepted usage or not.


You can think that if you like, but it's not even remotely true. It's a
deliberate choice to use a new, perfectly reasonable and now widely
accepted style of which you disapprove, but it's not lazy.


cheers

andrew

On 09/22/2015 10:29 AM, Geoff Winkless wrote:
> Oh, good! We're actually going to have this argument? Even though I
> said I don't care what you do?
>
> On 22 September 2015 at 15:11, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net
> <mailto:andrew@dunslane.net>> wrote:
>
>     On 09/22/2015 09:25 AM, Geoff Winkless wrote:
>
>          If someone sends me a document that uses "their" in a
>         singular usage, I will think that person is lazy. That will
>         continue to be the case, whether people tell me that it's
>         accepted usage or not.
>
>
>     You can think that if you like,
>
>
> ​Thanks!​ That's a great relief to me, as I'm sure you can imagine.
>
>     but it's not even remotely true.
>
>
> ​ You just stated that the reason you don't want to use the plural
> form I suggested is because it's too hard/time-consuming. That does
> suggest you accept that it's a valid solution but you're too lazy to
> use it.​
>
>     It's a deliberate choice to use a new, perfectly reasonable and
>     now widely accepted style of which you disapprove, but it's not lazy.
>
>
> ​ That's your opinion; my opinion remains otherwise. It's not
> "perfectly reasonable" to abuse the plural because some 1960s
> feminazis either misunderstood or didn't like the fact that (because
> of history) in English the gender-neutral singular happens to also be
> the male singular.
>
> 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.

cheers

andrew

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 7:11 AM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
> You can think that if you like, but it's not even remotely true. It's a
> deliberate choice to use a new, perfectly reasonable and now widely accepted
> style of which you disapprove, but it's not lazy.

It never occurred to me that this usage is even non-traditional. I am
a native English speaker born in Ireland in the 1980s.

--
Peter Geoghegan

> On Sep 22, 2015, at 6:09 AM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
>
> You are fighting a losing battle. Think of they/them/their/theirs as being indefinitely gendered third person
singularpronouns, as well as being third person plural pronouns. Yes it's a relatively new usage, but I don't think its
atall unreasonable (speaking as someone who has been known to dislike some new usages and neologisms). It's not at all
sloppy.On the contrary, it's quite deliberate. It's just not quite traditional. You need to get over that. 

The use of "their" as singular dates back at least as far as Chaucer in the 14th century, prior to
the use of "you" as a singular pronoun.  Militant grammarian schoolteachers may have told you
not to use it that way, but that doesn't change the history of its use.

Mark Dilger

On 9/22/15 11:00 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> On 09/22/2015 10:29 AM, Geoff Winkless wrote:
>> ​ That's your opinion; my opinion remains otherwise. It's not
>> "perfectly reasonable" to abuse the plural because some 1960s
>> feminazis either misunderstood or didn't like the fact that (because
>> of history) in English the gender-neutral singular happens to also be
>> the male singular.
>
> 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 conversations like this are a part of why we have trouble
attracting new contributors (of any gender) to the community.

--
-David
david@pgmasters.net

> I think conversations like this are a part of why we have trouble attracting
> new contributors (of any gender) to the community.

+1

An example from a book on PostgreSQL server programming that I'm working
through (Note that it is obviously awkward to write with gender pronouns
when gender is irrelevant, note the "he she" in one place and "he/she"
in another!):

    "If the user is a superuser, then he she has permission to see the
    full query. If the user is a regular user, he/she will only see the
    full query for his/her queries."

Written in 'Gender Appropriate' style (only refer to gender when it is
relevant):

    "If the user is a superuser, then they have permission to see the
    full query. If the user is a regular user, they will only see the
    full query for their queries."

I think the second version is easier to read - and in this case, shorter!


-Gavin

On 24/09/15 22:41, Geoff Winkless wrote:
> On 24 September 2015 at 11:33, Gavin Flower
> <GavinFlower@archidevsys.co.nz
> <mailto:GavinFlower@archidevsys.co.nz>>wrote:
>
>     An example from a book on PostgreSQL server programming that I'm
>     working through (Note that it is obviously awkward to write with
>     gender pronouns when gender is irrelevant, note the "he she" in
>     one place and "he/she" in another!):
>
>        "If the user is a superuser, then they have permission to see the
>        full query. If the user is a regular user, they will only see the
>        full query for their queries."
>
> Can I quietly suggest "​Users with superuser pemissions can always see
> the full query​, while regular users will only see the full query for
> their own queries."?
>
> Geoff
By all means say it quietly!  :-)

But I was simply trying to change it into Gender Appropriate form,
rather improve it in other aspects.

However, your rephrasing is better still!


-Gavin