17 ms·

Richard Stallman Has Announced the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

114 points by crunchiebones 8y ago

bigiain 8y ago
That's nicely balanced and well thought through in my opinion. I'm particularly impressed by the second last para talking about the Gnu organisation's only two political positions or points, and says: "We don't require you as a contributor to agree with these two points, but you do need to accept that our decisions will be based on them."
- orsenthil 8y ago
  I agree it is making their stance clear on their policies and standing ground on what they believe in.
g_sch 8y ago
I know this has been litigated into the ground by now, but I'm just struck by the pettiness in GNU continuing to insist that: > There are various ways to express gender neutrality in third-person singular pronouns in English; you do not have to use “they.” This feels like a vanishingly small hill to die on, given the ideals that are at stake in the GNU project. It certainly feels very out-of-place on a high-level code of conduct such as this one. EDIT: to clarify, I'm referring specifically to the insistence that "they" is an invalid singular pronoun. I'm being maximally charitable when I say that I'm not sure why RMS's personal views on what constitute "correct" pronouns merits mention on an organization's code of conduct.
- boomboomsubban 8y ago
  Is there really a strong amount of outrage about which gender neutral pronoun was used? As the use of a gender neutral pronoun seems like the important bit.
  - Spooky23 8y ago
    Yes. Especially in academia, where it's often a bullshit power-play in a really bizarre bureaucracy, that wastes alot of time. I know someone who was dragged into some HR process because she did not sufficiently respect the wishes of a subordinate who did not self-identify as a human being, identified as a "non-binary organism" instead, and selected "it" as the only acceptable pronoun. Fortunately, the process got bogged down for a couple of years between the various unions, human rights committees and administrative processes and the complaint went away when the individual moved on.
    - Jotra7 8y ago
      That subordinate's name? Albert Einstein.
    - kbenson 8y ago
      That sounds similar to some of the gender politicking that someone pointed out in Mastodon.[1][2] I'm still not sure at this point if some of those don't just represent some next level trolling. 1: https://github.com/tootsuite/mastodon/pull/7391 https://github.com/tootsuite/mastodon/pull/7391 2: https://github.com/tootsuite/mastodon/pull/7391#issuecomment-389272121 https://github.com/tootsuite/mastodon/pull/7391#issuecomment...
  - drdeadringer 8y ago
    There was even a situation a little before this year's WorldCon [the annual globe-trotting science fiction convention] that presented via Twitter; it was resolved "to satisfaction" and the offended person still attended but yes -- there can be, and has been, outrage.
- cultus 8y ago
  Looks like RMS wrote an essay on this. https://stallman.org/articles/genderless-pronouns.html https://stallman.org/articles/genderless-pronouns.html 'They/them' has been used as a singular for many centuries. It's the least-worst option in English to express third person singular. It sounds strange when someone uses it to refer to a specific person, because we are used to gendered pronouns in that context. However, it's used ubiquitously to refer to nonspecific individuals. 'they' as a singular isn't my favorite thing in the world, but it doesn't matter much to me, and it clearly matters much, much more to some others. So, I think it's best to just use what pronouns folks prefer (within reason anyway).
  - vmaier 8y ago
    It may have been used here and there for centuries, but the massive inflationary use came in the last 5 years. I'm not a native speaker, so I can't comment how the construct sounds to natives. To me, it sounds wrong, so I'd avoid communicating with people who demand this form of speech.
    - cultus 8y ago
      Why is it so upsetting to you that you would go so far as to avoid people that use 'they?'
      - jki275 8y ago
        Because they're typically militant social justice types. Not everyone wants to interact with people under that kind of microscope, it's tiring and life is short.
        error_logic 8y ago
        By trying to impose such restriction on the use of 'they' as a singular (what about 'you' short for "you all" as plural?), you are creating conflict of your own rather than letting life go on. Those who see the world in terms of good and evil tend to do more evil themselves. Take care that your perception of militancy does not similarly take over your own effect on the world. Peace.
- alliecat 8y ago
  Stallman's still upset that people use singular "they". It's bad grammar, or something. https://stallman.org/articles/genderless-pronouns.html https://stallman.org/articles/genderless-pronouns.html I go by "they" on a day-to-day basis and generally I don't have any issues with it; it's fairly obvious when someone's referring to me singularly, and people will sometimes use my name a little more often if it's ambiguous. It's not a big deal except when people elect to make it a big deal; I've had Stallman's blogpost thrown at me on IRC a few times by people who also like dying on the vanishingly small hill that is "People who don't identify with any gender in particular shouldn't be able to use the existing non-gendered pronoun because it's BAD GRAMMAR and that INFRINGES ON MY RIGHTS or some shit" Tom Scott put it well in an older video of his; "Some people are "They", get over it!"
  - cameronhowe 8y ago
    There's no need to be so dismissive of Stallman's point of view. He has a great example in your link where using they is ambiguous. Saying it's not a big deal unless people make it a big deal is not useful. Many people say the same about assuming gender. Language and the way we express ourselves matter and affect the way we think.
    - angus-prune 8y ago
      As many equivalently ambiguous examples could be formed with he or she, particularly when there are more than one person of the same gender. There is ambiguity in all natural language and we work around it quite effectively with either assumed knowledge or phrasing which removes the ambiguity (while often adding other ambiguities which aren't plausible so ignored). Stallman says himself that he can understand his examples, and a couple aren't even ambiguous. He's adding in hypothetical other people to make them ambiguous. Stallman has highlighted a problem with English and happened to use singular they as an example. He hasn't highlighted a problem with singular they.
      - tom_ 8y ago
        The weird thing is that we seem to do just fine with singular you, so it's not obvious - at least, not to me - why singular they would be such a problem.
- rfrey 8y ago
  I have no issues at all with creating gender neutral pronouns... most often, including gender information adds nothing to the value of what’s being conveyed. I am annoyed at losing “they” as a plural though, because number often does add useful information. I’d much rather we invented a new pronoun. That shop has sailed though, so I try not to worry about it anymore.
  - wetpaste 8y ago
    I don't feel like we are losing "they" as a plural. We're just learning how to use it in more singular contexts than we used it before. Many new pronouns have been invented and some folks use them, but none of them really catch on. "They" has the advantage of being universally recognized in a lot of contexts already, plus, it's what people who's identities for themselves prefer, which is in my opinion the most important aspect. I think 99/100 times, the use of the "they" pronoun can be understood in context once one is familiar with its use. I think we just need to accept this as part of language and accept it's here.
    - rfrey 8y ago
      To be clear, I do accept it - the common decency of referring to people the way they would like to be referred to is much more important than a minor linguistic inconvenience to me. I'd just have preferred one of those others had caught on.
- justtopost 8y ago
  Looks like its you claiming that hill from where I am standing. This is about the most uncontriversial position ever. Stallman literally just published his pronoun post on his personal site stallman.org. He seems to have left his personal views out, as I see no mention of his pet version of a genderless pronoun construct. I personally find it polite to call people what they wish, given it does not unreasonably burden my natural expression. No contradiction here with compelled speech or free speech, which are hills I am quite literally willing to die on. This seems along those lines, allowing further investment by those interested in less common pronouns to express themselves, while not burdening those who are not, while respecting everyone by setting clear expectations for conduct. Can you expand on your objection? Perhaps I missed nuance...
- Frondo 8y ago
  What it comes down to, as with all things like this, is control; we'll acknowledge you non-binary folks, but we'll choose the language we use to describe you. letting them pic their own preferred pronoun is too uncomfortable, it means really giving them a seat at the table. everything else is just rationalization.
  - JoeAltmaier 8y ago
    Neat how that last line dismisses any further discussion. Its not trolling when trying to shut down discussion; is there another term for such activity?
    - Frondo 8y ago
      I meant that deferring to "it's bad grammar" or "we have other words to choose for them" is a rationalization. The real answer is, "we don't want to fully acknowledge their humanity, so we'll retain grip over this one tiny meaningless thing, to remind them that we're in charge". Saying it's grammar and you can't use bad grammar is a rationalization -- grammar's also an entirely invented thing and it changes over time and if it changes now because we're all getting on board with NB folks existing, then that's just one of a million grammar changes in the 2010s. Saying we have other words and they should be happy we're using other words is just a rationalization -- it's their call to make and we can either let them own that or we can keep insisting NB folks don't get that self-determination. "Neat," right???
      - jakelazaroff 8y ago
        You may want to add an addendum to your original comment; until I read this I misinterpreted it as actually arguing for not recognizing their humanity, and I'd imagine you're getting downvoted for the same reason.
      - JoeAltmaier 8y ago
        Its all about trying to get everybody to do what is PC (sorry I don't know any other word). And blaming them when they resist organizing their own mind and behavior around somebody else's issues. Blaming folks for not falling in line with a very tiny point is unreasonable. Arguing around it with moralizing and appeals to guilt is manipulative. That a neat summary in my opinion.
- Spooky23 8y ago
  It's not. This nonsense is used to derail/bikeshed all sorts of communication.' I've found that using "they" in the singular is ambiguous and confusing to non-native speakers especially, and I interact with many people in that category. Using "person" in more formal, and words like "folks" in more informal settings is more understandable.
- Mononokay 8y ago
  Lots of people tend to hate the usage of they; he's basically setting an area of compromise for the people who put forth the argument that they isn't proper grammar. (You wouldn't think this would be an issue, but free software nerds manage to outdo themselves.)
- lucozade 8y ago
  It's just a footnote. I don't think that GNU are making a big deal about it. In fact, the wording of the Code of Conduct actually contradicts RMS's linked article in the footnote. The article specifically states that RMS won't use certain forms even if the he's asked to by the recipient.
- village-idiot 8y ago
  I’ve never understood why people get so upset at using the word “they” or “them”. We already use gender neutral pronouns in the plural or possessive cases (we, their, etc) all the time. Switching over to gender neutral for all cases seems harmless to me. Personally I switched over years ago after a faux pas too many. Getting embarrassed sucks, and using gender neutral in most or all cases saves me mental cycles anyways.
  - ryanmccullagh 8y ago
    At least we have gender neutral pronouns in the English language. Some languages like Portuguese will default to a male pronoun when in the plural possessive even if their is women in the group. And if there are 9 women and 1 man in a group, the plural possessive is still masculine. What do people sensitive to these pronouns do if their own language will make a distinction?
    - village-idiot 8y ago
      Ouch. That’s hard. Long term, the language will change, as languages tend to do. Short term? Probably a lot of cultural conflict.
    - icebraining 8y ago
      As a native Portuguese speaker, I just replace the pronoun with, say, "the group" or some more specific description. We have an advantage here, because you can translate "belongs to" as just "é do/a", so you can write "it belongs to the group" as "é do grupo".
      - ryanmccullagh 8y ago
        Thanks. I’m still learning, but I think I would use your style like this: instead of o carro é do eles. I could use o carro é do grupo. Please correct me.
        icebraining 8y ago
- zimablue 8y ago
  If it's petty, then by definition it's petty for either direction to fight about it. You can't dismiss something as unimportant then try to start an argument about it. If it's really petty, it doesn't matter so stop talking about it. If it's not petty then OK, it's reasonable for him to spend the time to have an opinion, so go argue against that.
  - dwaltrip 8y ago
    They started the argument by putting it in their guidelines. It's not necessarily petty to point out that someone else is being petty, especially if the petty behavior can cause harm.
    - zimablue 8y ago
      But it's just very disingenuous, take the politics out of it. He includes a statement that he prefers chicken soup, which people have very strong views about. You write a comment saying "it's very petty to write about chicken soup we should have higher values than this and not get sidetracked into arguments on nonsense". But where do you post the comment? On a public forum which you're inciting to have that argument. It's not honest. If you don't like chicken soup and you think that's important, then have the guts to say that. It's actually the oldest meaning of trolling - starting a big fight whilst pretending not to.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
- boomboomsubban 8y ago
  >I'm being maximally charitable when I say that I'm not sure why RMS's personal views on what constitute "correct" pronouns merits mention on an organization's code of conduct. To provide an example of a what an alternative third-party gender neutral option is. Even with this example, you assumed he meant "they don't want to acknowledge gender identities outside of the male/female binary." His blog post is more about his personal preference and reasons for them, not about what is "correct."
- Todd 8y ago
  As many people are pointing out, they has been used as an alternative singular pronoun for a very long time. For those who think that these things are unacceptable, one only has to look at other Indo-european languages. German has sie, which means 'they' (in addition to 'she'). However, they also have Sie which means formal 'you'. This is the same mechanism at work, albeit formalized and thus further along the path to acceptance. French has a more recent example. The pronoun on means 'one', in the third person singular, gender-neutral sense. In recent history, it has been transformed to take on the sense of 'we'. The motivation, as with many things French, is to shorten words and to make things less formal. The on conjugation of verbs is more brief than the nous (we) equivalent. These languages have re-purposed pronouns in a natural way, and have accepted it--even formalized it in grammar books. English needs to do the same.
  - gotocake 8y ago
    English needs to do the same. Why? Because less than half a percent of the population would prefer it? I don’t think so. That part of the population should be respected and referred to as they prefer, but I’m not interested in them dictating how the other 99.96% of the population refers to itself.
    - pseudalopex 8y ago
      Who said anything about eliminating gendered pronouns?
      - gotocake 8y ago
        Who said anything about eliminating gendered pronouns? Is that a trick question?... because I didn’t mention that. So I guess the answer is, you, just now for reasons I’m not totally clear on.
Proven 8y ago
Social progressives are succeeding in marginalizing Linus... > The only political positions that the GNU Project endorses are (1) that users should have control of their own computing (for instance, through free software) and (2) supporting basic human rights in computing. There are NO human rights specific to computing. All rights are property rights, including he right to be free (you own yourself, that's really the main one, and have the right to your own body and possessions you've created or otherwise acquired through voluntary exchange (ie you didn't violate anyone's property rights). And you can never have control over your hardware as long as there is legislation and taxes. But Stallman never understood basic principles of liberty, so whatever floats his boat... The only surprise is that it took so long. Most OSS have had codes or conduct with socialist values for years. It's disgusting, but that saves me some time as I contribute than as I otherwise would.
jfk13 8y ago
There was a bunch of discussion already in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18274663 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18274663.
orsenthil 8y ago
<pre> Rather than trying to have the last word, look for the times when there is no need to reply, perhaps because you already made the relevant point clear enough. If you know something about the game of Go, this analogy might clarify that: when the opponent's move is not strong enough to require a direct response, it is advantageous to give it none and instead move elsewhere. </pre> I had to deal with someone who thought that having the last word is "a thing". So, he will never give up on any discussion without adding a last reply. It is hard to deal with such people. On the game of go, can someone illustrate how it is advantageous to not have the last word? Also, I am not sure if this example will convince a last-word-wrong-doer, they are in for an emotional satisfaction, not a rational one.
- kyoob 8y ago
  The Go board can be thought of as having nine regions, if you imagine breaking it into squares of the same size, like a tic tac toe board. Later in the game you may have developed such a strong position in the "northwest" region of the board that when your opponent places a stone there, it isn't important for you to respond immediately in that region - it'd take many turns for your opponent to have a chance of being a real threat in that area. So, you play elsewhere on the board.
  - snissn 8y ago
    building on that, remember that your time is a finite resource
- nrobinaubertin 8y ago
  In the game of go, if your opponent plays a weak attack move that you can ignore, you basically have won a turn (by playing elsewhere). If he tries to invade your territory and doesn't realize that he cannot create a living group inside it, it's just like he gave you a prisoner.
- chrisseaton 8y ago
  > So, he will never give up on any discussion without adding a last reply. It is hard to deal with such people. If having the last word matters to them and not you, then let them have it and don’t worry yourself.
pjc50 8y ago
One of the first effects of this is another attempt to remove RMS's pet favourite abortion joke from the glibc docs: https://lwn.net/Articles/753646/ https://lwn.net/Articles/753646/ -> https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2018-10/msg00399.html https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2018-10/msg00399.html Will RMS comply with his own "guidelines"?
- Mononokay 8y ago
  If you read the thread you could see how everyone agreed that the guidelines didn't apply to docs.
- jawilson2 8y ago
  Apparently not: https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2018-10/msg00467.html https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2018-10/msg00467.html > More precisely, the guidelines are about how we communicate in our discussions, not what ideas we communicate (as long as they are pertinent to the topic of the list and support the goal of the project). > These guidelines as such do not apply to manuals. Kindness as a general principle surely does apply to manuals, but precisely how remains to be decided. > I just installed a statement in the GNU maintainer guide saying that humor is welcome _in general_ -- that we reject the idea of "professionalism" which calls for deleting humor because it is humor. > That doesn't decide the question of the abort(3) joke. There are issues to decide before that.
  - jordigh 8y ago
    I wish rms had the humility to accept that his joke is not funny and is making more people unhappy than it's making people laugh.
- baud147258 8y ago
  Proposed Federal censorship régulations may prohibit us from giving you information about the possibility of calling this function. We would be required to say that this is not an acceptable way of terminating a program. I don't get the joke; I think I'm missing some context since I'm not from the US. Can you explain it?
jki275 8y ago
On the contrary, in any circles where precision in language is appreciated or grammar is important, it has been called out as incorrect for years. I remember being hit for it on college papers 20+ years ago. It's simply incorrect.
- joshuamorton 8y ago
  Shakespeare, who invented half of modern English vocabulary, used singular they. You're anecdotal experience of getting called out as incorrect does not conflict with GPs statement that such things are and were rare.
  - jki275 8y ago
    I'll argue your grasp of grammatical English is poor based the errors in your comment, but "Shakespeare did it" doesn't change the rules. Shakespeare did a lot of things that aren't accepted in English grammar today. My anecdote is simply based on accepted and correct grammar. You won't find it any different in any academic setting or any other setting where grammar is important.
    - joshuamorton 8y ago
      Or perhaps I'm posting from a phone which is prone to changing my words on occasion. Please remember to abide by the hn guidelines. And no, your belief is based on what you learned is correct grammar. Authors and scholars have disagreed about singular they since the time of Shakespeare and English, having no central authority, has allowed singular they since the middle ages. Singular they was only "outlawed" in the 1800s, with the reasoning was that he could stand in for they in all cases, because one should never mix a plural pronoun with a singular antecedent. This forgot that "you" is also plural, or at least was originally. The OED and Merriam-Webster both recognize singular they, as do the Chicago manual of style, the wapo style guide, and the associated press stylebook. It is accepted and correct grammar.
      - jki275 8y ago
DannyB2 8y ago
The best way to avoid conflict and encourage diversity is to force everyone to voluntarily think alike.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- KingMob 8y ago
  Odd, but correct. It's a heterological issue, where maximal (not total) diversity is achieved by getting everyone to agree on the value of respecting each other's choices as long as no harm is done. For an example in the political realm, see Popper's Paradox of Tolerance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance, aka, why we shouldn't tolerate neo-nazis, white supremacists, etc.
- BeetleB 8y ago
  >The best way to avoid conflict and encourage diversity is to force everyone to voluntarily think alike. I have no idea if this was a joke, given you used the words "force" and "voluntarily" in the same sentence, as well as "diversity" and "think alike". In the event that you are serious, I completely disagree. Or rather, if by "best" you mean "ideal", I agree. If you mean "best" as in "most likely to succeed", the method rarely works. Some of a comment I wrote a week ago applies: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18249218 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18249218 Specifically: >BTW, lest I be misunderstood, neither I nor the books are saying there isn't anything like an obligation, and that you should not have shoulds. Of course everyone will have them. The key is to realize that your set of shoulds will be incompatible with others. You could have a long, multi-day conversation with the other to align your sets, but if you just change the style (and tone) of the conversation, you won't need to. You really don't need people to think alike to avoid conflict and encourage diversity.
lixtra 8y ago
The highest discriminatory factor I see in the tech community is the English language. You either have to invest a lot of energy to master it or you are left with local niche communities. Of course that is difficult to tackle, but it can serve as a benchmark. You can offer a french speaker to be addressed with the wrong pronoun in french or the correct one in English. How would the majority decide?
- kome 8y ago
  The role of English (and linguistic imperialism) is overlooked not just in the tech world, but more or less everywhere (academia, job market, etc). It's another stratification fault line. Much more research would be needed to understand the impact of it. Learning a language is super expensive; but the people involved mostly don't see the cost of doing it (because sometimes it's a pleasure, but it's a pleasure that not everybody can afford).
- jobigoud 8y ago
  It might be the first time in the history of Human Civilization that we have the opportunity to standardize the communication pipeline on a global scale. English is not perfect, but it's the standard we have. It's like coding conventions, the exact choice doesn't really matter, consistency is the important trait. I wish we could forget about where the language is coming from and focus on where we are going. Do we want a future where everyone can understand each other? I do. I don't want some great ideas to be hidden for centuries because their author happened to speak a language no one bothered translating from. Let's standardize on English, teach it everywhere to every child, call it a solved problem and move on. (disclaimer: I am a French native speaker living in France).
- rcfox 8y ago
  Language barriers can be exclusionary, but they're not discriminatory. Anglophone project owners don't not work with non-English speakers because they hate other languages, they just can't understand them. Nobody's at fault for this.
- ohithereyou 8y ago
  I don't disagree that a language barrier exists and that it is exclusionary to non-English speaking/reading people. However, what do you propose as a solution?
ben509 8y ago
This seems like a fairly incremental tweak to normal professional protocols; I think it's one of the better guidelines I've seen. I still disagree with framing this as "kindness" though, simply because courtesy is a habit you practice for those times when you're not feeling kind. On good days, I may litter my speech with "thank yous" and such that might be unnecessary given my demeanor, but on bad days it pays off as the behavior is automatic. Much of the document is about deescalation which really is an art if you've ever tried to break up a fight. That they bring up the Go analogy is good, because if you're working on project you're not just responding to respond, but because you're trying to represent your interests; lobbying in a word.
dreta 8y ago
The article as a whole is well-worded, and surprisingly neutral given what's been going on in the community lately, that's why it boggles mind why you'd write something like "This discouragement particularly affects members of disprivileged demographics (...)". All this is going to do is upset people.

114 points by crunchiebones 8y ago

That's nicely balanced and well thought through in my opinion. I'm particularly impressed by the second last para talking about the Gnu organisation's only two political positions or points, and says: "We don't require you as a contributor to agree with these two points, but you do need to accept that our decisions will be based on them."

orsenthil 8y ago
I agree it is making their stance clear on their policies and standing ground on what they believe in.

g_sch 8y ago

I know this has been litigated into the ground by now, but I'm just struck by the pettiness in GNU continuing to insist that: > There are various ways to express gender neutrality in third-person singular pronouns in English; you do not have to use “they.” This feels like a vanishingly small hill to die on, given the ideals that are at stake in the GNU project. It certainly feels very out-of-place on a high-level code of conduct such as this one. EDIT: to clarify, I'm referring specifically to the insistence that "they" is an invalid singular pronoun. I'm being maximally charitable when I say that I'm not sure why RMS's personal views on what constitute "correct" pronouns merits mention on an organization's code of conduct.

boomboomsubban 8y ago
Is there really a strong amount of outrage about which gender neutral pronoun was used? As the use of a gender neutral pronoun seems like the important bit.
- Spooky23 8y ago
  Yes. Especially in academia, where it's often a bullshit power-play in a really bizarre bureaucracy, that wastes alot of time. I know someone who was dragged into some HR process because she did not sufficiently respect the wishes of a subordinate who did not self-identify as a human being, identified as a "non-binary organism" instead, and selected "it" as the only acceptable pronoun. Fortunately, the process got bogged down for a couple of years between the various unions, human rights committees and administrative processes and the complaint went away when the individual moved on.
  - Jotra7 8y ago
    That subordinate's name? Albert Einstein.
  - kbenson 8y ago
    That sounds similar to some of the gender politicking that someone pointed out in Mastodon.[1][2] I'm still not sure at this point if some of those don't just represent some next level trolling. 1: https://github.com/tootsuite/mastodon/pull/7391 https://github.com/tootsuite/mastodon/pull/7391 2: https://github.com/tootsuite/mastodon/pull/7391#issuecomment-389272121 https://github.com/tootsuite/mastodon/pull/7391#issuecomment...
- drdeadringer 8y ago
  There was even a situation a little before this year's WorldCon [the annual globe-trotting science fiction convention] that presented via Twitter; it was resolved "to satisfaction" and the offended person still attended but yes -- there can be, and has been, outrage.
cultus 8y ago
Looks like RMS wrote an essay on this. https://stallman.org/articles/genderless-pronouns.html https://stallman.org/articles/genderless-pronouns.html 'They/them' has been used as a singular for many centuries. It's the least-worst option in English to express third person singular. It sounds strange when someone uses it to refer to a specific person, because we are used to gendered pronouns in that context. However, it's used ubiquitously to refer to nonspecific individuals. 'they' as a singular isn't my favorite thing in the world, but it doesn't matter much to me, and it clearly matters much, much more to some others. So, I think it's best to just use what pronouns folks prefer (within reason anyway).
- vmaier 8y ago
  It may have been used here and there for centuries, but the massive inflationary use came in the last 5 years. I'm not a native speaker, so I can't comment how the construct sounds to natives. To me, it sounds wrong, so I'd avoid communicating with people who demand this form of speech.
  - cultus 8y ago
    Why is it so upsetting to you that you would go so far as to avoid people that use 'they?'
    - jki275 8y ago
      Because they're typically militant social justice types. Not everyone wants to interact with people under that kind of microscope, it's tiring and life is short.
      - error_logic 8y ago
        By trying to impose such restriction on the use of 'they' as a singular (what about 'you' short for "you all" as plural?), you are creating conflict of your own rather than letting life go on. Those who see the world in terms of good and evil tend to do more evil themselves. Take care that your perception of militancy does not similarly take over your own effect on the world. Peace.
alliecat 8y ago
Stallman's still upset that people use singular "they". It's bad grammar, or something. https://stallman.org/articles/genderless-pronouns.html https://stallman.org/articles/genderless-pronouns.html I go by "they" on a day-to-day basis and generally I don't have any issues with it; it's fairly obvious when someone's referring to me singularly, and people will sometimes use my name a little more often if it's ambiguous. It's not a big deal except when people elect to make it a big deal; I've had Stallman's blogpost thrown at me on IRC a few times by people who also like dying on the vanishingly small hill that is "People who don't identify with any gender in particular shouldn't be able to use the existing non-gendered pronoun because it's BAD GRAMMAR and that INFRINGES ON MY RIGHTS or some shit" Tom Scott put it well in an older video of his; "Some people are "They", get over it!"
- cameronhowe 8y ago
  There's no need to be so dismissive of Stallman's point of view. He has a great example in your link where using they is ambiguous. Saying it's not a big deal unless people make it a big deal is not useful. Many people say the same about assuming gender. Language and the way we express ourselves matter and affect the way we think.
  - angus-prune 8y ago
    As many equivalently ambiguous examples could be formed with he or she, particularly when there are more than one person of the same gender. There is ambiguity in all natural language and we work around it quite effectively with either assumed knowledge or phrasing which removes the ambiguity (while often adding other ambiguities which aren't plausible so ignored). Stallman says himself that he can understand his examples, and a couple aren't even ambiguous. He's adding in hypothetical other people to make them ambiguous. Stallman has highlighted a problem with English and happened to use singular they as an example. He hasn't highlighted a problem with singular they.
    - tom_ 8y ago
      The weird thing is that we seem to do just fine with singular you, so it's not obvious - at least, not to me - why singular they would be such a problem.
rfrey 8y ago
I have no issues at all with creating gender neutral pronouns... most often, including gender information adds nothing to the value of what’s being conveyed. I am annoyed at losing “they” as a plural though, because number often does add useful information. I’d much rather we invented a new pronoun. That shop has sailed though, so I try not to worry about it anymore.
- wetpaste 8y ago
  I don't feel like we are losing "they" as a plural. We're just learning how to use it in more singular contexts than we used it before. Many new pronouns have been invented and some folks use them, but none of them really catch on. "They" has the advantage of being universally recognized in a lot of contexts already, plus, it's what people who's identities for themselves prefer, which is in my opinion the most important aspect. I think 99/100 times, the use of the "they" pronoun can be understood in context once one is familiar with its use. I think we just need to accept this as part of language and accept it's here.
  - rfrey 8y ago
    To be clear, I do accept it - the common decency of referring to people the way they would like to be referred to is much more important than a minor linguistic inconvenience to me. I'd just have preferred one of those others had caught on.
justtopost 8y ago
Looks like its you claiming that hill from where I am standing. This is about the most uncontriversial position ever. Stallman literally just published his pronoun post on his personal site stallman.org. He seems to have left his personal views out, as I see no mention of his pet version of a genderless pronoun construct. I personally find it polite to call people what they wish, given it does not unreasonably burden my natural expression. No contradiction here with compelled speech or free speech, which are hills I am quite literally willing to die on. This seems along those lines, allowing further investment by those interested in less common pronouns to express themselves, while not burdening those who are not, while respecting everyone by setting clear expectations for conduct. Can you expand on your objection? Perhaps I missed nuance...
Frondo 8y ago
What it comes down to, as with all things like this, is control; we'll acknowledge you non-binary folks, but we'll choose the language we use to describe you. letting them pic their own preferred pronoun is too uncomfortable, it means really giving them a seat at the table. everything else is just rationalization.
- JoeAltmaier 8y ago
  Neat how that last line dismisses any further discussion. Its not trolling when trying to shut down discussion; is there another term for such activity?
  - Frondo 8y ago
    I meant that deferring to "it's bad grammar" or "we have other words to choose for them" is a rationalization. The real answer is, "we don't want to fully acknowledge their humanity, so we'll retain grip over this one tiny meaningless thing, to remind them that we're in charge". Saying it's grammar and you can't use bad grammar is a rationalization -- grammar's also an entirely invented thing and it changes over time and if it changes now because we're all getting on board with NB folks existing, then that's just one of a million grammar changes in the 2010s. Saying we have other words and they should be happy we're using other words is just a rationalization -- it's their call to make and we can either let them own that or we can keep insisting NB folks don't get that self-determination. "Neat," right???
    - jakelazaroff 8y ago
      You may want to add an addendum to your original comment; until I read this I misinterpreted it as actually arguing for not recognizing their humanity, and I'd imagine you're getting downvoted for the same reason.
    - JoeAltmaier 8y ago
      Its all about trying to get everybody to do what is PC (sorry I don't know any other word). And blaming them when they resist organizing their own mind and behavior around somebody else's issues. Blaming folks for not falling in line with a very tiny point is unreasonable. Arguing around it with moralizing and appeals to guilt is manipulative. That a neat summary in my opinion.
Spooky23 8y ago
It's not. This nonsense is used to derail/bikeshed all sorts of communication.' I've found that using "they" in the singular is ambiguous and confusing to non-native speakers especially, and I interact with many people in that category. Using "person" in more formal, and words like "folks" in more informal settings is more understandable.
Mononokay 8y ago
Lots of people tend to hate the usage of they; he's basically setting an area of compromise for the people who put forth the argument that they isn't proper grammar. (You wouldn't think this would be an issue, but free software nerds manage to outdo themselves.)
lucozade 8y ago
It's just a footnote. I don't think that GNU are making a big deal about it. In fact, the wording of the Code of Conduct actually contradicts RMS's linked article in the footnote. The article specifically states that RMS won't use certain forms even if the he's asked to by the recipient.
village-idiot 8y ago
I’ve never understood why people get so upset at using the word “they” or “them”. We already use gender neutral pronouns in the plural or possessive cases (we, their, etc) all the time. Switching over to gender neutral for all cases seems harmless to me. Personally I switched over years ago after a faux pas too many. Getting embarrassed sucks, and using gender neutral in most or all cases saves me mental cycles anyways.
- ryanmccullagh 8y ago
  At least we have gender neutral pronouns in the English language. Some languages like Portuguese will default to a male pronoun when in the plural possessive even if their is women in the group. And if there are 9 women and 1 man in a group, the plural possessive is still masculine. What do people sensitive to these pronouns do if their own language will make a distinction?
  - village-idiot 8y ago
    Ouch. That’s hard. Long term, the language will change, as languages tend to do. Short term? Probably a lot of cultural conflict.
  - icebraining 8y ago
    As a native Portuguese speaker, I just replace the pronoun with, say, "the group" or some more specific description. We have an advantage here, because you can translate "belongs to" as just "é do/a", so you can write "it belongs to the group" as "é do grupo".
    - ryanmccullagh 8y ago
      Thanks. I’m still learning, but I think I would use your style like this: instead of o carro é do eles. I could use o carro é do grupo. Please correct me.
      - icebraining 8y ago
zimablue 8y ago
If it's petty, then by definition it's petty for either direction to fight about it. You can't dismiss something as unimportant then try to start an argument about it. If it's really petty, it doesn't matter so stop talking about it. If it's not petty then OK, it's reasonable for him to spend the time to have an opinion, so go argue against that.
- dwaltrip 8y ago
  They started the argument by putting it in their guidelines. It's not necessarily petty to point out that someone else is being petty, especially if the petty behavior can cause harm.
  - zimablue 8y ago
    But it's just very disingenuous, take the politics out of it. He includes a statement that he prefers chicken soup, which people have very strong views about. You write a comment saying "it's very petty to write about chicken soup we should have higher values than this and not get sidetracked into arguments on nonsense". But where do you post the comment? On a public forum which you're inciting to have that argument. It's not honest. If you don't like chicken soup and you think that's important, then have the guts to say that. It's actually the oldest meaning of trolling - starting a big fight whilst pretending not to.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
boomboomsubban 8y ago
>I'm being maximally charitable when I say that I'm not sure why RMS's personal views on what constitute "correct" pronouns merits mention on an organization's code of conduct. To provide an example of a what an alternative third-party gender neutral option is. Even with this example, you assumed he meant "they don't want to acknowledge gender identities outside of the male/female binary." His blog post is more about his personal preference and reasons for them, not about what is "correct."
Todd 8y ago
As many people are pointing out, they has been used as an alternative singular pronoun for a very long time. For those who think that these things are unacceptable, one only has to look at other Indo-european languages. German has sie, which means 'they' (in addition to 'she'). However, they also have Sie which means formal 'you'. This is the same mechanism at work, albeit formalized and thus further along the path to acceptance. French has a more recent example. The pronoun on means 'one', in the third person singular, gender-neutral sense. In recent history, it has been transformed to take on the sense of 'we'. The motivation, as with many things French, is to shorten words and to make things less formal. The on conjugation of verbs is more brief than the nous (we) equivalent. These languages have re-purposed pronouns in a natural way, and have accepted it--even formalized it in grammar books. English needs to do the same.
- gotocake 8y ago
  English needs to do the same. Why? Because less than half a percent of the population would prefer it? I don’t think so. That part of the population should be respected and referred to as they prefer, but I’m not interested in them dictating how the other 99.96% of the population refers to itself.
  - pseudalopex 8y ago
    Who said anything about eliminating gendered pronouns?
    - gotocake 8y ago
      Who said anything about eliminating gendered pronouns? Is that a trick question?... because I didn’t mention that. So I guess the answer is, you, just now for reasons I’m not totally clear on.

Proven 8y ago

Social progressives are succeeding in marginalizing Linus... > The only political positions that the GNU Project endorses are (1) that users should have control of their own computing (for instance, through free software) and (2) supporting basic human rights in computing. There are NO human rights specific to computing. All rights are property rights, including he right to be free (you own yourself, that's really the main one, and have the right to your own body and possessions you've created or otherwise acquired through voluntary exchange (ie you didn't violate anyone's property rights). And you can never have control over your hardware as long as there is legislation and taxes. But Stallman never understood basic principles of liberty, so whatever floats his boat... The only surprise is that it took so long. Most OSS have had codes or conduct with socialist values for years. It's disgusting, but that saves me some time as I contribute than as I otherwise would.

jfk13 8y ago

There was a bunch of discussion already in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18274663 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18274663.

orsenthil 8y ago

<pre> Rather than trying to have the last word, look for the times when there is no need to reply, perhaps because you already made the relevant point clear enough. If you know something about the game of Go, this analogy might clarify that: when the opponent's move is not strong enough to require a direct response, it is advantageous to give it none and instead move elsewhere. </pre> I had to deal with someone who thought that having the last word is "a thing". So, he will never give up on any discussion without adding a last reply. It is hard to deal with such people. On the game of go, can someone illustrate how it is advantageous to not have the last word? Also, I am not sure if this example will convince a last-word-wrong-doer, they are in for an emotional satisfaction, not a rational one.

kyoob 8y ago
The Go board can be thought of as having nine regions, if you imagine breaking it into squares of the same size, like a tic tac toe board. Later in the game you may have developed such a strong position in the "northwest" region of the board that when your opponent places a stone there, it isn't important for you to respond immediately in that region - it'd take many turns for your opponent to have a chance of being a real threat in that area. So, you play elsewhere on the board.
- snissn 8y ago
  building on that, remember that your time is a finite resource
nrobinaubertin 8y ago
In the game of go, if your opponent plays a weak attack move that you can ignore, you basically have won a turn (by playing elsewhere). If he tries to invade your territory and doesn't realize that he cannot create a living group inside it, it's just like he gave you a prisoner.
chrisseaton 8y ago
> So, he will never give up on any discussion without adding a last reply. It is hard to deal with such people. If having the last word matters to them and not you, then let them have it and don’t worry yourself.

pjc50 8y ago

One of the first effects of this is another attempt to remove RMS's pet favourite abortion joke from the glibc docs: https://lwn.net/Articles/753646/ https://lwn.net/Articles/753646/ -> https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2018-10/msg00399.html https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2018-10/msg00399.html Will RMS comply with his own "guidelines"?

Mononokay 8y ago
If you read the thread you could see how everyone agreed that the guidelines didn't apply to docs.
jawilson2 8y ago
Apparently not: https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2018-10/msg00467.html https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2018-10/msg00467.html > More precisely, the guidelines are about how we communicate in our discussions, not what ideas we communicate (as long as they are pertinent to the topic of the list and support the goal of the project). > These guidelines as such do not apply to manuals. Kindness as a general principle surely does apply to manuals, but precisely how remains to be decided. > I just installed a statement in the GNU maintainer guide saying that humor is welcome _in general_ -- that we reject the idea of "professionalism" which calls for deleting humor because it is humor. > That doesn't decide the question of the abort(3) joke. There are issues to decide before that.
- jordigh 8y ago
  I wish rms had the humility to accept that his joke is not funny and is making more people unhappy than it's making people laugh.
baud147258 8y ago
Proposed Federal censorship régulations may prohibit us from giving you information about the possibility of calling this function. We would be required to say that this is not an acceptable way of terminating a program. I don't get the joke; I think I'm missing some context since I'm not from the US. Can you explain it?

jki275 8y ago

On the contrary, in any circles where precision in language is appreciated or grammar is important, it has been called out as incorrect for years. I remember being hit for it on college papers 20+ years ago. It's simply incorrect.

joshuamorton 8y ago
Shakespeare, who invented half of modern English vocabulary, used singular they. You're anecdotal experience of getting called out as incorrect does not conflict with GPs statement that such things are and were rare.
- jki275 8y ago
  I'll argue your grasp of grammatical English is poor based the errors in your comment, but "Shakespeare did it" doesn't change the rules. Shakespeare did a lot of things that aren't accepted in English grammar today. My anecdote is simply based on accepted and correct grammar. You won't find it any different in any academic setting or any other setting where grammar is important.
  - joshuamorton 8y ago
    Or perhaps I'm posting from a phone which is prone to changing my words on occasion. Please remember to abide by the hn guidelines. And no, your belief is based on what you learned is correct grammar. Authors and scholars have disagreed about singular they since the time of Shakespeare and English, having no central authority, has allowed singular they since the middle ages. Singular they was only "outlawed" in the 1800s, with the reasoning was that he could stand in for they in all cases, because one should never mix a plural pronoun with a singular antecedent. This forgot that "you" is also plural, or at least was originally. The OED and Merriam-Webster both recognize singular they, as do the Chicago manual of style, the wapo style guide, and the associated press stylebook. It is accepted and correct grammar.
    - jki275 8y ago

DannyB2 8y ago

The best way to avoid conflict and encourage diversity is to force everyone to voluntarily think alike.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
KingMob 8y ago
Odd, but correct. It's a heterological issue, where maximal (not total) diversity is achieved by getting everyone to agree on the value of respecting each other's choices as long as no harm is done. For an example in the political realm, see Popper's Paradox of Tolerance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance, aka, why we shouldn't tolerate neo-nazis, white supremacists, etc.
BeetleB 8y ago
>The best way to avoid conflict and encourage diversity is to force everyone to voluntarily think alike. I have no idea if this was a joke, given you used the words "force" and "voluntarily" in the same sentence, as well as "diversity" and "think alike". In the event that you are serious, I completely disagree. Or rather, if by "best" you mean "ideal", I agree. If you mean "best" as in "most likely to succeed", the method rarely works. Some of a comment I wrote a week ago applies: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18249218 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18249218 Specifically: >BTW, lest I be misunderstood, neither I nor the books are saying there isn't anything like an obligation, and that you should not have shoulds. Of course everyone will have them. The key is to realize that your set of shoulds will be incompatible with others. You could have a long, multi-day conversation with the other to align your sets, but if you just change the style (and tone) of the conversation, you won't need to. You really don't need people to think alike to avoid conflict and encourage diversity.

lixtra 8y ago

The highest discriminatory factor I see in the tech community is the English language. You either have to invest a lot of energy to master it or you are left with local niche communities. Of course that is difficult to tackle, but it can serve as a benchmark. You can offer a french speaker to be addressed with the wrong pronoun in french or the correct one in English. How would the majority decide?

kome 8y ago
The role of English (and linguistic imperialism) is overlooked not just in the tech world, but more or less everywhere (academia, job market, etc). It's another stratification fault line. Much more research would be needed to understand the impact of it. Learning a language is super expensive; but the people involved mostly don't see the cost of doing it (because sometimes it's a pleasure, but it's a pleasure that not everybody can afford).
jobigoud 8y ago
It might be the first time in the history of Human Civilization that we have the opportunity to standardize the communication pipeline on a global scale. English is not perfect, but it's the standard we have. It's like coding conventions, the exact choice doesn't really matter, consistency is the important trait. I wish we could forget about where the language is coming from and focus on where we are going. Do we want a future where everyone can understand each other? I do. I don't want some great ideas to be hidden for centuries because their author happened to speak a language no one bothered translating from. Let's standardize on English, teach it everywhere to every child, call it a solved problem and move on. (disclaimer: I am a French native speaker living in France).
rcfox 8y ago
Language barriers can be exclusionary, but they're not discriminatory. Anglophone project owners don't not work with non-English speakers because they hate other languages, they just can't understand them. Nobody's at fault for this.
ohithereyou 8y ago
I don't disagree that a language barrier exists and that it is exclusionary to non-English speaking/reading people. However, what do you propose as a solution?

ben509 8y ago

This seems like a fairly incremental tweak to normal professional protocols; I think it's one of the better guidelines I've seen. I still disagree with framing this as "kindness" though, simply because courtesy is a habit you practice for those times when you're not feeling kind. On good days, I may litter my speech with "thank yous" and such that might be unnecessary given my demeanor, but on bad days it pays off as the behavior is automatic. Much of the document is about deescalation which really is an art if you've ever tried to break up a fight. That they bring up the Go analogy is good, because if you're working on project you're not just responding to respond, but because you're trying to represent your interests; lobbying in a word.

dreta 8y ago

The article as a whole is well-worded, and surprisingly neutral given what's been going on in the community lately, that's why it boggles mind why you'd write something like "This discouragement particularly affects members of disprivileged demographics (...)". All this is going to do is upset people.