12 ms·

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 expre

• 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.