7 ms·

In regards to your last line, I feel like we do need to give people some leeway and not assume bigoted intent. Most of the things we can gig people for not impl

In regards to your last line, I feel like we do need to give people some leeway and not assume bigoted intent. Most of the things we can gig people for not implementing nowadays are only recently important in our cultural consciousness. English has traditionally shied away from using accents and one can reasonably assume that if a person signs up for my English language website, they won't be using Chinese characters in their name. As for the boolean determining pronouns thing, I can easily see someone thinking that was a clever implementation before people adopted the idea that there are more than two to be cognizant of. I also think using they/them is only recently considered grammatically acceptable. Going forward, we do want to support the things you mentioned.

ryandrake 5y ago
Definitely old software that's obviously not getting updated can be forgiven. There's still 16-bit DOS software used in production that harkens from the time when ASCII was all that could be supported. I get it, it sucks when a legacy airline system written in the '70 removes the accent characters from your name but them's the breaks. But if you're designing new software nowadays and your requirements don't include the "new cultural consciousness," you're probably making a big mistake. I've seen software built within the last 5 years fail QA due to not displaying emoji.
a_shovel 5y ago
Yeah, it's probably wrong to assume much about a lack of support for Chinese-character names on an English-language website, so I removed that. (But if you don't have a good reason not to, you should support it.) Accents and punctuation are different. There are a lot of English-speaking people whose names don't fit in ASCII. A system that doesn't support them is at the "95% for no effort" stage, if even that.
lostcolony 5y ago
Bias isn't the same as being bigoted. If when you find out you missed it you go "Oh, crap, you're right! We should fix that" you had a bias. If when you find out you missed it you start to defend why it's fine to not include it (not to admit you should, but maybe you don't have time/it isn't worth the cost), that's the point it's bigoted. It's the difference between making a mistake, and getting defensive that it wasn't a mistake. Per old systems, they all fall under bias; it's only with how do the existing support personnel deal with it that you start looking at bigotry, a "I'm sorry, I know, it's just an old system and we don't have the money to update it" is totally understandable and I would argue okay. Digging in that it's not the system that is at fault but the individual wanting a different pronoun, or the person refusing to pick an anglicized name and start using it everywhere, is bigoted.
- CoastalCoder 5y ago
  > If when you find out you missed it you start to defend why it's fine to not include it (not to admit you should, but maybe you don't have time/it isn't worth the cost), that's the point it's bigoted. > > It's the difference between making a mistake, and getting defensive that it wasn't a mistake. I think that definition is pretty good, but it also reveals something about the popular usage of the term "bigot". IIUC, an underlying assumption in the parent comment is a person is at fault for not accommodating the offended party's preferred taxonomy / categories / terminology. That a person is a "bigot" if they see their system's current taxonomy as better or more appropriate. Merriam-Webster's definition is somewhat different [0]: "a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices". Note that with MW's definition, either or both persons in that "you missed it" conversation could be labelled a bigot, depending on how obstinately they held onto their views. [0] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot
  - slg 5y ago
    You are skipping over the last two words in the definition. It isn't just holding to their own opinions. It is holding to their "opinions and prejudices". Of the two stances "I want to be referred to by the pronouns of my choosing" and "I want to refer to you be the pronouns I dictate for you" only one of those would qualify as prejudice and therfore that is the stance that qualifies as bigoted.
    - CoastalCoder 5y ago
      I wonder if we're assuming different definitions of "prejudices". What I mean is having reached a conclusion without consideration of all the relevant details. I.e., deciding a matter prematurely. I think this lines up pretty well with the MW definition [0]. I don't see how that's related to the particular opposing stances in your example. Can you elaborate? [0] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prejudice https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prejudice
      - 5y ago
stormbrew 5y ago
> I also think using they/them is only recently considered grammatically acceptable. In general, as a singular gender neutral third person pronoun for a person of unknown, unclear, or unspecified gender, they/them is approximately as old as modern english itself, having been clearly used by one of the earliest practitioners of the language, Shakespeare. What's modern is the idea that it's somehow incorrect to have a pronoun that is both plural and singular, which is funny because 'you' is both singular and plural and people use it every day without incident or confusion. Use for a person of known but not-binary gender is newer than that, but probably older than you think, and neopronouns are actually probably also quite a bit older than you think too.
- BitwiseFool 5y ago
  For what it's worth, I'm glad they/them is catching on and I use it all the time. Growing up, though, I was taught to use "he or she" / "she or he" in English class and they/them was always used in the context of third person plural. I don't consider it a newfangled thing, but the embrace of it feels new.
  - ziml77 5y ago
    "They" comes off impersonal though. As if you're using it because you don't know their gender. That's why I would much prefer a new word. Something that indicates that you know they are neither he nor she. (In a similar vein I'd also prefer a distinct singular "they" and plural "you") I do know that realistically something like that would never catch on, but I can dream...
    - themadturk 5y ago
      It certainly could; look how quickly the term "Ms." as an alternative to "Miss" or "Mrs." caught on. Though it has antecedents long before the 20th century, the term caught fire in the early 1970s with the first publication of "Ms." magazine and was in widespread usage within ten years. I think the bigger problem is coming up with an accepted alternative; there are several floating around, none of which have had a Ms. magazine moment.

ryandrake 5y ago

Definitely old software that's obviously not getting updated can be forgiven. There's still 16-bit DOS software used in production that harkens from the time when ASCII was all that could be supported. I get it, it sucks when a legacy airline system written in the '70 removes the accent characters from your name but them's the breaks. But if you're designing new software nowadays and your requirements don't include the "new cultural consciousness," you're probably making a big mistake. I've seen software built within the last 5 years fail QA due to not displaying emoji.

a_shovel 5y ago

Yeah, it's probably wrong to assume much about a lack of support for Chinese-character names on an English-language website, so I removed that. (But if you don't have a good reason not to, you should support it.) Accents and punctuation are different. There are a lot of English-speaking people whose names don't fit in ASCII. A system that doesn't support them is at the "95% for no effort" stage, if even that.

lostcolony 5y ago

Bias isn't the same as being bigoted. If when you find out you missed it you go "Oh, crap, you're right! We should fix that" you had a bias. If when you find out you missed it you start to defend why it's fine to not include it (not to admit you should, but maybe you don't have time/it isn't worth the cost), that's the point it's bigoted. It's the difference between making a mistake, and getting defensive that it wasn't a mistake. Per old systems, they all fall under bias; it's only with how do the existing support personnel deal with it that you start looking at bigotry, a "I'm sorry, I know, it's just an old system and we don't have the money to update it" is totally understandable and I would argue okay. Digging in that it's not the system that is at fault but the individual wanting a different pronoun, or the person refusing to pick an anglicized name and start using it everywhere, is bigoted.

CoastalCoder 5y ago
> If when you find out you missed it you start to defend why it's fine to not include it (not to admit you should, but maybe you don't have time/it isn't worth the cost), that's the point it's bigoted. > > It's the difference between making a mistake, and getting defensive that it wasn't a mistake. I think that definition is pretty good, but it also reveals something about the popular usage of the term "bigot". IIUC, an underlying assumption in the parent comment is a person is at fault for not accommodating the offended party's preferred taxonomy / categories / terminology. That a person is a "bigot" if they see their system's current taxonomy as better or more appropriate. Merriam-Webster's definition is somewhat different [0]: "a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices". Note that with MW's definition, either or both persons in that "you missed it" conversation could be labelled a bigot, depending on how obstinately they held onto their views. [0] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot
- slg 5y ago
  You are skipping over the last two words in the definition. It isn't just holding to their own opinions. It is holding to their "opinions and prejudices". Of the two stances "I want to be referred to by the pronouns of my choosing" and "I want to refer to you be the pronouns I dictate for you" only one of those would qualify as prejudice and therfore that is the stance that qualifies as bigoted.
  - CoastalCoder 5y ago
    I wonder if we're assuming different definitions of "prejudices". What I mean is having reached a conclusion without consideration of all the relevant details. I.e., deciding a matter prematurely. I think this lines up pretty well with the MW definition [0]. I don't see how that's related to the particular opposing stances in your example. Can you elaborate? [0] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prejudice https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prejudice
    - 5y ago

stormbrew 5y ago

> I also think using they/them is only recently considered grammatically acceptable. In general, as a singular gender neutral third person pronoun for a person of unknown, unclear, or unspecified gender, they/them is approximately as old as modern english itself, having been clearly used by one of the earliest practitioners of the language, Shakespeare. What's modern is the idea that it's somehow incorrect to have a pronoun that is both plural and singular, which is funny because 'you' is both singular and plural and people use it every day without incident or confusion. Use for a person of known but not-binary gender is newer than that, but probably older than you think, and neopronouns are actually probably also quite a bit older than you think too.

BitwiseFool 5y ago
For what it's worth, I'm glad they/them is catching on and I use it all the time. Growing up, though, I was taught to use "he or she" / "she or he" in English class and they/them was always used in the context of third person plural. I don't consider it a newfangled thing, but the embrace of it feels new.
- ziml77 5y ago
  "They" comes off impersonal though. As if you're using it because you don't know their gender. That's why I would much prefer a new word. Something that indicates that you know they are neither he nor she. (In a similar vein I'd also prefer a distinct singular "they" and plural "you") I do know that realistically something like that would never catch on, but I can dream...
  - themadturk 5y ago
    It certainly could; look how quickly the term "Ms." as an alternative to "Miss" or "Mrs." caught on. Though it has antecedents long before the 20th century, the term caught fire in the early 1970s with the first publication of "Ms." magazine and was in widespread usage within ten years. I think the bigger problem is coming up with an accepted alternative; there are several floating around, none of which have had a Ms. magazine moment.