3 ms·

Yeah for sure the english language couldn't possibly itself be influenced by sexism. That's just how it works. We should just accept it. The pronoun itself isn

Yeah for sure the english language couldn't possibly itself be influenced by sexism. That's just how it works. We should just accept it. The pronoun itself isn't sexist it's the reason behind it's use. Beyond indicating (possible) differences in biological sex, what purpose does using a gendered pronoun serve? It doesn't add information, it merely reinforces gender norms. http://www.english.wisc.edu/rfyoung/336/gender.pdf http://www.english.wisc.edu/rfyoung/336/gender.pdf

aroman 13y ago
Thanks for your reply. > Yeah for sure the english language couldn't possibly itself be influenced by sexism. That's just how it works. We should just accept it. That was not my point, nor do I believe I implied that. I acknowledge that the original reason why English's nonspecific/neuter pronoun is the same as the masculine is almost certainly because of ages-old sexism and masculo-normativity. > The pronoun itself isn't sexist it's the reason behind it's use. I completely agree. Do you think sexism was intended in the original code comment? If not, then by your logic there was nothing sexist about using "he" and "him". > Beyond indicating (possible) differences in biological sex, what purpose does using a gendered pronoun serve? It doesn't add information, it merely reinforces gender norms. I agree, from a 21st century perspective it seems absurd to not have a neutral/neuter/nonspecific pronoun. But it is an established point of English grammar and language that the masculine pronoun is because there does not exist a neutral/neuter/nonspecific one. Using "they" and "them" and those forms is a relatively recent development of modern language. Personally, I tend to use them very often because I don't want to offend anyone, and I think their usage as an "official unofficial" neutral/neuter/nonspecific pronoun is well on its way to becoming the de-facto way of referring to non-gender-specific people. My point was, and still is, that it is neither wrong nor sexist to use "he" or "his". Unless of course, the sentence you are writing is incorrect or sexist.
- quinnchr 13y ago
  It's an example of gender bias. By using exclusively he, there is an implicit assumption that whoever reading the doc block is a man, reinforcing the gender norm of programming being male dominated. I would say that falls under sexism. I don't think sexism was intended, but that doesn't mean it can't be sexist. I'll be the first to admit it, I say sexist shit all the time, most of the time it's unintended. Fact of the matter is I'm constantly surrounded by sexism, I was raised on it, and it is what was taught to me. Even though I make a conscious effort to think outside the perspective of what I was taught, it's impossible not to internalize the sexism all around me.
  - opello 13y ago
    Do you really think that it assumes the reader is male? Why not the caller? Can't the function written in the user's code be masculine, just like boats are feminine? (This was largely intended as hyperbole, I don't know why "it" is not the answer. Distancing and dehumanizing language seems appropriate when talking about function calls.)
- gruseom 13y ago
  Two of your beliefs about English are demonstrably wrong, in a good way. First, singular "they" isn't a recent construct: it goes back at least to Chaucer and never fell out of use. Second, it has never been "an established point" of English grammar to use generic "he"; that one was a prescriptivist construct, introduced by grammarians in the 18th century, most prominently by an author (and entrepreneur!) named Ann Fisher as well as by the perhaps aptly named Sir Charles Coote. You'll find many sources on all this if you plug "singular they" into HNSearch (or Google for that matter), but this article is good on Fisher: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/26/magazine/26FOB-onlanguage-t.html http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/26/magazine/26FOB-onlanguage-.... The point is that singular "they" is actually more authentic and more historical English than generic "he" is. That's why I said you were wrong in a good way: there's no conflict at all between inclusive language and good English, and never has been. The language has had an answer for this all along; it was generic "he" that was the interloper, and this was at least partly for ideological reasons—the British parliament even passed a bill in 1850 mandating it! So the ideologues and outrage addicts have been at this for a long time. They just switched sides at some point.

aroman 13y ago

Thanks for your reply. > Yeah for sure the english language couldn't possibly itself be influenced by sexism. That's just how it works. We should just accept it. That was not my point, nor do I believe I implied that. I acknowledge that the original reason why English's nonspecific/neuter pronoun is the same as the masculine is almost certainly because of ages-old sexism and masculo-normativity. > The pronoun itself isn't sexist it's the reason behind it's use. I completely agree. Do you think sexism was intended in the original code comment? If not, then by your logic there was nothing sexist about using "he" and "him". > Beyond indicating (possible) differences in biological sex, what purpose does using a gendered pronoun serve? It doesn't add information, it merely reinforces gender norms. I agree, from a 21st century perspective it seems absurd to not have a neutral/neuter/nonspecific pronoun. But it is an established point of English grammar and language that the masculine pronoun is because there does not exist a neutral/neuter/nonspecific one. Using "they" and "them" and those forms is a relatively recent development of modern language. Personally, I tend to use them very often because I don't want to offend anyone, and I think their usage as an "official unofficial" neutral/neuter/nonspecific pronoun is well on its way to becoming the de-facto way of referring to non-gender-specific people. My point was, and still is, that it is neither wrong nor sexist to use "he" or "his". Unless of course, the sentence you are writing is incorrect or sexist.

quinnchr 13y ago
It's an example of gender bias. By using exclusively he, there is an implicit assumption that whoever reading the doc block is a man, reinforcing the gender norm of programming being male dominated. I would say that falls under sexism. I don't think sexism was intended, but that doesn't mean it can't be sexist. I'll be the first to admit it, I say sexist shit all the time, most of the time it's unintended. Fact of the matter is I'm constantly surrounded by sexism, I was raised on it, and it is what was taught to me. Even though I make a conscious effort to think outside the perspective of what I was taught, it's impossible not to internalize the sexism all around me.
- opello 13y ago
  Do you really think that it assumes the reader is male? Why not the caller? Can't the function written in the user's code be masculine, just like boats are feminine? (This was largely intended as hyperbole, I don't know why "it" is not the answer. Distancing and dehumanizing language seems appropriate when talking about function calls.)
gruseom 13y ago
Two of your beliefs about English are demonstrably wrong, in a good way. First, singular "they" isn't a recent construct: it goes back at least to Chaucer and never fell out of use. Second, it has never been "an established point" of English grammar to use generic "he"; that one was a prescriptivist construct, introduced by grammarians in the 18th century, most prominently by an author (and entrepreneur!) named Ann Fisher as well as by the perhaps aptly named Sir Charles Coote. You'll find many sources on all this if you plug "singular they" into HNSearch (or Google for that matter), but this article is good on Fisher: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/26/magazine/26FOB-onlanguage-t.html http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/26/magazine/26FOB-onlanguage-.... The point is that singular "they" is actually more authentic and more historical English than generic "he" is. That's why I said you were wrong in a good way: there's no conflict at all between inclusive language and good English, and never has been. The language has had an answer for this all along; it was generic "he" that was the interloper, and this was at least partly for ideological reasons—the British parliament even passed a bill in 1850 mandating it! So the ideologues and outrage addicts have been at this for a long time. They just switched sides at some point.