Well....
It would not surprise me if someone (I apologies if this is discriminatory towards people who identify as nothing) has already made a petition to IUPAC to change Helium into Theylium.
In English, male pronouns may legitimately be used to refer to individuals of unknown gender. This is important: English is a beautiful language, and destroying its beauty is an act of cultural vandalism.
It's not really that important, no. It's totally legitimate – though you might not agree – to make the argument that male pronouns being used for people of unknown gender is anachronistic. In that case, use of a gender-neutral pronoun seems like a reasonable evolution of English which takes into account modern sensitivity to gender issues.
This, of course, assumes that you're not of the trivially ridiculous belief that language should never evolve.
Matthew, the person you are arguing with, or rather, hurling snark at, did not make the claim that language should never evolve. I'm not sure why you felt so compelled to end a reasoned comment on such a nasty note.
I am in full support of this code. It approaches a sensitive subject with the care it deserves and does not seek to strip anyone of their dignity. Quite a world away from the punitive actions advocated by Erik Michaels-Ober on other projects.
I find it hard to believe that people find gendered language to be such a barrier to entry. More likely these are soapboxes for people to politicize from.
I think more harm and time-wasting has been caused as a result of these witch hunts than the original "problem" itself has. I tend to speak ungendered by default more often than not. Perhaps people use gendered pronouns because they're thinking of themselves in the situation they are writing about.
What harm is caused by using non-gendered language in commit messages? Time-wasting? Really?
If it doesn't matter to you, fine. But if it matters to other people, why complain about it? Do you really think Chromium is suffering as a project because the developers are wasting too much time on ensuring the codebase is inclusive?
It is just another thing to think about while performing an already cognitively heavy task. A developer should be focused on ensuring what is written (code or commit message) is technically correct, well formed, and cogent. Adding another layer on top where one has to ensure they didn't accidentally use a gendered term just adds to the cognitive load.
Are you implying that your fragile mental state is going to fall apart when exposed to the idea of generally using gender-neutral language? :)
It's basically no imposition at all, and you have already expended more effort in arguing against this than it would take to simply make a mental note that gender-neutral language is ideal next time you submit code to Chromium.
Developers have enough to worry about without worrying about being crucified for using a word like she or he. Why can't we focus on getting shit done instead of focusing on the minutiae of which pronouns we use.
Maybe we should stop immigrant minorities from speaking Spanish which is an extremely gendered language.
In any case, what problem does this really solve? If we enforce the use of non-gendered terms will sexism/genderism magically be reduced? If it were only that easy!
A suggestion for contributors to make a habit of using non-gendered terms is one of many ways that software project communities can signal that they pay attention to diversity issues, and attract developers who might be nervous about investing themselves in a new community (given some of the actual awfulness that happens in some of them).
1) As true as that is, it's actually a worthwhile exercise for all of us to practice gender neutrality. If we move our industry toward inclusivity, we'll more than make up for these minute productivity fears.
2) Using a gendered term isn't "accidental", but a built-in bug. Our biases are constructed in us by our environment, and we only benefit from growing out of them. If not now, when?
> What harm is caused by using non-gendered language in commit messages?
It wreaks violence on the English language. I love our language (and others: many languages are beautiful in their own different ways), and modern denatured, bureaucratic English is an atrocity.
> But if it matters to other people, why complain about it?
Because I want more beauty in this world. Because I don't want the sort of people who desecrate my mother tongue to win.
As a female software engineer, I haven't historically found "he" to be a huge barrier-- the bigger barrier is too few comments to begin with :) I would generally prefer any comments, gendered or not, but, all else being equal, it seems like we may as well un-gender them. I think here of Geena Davis's comments about the movie industry (loosely paraphrased): When people complain about the lack of realism in showing big company boards as full of women and people of color, she said, why shouldn't we? Movies are the one place we can say, "Poof! Everything is magically evenly distributed!" and maybe in doing so encourage more women and people of color to dream of being board members and the like. Similarly, in comments, we can magically make things more equitable with almost no investment, and if that helps traditional outsiders even a little, then, great!
It is just polite for text referring to users or ones colleagues. But I find this new ungendered language in its consequence a bit bland/unpersonal though? Googles guide recommends A and B as names in new documentation, instead of using the traditional Alice and Bob, which I find less readable and makes me think of a dystopian future were people don't have names anymore.
And while scrubbing "sister class" from comments (or replacing it with "sibling") is not a big deal, it kind of lacks a certain human charm?
"The more constraints one imposes, the more one frees one's self of the chains that shackle the spirit." - Stravinsky, who was apparently gender-neutral before it was cool. Use it as a challenge to come up with creative, human comments that don't rely on gender to be charming :)
I find it hard to believe that it's really such a problem to suggest that gender-neutral language is a pretty reasonable goal. It's hardly the biggest barrier to diversity in software development, but it's a small bias that seems very minimal in cost to fix over time – and every little push in that direction helps.
More than anything I struggle to understand what actual objection to 'try to use gender-neutral language' one could possibly have.
Yeah I envision this being something that is just fixed over time as people are exposed to new and different ideas.
Yet, it seems to me that a lot of these documents are written and intended to enforce overnight changes in people's unconscious biases.
From the document:
> Each of us has the right to enjoy our experience and participate without fear of harassment, discrimination, or condescension, whether blatant or subtle.
I don't know about you guys but I hardly enjoy reading technical documentation. It's not meant to be an enjoyable experience. It's meant to convey complex meaning in a (hopefully) short amount of time. I don't think gendered pronouns add to the effectiveness of this communication method, but I also don't think we need to formalize their usage (or non-usage).
I guess I'm asking why this can't be a natural progression that we all wish to undertake as cooperating organisms rather than enforced with competition and penalties? It seems like a wasted opportunity and unnecessarily polarizing.
It's sad that someone needed to write this. If only we had a pervasive moral organization like religion that could show us that all genders and races are to be equally respected. Oh, wait... we do... but they don't :(
The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought — that is, a thought diverging from the principles of Ingsoc — should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words.
This is the worst kind off middle-brow bullshit where you have parroted an unrelated quote with no commentary whatsoever on what possible parallels you see between these two concepts.
The parallel he is attempting to draw is fairly obvious, which suggests that you are being deliberately disingenuous and/or oblivious.
It's a low quality argumentative technique, and is generally employed in the hope that your opponent will respond with something easier to attack, aka an attempt to generate a straw man. 5/10 for enthusiasm but 2/10 for technique.
While it's obvious, it's also disingenuous when making an argument to fail to make the entirety of your argument, and thus avoid saying "difficult" things.
"I feel that the requirement for non-gendered language is preventing people from thinking about the differences between genders", for example, would be something that can actually be dissected and responded to. A quote can't, so much.
For how many centuries must we edify ourselves that programming is for men?
Are your gendered "modes of thought" so fragile and unattractive that they can't subsist in consenting minds, and must instead be protected, and foisted upon the unwilling?
It's not that it's upsetting as an individual event, and I can't help but feel this is a bit of a straw man.
What's maybe more of an issue is that is there is a long-term bias in the use of gendered language, across multiple projects, in code and documentation and comments, then that does seem like an obvious bug. It's a very small thing, but one of those things that in aggregate could contribute to the perception of a more general gender imbalance in the industry.
But think off it another way – for no cost, you can make other people feel slightly more comfortable in the long term working in this field. Why bother fighting it?
In fact, it may not be upsetting, but merely another in a long line of brief experiences that inform the audience — male and female — that women have no place in technical documentation, technical stories, programming, technology, prosperity, agency, or power.
These are the minute bricks of social construction, and we can either choose to ignore them (and replicate existing oppressive social structures) or fix them (and make conscious choices about the society we construct).
If, indeed, you are opposed to women programming, I can think of no better long-term solution than persistently emphasizing the maleness of technology or exclusively using male pronouns.
To come out and blankly state that "women should not be in programming" would be met with the Backfire Effect, so subtlety is necessary, here. Keep up the good work.
The pervasive use of males pronouns in technical documentation — not to mention roles of power at large in society — intimates that "someone like you should" NOT "work on the project", if you're not male.
The eight year old in me cheers. My grade school teacher beat my singular use of they/them/their out of me. At the time, it seemed ludicrous not to use they/them/their in cases when I didn't know someone's gender. I assume this was due to my first language. Farsi doesn't have gendered pronouns: everything is "it".
Bahaha! Now I can gleefully write "when the user enters their password" and be right.
I'm not sure how I feel about this bit though...
> For new code/comments, consider using just ‘A’, ‘B’ as names.
Perhaps consider using unisex names instead? Maybe "Alex" and "Bo"?
What a gigantic waste of time and resources. How fragile is someone's self identity that it falls apart when they see a pronoun used that isn't the same as their own?
It's not really a waste of anything. No time is being wasted. No resources are being used. The guidance is – 'try to use gender neutral language'. That's it. No cost.
Obviously you're not a coder. When I am in a coding flow the last thing I want to do is come out of my flow to make sure I didn't accidentally use a gendered term.
I very much am. I don't really understand your argument – do you have to 'come out of your flow' to make sure that you spell correctly, or are grammatically consistent, or aren't accidentally racist?
Some people actually do have to pay significant attention to ensure that they do basic things like be polite to others and not be overtly discriminatory, actually - there's a reason there's talk of people having to have a "mental filter" in certain situations.
I've found it fairly common these days for documentation to explicitly use female pronouns when talking about anonymous people - I guess that's just a show of solidarity to our underrepresented female counterparts.
Using a specific gender when refereing to someone anonymous grates on me anyway - just seems like poor writing.
For everyone whining about how this is "newspeak" and brainwashing, consider how the pronoun "Ms." didn't exist until the 60s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ms. (edit <- the period is part of the link, but HN strips it out)
Shouldn't the arguments that language can lead toward changes of thought (the "newspeak arguments") actually _spur_ these changes toward less biased thinking? If you agree that it is possible to change language, and that changing language changes thought, then the only remaining arguments at that point are appeals to a nebulous concept of "freedom" and that you like being a dude and saying whatever you want.
Appeals to 1984 are extra bankrupt because this is not a government, and there is absolutely no penalty for disobedience, except the social one -- and social punishments for disobedience of social norms has always been a part and parcel of living in, well, society.
> ""Ms." began to be used as early as the 17th century, along with "Miss" and "Mrs.", as a title derived from the then formal "Mistress", which, like Mister, did not originally indicate marital status"
> "Ms." began to be used as early as the 17th century, along with "Miss" and "Mrs.", as a title derived from the then formal "Mistress", which, like Mister, did not originally indicate marital status. "Ms.", however, fell into disuse in favor of the other two titles and was not revived until the 20th century.
It wasn't until the 1960s that "Ms." appeared as a formal category in the United States on forms.
Having to work with female colleagues I now much prefer working with just males.
Unfortunately in my experience women are the root cause of many workplace issues and misunderstandings.
1) women gossip a lot
2) women are too emotional
3) women care about these little things that just do not matter
4) women want to be in good terms with almost everyone hence avoid confrontations
> For new code/comments, consider using just ‘A’, ‘B’ as names (instead of Alice and Bob)
This defeats the point of using Alice and Bob. There is a reason why Alice and Bob have different genders, because when thinking about complex scenarios, having different genders in addition to different names is more beneficial. Maybe they can use anthropomorphize animals, Archi the Alligator and Bob the Bunny.
One of the most captivating interviews I've watched recently.
Don't say you weren't warned.
edit: Isn't it funny this thread is dead/flagged? You can't even have an opinion on the issue that doesn't fall in line with the established "correct" position. No discussion is allowed. The pros and cons cannot even be enumerated without censorship.
On an issue that directly involves development practices and would necessitate more work for developers. Talking about it is off limits! If that's not the very definition of suppression of speech, I don't know what is. People that have reservations about this are viewed as "sensitive" and worrying unnecessarily. But look at this very thread!
Isn't this the pushback you were talking about? That something is flagged means it's trash that doesn't even warrant the effort of discussion and definitely doesn't belong on the front page.
In fact we're discussing it right now (you can still post in flagged threads, can you not?)
Quite obviously it limits discussion. It is removed from view of those that didn't see it when it was posted. It is not falling off the main page by virtue of not earning enough engagement/comments/votes from users. It is arbitrarily being pulled.
Maybe I don't understand who has the power to "flag" a post, or what the criteria is.
YCombinator can do whatever they want on their site if it is they (the mods) alone who "flag" something. The engagement and discussion is a sign that people want to discuss it. Not sure why it is deemed (by whom?) to be "trash". By you?
My point is, this post relates to programming. It is not a side issue or a triviality or inconsequential.
"Free speech" generally is a fundamental issue that has impact on all areas of society, certainly tech and the internet, and I think this is a free speech issue. It is a discussion of what forms of speech are deemed allowed and what isn't.
edit: Does this only work when browsing "new", and not the front page / more posts? In other words, I don't see this post, or any posts with the [dead] or [flagged] tag when paging through more from the home page.
Is there a set of English pronouns that refer to only males the way "she", "her", etc., refer to only females? [1]
All of the male pronouns that I can recall at the moment, such as "he" and "his", can do double duty serving both when you are referring to an actual male, and when you are referring to a person of unknown gender.
[1] I mean when referring to people. Let's leave the whole using "she" for boats for another time...
84 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 59.8 ms ] threadGuy is a common French name
I found it funny and in good taste.
This, of course, assumes that you're not of the trivially ridiculous belief that language should never evolve.
I am in full support of this code. It approaches a sensitive subject with the care it deserves and does not seek to strip anyone of their dignity. Quite a world away from the punitive actions advocated by Erik Michaels-Ober on other projects.
Take a few moments with yourself this evening to seriously think about why this might be.
I think more harm and time-wasting has been caused as a result of these witch hunts than the original "problem" itself has. I tend to speak ungendered by default more often than not. Perhaps people use gendered pronouns because they're thinking of themselves in the situation they are writing about.
If it doesn't matter to you, fine. But if it matters to other people, why complain about it? Do you really think Chromium is suffering as a project because the developers are wasting too much time on ensuring the codebase is inclusive?
It's basically no imposition at all, and you have already expended more effort in arguing against this than it would take to simply make a mental note that gender-neutral language is ideal next time you submit code to Chromium.
Developers have enough to worry about without worrying about being crucified for using a word like she or he. Why can't we focus on getting shit done instead of focusing on the minutiae of which pronouns we use.
Maybe we should stop immigrant minorities from speaking Spanish which is an extremely gendered language.
In any case, what problem does this really solve? If we enforce the use of non-gendered terms will sexism/genderism magically be reduced? If it were only that easy!
Pot meet kettle.
Are you implying that your fragile mental state is going to fall apart when exposed to the idea of generally using gender-specific language? :)
2) Using a gendered term isn't "accidental", but a built-in bug. Our biases are constructed in us by our environment, and we only benefit from growing out of them. If not now, when?
It wreaks violence on the English language. I love our language (and others: many languages are beautiful in their own different ways), and modern denatured, bureaucratic English is an atrocity.
> But if it matters to other people, why complain about it?
Because I want more beauty in this world. Because I don't want the sort of people who desecrate my mother tongue to win.
http://pemberley.com/janeinfo/austheir.html
And while scrubbing "sister class" from comments (or replacing it with "sibling") is not a big deal, it kind of lacks a certain human charm?
More than anything I struggle to understand what actual objection to 'try to use gender-neutral language' one could possibly have.
Yet, it seems to me that a lot of these documents are written and intended to enforce overnight changes in people's unconscious biases.
From the document:
> Each of us has the right to enjoy our experience and participate without fear of harassment, discrimination, or condescension, whether blatant or subtle.
I don't know about you guys but I hardly enjoy reading technical documentation. It's not meant to be an enjoyable experience. It's meant to convey complex meaning in a (hopefully) short amount of time. I don't think gendered pronouns add to the effectiveness of this communication method, but I also don't think we need to formalize their usage (or non-usage).
I guess I'm asking why this can't be a natural progression that we all wish to undertake as cooperating organisms rather than enforced with competition and penalties? It seems like a wasted opportunity and unnecessarily polarizing.
http://orwell.ru/library/novels/1984/english/en_app
It's a low quality argumentative technique, and is generally employed in the hope that your opponent will respond with something easier to attack, aka an attempt to generate a straw man. 5/10 for enthusiasm but 2/10 for technique.
"I feel that the requirement for non-gendered language is preventing people from thinking about the differences between genders", for example, would be something that can actually be dissected and responded to. A quote can't, so much.
Are your gendered "modes of thought" so fragile and unattractive that they can't subsist in consenting minds, and must instead be protected, and foisted upon the unwilling?
I am pretty sure at 25, I can stand reading "He xxxx" in documentation.
The issue isn't the words, it is assuming no one besides someone like you should work on the project.
What's maybe more of an issue is that is there is a long-term bias in the use of gendered language, across multiple projects, in code and documentation and comments, then that does seem like an obvious bug. It's a very small thing, but one of those things that in aggregate could contribute to the perception of a more general gender imbalance in the industry.
But think off it another way – for no cost, you can make other people feel slightly more comfortable in the long term working in this field. Why bother fighting it?
These are the minute bricks of social construction, and we can either choose to ignore them (and replicate existing oppressive social structures) or fix them (and make conscious choices about the society we construct).
If, indeed, you are opposed to women programming, I can think of no better long-term solution than persistently emphasizing the maleness of technology or exclusively using male pronouns.
To come out and blankly state that "women should not be in programming" would be met with the Backfire Effect, so subtlety is necessary, here. Keep up the good work.
Personally, I tend towards the second-person (you) or indeterminate third-person (they, one) if not referring to a specific person.
Bahaha! Now I can gleefully write "when the user enters their password" and be right.
I'm not sure how I feel about this bit though...
> For new code/comments, consider using just ‘A’, ‘B’ as names.
Perhaps consider using unisex names instead? Maybe "Alex" and "Bo"?
Well... thats some heavy bullshit. If you get offended by gender you shold even be on the internet... you will be offended by literally everything.
I very much am. I don't really understand your argument – do you have to 'come out of your flow' to make sure that you spell correctly, or are grammatically consistent, or aren't accidentally racist?
Using a specific gender when refereing to someone anonymous grates on me anyway - just seems like poor writing.
Shouldn't the arguments that language can lead toward changes of thought (the "newspeak arguments") actually _spur_ these changes toward less biased thinking? If you agree that it is possible to change language, and that changing language changes thought, then the only remaining arguments at that point are appeals to a nebulous concept of "freedom" and that you like being a dude and saying whatever you want.
Appeals to 1984 are extra bankrupt because this is not a government, and there is absolutely no penalty for disobedience, except the social one -- and social punishments for disobedience of social norms has always been a part and parcel of living in, well, society.
From your link:
> ""Ms." began to be used as early as the 17th century, along with "Miss" and "Mrs.", as a title derived from the then formal "Mistress", which, like Mister, did not originally indicate marital status"
> "Ms." began to be used as early as the 17th century, along with "Miss" and "Mrs.", as a title derived from the then formal "Mistress", which, like Mister, did not originally indicate marital status. "Ms.", however, fell into disuse in favor of the other two titles and was not revived until the 20th century.
It wasn't until the 1960s that "Ms." appeared as a formal category in the United States on forms.
> ""Ms." didn't exist until the 60s"
So, yeah... clearly you were talking about formal categories on US forms...
Ah, USA Forms. That well-known global standard.
Others have commented about how your timing is off, but also "Ms." is not a pronoun, in any case.
1) women gossip a lot
2) women are too emotional
3) women care about these little things that just do not matter
4) women want to be in good terms with almost everyone hence avoid confrontations
This defeats the point of using Alice and Bob. There is a reason why Alice and Bob have different genders, because when thinking about complex scenarios, having different genders in addition to different names is more beneficial. Maybe they can use anthropomorphize animals, Archi the Alligator and Bob the Bunny.
For an example of how bad this can get (and has gotten) see:
https://youtu.be/04wyGK6k6HE
One of the most captivating interviews I've watched recently.
Don't say you weren't warned.
edit: Isn't it funny this thread is dead/flagged? You can't even have an opinion on the issue that doesn't fall in line with the established "correct" position. No discussion is allowed. The pros and cons cannot even be enumerated without censorship.
On an issue that directly involves development practices and would necessitate more work for developers. Talking about it is off limits! If that's not the very definition of suppression of speech, I don't know what is. People that have reservations about this are viewed as "sensitive" and worrying unnecessarily. But look at this very thread!
Isn't this the pushback you were talking about? That something is flagged means it's trash that doesn't even warrant the effort of discussion and definitely doesn't belong on the front page.
In fact we're discussing it right now (you can still post in flagged threads, can you not?)
Maybe I don't understand who has the power to "flag" a post, or what the criteria is.
YCombinator can do whatever they want on their site if it is they (the mods) alone who "flag" something. The engagement and discussion is a sign that people want to discuss it. Not sure why it is deemed (by whom?) to be "trash". By you?
My point is, this post relates to programming. It is not a side issue or a triviality or inconsequential.
"Free speech" generally is a fundamental issue that has impact on all areas of society, certainly tech and the internet, and I think this is a free speech issue. It is a discussion of what forms of speech are deemed allowed and what isn't.
Anyone with more than 30 karma can flag a submission or a post.
> It is removed from view
You can change the "showdead" option in your user settings to show killed submissions and posts.
edit: Does this only work when browsing "new", and not the front page / more posts? In other words, I don't see this post, or any posts with the [dead] or [flagged] tag when paging through more from the home page.
In other words, calm down people.
All of the male pronouns that I can recall at the moment, such as "he" and "his", can do double duty serving both when you are referring to an actual male, and when you are referring to a person of unknown gender.
[1] I mean when referring to people. Let's leave the whole using "she" for boats for another time...