> On Oct 9, 2015, at 6:48 PM, cdm <[email protected]> wrote: > people can choose to be offended by anything they like ... > consulting the wiki for a snapshot in time for "she": > She is also used instead of it for things to which feminine gender is > conventionally attributed: > > a ship or boat (especially in colloquial > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colloquial> and dialect use), often said of a > carriage, a cannon or gun, > > a tool or utensil of any kind, and occasionally of other things. >
Somehow the fact that men have been objectifying women and womenifying objects for thousands of years does not make it any less problematic. The use of gendered articles in other languages slipping into English is a total red herring, and is distinct from referring to the language as if it were a woman. I can see how perhaps “genderization or sexualization” might be more clear than the current “sexualization”, and the clarity might be worth the phrasing awkwardness. It’s difficult work to build and grow a community that values diversity, and it’s not the default. It’s important to write down our standards, and equally important to ask people to abide by them. IMO Stefan’s comment was the right way to react to something explicitly addressed in the Community Standards <http://julialang.org/community/standards/>. I don’t think any malice or insensitivity was insinuated, just a simple “please don’t do that here”. Adapting somewhat from the Recurse Center User’s Manual <https://www.recurse.com/manual#sec-environment> (which is worthwhile reading): If someone says, “that’s a Community Standards violation" don't worry. Just apologize, reflect for a second, and move on. It doesn't mean you're a "bad" person, or even a "bad” community member. These rules are meant to be lightweight. We've all done these things before. In fact, we originally adopted a no well-actually policy for our company because Nick and Dave well-actually'd each other all the time. -s
