Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Use gender-neutral language in documentation

[Gavin Flower]

An example from a book on PostgreSQL server programming that I'm working 
through (Note that it is obviously awkward to write with gender pronouns 
when gender is irrelevant, note the "he she" in one place and "he/she" 
in another!):


   "If the user is a superuser, then he she has permission to see the
   full query. If the user is a regular user, he/she will only see the
   full query for his/her queries."

Written in 'Gender Appropriate' style (only refer to gender when it is 
relevant):


   "If the user is a superuser, then they have permission to see the
   full query. If the user is a regular user, they will only see the
   full query for their queries."

I think the second version is easier to read - and in this case, shorter!


-Gavin



--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Use gender-neutral language in documentation

[Geoff Winkless]

On 24 September 2015 at 11:33, Gavin Flower 
wrote:

> An example from a book on PostgreSQL server programming that I'm working
> through (Note that it is obviously awkward to write with gender pronouns
> when gender is irrelevant, note the "he she" in one place and "he/she" in
> another!):
>
>"If the user is a superuser, then they have permission to see the
>full query. If the user is a regular user, they will only see the
>full query for their queries."
>

Can I quietly suggest "​Users with superuser pemissions can always see the
full query​, while regular users will only see the full query for their own
queries."?

Geoff

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Use gender-neutral language in documentation

[Gavin Flower]

On 24/09/15 22:41, Geoff Winkless wrote:
On 24 September 2015 at 11:33, Gavin Flower 
>wrote:


An example from a book on PostgreSQL server programming that I'm
working through (Note that it is obviously awkward to write with
gender pronouns when gender is irrelevant, note the "he she" in
one place and "he/she" in another!):

   "If the user is a superuser, then they have permission to see the
   full query. If the user is a regular user, they will only see the
   full query for their queries."

Can I quietly suggest "​Users with superuser pemissions can always see 
the full query​, while regular users will only see the full query for 
their own queries."?


Geoff

By all means say it quietly!  :-)

But I was simply trying to change it into Gender Appropriate form, 
rather improve it in other aspects.


However, your rephrasing is better still!


-Gavin


--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Use gender-neutral language in documentation

[Joshua D. Drake]

Wow, 1960s feminazis, eh? I originally thought you were just a narrow
minded, pedantic and antiquated grammarian. Now I realize that's the least
of your troubles. Please take your misogyny elsewhere. I hear the Rabid
Puppies have openings.


The term feminazi has zero business in this community.

JD

--
Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/  503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Announcing "I'm offended" is basically telling the world you can't
control your own emotions, so everyone else should do it for you.


--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Use gender-neutral language in documentation

[Erik Rijkers]

On 2015-09-22 20:33, Andrew Dunstan wrote:


now some reactionaries and misogynists are fighting to maintain
that somewhat latter day rule.



That's almost as offensive a qualification as 'feminazi', don't you 
agree?


And it rather makes the gender-avoidance sound as a 
political-correctness undertaking which, by the way, was not the reason 
I objected to it.  (It just sounded strange to me (and apparently a few 
others too))


Most likely the original author never thought about giving offence.  And 
most likely he never did give offence.


And as I said earlier: to me it's enough that a few native speakers have 
said this is the way it should be.



Erik Rijkers



--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Use gender-neutral language in documentation

[Andrew Dunstan]

On 09/22/2015 01:43 PM, Mark Dilger wrote:

On Sep 22, 2015, at 6:09 AM, Andrew Dunstan  wrote:

You are fighting a losing battle. Think of they/them/their/theirs as being 
indefinitely gendered third person singular pronouns, as well as being third 
person plural pronouns. Yes it's a relatively new usage, but I don't think its 
at all unreasonable (speaking as someone who has been known to dislike some new 
usages and neologisms). It's not at all sloppy. On the contrary, it's quite 
deliberate. It's just not quite traditional. You need to get over that.

The use of "their" as singular dates back at least as far as Chaucer in the 
14th century, prior to
the use of "you" as a singular pronoun.  Militant grammarian schoolteachers may 
have told you
not to use it that way, but that doesn't change the history of its use.



[recipient list trimmed]

Good point. In the 18th and 19th centuries it was deemed by some 
grammarians to be incorrect for some reason, (and yet Thackeray still 
used it in Vanity Fair, for instance) and now some reactionaries and 
misogynists are fighting to maintain that somewhat latter day rule. But 
I'm pretty certain their numbers will dwindle, as they preach to an ever 
shrinking choir.


cheers

andrew


--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Use gender-neutral language in documentation

[Robert Haas]

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Andrew Dunstan  wrote:
> Good point. In the 18th and 19th centuries it was deemed by some grammarians
> to be incorrect for some reason, (and yet Thackeray still used it in Vanity
> Fair, for instance) and now some reactionaries and misogynists are fighting
> to maintain that somewhat latter day rule. But I'm pretty certain their
> numbers will dwindle, as they preach to an ever shrinking choir.

I agree that this construction is grammatically acceptable in many if
not all cases, but I still think that phrasing the sentences to avoid
this construction is a good idea where we can do it easily.  For
example, this is clearly a good idea:

 So the database administrator can
 decide which languages are available in which databases and can make
-some languages available by default if he chooses.
+some languages available by default if desired.

And so is this, which just gets rid of a sentence that really isn't needed:

 Possibly, your site administrator has already created a database
-for your use.  He should have told you what the name of your
-database is.  In that case you can omit this step and skip ahead
+for your use.  In that case you can omit this step and skip ahead
 to the next section.

But consider this one:

-return any user name he chooses. This authentication method is
+return any user name they choose. This authentication method is

You could say "any arbitrary user name" or "any username whatsoever".

Or here:

   or within a session via the SET command.  Any user is
-  allowed to change his session-local value.  Changes in
+  allowed to change their session-local value.  Changes in

You could say "This requires no special privileges".  This isn't
really an exact rewrite of the sentence, but in context it means the
same thing.

Or here:

--- Who works for us when she must pay for it?
+-- Who works for us when they must pay for it?

You could say "-- We pay employees; they don't pay us."

I don't think any of these changes are outright wrong except for
"might not be the same as the database user that is to be connect as",
which seems like a muddle.  But I think some of them could be changed
to use other wording that would read more smoothly.

Of course, that is just my opinion, and I clearly feel a lot less
strongly about this than some other people.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Use gender-neutral language in documentation

[Joshua D. Drake]

Hello,

-  environment variable); any user can make such a change for his 
session.
+  environment variable); any user can make such a change for the 
session.


Or

+ environment variable); any user can make such a change for the 
connected session.


-  allowed to change his session-local value.  Changes in
+  allowed to change the connected session-local value.  Changes in

-   might not be the same as the database user he needs to connect as.
+   might not be the same as the database user that one is connected as.

-return any user name he chooses. This authentication method is
+return any user name one may choose. This authentication method is


etc...

JD


--
Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/  503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Announcing "I'm offended" is basically telling the world you can't
control your own emotions, so everyone else should do it for you.


--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Use gender-neutral language in documentation

[Garick Hamlin]

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 11:59:21AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Andrew Dunstan  wrote:
> >> Happily for me, I can continue to write documents in a grammatically
> >> correct way, and no-one will read them and think I'm a grammar-nazi (or
> >> obstinate, or old-fashioned or whatever) because unless they're 
> >> specifically
> >> looking for it no-one will notice that I'm avoiding the contentious usage
> >> altogether. On the other hand, there _will_ be a (perhaps significant)
> >> proportion of people who read your documents and think that you're 
> >> incapable
> >> of writing a grammatically correct sentence.
> >
> > Wow, 1960s feminazis, eh? I originally thought you were just a narrow
> > minded, pedantic and antiquated grammarian. Now I realize that's the least
> > of your troubles. Please take your misogyny elsewhere. I hear the Rabid
> > Puppies have openings.
> 
> I think this discussion could benefit from a little more light and a
> lot less heat.
> 
> Here's my contribution: the use of they does sometimes seek awkward.
> However, it's not remotely new:
> 
> https://stroppyeditor.wordpress.com/2015/04/21/everything-you-ever-wanted-to-know-about-singular-they/
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they#Older_usage_by_respected_authors
> http://englishbibles.blogspot.com/2006/09/singular-they-in-english-bibles.html
> 
> And I do think it's generally worthwhile to avoid the use of "he"
> where possible.  Would I have done it exactly the way that Peter did
> it here?  Uh, no.  Is it better than not doing anything?  In my
> opinion, yes.

I agree, I think we should avoid gendered pronouns.  

Also, the modern use of they/their absolutely fits here.  It reflects a
deliberate considered choice of of the writer to be inclusive and correct.

Constructs like 'he or she' exclude people.  Enumerating genders is not 
inclusive.  It leads to exclusion and erasure of people who have an non-binary
identities. 

Garick


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Use gender-neutral language in documentation

[Erik Rijkers]

On 2015-09-22 19:25, Garick Hamlin wrote:


Constructs like 'he or she' exclude people.



This remains difficult for me to follow but with all the native speakers 
being in favor of this change I for one retract my objections.



thanks,

Erik Rijkers



--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Use gender-neutral language in documentation

[Peter Geoghegan]

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 7:11 AM, Andrew Dunstan  wrote:
> You can think that if you like, but it's not even remotely true. It's a
> deliberate choice to use a new, perfectly reasonable and now widely accepted
> style of which you disapprove, but it's not lazy.

It never occurred to me that this usage is even non-traditional. I am
a native English speaker born in Ireland in the 1980s.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Use gender-neutral language in documentation

[Mark Dilger]

> On Sep 22, 2015, at 6:09 AM, Andrew Dunstan  wrote:
> 
> You are fighting a losing battle. Think of they/them/their/theirs as being 
> indefinitely gendered third person singular pronouns, as well as being third 
> person plural pronouns. Yes it's a relatively new usage, but I don't think 
> its at all unreasonable (speaking as someone who has been known to dislike 
> some new usages and neologisms). It's not at all sloppy. On the contrary, 
> it's quite deliberate. It's just not quite traditional. You need to get over 
> that.

The use of "their" as singular dates back at least as far as Chaucer in the 
14th century, prior to 
the use of "you" as a singular pronoun.  Militant grammarian schoolteachers may 
have told you
not to use it that way, but that doesn't change the history of its use.

Mark Dilger



-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Use gender-neutral language in documentation

[Christopher Browne]

On 22 September 2015 at 15:11, Robert Haas  wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Andrew Dunstan 
wrote:
> > Good point. In the 18th and 19th centuries it was deemed by some
grammarians
> > to be incorrect for some reason, (and yet Thackeray still used it in
Vanity
> > Fair, for instance) and now some reactionaries and misogynists are
fighting
> > to maintain that somewhat latter day rule. But I'm pretty certain their
> > numbers will dwindle, as they preach to an ever shrinking choir.
>
> I agree that this construction is grammatically acceptable in many if
> not all cases, but I still think that phrasing the sentences to avoid
> this construction is a good idea where we can do it easily.  For
> example, this is clearly a good idea:
>
>  So the database administrator can
>  decide which languages are available in which databases and can make
> -some languages available by default if he chooses.
> +some languages available by default if desired.
>
> And so is this, which just gets rid of a sentence that really isn't
needed:
>
>  Possibly, your site administrator has already created a database
> -for your use.  He should have told you what the name of your
> -database is.  In that case you can omit this step and skip ahead
> +for your use.  In that case you can omit this step and skip ahead
>  to the next section.
>
> But consider this one:
>
> -return any user name he chooses. This authentication method is
> +return any user name they choose. This authentication method is
>
> You could say "any arbitrary user name" or "any username whatsoever".

Those all seem like they might improve the combination of
specificity and non-specificity.

Almost certainly no one intended to indicate that the administrator was
specifically male or female, and removing an indicator diminishes some
potential for confusion.

I'll throw in, for good measure, that "users" are not necessarily even
*human*; it is common for users to get attached to applications, and
the applications (presumably!) haven't got any gender.

I could visit French for a moment, where all nouns are expected to
have gender.  (Where "la" indicates a "female she-ness", and "le"
indicates "masculinity.")

"La chaise est féminin, comme la table, alors que le sol est masculin."

The chair is feminine, as the table, however the floor is masculine.

And the explanation of the gendering of third person pronouns
(ils versus elles) always seemed very strange to me.

I think that using "he or she" (as has been suggested) heads down a
questionable path, as that's demanding (in somewhat the French
fashion!) a defined set of gender indicates.  That would properly head,
in a baroque "PC" context, to sillyness like...

"The user should do [something]; he or she or it, or the cis/trans/asexual
personage or connection used by a web application, whether written in
C, Java, Perl, PHP, running on Windows or Unix or ..." as the increasing
inclusions heads to some pathological limit.

> Or here:
>
>or within a session via the SET command.  Any user is
> -  allowed to change his session-local value.  Changes in
> +  allowed to change their session-local value.  Changes in
>
> You could say "This requires no special privileges".  This isn't
> really an exact rewrite of the sentence, but in context it means the
> same thing.

Notice that the changes you are suggesting tend to actually *shorten* the
text!  I like that.

> Or here:
>
> --- Who works for us when she must pay for it?
> +-- Who works for us when they must pay for it?
>
> You could say "-- We pay employees; they don't pay us."
>
> I don't think any of these changes are outright wrong except for
> "might not be the same as the database user that is to be connect as",
> which seems like a muddle.  But I think some of them could be changed
> to use other wording that would read more smoothly.
>
> Of course, that is just my opinion, and I clearly feel a lot less
> strongly about this than some other people.

I'd be pleased to see (perhaps even help) patches to the documentation
that make it read better and perhaps "more kindly."

Doing a "let's run through and substitute some legalistic wording in
order to be politically correct" will irritate people; instead, make the
documentation *better*.  Replacing "he" with "he/she/cis/trans/Unix/Windows"
(or some such) wouldn't make it *better*.  (And probably that's a phrase
that's missing some legalistic wherefores whereases!)

-- 
When confronted by a difficult problem, solve it by reducing it to the
question, "How would the Lone Ranger handle this?"

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Use gender-neutral language in documentation

[Geoff Winkless]

On 22 September 2015 at 21:22, David Steele  wrote:

> I think conversations like this are a part of why we have trouble
> attracting new contributors (of any gender) to the community.
>

​It's very clear that my use of the word (which I shan't make the mistake
of repeating!) is not acceptable to many on this list. I ​apologise
unreservedly to anyone I have unintentionally offended by the use of this
word, I shall not do so again; I would only say in my defence that I was
not intending to characterise all feminists in that way, rather to
distinguish the sort of feminists to whom the fact that a text refers to
"man"​ or "he" is offensive from the sort of feminists who I admire and
respect - those who fight for real equality, who use intelligent argument
and who have affected real change for good in my lifetime.

I can clearly see that my use of language has, ironically enough,
invalidated my argument somewhat. I have said my last on the subject​.

Geoff

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Use gender-neutral language in documentation

[Adam Brightwell]

> I think conversations like this are a part of why we have trouble attracting
> new contributors (of any gender) to the community.

+1


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Use gender-neutral language in documentation

[Gavin Flower]

On 23/09/15 08:17, Christopher Browne wrote:
[...]


"The user should do [something]; he or she or it, or the cis/trans/asexual
personage or connection used by a web application, whether written in
C, Java, Perl, PHP, running on Windows or Unix or ..." as the increasing
inclusions heads to some pathological limit.

[...]

order to be politically correct" will irritate people; instead, make the
documentation *better*.  Replacing "he" with 
"he/she/cis/trans/Unix/Windows"

(or some such) wouldn't make it *better*.  (And probably that's a phrase
that's missing some legalistic wherefores whereases!)

[...]

You also have to include "they" as some people have multiple 
personalities, I actually met one (but only - as far as I can tell - saw 
one of them) - in the early 1990's I conversed with several people on 
alt.sexual.abuse.recovery, so got more insights into these types of 
complexities than most people.  I was doing a project in network 
traffic, and got to look at some high volume usenet groups, of which 
that group was one.


Don't forget GNU/Linux,  & GNU/Hurd, plus many others...  :-)

I'll settle for avoiding unnecessary use of gender!


Cheers,
Gavin



--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Use gender-neutral language in documentation

[David Steele]

On 9/22/15 11:00 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:

On 09/22/2015 10:29 AM, Geoff Winkless wrote:

​ That's your opinion; my opinion remains otherwise. It's not
"perfectly reasonable" to abuse the plural because some 1960s
feminazis either misunderstood or didn't like the fact that (because
of history) in English the gender-neutral singular happens to also be
the male singular.


Wow, 1960s feminazis, eh? I originally thought you were just a narrow
minded, pedantic and antiquated grammarian. Now I realize that's the
least of your troubles. Please take your misogyny elsewhere. I hear the
Rabid Puppies have openings.


I think conversations like this are a part of why we have trouble 
attracting new contributors (of any gender) to the community.


--
-David
da...@pgmasters.net


--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Use gender-neutral language in documentation

[Robert Haas]

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Andrew Dunstan  wrote:
>> Happily for me, I can continue to write documents in a grammatically
>> correct way, and no-one will read them and think I'm a grammar-nazi (or
>> obstinate, or old-fashioned or whatever) because unless they're specifically
>> looking for it no-one will notice that I'm avoiding the contentious usage
>> altogether. On the other hand, there _will_ be a (perhaps significant)
>> proportion of people who read your documents and think that you're incapable
>> of writing a grammatically correct sentence.
>
> Wow, 1960s feminazis, eh? I originally thought you were just a narrow
> minded, pedantic and antiquated grammarian. Now I realize that's the least
> of your troubles. Please take your misogyny elsewhere. I hear the Rabid
> Puppies have openings.

I think this discussion could benefit from a little more light and a
lot less heat.

Here's my contribution: the use of they does sometimes seek awkward.
However, it's not remotely new:

https://stroppyeditor.wordpress.com/2015/04/21/everything-you-ever-wanted-to-know-about-singular-they/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they#Older_usage_by_respected_authors
http://englishbibles.blogspot.com/2006/09/singular-they-in-english-bibles.html

And I do think it's generally worthwhile to avoid the use of "he"
where possible.  Would I have done it exactly the way that Peter did
it here?  Uh, no.  Is it better than not doing anything?  In my
opinion, yes.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Use gender-neutral language in documentation

[Geoff Winkless]

On 22 September 2015 at 09:28, Albe Laurenz  wrote:

> Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 9:32 PM, Erik Rijkers  wrote:
> >> I think this compulsive 'he'-avoiding is making the text worse.
> >>
> >>
> >> -  environment variable); any user can make such a change for his
> session.
> >> +  environment variable); any user can make such a change for their
> session.
> >
> > -1. It seems fine to me.
>
> (Disclaimer: I am not a native speaker.)
>
> Using the pronoun of the third person plural as a replacement for "his or
> her"
> has become widely used, at least in the U.S., and the OED condones that
> use:
> http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/they
>
>
Without wanting to get into a grammar war, ​I'm not so sure I agree that it
"condones" it. Dictionaries reflect the current state of usage, they don't
act as arbiters of correctness. The abuse of "literally" as an emphasiser
(which usage is now listed in the OED) is a prime example.

As an Englishman ​I would prefer "his or her" over "their". Perhaps our
American cousins might disagree though.

WRT the second, it probably doesn't help that "might not be the same as the
database user that is to be connect as" is incorrect anyway - it should
perhaps be "that is to be connect*ed *as" (although I still find the
construction clumsy).

Geoff

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Use gender-neutral language in documentation

[Albe Laurenz]

Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 9:32 PM, Erik Rijkers  wrote:
>> I think this compulsive 'he'-avoiding is making the text worse.
>>
>>
>> -  environment variable); any user can make such a change for his 
>> session.
>> +  environment variable); any user can make such a change for their 
>> session.
> 
> -1. It seems fine to me.

(Disclaimer: I am not a native speaker.)

Using the pronoun of the third person plural as a replacement for "his or her"
has become widely used, at least in the U.S., and the OED condones that use:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/they

Do we want to have that everywhere?

Yours,
Laurenz Albe 

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Use gender-neutral language in documentation

[Geoff Winkless]

On 22 September 2015 at 14:09, Andrew Dunstan  wrote:

> You are fighting a losing battle. Think of they/them/their/theirs as being
> indefinitely gendered third person singular pronouns, as well as being
> third person plural pronouns. Yes it's a relatively new usage, but I don't
> think its at all unreasonable (speaking as someone who has been known to
> dislike some new usages and neologisms). It's not at all sloppy. On the
> contrary, it's quite deliberate. It's just not quite traditional.
>

​​It _is_ sloppy. It says "I can't be bothered to write a sentence that's
grammatically correct".
​

> You need to get over that.
>

I don't need to get over anything. If someone sends me a document that uses
"their" in a singular usage, I will think that person is lazy. That will
continue to be the case, whether people tell me that it's accepted usage or
not.

In much the same way, I know that I can safely discount the opinion of
anyone who uses "literally" to mean anything other than "literally"
 (
​similarly anyone who uses
"like" as a quotative)
​, even though both of those things are now in fairly common usage.​
​


> Your proposed style would make writing docs a lot harder,
>

I don't buy that at all. It takes a couple of seconds, if that, to come up
with something.


> forcing us to avoid use of the singular in cases where it is quite
> natural.
>

​Better than using the plural in the singular case.
​

> I'm strongly opposed to such a style rule.
>

​Meh. I don't really care how it's written, certainly not enough to make a
stand about it. I'd rather you guys concentrate on writing the brilliant
software than wasting time on stuff like this. I only replied because the
conversation popped up in my inbox and it seemed to be something on which
opinions were requested.

Geoff

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Use gender-neutral language in documentation

[Gavin Flower]

On 22/09/15 21:33, Geoff Winkless wrote:
On 22 September 2015 at 09:28, Albe Laurenz >wrote:


Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 9:32 PM, Erik Rijkers > wrote:
>> I think this compulsive 'he'-avoiding is making the text worse.
>>
>>
>> -  environment variable); any user can make such a change
for his session.
>> +  environment variable); any user can make such a change
for their session.
>
> -1. It seems fine to me.

(Disclaimer: I am not a native speaker.)

Using the pronoun of the third person plural as a replacement for
"his or her"
has become widely used, at least in the U.S., and the OED condones
that use:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/they


Without wanting to get into a grammar war, ​I'm not so sure I agree 
that it "condones" it. Dictionaries reflect the current state of 
usage, they don't act as arbiters of correctness. The abuse of 
"literally" as an emphasiser (which usage is now listed in the OED) is 
a prime example.


As an Englishman ​I would prefer "his or her" over "their". Perhaps 
our American cousins might disagree though.


WRT the second, it probably doesn't help that "might not be the same 
as the database user that is to be connect as" is incorrect anyway - 
it should perhaps be "that is to be connect*ed *as" (although I still 
find the construction clumsy).


Geoff

I am an Englishman.

I prefer "their" rather than "his or her", it is less clumsy & there is 
no point in specifying gender unless it is relevant!


Besides, some people are neither, or their biological gender is 
ambiguous - so a few people fit into neither the male nor the female 
category (depending on precise definitions, about 0.5%)!



Cheers,
Gavin



--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Use gender-neutral language in documentation

[Bill Moran]

On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 11:17:54 +0100
Geoff Winkless  wrote:

> On 22 September 2015 at 10:52, Gavin Flower 
> wrote:
> 
> > On 22/09/15 21:33, Geoff Winkless wrote:
> >> ??
> >> Without wanting to get into a grammar war, ?I'm not so sure I agree that
> >> it "condones" it. Dictionaries reflect the current state of usage, they
> >> don't act as arbiters of correctness. The abuse of "literally" as an
> >> emphasiser (which usage is now listed in the OED) is a prime example.
> >>
> >> I would prefer "his or her" over "their". Perhaps our American cousins
> >> might disagree though.
> >>
> >> I prefer "their" rather than "his or her", it is less clumsy & there is
> > no point in specifying gender unless it is relevant!
> 
> I agree in that I prefer "their" in informal speech; however in a formal
> document I would find it sloppy.? I don't think "his or her" is inherently
> clumsy; m
> aybe I'm just showing my age.?
> 
> Besides, some people are neither, or their biological gender is ambiguous -
> > so a few people fit into neither the male nor the female category
> > (depending on precise definitions, about 0.5%)!
> 
> My understanding is that most intersex (and certainly all trans) people
> would identify with one or the other, and even those who don't select
> exclusively identify with a mix of both (and would therefore still be
> covered by "his or her", no?) although I don't pretend to be an expert.
> 
> Perhaps it would be easier to avoid the controversy by actually rewording
> into the plural, where possible?
> 
> So
> 
> "any user can make such a change for his session."
> 
> becomes
> 
> "Users can make such a change for their individual sessions"
> 
> or similar?

+1

As an American/native English speaker, I find the use of the plural pronoun
in combination with a singular noun (which is not grammatically correct)
in formal writing to be sloppy and jarring to read. The change you suggest
above reads more professionally while still avoiding offending anyone.

-- 
Bill Moran


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Use gender-neutral language in documentation

[Geoff Winkless]

On 22 September 2015 at 10:52, Gavin Flower 
wrote:

> On 22/09/15 21:33, Geoff Winkless wrote:
>
>> ​​
>> Without wanting to get into a grammar war, ​I'm not so sure I agree that
>> it "condones" it. Dictionaries reflect the current state of usage, they
>> don't act as arbiters of correctness. The abuse of "literally" as an
>> emphasiser (which usage is now listed in the OED) is a prime example.
>>
>> I would prefer "his or her" over "their". Perhaps our American cousins
>> might disagree though.
>>
>> I prefer "their" rather than "his or her", it is less clumsy & there is
> no point in specifying gender unless it is relevant!
>

I agree in that I prefer "their" in informal speech; however in a formal
document I would find it sloppy.​ I don't think "his or her" is inherently
clumsy; m
aybe I'm just showing my age.​

Besides, some people are neither, or their biological gender is ambiguous -
> so a few people fit into neither the male nor the female category
> (depending on precise definitions, about 0.5%)!
>

My understanding is that most intersex (and certainly all trans) people
would identify with one or the other, and even those who don't select
exclusively identify with a mix of both (and would therefore still be
covered by "his or her", no?) although I don't pretend to be an expert.

Perhaps it would be easier to avoid the controversy by actually rewording
into the plural, where possible?

So

"any user can make such a change for his session."

becomes

"Users can make such a change for their individual sessions"

or similar?

Geoff

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Use gender-neutral language in documentation

[Wolfgang Wilhelm]

Hello all,

I'm a non-native speaker and to my shame not very good in english at all. So 
just my 2c on the topic:

"Users can make such a change for their individual sessions" is for me 
perfectly understandable.
"any user can make such a change for their session" is for me a mixture of a 
singular and a plural form and difficult to understand whether this is just a 
spelling error (is it individual sessions?) or just another gap in my 
knowledge. From my point of view the documentation is not just for english 
native speakers but for all the ones which don't have a translation to their 
language and as such one shouldn't look at the newest trends in "correctness".

RegardsWolfgang



 Geoff Winkless  schrieb am 12:18 Dienstag, 
22.September 2015:
   

 On 22 September 2015 at 10:52, Gavin Flower  
wrote:

On 22/09/15 21:33, Geoff Winkless wrote:

​​Without wanting to get into a grammar war, ​I'm not so sure I agree that it 
"condones" it. Dictionaries reflect the current state of usage, they don't act 
as arbiters of correctness. The abuse of "literally" as an emphasiser (which 
usage is now listed in the OED) is a prime example.

I would prefer "his or her" over "their". Perhaps our American cousins might 
disagree though.




I prefer "their" rather than "his or her", it is less clumsy & there is no 
point in specifying gender unless it is relevant!


I agree in that I prefer "their" in informal speech; however in a formal 
document I would find it sloppy.​ I don't think "his or her" is inherently 
clumsy; maybe I'm just showing my age.​

Besides, some people are neither, or their biological gender is ambiguous - so 
a few people fit into neither the male nor the female category (depending on 
precise definitions, about 0.5%)!


My understanding is that most intersex (and certainly all trans) people would 
identify with one or the other, and even those who don't select exclusively 
identify with a mix of both (and would therefore still be covered by "his or 
her", no?) although I don't pretend to be an expert.
Perhaps it would be easier to avoid the controversy by actually rewording into 
the plural, where possible?
So
"any user can make such a change for his session."

becomes
"Users can make such a change for their individual sessions"
or similar?
Geoff

  

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Use gender-neutral language in documentation

[Gavin Flower]

On 22/09/15 22:17, Geoff Winkless wrote:
On 22 September 2015 at 10:52, Gavin Flower 
>wrote:


On 22/09/15 21:33, Geoff Winkless wrote:

​ ​
Without wanting to get into a grammar war, ​I'm not so sure I
agree that it "condones" it. Dictionaries reflect the current
state of usage, they don't act as arbiters of correctness. The
abuse of "literally" as an emphasiser (which usage is now
listed in the OED) is a prime example.

I would prefer "his or her" over "their". Perhaps our American
cousins might disagree though.

I prefer "their" rather than "his or her", it is less clumsy &
there is no point in specifying gender unless it is relevant!


I agree in that I prefer "their" in informal speech; however in a 
formal document I would find it sloppy.​ I don't think "his or her" is 
inherently clumsy; m

aybe I'm just showing my age.​

Besides, some people are neither, or their biological gender is
ambiguous - so a few people fit into neither the male nor the
female category (depending on precise definitions, about 0.5%)!


My understanding is that most intersex (and certainly all trans) 
people would identify with one or the other, and even those who don't 
select exclusively identify with a mix of both (and would therefore 
still be covered by "his or her", no?) although I don't pretend to be 
an expert.


Perhaps it would be easier to avoid the controversy by actually 
rewording into the plural, where possible?


So

"any user can make such a change for his session."

becomes

"Users can make such a change for their individual sessions"

or similar?

Geoff
To me, the key things is NOT to specify gender, unless it is relevant - 
and I don't think gender is relevant in describing how to use a database.


I was using "Gender Appropriate" language long before the Politically 
Correct craze started (over 50 years ago)!  I was told references to 
"he" in rules included females, which I thought was daft!



Cheers,
Gavin


--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Use gender-neutral language in documentation

[Andrew Dunstan]

On 09/22/2015 10:29 AM, Geoff Winkless wrote:
Oh, good! We're actually going to have this argument? Even though I 
said I don't care what you do?


On 22 September 2015 at 15:11, Andrew Dunstan > wrote:


On 09/22/2015 09:25 AM, Geoff Winkless wrote:

 If someone sends me a document that uses "their" in a
singular usage, I will think that person is lazy. That will
continue to be the case, whether people tell me that it's
accepted usage or not.


You can think that if you like,


​Thanks!​ That's a great relief to me, as I'm sure you can imagine.

but it's not even remotely true. 



​ You just stated that the reason you don't want to use the plural 
form I suggested is because it's too hard/time-consuming. That does 
suggest you accept that it's a valid solution but you're too lazy to 
use it.​


It's a deliberate choice to use a new, perfectly reasonable and
now widely accepted style of which you disapprove, but it's not lazy.


​ That's your opinion; my opinion remains otherwise. It's not 
"perfectly reasonable" to abuse the plural because some 1960s 
feminazis either misunderstood or didn't like the fact that (because 
of history) in English the gender-neutral singular happens to also be 
the male singular.


Happily for me, I can continue to write documents in a grammatically 
correct way, and no-one will read them and think I'm a grammar-nazi 
(or obstinate, or old-fashioned or whatever) because unless they're 
specifically looking for it no-one will notice that I'm avoiding the 
contentious usage altogether. On the other hand, there _will_ be a 
(perhaps significant) proportion of people who read your documents and 
think that you're incapable of writing a grammatically correct sentence.






Wow, 1960s feminazis, eh? I originally thought you were just a narrow 
minded, pedantic and antiquated grammarian. Now I realize that's the 
least of your troubles. Please take your misogyny elsewhere. I hear the 
Rabid Puppies have openings.


cheers

andrew





--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Use gender-neutral language in documentation

[Andrew Dunstan]

On 09/22/2015 09:25 AM, Geoff Winkless wrote:
 If someone sends me a document that uses "their" in a singular usage, 
I will think that person is lazy. That will continue to be the case, 
whether people tell me that it's accepted usage or not.



You can think that if you like, but it's not even remotely true. It's a 
deliberate choice to use a new, perfectly reasonable and now widely 
accepted style of which you disapprove, but it's not lazy.



cheers

andrew


--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Use gender-neutral language in documentation

[Andrew Dunstan]

On 09/22/2015 06:17 AM, Geoff Winkless wrote:
On 22 September 2015 at 10:52, Gavin Flower 
>wrote:


On 22/09/15 21:33, Geoff Winkless wrote:

​ ​
Without wanting to get into a grammar war, ​I'm not so sure I
agree that it "condones" it. Dictionaries reflect the current
state of usage, they don't act as arbiters of correctness. The
abuse of "literally" as an emphasiser (which usage is now
listed in the OED) is a prime example.

I would prefer "his or her" over "their". Perhaps our American
cousins might disagree though.

I prefer "their" rather than "his or her", it is less clumsy &
there is no point in specifying gender unless it is relevant!


I agree in that I prefer "their" in informal speech; however in a 
formal document I would find it sloppy.​ I don't think "his or her" is 
inherently clumsy; m

aybe I'm just showing my age.​

Besides, some people are neither, or their biological gender is
ambiguous - so a few people fit into neither the male nor the
female category (depending on precise definitions, about 0.5%)!


My understanding is that most intersex (and certainly all trans) 
people would identify with one or the other, and even those who don't 
select exclusively identify with a mix of both (and would therefore 
still be covered by "his or her", no?) although I don't pretend to be 
an expert.


Perhaps it would be easier to avoid the controversy by actually 
rewording into the plural, where possible?


So

"any user can make such a change for his session."

becomes

"Users can make such a change for their individual sessions"

or similar?





You are fighting a losing battle. Think of they/them/their/theirs as 
being indefinitely gendered third person singular pronouns, as well as 
being third person plural pronouns. Yes it's a relatively new usage, but 
I don't think its at all unreasonable (speaking as someone who has been 
known to dislike some new usages and neologisms). It's not at all 
sloppy. On the contrary, it's quite deliberate. It's just not quite 
traditional. You need to get over that.


Your proposed style would make writing docs a lot harder, forcing us to 
avoid use of the singular in cases where it is quite natural. I'm 
strongly opposed to such a style rule.


cheers

andrew



--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Use gender-neutral language in documentation

[Andrew Dunstan]

On 09/22/2015 12:32 AM, Erik Rijkers wrote:



-   might not be the same as the database user he needs to connect as.
+   might not be the same as the database user that is to be connect as.


It is not an improvement.  I would like to see this change rolled back.





I agree this is awkward.

I would use "might not be the same as the database user they need to 
connect as." Let's be consistent about the use of they/them/their/theirs 
as indefinitely gendered singular pronouns.


cheers

andrew



--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Use gender-neutral language in documentation

[Geoff Winkless]

Oh, good! We're actually going to have this argument? Even though I said I
don't care what you do?

On 22 September 2015 at 15:11, Andrew Dunstan  wrote:

> On 09/22/2015 09:25 AM, Geoff Winkless wrote:
>
>>  If someone sends me a document that uses "their" in a singular usage, I
>> will think that person is lazy. That will continue to be the case, whether
>> people tell me that it's accepted usage or not.
>
>
> You can think that if you like,


​Thanks!​ That's a great relief to me, as I'm sure you can imagine.


> but it's not even remotely true.


​You just stated that the reason you don't want to use the plural form I
suggested is because it's too hard/time-consuming. That does suggest you
accept that it's a valid solution but you're too lazy to use it.​


> It's a deliberate choice to use a new, perfectly reasonable and now widely
> accepted style of which you disapprove, but it's not lazy.
>

​That's your opinion; my opinion remains otherwise. It's not "perfectly
reasonable" to abuse the plural because some 1960s feminazis either
misunderstood or didn't like the fact that (because of history) in English
the gender-neutral singular happens to also be the male singular.

Happily for me, I can continue to write documents in a grammatically
correct way, and no-one will read them and think I'm a grammar-nazi (or
obstinate, or old-fashioned or whatever) because unless they're
specifically looking for it no-one will notice that I'm avoiding the
contentious usage altogether. On the other hand, there _will_ be a (perhaps
significant) proportion of people who read your documents and think that
you're incapable of writing a grammatically correct sentence.

Geoff

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Use gender-neutral language in documentation

[Erik Rijkers]

On 2015-09-22 04:59, Peter Eisentraut wrote:

Use gender-neutral language in documentation

Based on patch by Thomas Munro , 
although

I rephrased most of the initial work.

Branch
--
master

Details
---
http://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/741ccd5015f82e31f80cdc5d2ae81263ea92d794




I think this compulsive 'he'-avoiding is making the text worse.


-  environment variable); any user can make such a change for his 
session.
+  environment variable); any user can make such a change for their 
session.


Yuck.  even worse:

-   might not be the same as the database user he needs to connect as.
+   might not be the same as the database user that is to be connect as.


It is not an improvement.  I would like to see this change rolled back.


thanks,

Erik Rijkers



--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Use gender-neutral language in documentation

[Peter Geoghegan]

On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 9:32 PM, Erik Rijkers  wrote:
> I think this compulsive 'he'-avoiding is making the text worse.
>
>
> -  environment variable); any user can make such a change for his
> session.
> +  environment variable); any user can make such a change for their
> session.

-1. It seems fine to me.

> Yuck.  even worse:
>
> -   might not be the same as the database user he needs to connect as.
> +   might not be the same as the database user that is to be connect as.
>
>
> It is not an improvement.  I would like to see this change rolled back.

I think that this should be reworded, since there is a grammatical
error as things stand. I suggest the whole sentence be modified to
read:

When using an external authentication system such as Ident or GSSAPI,
the name of the operating system user that initiated the connection
might not be the same as the intended corresponding database user.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers