John Darrington writes: > On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 11:17:28AM +0100, Alex Sassmannshausen wrote: > > Perhaps we have to agree to disagree on singular they, but I hope we can > still agree on the following statements from my earlier email: > > I agree to a slightly edited version: > > ----------------- > [...] sometimes there is not a simple solution, however : > - if you know someone has a preference for particular pronouns, use > those when > refering to that person. > - don't use pronouns when *you know* the other person does not identify > with them. > - if unsure, ask the person how he or she would like to be referenced. > > If you make a mistake, an apology will show your intention was not > malicious. > > In manuals we can just use "singular they", or another non-gender > specific > form of reference. > -----------------
In the end, when you communicate informally, there is no arbiter of what you write, so, to be clear, the first part above is not some form of official guideline — just thinking out loud of what it means to engage respectfully in a public, anonymous space. I believe you approach in a similar vein, which I appreciate. The problem with your above suggestion is that it leaves out the default case: How will you write emails to the list? Will you assume a default "he"? Or a default "she"? And what about non-binary identifying people? We don't know who's sitting at the other end. Also, in the context of a default "he" usage (which you may not do, you mentioned in the past that you sometimes default to "she"), I'm concerned that emails are archived: they become a written representation of what our community is like — and I do not want our community to reinforce in a written form, that "only boys hang out around Guix / are geeks". > Alternatively it would be incumbent on you to provide an > alternative that is not just "I will bloody-mindedly stick to > gendering people when I don't know anything about them". > > It is this tendency to call any difference of opinion by terms such as > "bloody-minded" which offends me - I try not to take offence - but I find > hard not to. I'm sorry. My intention was to call-back to my impression of other parts of this conversation where it seemed you were point-blank refusing to acknowledge ng0's request. But I can accept that you may find that an unfair characterisation, and I phrased my sentiment too sharply in this case. My apologies for this. > To answer your question: How about saying "he or she" or "the person". As mentioned above, the first renders non-binary identifying people invisible. For the second, if you can write a section of a manual using "the person" in such a way that it won't sound clumsy, then by all means. Personally I would still suggest that "they/them/their" is wonderfully short, to the point and unambiguous. Also, it's a wheel that was already invented: it has widespread usage outside of our community. > In the formal context, well??? I think there is broad consensus that > "singular they" is awesome. > > There is a broad concensus that Donald Trump, Rodrigo Duterte and > Recep Erdogan are awesome. However I do not agree. Say whaat? Way to blow our discussion out of proportion. Are you seriously suggesting the consensus established through conversation and convention in a small community is in any way comparable to the pile of dung that is the contemporary ridiculously complex and terrifyingly non-egalitarian state of global authoritarian politics? > > People having been talking about being "welcoming". Well, I beleive > the way > > to achieve that is threefold: > > > > 1. Try not to offend. > > 2. Try not to be offended. > > 3. Recognise that diversity is an asset. > > Absolutely, wonderful sentiment. To that I would add: > > 4. Respect the integrity and right to self-definition of all participants > > I agree. Put that one in too. Nice :-) >From my perspective, I'm probably done with this conversation for now, though will respond if specific queries are addressed at me. Alex
