Maybe we can stick to higher order logic? This discussion does not belong on hol-info.
Thanks, Konrad. On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 8:58 AM, Mario Xerxes Castelán Castro <marioxcc...@yandex.com> wrote: > Hello Bram. Welcome to the mailing list. > > On 30/01/18 05:22, Bram Geron wrote: >> I have only just subscribed to this list before you sent this message, but I >> believe that the use of "he" as a neutral pronoun makes women subconsciously >> feel like they are not really welcome in the community. > > The claim that “women subconsciously feel like they are not really > welcome in the community” is not _even_ wrong as some physicists would > put it. The problem is that it is not falsifiable, because the > “subconscious” is a vague concept on which anything can be claimed and > nothing can be proved because the very concept of subconscious implies > that it has no observable effect. > > Anyway, if we delete “subconscious” from your message we are left with a > less vague claim. My reply would be this: If anybody feels excluded by > the use of generic (w.r.t. grammatical gender) grammar is because he > wants to feel excluded. By definition, generic nouns are inclusive of > both sexes. > >> Participation of women in computer science is problematically low across the >> globe, and I do think that small things like using "he" to refer to a group >> including women hurts this cause. I think you'll find you get used to >> they/them/their surprisingly quickly, and in a great number of >> (scientific/industry) communities it is now accepted as the gender-neutral >> pronoun. > > No, it is not “problematically” low. What “problems” does it bring for > “computer science”? none; it may be against the ultraliberals' politcal > agenda, but that is not computer science problem. Anyway, it is not just > computer science but intellectual activities in general. > > Anybody can send a patch, publish computer software or a book about > mathematics. Sex makes no difference. If one sex does so less often than > the other, it is because of lack of capability and interest. > > This way of thinking seems to be a result of the push for “diversity” > and “social justice”. Through history, men as group have shown higher > intellectual success than women. The feminists cried that this was > because of systematic oppression (this itself is an intellectual > achievements, since men succeeded while women failed to achieve such > oppression for their benefit). Well, society gave women a chance. Now > (in nearly all of the world) women have either the same or more (there > are social programs exclusively for women, but hardly any exclusively > for men) opportunities w.r.t. knowledge than men, yet they still show > the same poor performance as a group (I can cite examples if requested). > They were given an opportunity and failed. Thus the claim that both > sexes are “equal” with respect to intellectual capability has lost its > credibility. > > This is to much disgust of the ultraliberals, because it undermines > their agenda that includes making everybody believe that we are all > “equal” (reality notwithstanding!). It is them who must accept reality, > not the rest of us who must become oblivious to it. > > I refuse to become oblivious to reality and jump into the “we are all > equal“ bandwagon. I urge you to refuse too. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most > engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot > _______________________________________________ > hol-info mailing list > hol-info@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hol-info > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ hol-info mailing list hol-info@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hol-info
