bug#57046: Spanish documentation uses exclusive language

bug#57046: Spanish documentation uses exclusive language

[lfvega--- via Bug reports for GNU Guix]

I applaud your effort using inclusive language in the official documentation, as someone who uses it daily in most occasions. Sadly, I've seen some concerning issues in the Spanish documentation related to the usage of inclusive language, specifically in the manual (https://guix.gnu.org/es/manual/es/guix.es.html)

There are references everywhere to "usuaria", the feminine form of "usuario" (user). Like for example the title of point 10.5: "Cuentas de usuaria", or in 2.1.2: "la usuaria root".

Using the feminine form "usuaria" like it was neutral is as exclusive (if not more, since that's done consciously) as using the masculine form. If you want to make "usuario" neutral, please use alternative ways like making up neutral words using the "e" or the "x": "le usuarie root" / "lx usuarix root".

To give some context, in Spanish, inclusive language still isn't academically accepted, the way to refer to some person or group in a neutral way is usually using the masculine forms as neutral forms. Now, the few of us who have been doing efforts for years using inclusive language to be respectful with every sensitivity, try to avoid using masculine forms as neutral, and reword sentences or use equivalent gender neutral words when those exist. This requires effort since Spanish is a heavily gendered language, and sometimes it isn't possible, like in the "usuario" example above. In those cases the trend is to make up neutral words like I pointed out. Swapping masculine forms with their feminine counterpart and pretending they're neutral creates a problem on top of a problem.
 
-- 
Sincerely,
L. F. Vega

bug#57046: Spanish documentation uses exclusive language

[Jean Pierre De Jesus DIAZ via Bug reports for GNU Guix]

Hello,

As an Spanish speaker too I didn't notice it at first when reading
the documentation and feels weird that it's deliberately "usuaria"
instead of "usuario".

For example, in Argentina, only 8% of the population uses inclusive
language:

https://www.diariodecultura.com.ar/columna-izquierda/solo-el-8-de-la-poblacion-utiliza-el-lenguaje-inclusivo-con-frecuencia/

Couldn't find more statistics on the matter.

Not only using "usuaria" it's exclusive but it's also grammatically
incorrect, the proper way would be using "usuario" which includes
all genders and "usuario y usuaria", but it is too verbose IMHO.

For example:

- "Cuentas de usuario"
- "Cuentas de usuario y usuaria"

The latter one is used a lot by the Venezuelan government when
they try to be inclusive, but it's tiring to the reader and
doesn't provide additional context.

>Swapping masculine forms with their feminine counterpart and pretending they're neutral creates a problem on top of a problem.

Completely agree.

—
Jean-Pierre De Jesus DIAZ

bug#57046: Spanish documentation uses exclusive language

[pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)]

Cc to the Spanish translators in po/doc/guix-manual.es.po

Thank you Jean Pierre De Jesus DIAZ for filing a bug instead of starting
an edit war on Weblate.  But if there is a decision on changing, someone
will have to edit the translation on Weblate.

For comparison,

* the main Spanish translation po/guix/es.po uses usuario

* the French translation switches between “utilisateur·rices”,
  “utilisatrices et utilisateurs” and more often masculine “utilisateurs”

* the Portuguese, Russian, German translation use masculine (although at
  least for German I use feminine in some examples)

* German word for users is masculine Benutzer and feminine is
  Benutzerinnen; there is a psychology study that Benutzer*innen is
  perceived feminine while listing both masculine and feminine Benutzer
  und Benutzerinnen is perceived as including men and women (a different
  language and I might give too much weight to one scientific study)
  <https://www.hw.uni-wuerzburg.de/aktuelles/news/single/news/gendersternchen-lassen-an-frauen-denken/>

Regards,
Florian

bug#57046: Spanish documentation uses exclusive language

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hola,

"pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)" <pelzflorian@pelzflorian.de> skribis:

> * the main Spanish translation po/guix/es.po uses usuario
>
> * the French translation switches between “utilisateur·rices”,
>   “utilisatrices et utilisateurs” and more often masculine “utilisateurs”
>
> * the Portuguese, Russian, German translation use masculine (although at
>   least for German I use feminine in some examples)
>
> * German word for users is masculine Benutzer and feminine is
>   Benutzerinnen; there is a psychology study that Benutzer*innen is
>   perceived feminine while listing both masculine and feminine Benutzer
>   und Benutzerinnen is perceived as including men and women (a different
>   language and I might give too much weight to one scientific study)
>   <https://www.hw.uni-wuerzburg.de/aktuelles/news/single/news/gendersternchen-lassen-an-frauen-denken/>

Just like for French, my suggestion would be to use a mixture of several
techniques to achieve gender neutrality, probably in this order:

  • Using gender-neutral words—e.g., “personas” or “quién” rather than
    “usuarios”.

  • Talking to the user: “puedes hacer …” rather than “usuarios pueden
    hacer …”.

  • Using the -e suffix, which has the advantage of being concise and
    readable, but potentially off-putting (at least today).

  • Using repetitions, “usuarias y usuarios”.

Latin languages (among others) are problematic but techniques like these
can get us a long way, and by mixing them we can avoid making the text
hard to read.

Ludo’.

bug#57046: Spanish documentation uses exclusive language

[pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)]

Hi Ludo.

Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:
>   • Using gender-neutral words—e.g., “personas” or “quién” rather than
>     “usuarios”.
>
>   • Talking to the user: “puedes hacer …” rather than “usuarios pueden
>     hacer …”.

Agree, but when these don’t work,


>   • Using the -e suffix, which has the advantage of being concise and
>     readable, but potentially off-putting (at least today).
>
>   • Using repetitions, “usuarias y usuarios”.

It depends, but I think inclusiveness in technical manual sections is
not important enough to justify such trade-offs (for the German
translation that is).  Hrmm.  Of course I would comply if need be, but I
do disagree.  (I have very little experience with Spanish though.)

Regards,
Florian

bug#57046: Spanish documentation uses exclusive language

[Csepp]

"pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)" <pelzflorian@pelzflorian.de> writes:

> Hi Ludo.
>
> Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:
>>   • Using gender-neutral words—e.g., “personas” or “quién” rather than
>>     “usuarios”.
>>
>>   • Talking to the user: “puedes hacer …” rather than “usuarios pueden
>>     hacer …”.
>
> Agree, but when these don’t work,
>
>
>>   • Using the -e suffix, which has the advantage of being concise and
>>     readable, but potentially off-putting (at least today).
>>
>>   • Using repetitions, “usuarias y usuarios”.
>
> It depends, but I think inclusiveness in technical manual sections is
> not important enough to justify such trade-offs (for the German
> translation that is).  Hrmm.  Of course I would comply if need be, but I
> do disagree.  (I have very little experience with Spanish though.)
>
> Regards,
> Florian

Just a thought, but maybe it shouldn't be a group of men who decides
what language is and is not inclusive and whether that's important.
We've had some Outreachy interns, maybe some of them wouldn't mind being
consulted on this.

Just my 2 fillérs.

(Or we could do what Michael Warren Lucas does in his books: switch
between female, male, and neutral.  I don't see how that would be
exclusive.)

bug#57046: Spanish documentation uses exclusive language

[pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)]

Thank you Csepp/raingloom for speaking up.

Csepp <raingloom@riseup.net> writes:
> Just a thought, but maybe it shouldn't be a group of men who decides
> what language is and is not inclusive

I believe we don’t disagree on what is / is not inclusive.

> and whether that's important.
> We've had some Outreachy interns, maybe some of them wouldn't mind being
> consulted on this.

There has been plenty of debate elsewhere; no need to bother; I guess
there won’t be consensus.  Yes, we could have a policy without
consensus.  Actually there may be a majority in favor of using verbose
speech that includes all.

Like "Once the patch is committed in the Guix repository[…].  Users can
obtain the new package definition simply by running guix pull"

"Una vez el parche se haya incorporado al repositorio de Guix[…].  Las
usuarias y los usuarios pueden obtener la nueva definición de paquete
ejecutando simplemente guix pull"

But doing that for every such sentence seems bothersome to read even in
cases when the sentence isn’t long already.  For French this is done but
not always.  Should it still be policy?  A strict or a lenient policy?

We could also just leave it to the individual Weblate translators until
an actual edit war occurs.  Even generic las usuarias had bothered
someone before on the Guix mailing lists but didn’t bother that much.
(I cannot find the link; it was a discussion involving Miguel Ángel
Arruga Vivas and that he uses “New Spanish”.)

Though the translation has become stale anyway and doesn’t fit the
English anymore; someone would need to update it.  Then generic las
usuarias stays until someone changes it on Weblate.

Should this bug be closed then?


> (Or we could do what Michael Warren Lucas does in his books: switch
> between female, male, and neutral.  I don't see how that would be
> exclusive.)

Well yeahh, yet another option. xD

Regards,
Florian

bug#57046: Spanish documentation uses exclusive language

[Tobias Geerinckx-Rice via Bug reports for GNU Guix]

Hi all,

On 2022-08-09 22:02, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz) wrote:
> There has been plenty of debate elsewhere; no need to bother; I guess
> there won’t be consensus. […] Could the bug be closed soon?

I'm torn.  I added & removed ‘-close’ a few times just now.

The initial post was doomed to be flame bate because of the subject 
matter, but was probably in good faith, apart from the title.

If it wasn't, it can be reinterpreted that way, and since when does 
authorial intent matter… :-)

But then, as deterministic dominoes in motion, we follow the unavoidable 
and predictable path downward.  Guix should follow my arbitrary grammar 
rules! — no it shouldn't.  Guix must listen only to my chosen 
demographic! — no it shouldn't.  Gender-neutral language is offensive to 
sexists! — good.

Notably scarce are arguments that actually stand on their own, that can 
help build a (new) consensus if you disagree with the current 
translation.

I don't speak much Spanish, but Ludo's suggestions sound great to me.  
How about we turn them into guidelines and add them to Contributing?

Kind regards,

T G-R

Sent from a Web browser.  Excuse or enjoy my brevity.

bug#57046: Spanish documentation uses exclusive language

[pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)]

Thank you Tobias.

Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me@tobias.gr> writes:
> How about we turn them into guidelines and add them to Contributing?

Yes, it would prevent such discussions.  But as lfvega says and as is
generally acknowledged, there is no good solution on how to deal with
gender here.

I can’t really judge but don’t believe their and Ludo’s proposal “les
usuaries” is really perceived neutral and acceptable.  (To Spanish
speakers: What do psychologists say?  Does it appear feminine to you?)

In Germanic (and Slavic?) grammatically feminine is clearly derived from
the grammatically masculine form (Benutzerin from Benutzer), which may
be a different situation from Latin; maybe it is not.

Listing both is verbose and unnatural.

Regards,
Florian

bug#57046: Spanish documentation uses exclusive language

[pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)]

"pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)" <pelzflorian@pelzflorian.de> writes:
> Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:
>>   • Using repetitions, “usuarias y usuarios”.
> It depends, but I think inclusiveness in technical manual sections is
> not important enough to justify such trade-offs (for the German

I now changed parts of the German website translation on Weblate to use
repetition because I agree with inclusiveness in invitations.

Spanish translators may consider this too.

Could the bug be closed soon?

Regards,
Florian

bug#57046: Spanish documentation uses exclusive language

[pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1013 bytes --]

Hello all.

"pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)" <pelzflorian@pelzflorian.de> writes:
> I now changed parts of the German website translation on Weblate to use
> repetition because I agree with inclusiveness in invitations.

I suggest the attached patch to the website in the guix-artwork repo.
No need for changing doc/contributing.texi, I think.  Also:

Jean Pierre De Jesus DIAZ writes:
> >I can’t really judge but don’t believe their and Ludo’s proposal “les
> >usuaries” is really perceived neutral and acceptable.  (To Spanish
> >speakers: What do psychologists say?  Does it appear feminine to you?)
> It doesn't feel feminine or masculine, so I guess it's neutral. But the fact
> that it makes text hard to read. I'd say that anyone can try doing a Stroop
> test to feel the same in their own language to.

So usuaries may just appear unfamiliar, as I understand.

What would Debian do?  I find usuarios on:

https://www.debian.org/international/spanish/notas

Regards,
Florian

[-- Attachment #2: website-home-Add-note-to-translators-to-use-inclusiv.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 1145 bytes --]

From: Florian Pelz <pelzflorian@pelzflorian.de>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2022 14:33:09 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] website: home: Add note to translators to use inclusive
 wording.

* website/apps/base/templates/home.scm: Add translators comment.
---
 website/apps/base/templates/home.scm | 3 +++
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)

diff --git a/website/apps/base/templates/home.scm b/website/apps/base/templates/home.scm
index 47adeb7..de180a0 100644
--- a/website/apps/base/templates/home.scm
+++ b/website/apps/base/templates/home.scm
@@ -1,4 +1,5 @@
 ;;; GNU Guix web site
+;;; Copyright © 2022 Florian Pelz <pelzflorian@pelzflorian.de>
 ;;; Initially written by sirgazil who waives all
 ;;; copyright interest on this file.
 
@@ -41,6 +42,8 @@ management|Reproducibility") #\|)
      (section
       (@ (class "featured-content"))
       ,(G_ `(h2 (@ (class "a11y-offset")) "Summary"))
+      ;; TRANSLATORS: Try to translate using inclusive wording
+      ;; that addresses men and women.  Guix is for everyone.
       (ul
        ,(G_
          `(li

base-commit: 4c7f2ce6428a63e202cd2a9474a06f68a946934d
-- 
2.36.1

bug#57046: Spanish documentation uses exclusive language

[bokr]

Hi,

tl;dr:

IMO this whole language neutering project, whose goal UIAM is
purportedly to exclude exclusion, is self-contradictory.

I.e., it excludes those who are used to natural language as they
have learned it (including words to charm or insult or play with),
and are not distracted by gender inflections in documentation.
If they opine about sex, they'll likely say "Vive la différence!"

If some people really need a neutered documentation language, fine:
Invent a sexlessperanto DSL and make that a translation target
which the sensitive can opt to read.

IMO it's a waste of time to contort normal natural language expressions
and idioms into eunuch grotesqueries. Besides, those annoyed by the nonsense
will be tempted to game the wording to tease the teasable anyway.

If you find yourself allergic to Mediterranean diets (word or food)
I feel sorry for you. But that doesn't give you a right to control
the menu anywhere other than in your kitchen.

Statistically Mediterranean diets are healthy, and healthy people can
digest sometimes spicy food, or words, and know how to spit out
the occasional chicken bone splinter. That's why we chew.
Didn't your mother teach you not to swallow things whole?
Chew words from an iffy dish well :)

My 2¢, sorry :)

On +2022-08-09 15:46:17 +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Hola,
> 
> "pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)" <pelzflorian@pelzflorian.de> skribis:
> 
> > * the main Spanish translation po/guix/es.po uses usuario
> >
> > * the French translation switches between “utilisateur·rices”,
> >   “utilisatrices et utilisateurs” and more often masculine “utilisateurs”
> >
> > * the Portuguese, Russian, German translation use masculine (although at
> >   least for German I use feminine in some examples)
> >
> > * German word for users is masculine Benutzer and feminine is
> >   Benutzerinnen; there is a psychology study that Benutzer*innen is
> >   perceived feminine while listing both masculine and feminine Benutzer
> >   und Benutzerinnen is perceived as including men and women (a different
> >   language and I might give too much weight to one scientific study)
> >   <https://www.hw.uni-wuerzburg.de/aktuelles/news/single/news/gendersternchen-lassen-an-frauen-denken/>
> 
> Just like for French, my suggestion would be to use a mixture of several
> techniques to achieve gender neutrality, probably in this order:
> 
>   • Using gender-neutral words—e.g., “personas” or “quién” rather than
>     “usuarios”.
> 
>   • Talking to the user: “puedes hacer …” rather than “usuarios pueden
>     hacer …”.
> 
>   • Using the -e suffix, which has the advantage of being concise and
>     readable, but potentially off-putting (at least today).
> 
>   • Using repetitions, “usuarias y usuarios”.
> 
> Latin languages (among others) are problematic but techniques like these
> can get us a long way, and by mixing them we can avoid making the text
> hard to read.
> 
> Ludo’.
> 
--
Regards,
Bengt  Richter

bug#57046: Spanish documentation uses exclusive language

[Csepp]

bokr@bokr.com writes:

> On +2022-08-09 15:46:17 +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> Hola,
>> 
>> "pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)" <pelzflorian@pelzflorian.de> skribis:
>> 
>> > * the main Spanish translation po/guix/es.po uses usuario
>> >
>> > * the French translation switches between “utilisateur·rices”,
>> >   “utilisatrices et utilisateurs” and more often masculine “utilisateurs”
>> >
>> > * the Portuguese, Russian, German translation use masculine (although at
>> >   least for German I use feminine in some examples)
>> >
>> > * German word for users is masculine Benutzer and feminine is
>> >   Benutzerinnen; there is a psychology study that Benutzer*innen is
>> >   perceived feminine while listing both masculine and feminine Benutzer
>> >   und Benutzerinnen is perceived as including men and women (a different
>> >   language and I might give too much weight to one scientific study)
>> >   <https://www.hw.uni-wuerzburg.de/aktuelles/news/single/news/gendersternchen-lassen-an-frauen-denken/>
>> 
>> Just like for French, my suggestion would be to use a mixture of several
>> techniques to achieve gender neutrality, probably in this order:
>> 
>>   • Using gender-neutral words—e.g., “personas” or “quién” rather than
>>     “usuarios”.
>> 
>>   • Talking to the user: “puedes hacer …” rather than “usuarios pueden
>>     hacer …”.
>> 
>>   • Using the -e suffix, which has the advantage of being concise and
>>     readable, but potentially off-putting (at least today).
>> 
>>   • Using repetitions, “usuarias y usuarios”.
>> 
>> Latin languages (among others) are problematic but techniques like these
>> can get us a long way, and by mixing them we can avoid making the text
>> hard to read.
>> 
>> Ludo’.
>> 

> Hi,
>
> tl;dr:
>
> IMO this whole language neutering project, whose goal UIAM is
> purportedly to exclude exclusion, is self-contradictory.
> ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

ps.: edited by the bottom reply inquisition :)

bug#57046: (No Subject)

[Jean Pierre De Jesus DIAZ via Bug reports for GNU Guix]

FWIW author cites:

https://guix.gnu.org/es/manual/es/guix.es.html#DOCF50

As the reason for using feminine words.

https://guix.gnu.org/es/manual/es/guix.es.html#FOOT50

Quoting from the manual:

>NdT: En esta traducción se ha optado por usar el femenino para referirse a personas, ya que es el género gramatical de dicha palabra. Aunque las construcciones impersonales pueden adoptarse en la mayoría de casos, también pueden llegar a ser muy artificiales en otros usos del castellano; en ocasiones son directamente imposibles. Algunas construcciones que proponen la neutralidad de género dificultan la lectura automática (-x), o bien dificultan la corrección automática (-e), o bien aumentan significativamente la redundancia y reducen del mismo modo la velocidad en la lectura (-as/os, -as y -os). No obstante, la adopción del genero neutro heredado del latín, el que en castellano se ha unido con el masculino, como construcción neutral de género se considera inaceptable, ya que sería equivalente al “it” en inglés, nada más lejos de la intención de las autoras originales del texto.

>En esta traducción se ha optado por usar el femenino para referirse a personas, ya que es el género gramatical de dicha palabra.

Yes, right, "personas" is feminine, but doesn't mean "usuario" has to be changed
to a feminine word just because the word we use to designate people is feminine,
it has no relation. An user can not only represent people, but an organization,
a team, etc.

>la adopción del genero neutro heredado del latín, el que en castellano se ha unido con el masculino, como construcción neutral de género se considera inaceptable

That's not a fact, it's an opinion, and a very personal one.

>nada más lejos de la intención de las autoras originales del texto.

This one, here it's written as "autoras" as feminine when "autores" is already
a neutral word, it's doesn't refer to a man nor a woman, just a group of people
that authored something. So, if Spanish has already gendered words, with masculine,
feminine and neutral, and a neutral word is already available, then what's the real
intention of the author of that foot note?

---

I feel like the guideline for writing using neutral words was taken out of context
and abused for personal purposes.

—
Jean-Pierre De Jesus DIAZ

bug#57046: Spanish documentation uses exclusive language

[lfvega--- via Bug reports for GNU Guix]

Sorry! I honestly didn't see the author reasoning for using feminine words. Thank you so much for pointing me to the relevant notes.

According to their reasoning, using made up neutrals like "-x" or "-e" make automatic reading or autocorrection difficult, and  using "-as/os" would be too verbose. While I agree with the author on those, we should have in mind that from the moment we decide to use inclusive language we have to make sacrifices. That's an inescapable fact, since the inclusive language options in Spanish when neutral masculines referring to people can't be avoided, are either a) made-up and aren't grammatically correct, or b) too verbose. So someone should decide what the priority is whenever neutral masculines can't be avoided.

- If we care more about inclusive language and don't mind using made up neutrals, we can use "lx usuarix root" (-x) or "le usuarie root" (-e). This is inclusive, but not grammatically correct and sacrifices readability.

- If we care about inclusive language and correctness, we can use "el/la usuario/a root", "la o el usuario root" or "la usuaria o usuario root" (-as/-os). This is inclusive, grammatically correct, but adds verbosity and minorities claim that doesn't address non-binary people.

- If we only care about readability and correctness, we can use masculines as neutrals: "el usuario root". This is grammatically correct and used/understood by most, but isn't considered inclusive language.

There isn't a perfect solution, and while I personally prefer the (-e) or (-x), I'm fine if any other approach is accepted, even if it's the third one. But, as you also pointed out, using feminine forms as neutrals by default isn't appropiate. It has the worst of all worlds: is purposely exclusive, uncommon and grammatically incorrect. I'm also clueless about the author intentions, all I know is that the Spanish word for "people" being feminine doesn't justify swapping all the people-related words to their feminine counterparts.

-- 
Sincerely,
L. F. Vega


8 ago 2022, 13:01 por bug-guix@gnu.org:

> FWIW author cites:
>
> https://guix.gnu.org/es/manual/es/guix.es.html#DOCF50
>
> As the reason for using feminine words.
>
> https://guix.gnu.org/es/manual/es/guix.es.html#FOOT50
>
> Quoting from the manual:
>
> >NdT: En esta traducción se ha optado por usar el femenino para referirse a personas, ya que es el género gramatical de dicha palabra. Aunque las construcciones impersonales pueden adoptarse en la mayoría de casos, también pueden llegar a ser muy artificiales en otros usos del castellano; en ocasiones son directamente imposibles. Algunas construcciones que proponen la neutralidad de género dificultan la lectura automática (-x), o bien dificultan la corrección automática (-e), o bien aumentan significativamente la redundancia y reducen del mismo modo la velocidad en la lectura (-as/os, -as y -os). No obstante, la adopción del genero neutro heredado del latín, el que en castellano se ha unido con el masculino, como construcción neutral de género se considera inaceptable, ya que sería equivalente al “it” en inglés, nada más lejos de la intención de las autoras originales del texto.
>
> >En esta traducción se ha optado por usar el femenino para referirse a personas, ya que es el género gramatical de dicha palabra.
>
> Yes, right, "personas" is feminine, but doesn't mean "usuario" has to be changed
> to a feminine word just because the word we use to designate people is feminine,
> it has no relation. An user can not only represent people, but an organization,
> a team, etc.
>
> >la adopción del genero neutro heredado del latín, el que en castellano se ha unido con el masculino, como construcción neutral de género se considera inaceptable
>
> That's not a fact, it's an opinion, and a very personal one.
>
> >nada más lejos de la intención de las autoras originales del texto.
>
> This one, here it's written as "autoras" as feminine when "autores" is already
> a neutral word, it's doesn't refer to a man nor a woman, just a group of people
> that authored something. So, if Spanish has already gendered words, with masculine,
> feminine and neutral, and a neutral word is already available, then what's the real
> intention of the author of that foot note?
>
> ---
>
> I feel like the guideline for writing using neutral words was taken out of context
> and abused for personal purposes.
>
> —
> Jean-Pierre De Jesus DIAZ
>

bug#57046: Spanish documentation uses exclusive language

[Jean Pierre De Jesus DIAZ via Bug reports for GNU Guix]

>Just a thought, but maybe it shouldn't be a group of men who decides
>what language is and is not inclusive and whether that's important.
>We've had some Outreachy interns, maybe some of them wouldn't mind being
>consulted on this.

Inclusion through exclusion, this is just sending the messages that men
bad anything else better. That just spreads hate for no particular reason.

I doubt that a lot of people translate the Guix manual to Spanish, so,
it probably wasn't even discussed or decided by anyone, let them be
women, men or non-binary.

And yes, language changes through use, but forcing it isn't the way,
people use the language and it naturally adapts, and if inclusive
language like using the letter "e" to make words neutral is going to
be used it has to be justified, I don't think that there's justification
to do so, or that anyone complained, there's not even people complaining
for other languages that use masculine words.

And yes, using "usuarios y usuarias" excludes non-binary people, that's
a limitation of the language and nothing can be done about it unless
everyday people start using it (read again, using it, not forcing it
onto people).

And in justification, I mean, real world data, statistics of people using
it or willing to do so.

To clarify I'm not against change, but I'm against forcing it. Nothing else.

Anyway, all people are welcome to discuss this.

And the fact that no one started an edit war on Weblate says it all, no men
is deciding anything. I personally want to know the reasoning behind it
and if it was discussed and not abused for personal reasons or a movement.

>I can’t really judge but don’t believe their and Ludo’s proposal “les
>usuaries” is really perceived neutral and acceptable.  (To Spanish
>speakers: What do psychologists say?  Does it appear feminine to you?)

It doesn't feel feminine or masculine, so I guess it's neutral. But the fact
that it makes text hard to read. I'd say that anyone can try doing a Stroop
test to feel the same in their own language to.

I say this being a neuro-typical person. I don't think forcing the "e" is
going to make it easier for neuro-divergent people.

—
Jean-Pierre De Jesus DIAZ

bug#57046: Spanish documentation uses exclusive language

[Csepp]

Jean Pierre De Jesus DIAZ via Bug reports for GNU Guix <bug-guix@gnu.org> writes:

>>Just a thought, but maybe it shouldn't be a group of men who decides
>>what language is and is not inclusive and whether that's important.
>>We've had some Outreachy interns, maybe some of them wouldn't mind being
>>consulted on this.
>
> Inclusion through exclusion, this is just sending the messages that men
> bad anything else better. That just spreads hate for no particular reason.

Please stop putting words in my mouth and arguing in bad faith.

Decisions that affect a group should be made by the group or when that
is not logistically possible then a *representative subset* of the
group.

Roughly half of the population is female.  If you don't think they
should be consulted about decisions that affect them, then you are
taking an undemocratic stance.

Women have to put up with sooo much more bullshit in their daily life
than men, so when free software projects require them putting up with
even more, they will not want to be part of the free software community,
because it demonstrably does not take their concerns seriously.

I'd like to believe that we can do better and make our communities more
welcoming to the people who need tools that liberate them the most.

bug#57046: Spanish documentation uses exclusive language

[Jean Pierre De Jesus DIAZ via Bug reports for GNU Guix]

>Please stop putting words in my mouth and arguing in bad faith.

My comment is pointing the fact that men (should not) have decision
over the language and shouldn't even consider it and that doing so
is bad to everyone.

>Decisions that affect a group should be made by the group or when that
>is not logistically possible then a *representative subset* of the
>group.

This is very different from what you said before.

>Roughly half of the population is female.  If you don't think they
>should be consulted about decisions that affect them, then you are
>taking an undemocratic stance.

I think they should and are welcome, said it before and say it
again.

>Women have to put up with sooo much more bullshit in their daily life
>than men, so when free software projects require them putting up with
>even more, they will not want to be part of the free software community,
>because it demonstrably does not take their concerns seriously.

That's right, but haven't seen how GNU Guix makes it difficult to
anyone to contribute. Everyone is welcomed, at least from my part
and as a newcomer too.

—
Jean-Pierre De Jesus DIAZ


------- Original Message -------
On Saturday, August 13th, 2022 at 9:48 AM, Csepp <raingloom@riseup.net> wrote:


> Jean Pierre De Jesus DIAZ via Bug reports for GNU Guix bug-guix@gnu.org writes:
> 
> > > Just a thought, but maybe it shouldn't be a group of men who decides
> > > what language is and is not inclusive and whether that's important.
> > > We've had some Outreachy interns, maybe some of them wouldn't mind being
> > > consulted on this.
> > 
> > Inclusion through exclusion, this is just sending the messages that men
> > bad anything else better. That just spreads hate for no particular reason.
> 
> 
> Please stop putting words in my mouth and arguing in bad faith.
> 
> Decisions that affect a group should be made by the group or when that
> is not logistically possible then a representative subset of the
> group.
> 
> Roughly half of the population is female. If you don't think they
> should be consulted about decisions that affect them, then you are
> taking an undemocratic stance.
> 
> Women have to put up with sooo much more bullshit in their daily life
> than men, so when free software projects require them putting up with
> even more, they will not want to be part of the free software community,
> because it demonstrably does not take their concerns seriously.
> 
> I'd like to believe that we can do better and make our communities more
> welcoming to the people who need tools that liberate them the most.

bug#57046: Spanish documentation uses exclusive language

[pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)]

Csepp <raingloom@riseup.net> writes:
> Roughly half of the population is female.  If you don't think they
> should be consulted about decisions that affect them, then you are
> taking an undemocratic stance.

There is no duty for women to respond.

Regards,
Florian

bug#57046: Spanish documentation uses exclusive language

[pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)]

Closing because discussion has ceased and I’m not confident in anything
here.  I suggest Spanish translators remove the policy and translate new
strings as they see fit.

Regards,
Florian