From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alex Sassmannshausen Subject: Re: Being excellent to one another Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 11:17:28 +0100 Message-ID: <871stsfe13.fsf@gmail.com> References: <20170316204527.lnkgc2vot4uqk633@abyayala> <20170317053620.GA16076@jocasta.intra> <20170317162131.GA4354@jasmine> <20170317175802.GB30584@jocasta.intra> <20170318110952.xhhobwl5ep4mlbpj@abyayala> <878to27laf.fsf_-_@gnu.org> <87inn499gk.fsf@dustycloud.org> <20170319195707.175eb056@khaalida> <20170320063619.GA20517@jocasta.intra> <878to0fhr3.fsf@gmail.com> <20170320095447.GA22437@jocasta.intra> Reply-To: alex.sassmannshausen@gmail.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:57674) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cpuNa-00048u-Pz for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 06:17:35 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cpuNX-0007aK-HW for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 06:17:34 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-x22c.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c09::22c]:38023) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cpuNX-0007Zy-AV for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 06:17:31 -0400 Received: by mail-wm0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id t189so60084513wmt.1 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 03:17:31 -0700 (PDT) In-reply-to: <20170320095447.GA22437@jocasta.intra> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: John Darrington Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org John Darrington writes: > On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 09:57:04AM +0100, Alex Sassmannshausen wrote: > > > > ... and yes. If an individual specifically requests to be referred to by > > a partcular set of pronouns I will attempt to do so, but may occasionally > > forget if that person wants feminine pronouns and is 6'4" and has an enormous > > black wiry beard. > > [I really don't know what your intention is with that last paragraph ??? I > will just ignore it, as I wouldn't want to ascribe malice???] > > OMG! What is wrong here? Why would you (or anyone) think this is malicious? The > intention, which I thought was clear, is that if people make unusual requests > we should try to accommodate those requests, but the requestor should not be > suprised or offended if people don't always remember. Surely that was obvious? Not obvious at all, thanks for the clarification. > [...] > > Regarding your other comments, as we have discussed before, we will have to > agree to disagree about singular they. I have not the benefit of ever > having learned English as a foreign language. But I do remember in my elementary > school being taught NOT to use it *especially* not in written text. And - > perhaps because of this early tuition - it still sounds clumsy and confusing to > me. 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: ----------------- [...] it's super easy: - if you're not sure (or have forgotten), use "singular they", or ask - if you know someone has a preference for pronouns, use those - don't use pronouns when *you know* the other person does not identify with them. If you make a mistake, no-one will tear your head off — it may well feel like an awkward social faux pas to you, but, c'est la vie! And an apology will show your intention was not malicious. In manuals we can just use "singular they", because it is a well established convention and does not cause confusion. ----------------- I think if you agree with the sentiment, but dislike singular they as the "general fall-back" then the above approach provides an inherent method for you not to have to use that ("just ask") in the informal context. 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". In the formal context, well… I think there is broad consensus that "singular they" is awesome. > 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 Ta, Alex