Gender-neutral Chromium code
chromium.googlesource.com
chromium.googlesource.com
I think more harm and time-wasting has been caused as a result of these witch hunts than the original "problem" itself has. I tend to speak ungendered by default more often than not. Perhaps people use gendered pronouns because they're thinking of themselves in the situation they are writing about.
If it doesn't matter to you, fine. But if it matters to other people, why complain about it? Do you really think Chromium is suffering as a project because the developers are wasting too much time on ensuring the codebase is inclusive?
It's basically no imposition at all, and you have already expended more effort in arguing against this than it would take to simply make a mental note that gender-neutral language is ideal next time you submit code to Chromium.
Developers have enough to worry about without worrying about being crucified for using a word like she or he. Why can't we focus on getting shit done instead of focusing on the minutiae of which pronouns we use.
Maybe we should stop immigrant minorities from speaking Spanish which is an extremely gendered language.
In any case, what problem does this really solve? If we enforce the use of non-gendered terms will sexism/genderism magically be reduced? If it were only that easy!
Pot meet kettle.
Are you implying that your fragile mental state is going to fall apart when exposed to the idea of generally using gender-specific language? :)
2) Using a gendered term isn't "accidental", but a built-in bug. Our biases are constructed in us by our environment, and we only benefit from growing out of them. If not now, when?
It wreaks violence on the English language. I love our language (and others: many languages are beautiful in their own different ways), and modern denatured, bureaucratic English is an atrocity.
> But if it matters to other people, why complain about it?
Because I want more beauty in this world. Because I don't want the sort of people who desecrate my mother tongue to win.
And while scrubbing "sister class" from comments (or replacing it with "sibling") is not a big deal, it kind of lacks a certain human charm?
More than anything I struggle to understand what actual objection to 'try to use gender-neutral language' one could possibly have.
Yet, it seems to me that a lot of these documents are written and intended to enforce overnight changes in people's unconscious biases.
From the document:
> Each of us has the right to enjoy our experience and participate without fear of harassment, discrimination, or condescension, whether blatant or subtle.
I don't know about you guys but I hardly enjoy reading technical documentation. It's not meant to be an enjoyable experience. It's meant to convey complex meaning in a (hopefully) short amount of time. I don't think gendered pronouns add to the effectiveness of this communication method, but I also don't think we need to formalize their usage (or non-usage).
I guess I'm asking why this can't be a natural progression that we all wish to undertake as cooperating organisms rather than enforced with competition and penalties? It seems like a wasted opportunity and unnecessarily polarizing.
For an example of how bad this can get (and has gotten) see:
One of the most captivating interviews I've watched recently.
Don't say you weren't warned.
edit: Isn't it funny this thread is dead/flagged? You can't even have an opinion on the issue that doesn't fall in line with the established "correct" position. No discussion is allowed. The pros and cons cannot even be enumerated without censorship.
On an issue that directly involves development practices and would necessitate more work for developers. Talking about it is off limits! If that's not the very definition of suppression of speech, I don't know what is. People that have reservations about this are viewed as "sensitive" and worrying unnecessarily. But look at this very thread!
Isn't this the pushback you were talking about? That something is flagged means it's trash that doesn't even warrant the effort of discussion and definitely doesn't belong on the front page.
In fact we're discussing it right now (you can still post in flagged threads, can you not?)
Maybe I don't understand who has the power to "flag" a post, or what the criteria is.
YCombinator can do whatever they want on their site if it is they (the mods) alone who "flag" something. The engagement and discussion is a sign that people want to discuss it. Not sure why it is deemed (by whom?) to be "trash". By you?
My point is, this post relates to programming. It is not a side issue or a triviality or inconsequential.
"Free speech" generally is a fundamental issue that has impact on all areas of society, certainly tech and the internet, and I think this is a free speech issue. It is a discussion of what forms of speech are deemed allowed and what isn't.
Anyone with more than 30 karma can flag a submission or a post.
> It is removed from view
You can change the "showdead" option in your user settings to show killed submissions and posts.
edit: Does this only work when browsing "new", and not the front page / more posts? In other words, I don't see this post, or any posts with the [dead] or [flagged] tag when paging through more from the home page.
I am pretty sure at 25, I can stand reading "He xxxx" in documentation.
The issue isn't the words, it is assuming no one besides someone like you should work on the project.
What's maybe more of an issue is that is there is a long-term bias in the use of gendered language, across multiple projects, in code and documentation and comments, then that does seem like an obvious bug. It's a very small thing, but one of those things that in aggregate could contribute to the perception of a more general gender imbalance in the industry.
But think off it another way – for no cost, you can make other people feel slightly more comfortable in the long term working in this field. Why bother fighting it?
These are the minute bricks of social construction, and we can either choose to ignore them (and replicate existing oppressive social structures) or fix them (and make conscious choices about the society we construct).
If, indeed, you are opposed to women programming, I can think of no better long-term solution than persistently emphasizing the maleness of technology or exclusively using male pronouns.
To come out and blankly state that "women should not be in programming" would be met with the Backfire Effect, so subtlety is necessary, here. Keep up the good work.
Personally, I tend towards the second-person (you) or indeterminate third-person (they, one) if not referring to a specific person.
Guy is a common French name
I found it funny and in good taste.
Bahaha! Now I can gleefully write "when the user enters their password" and be right.
I'm not sure how I feel about this bit though...
> For new code/comments, consider using just ‘A’, ‘B’ as names.
Perhaps consider using unisex names instead? Maybe "Alex" and "Bo"?
This defeats the point of using Alice and Bob. There is a reason why Alice and Bob have different genders, because when thinking about complex scenarios, having different genders in addition to different names is more beneficial. Maybe they can use anthropomorphize animals, Archi the Alligator and Bob the Bunny.
Well... thats some heavy bullshit. If you get offended by gender you shold even be on the internet... you will be offended by literally everything.
Using a specific gender when refereing to someone anonymous grates on me anyway - just seems like poor writing.
All of the male pronouns that I can recall at the moment, such as "he" and "his", can do double duty serving both when you are referring to an actual male, and when you are referring to a person of unknown gender.
[1] I mean when referring to people. Let's leave the whole using "she" for boats for another time...
This, of course, assumes that you're not of the trivially ridiculous belief that language should never evolve.
I am in full support of this code. It approaches a sensitive subject with the care it deserves and does not seek to strip anyone of their dignity. Quite a world away from the punitive actions advocated by Erik Michaels-Ober on other projects.
Take a few moments with yourself this evening to seriously think about why this might be.
I very much am. I don't really understand your argument – do you have to 'come out of your flow' to make sure that you spell correctly, or are grammatically consistent, or aren't accidentally racist?
In other words, calm down people.
It's a low quality argumentative technique, and is generally employed in the hope that your opponent will respond with something easier to attack, aka an attempt to generate a straw man. 5/10 for enthusiasm but 2/10 for technique.
"I feel that the requirement for non-gendered language is preventing people from thinking about the differences between genders", for example, would be something that can actually be dissected and responded to. A quote can't, so much.
Are your gendered "modes of thought" so fragile and unattractive that they can't subsist in consenting minds, and must instead be protected, and foisted upon the unwilling?
Shouldn't the arguments that language can lead toward changes of thought (the "newspeak arguments") actually _spur_ these changes toward less biased thinking? If you agree that it is possible to change language, and that changing language changes thought, then the only remaining arguments at that point are appeals to a nebulous concept of "freedom" and that you like being a dude and saying whatever you want.
Appeals to 1984 are extra bankrupt because this is not a government, and there is absolutely no penalty for disobedience, except the social one -- and social punishments for disobedience of social norms has always been a part and parcel of living in, well, society.
From your link:
> ""Ms." began to be used as early as the 17th century, along with "Miss" and "Mrs.", as a title derived from the then formal "Mistress", which, like Mister, did not originally indicate marital status"
> "Ms." began to be used as early as the 17th century, along with "Miss" and "Mrs.", as a title derived from the then formal "Mistress", which, like Mister, did not originally indicate marital status. "Ms.", however, fell into disuse in favor of the other two titles and was not revived until the 20th century.
It wasn't until the 1960s that "Ms." appeared as a formal category in the United States on forms.
> ""Ms." didn't exist until the 60s"
So, yeah... clearly you were talking about formal categories on US forms...
Ah, USA Forms. That well-known global standard.
Others have commented about how your timing is off, but also "Ms." is not a pronoun, in any case.