Hacker News Reader

My impression was that the problem with the original post was a denial accepting a change, which the author took to mean a militant exclusion of gender neutral language.

The author wasn't taking a militant stand against someone who simply writes gendered language, but against someone who made a decision to exclude gender-neutral language specifically.

View on HN

I think the other feature of these two camps is that they tend to see the opposition through the mirror of their own preconceptions. I took the pull request rejection at face value: "trivial change; denied". I don't agree with the policy, but I did not sense any overt anti-gender-parity agenda in the action.

That the author of the pull request viewed this action as a militant attack tells me, with some measure of certainty, to which camp they belong.

It's a matter of degree then. Saying "doing work to change pronouns isn't worth it to me" is one thing - you may find the benefits of that too trivial to be worth your time.

Rejecting (multiple times) work that has already been done for you leans much more in the direction of some sort of agenda.

> someone who made a decision to exclude gender-neutral language specifically.

The pull request reviewer made a decision against small commits that don't fix errors in the code.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com