| Message ID | d2c079264955b3bd6c3a5ef77a9c3684206f8475.1623085069.git.gitgitgadget@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Use singular "they" when appropriate | expand |
On Mon, Jun 07 2021, Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget wrote: > From: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com> > [...] > If we use singular "they/them" pronouns instead of "he/him" or "she/her" > pronouns, then we can avoid this congitive load on the reader. > > Using singular "they" is also incredibly efficient. Choosing a gendered > pronoun is usually arbitrary between "he" or "she". Using constructs > such as "he or she", "s/he", or "(s)he" are more complicated than > singular "they". Somewhat humorous & somewhat serious aside: Maybe it's just me, but when I read "incredibly efficient" I was thinking more of an energy drink filled with with nanites that would directly update my brain with the documentation, not the minutia of how we go about wording things :) Continuing; Snipping around a bit in your E-Mail (a sentence copied from "[...]" above: > If the reader does not consider that pronoun to apply to them, > then they can experience cognitive dissonance that removes focus from > the information. [...] > When choosing a gendered pronoun, that pronoun no longer applies to > nearly half of possible readers. Even if we alternated between "he/him" > and "she/her" perfectly evenly, we would still expect male and female > readers to experience an incorrect pronoun half the time. However, some > readers will not prescribe to either of these binary genders. Those > readers hence suffer an incorrect pronoun the entire time. Singular > "they" applies to every reader. I'd expect most people to not actively read technical documentation and try to personally actively ascribe themselves to prose that clearly forms an example of something they may or may not do. If that is how people commonly read documentation and find it off-putting I'd expect gendered language to be the least of our problems, since even with s/\bhe|she\b/they/g so much of what's left is still referring to hypothetical situations most users won't want to find themselves in. Maybe I'm overthinking this, but per the above I'd think if this is a problem with losing the reader that we'd need more structural solutions to it in the common case, e.g. more guarded language that you should not read further if you don't care about XYZ aspect of the technical feature we're about to discuss. > Perhaps due to similar reasons, official style guides have changed their > stance on singuler "they" in recent years. For example, the APA style > guide changed their official recommendation in 2019 [1]. The MLA > handbook also references helpful ways to use singular "they" [2]. While > not fully endorsing it, the Chicago Manual of Style has removed its > blanket ban on singular "they" [3] (the previous recommendation was to > only use "it" as a singular non-gendered pronoun). > > [1] https://apastyle.apa.org/blog/singular-they > [2] https://style.mla.org/using-singular-they/ > [3] https://libraries.indiana.edu/chicago-manual-style-singular-pronoun-they > > While not all styleguides are updating their recommendations, we can > make a choice as a project to adopt the concept because of the > efficiencies above, as well as the benefits of increased inclusion. > > To futher justify singular "they" as an acceptable grammatical concept, > I include the careful research of brian m. carlson who collected their > thoughts on this matter [2] (lightly edited): It seems strange to attempt to summarize the previous discussion in the cover letter and here thoroughly, and make not even a passing mention of the counter-argument I presented to it in [1]; which resulted in most of the replies to that thread, and which the maintainer you're trying to get to apply this patch seemed to agree with. More on that at the end. > If we refer to a specific person, then using a gendered pronoun is > appropriate. Examples within the Git codebase include: > > * References to real people (e.g. Linus Torvalds, "the Git maintainer"). > Do not misgender real people. If there is any doubt to the gender of a > person, then use singular "they". Sure. > * References to fictional people with clear genders (e.g. Alice and > Bob). I don't think using the Alice & Bob examples is necessarily a problem, but while we're discussing writing inclusive technical docs I think their use is probably a bigger problem than the pronoun issue you're presenting here. That's because often using those characters is an overly clever reference to their use in crypto circles, and thus the developer often ends up writing documentation that simply assumes that the fact that "Eve" is the "Eavesdropper" is obvious to the reader. Whenever I read documentation like that I end up Googling it and end up at the "Cast of Characters" section in the relevant Wikipedia page, just to see if I'm missing something. It doesn't make for accessible documentation. I think the use in Documentation/gittutorial.txt that you didn't end up changing is a good example of something that would be better rewritten as "you" and then referring to "bob" as some generic remote repository instead, I haven't seen an overly clever example of Alice/Bob/Eve etc. in git.git's docs, but maybe it's there somewhere. > * Sample text used in test cases (e.g t3702, t6432). It seems strange to exclude arbitrary uses of passages from Beowulf and quoting of Plato in diff/merge tests from a commit that's otherwise arguing that arbitrary uses of "he" or "she" is going to lose the reader. After all we do have a need to refer to the hypothetical user in some manner in the prose of our documentation, but those tests will pass if we rot13 the gendered-pronoun-using relevant text, or otherwise replaced all the input with gibberish following similar whitespace rules. > diff --git a/Documentation/CodingGuidelines b/Documentation/CodingGuidelines > index e3af089ecf26..78cd399f7cf5 100644 > --- a/Documentation/CodingGuidelines > +++ b/Documentation/CodingGuidelines > @@ -648,3 +648,8 @@ Writing Documentation: > inline substituted text+ instead of `monospaced literal text`, and with > the former, the part that should not get substituted must be > quoted/escaped. > + > + When referring to an anonymous user, use singular "they/them" pronouns > + as opposed to choosing between "he/him" and "she/her". [...] I do think most of the changes in patches 1-3 were an obvious improvement and that we could really do with some general extension of preferred prose in the "Writing Documentation" section you're modifying. I think advice about that should really start more generically, this seems like losing the forest for the trees. E.g. do we write things like: --force: You can use this to force the command to do XYZ Or: --force: Skip sanity checks, do XYZ I'd like to think that we'd mostly prefer the latter, and that also nicely sidesteps the issue you're tackling here. I think any such advice would be better off by stating that our usual preference is to describe things in the abstract, continuing to preferring to assume that we're talking directly at the user: You can use use --force to disable the safety. As opposed to needlessly introducing more verbose and possibly gendered prose: Should the user wish to disable the safety features, they can use the --force option. This patch hunk also seems like it would be better worked into the first 3-4 paragraphs of "Writing Documentation" somehow, rather than tacking it at the end. That's where we've started to discuss US v.s. UK English, following existing conventions etc. > [...] Do not use more complicated constructs such as "he or she" or > "s/he".[...] I note that one thing you didn't tackle at all in [1] & downthread is the problem we have that's really not present in the style manuals you're referring to. That is, once we've done with avoiding verbosity per the above & preferring "you" over anything else we're usually left referring to a generic concept of an OS user. Such a thing does not have any gender, and need not be tied to any particular life form. It's usually something authors of manuals of style don't need to consider outside of sci-fi novels. I think we'd do well to prefer imitating how e.g. C library docs usually deal with that over any MOS, which is to just say something like "a user with permission xyz can...." or whatever. It's just weird to think of say a git command run by my sshd or www-data user as a "they", just as I wouldn't use "he" or "she". > [...] This recommendation also applies to code comments and commit > messages. Since you were seeking ACKs in the CL this is overall a NACK from me. For reasons noted in the thread starting at [1] so I won't repeat most of that here; but briefly: I do think extending this to commit messages in particular is over-reaching. Our installed documentation is one thing, but commit messages are much closer to the prose people are personally comfortable with, every hurdle we put to accepting patches, particularly ones that seem arbitrary and without good technical reasons are also something that harms inclusion & project velocity. This whole thing also started in reply to one patch submitted by Lénaïc Huard (a non-native speaker of English), which he promptly re-rolled after this whole pronoun thread started. Grepping around with: git log --grep='\b(he|she)\b' -i origin/master And mentally grepping out changes referring to specific people (just generic examples), I see one change in 2021, then you've got to go back to 2017 to find the next one (I just skimmed this, maybe I missed some), you very quickly get to 2014. I think I'd feel even stronger that we didn't need this in transitory commit message examples even if it were more common, per the argument in [1]. But given how rare it is anyway seeking to enforce a policy on commit messages just seems like an over-reaction to a specific recent contribution. In summary: My "NACK" is mostly on the "and commit messages". Just because *generally* we should be less nitpicky about personal preferred prose there, I'd feel the same way about insisting on US English only or whatever. We should be forgiving in what we accept there. Installed docs are another matter entirely, I'm very much in favor of having some extensions to the existing style guide there. I do think as argued above we should start more generically, and it's not just bikeshedding. As argued above I think we should mostly be recommending different prose entirely, as apposed to now actively recommending "they" (which if you discuss e.g. "a user" mostly won't be needed). 1. https://lore.kernel.org/git/87wnrooa17.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com/
"Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes: > To futher justify singular "they" as an acceptable grammatical concept, > I include the careful research of brian m. carlson who collected their > thoughts on this matter [2] (lightly edited): The use of "their" here I found going overboard, given that (1) it is outside the topic of this change, where you are not referring to a non-specific person, and (2) as Brian's siglines indicate, the preferred pronouns for the particular person you are referring to is "he/him or they/them". > + When referring to an anonymous user, use singular "they/them" pronouns > + as opposed to choosing between "he/him" and "she/her". Do not use more > + complicated constructs such as "he or she" or "s/he". This recommendation > + also applies to code comments and commit messages. Short and sweet.
On 6/7/2021 2:56 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > "Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes: > >> To futher justify singular "they" as an acceptable grammatical concept, >> I include the careful research of brian m. carlson who collected their >> thoughts on this matter [2] (lightly edited): > > The use of "their" here I found going overboard, given that (1) it > is outside the topic of this change, where you are not referring to > a non-specific person, and (2) as Brian's siglines indicate, the > preferred pronouns for the particular person you are referring to is > "he/him or they/them". I'll admit that I was trying to be instructive in my commit message whenever possible, so specifically chose that option among brian's preferred pronouns. If I misinterpreted the purpose of "he/him or they/them" then I will absolutely change this instance. For my part, I did run this message by brian before sending the patch, to be sure that my use of the quote was appropriate. (Also, I'm purposefully lower-casing "brian m. carlson" to match chosen email signatures, but perhaps that is also incorrect?) Thanks, -Stolee
Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget wrote: > From: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com> > > Technical writing seeks to convey information with minimal friction. One > way that a reader can experience friction is if they encounter a > description of "a user" that is later simplified using a gendered > pronoun. If the reader does not consider that pronoun to apply to them, > then they can experience cognitive dissonance that removes focus from > the information. We can solve that easily by using 50% he, and 50% she (I presume you are in the equality of outcome camp in the culture war). By using an invented pronoun we introduce more friction, especially with the people that just learned English, and just familiarized themselves with the standard English pronouns. > If we use singular "they/them" pronouns instead of "he/him" or "she/her" > pronouns, then we can avoid this congitive load on the reader. I do not consider the singular pronoun "they" to apply to me. I presume others are on the same boat. Do I not count? If so, why? > Using singular "they" is also incredibly efficient. Choosing a gendered > pronoun is usually arbitrary between "he" or "she". Using constructs > such as "he or she", "s/he", or "(s)he" are more complicated than > singular "they". But it's not part of standard English language. Of all the turf wars that have complicated the landscape of grammar over the past few hundred years, the most complicated and frustrating may be that of the singular they. It may be the most controversial word use in the English language—because it highlights a hole where a better-fitting word should go. It creates a conflict between writers and editors who want things to follow the natural symmetry of Latin, and people who find they the only logical option for referring to a single person without a gender attached. And there has been a lot written about it—it’s something of a hot topic this year, thanks to a vote by the American Dialect Society to name they its word of the year for 2015. Alas, this problem isn’t as easy to solve as a vote from a dialect society. The problem is something of an emotional one—and it’s sparked debate for centuries. Really, if this problem is ever to go away, it’s going to be up to professional copy editors to speak up. And at least some of them appear to have made peace with the change. https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/the-linguistic-turf-wars-over-the-singular-they This is a problem for linguists, copy editors, and society in general. Not a software project. By introducing rules that presume an outcome fiercly debated *at this very moment* you are introducing more friction. > When choosing a gendered pronoun, that pronoun no longer applies to > nearly half of possible readers. Even if we alternated between "he/him" > and "she/her" perfectly evenly, we would still expect male and female > readers to experience an incorrect pronoun half the time. However, some > readers will not prescribe to either of these binary genders. Those > readers hence suffer an incorrect pronoun the entire time. Singular > "they" applies to every reader. This is a problem of the English language, not Git's documentation. > Perhaps due to similar reasons, official style guides have changed their > stance on singuler "they" in recent years. For example, the APA style > guide changed their official recommendation in 2019 [1]. The MLA > handbook also references helpful ways to use singular "they" [2]. While > not fully endorsing it, the Chicago Manual of Style has removed its > blanket ban on singular "they" [3] (the previous recommendation was to > only use "it" as a singular non-gendered pronoun). This would be a killer argument if language was prescriptive, but it's not. At least half of linguists (probably way more) are on the descriptivist side. Most writers ignore style guides and write in the way they see others write. Not how anyone prescribes. > While not all styleguides are updating their recommendations, we can > make a choice as a project to adopt the concept because of the > efficiencies above, as well as the benefits of increased inclusion. > > To futher justify singular "they" as an acceptable grammatical concept, > I include the careful research of brian m. carlson who collected their > thoughts on this matter [2] (lightly edited): > > Singular "they" has been used by native English speakers as part of > the language for over half a millennium and is widely used and > understood. This usage is specified in Merriam Webster[3]: Again, I already responded to this argument: A similar thing happens with the word "nucular" [2]; it is used by native English speakers as part of the language for many decades and is widely used and understood. Does that mean it's a valid word? Maybe. But does that make "nuclear" invalid? No. You can use "nucular" if you want (many people do). I will use "nuclear". Both can be valid, and we shouldn't demand the use of one over the other. > Linguists fit roughly into two camps: prescriptive and descriptive. > The former specify rules for people to use, and the latter document > language as it is actually used without forming a judgment. > > Some prescriptivists think it is acceptable, and some do not. But > descriptivists will rightly note that it is and has been commonly > used in English across countries, cultures, and contexts for an > extended period of time and is therefore generally accepted by most > English speakers as a normal part of the language. Since we are > writing text for an English language audience who are mostly not > linguists, we should probably consider using the language that most > people will use in this context. This is an argument against your proposal: 1. It dismantles the need to heed style guides 2. If it was true, we would already see wideslread use of the singular "they" in the documentation (and we don't) 3. If we follow the descriptivist approach, the we should let the writers of the documentation follow what they think is best, not *prescrive* what prononoun they shall use And even if this was an argument in favor of "they", you still need to provide an argument against "she", or "he. > If we refer to a specific person, then using a gendered pronoun is > appropriate. Examples within the Git codebase include: > > * References to real people (e.g. Linus Torvalds, "the Git maintainer"). > Do not misgender real people. If there is any doubt to the gender of a > person, then use singular "they". > > * References to fictional people with clear genders (e.g. Alice and > Bob). > > * Sample text used in test cases (e.g t3702, t6432). > > * The official text of the GPL license contains uses of "he or she", but > modifying the license this way is not within the scope of the Git > project. This is linguistic prescription [3]: Linguistic prescription, or prescriptive grammar, is the attempt to establish rules defining preferred or correct usage of language. You can't eat your cake and have it too. Cheers. [1] https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/the-linguistic-turf-wars-over-the-singular-they [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucular [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_prescription
On Mon, Jun 07, 2021 at 04:57:48PM +0000, Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget wrote: > From: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com> > > Technical writing seeks to convey information with minimal friction. One > way that a reader can experience friction is if they encounter a > description of "a user" that is later simplified using a gendered > pronoun. If the reader does not consider that pronoun to apply to them, > then they can experience cognitive dissonance that removes focus from > the information. > > If we use singular "they/them" pronouns instead of "he/him" or "she/her" > pronouns, then we can avoid this congitive load on the reader. That is funny, because I experience cognitive dissonance exactly when people use singular plural-pronouns. ("What? Did I read right? Is it a group? Or a company?" [seek back to verify, or explicitly ignore the hiccup]) On the other hand I strongly doubt that such a cognitive dissonance happens when people come across a wrong gender. When documentation speaks of "the user" -- *any* user -- then it does not in any way conflict that that "any user" might be female. And I'm not just theorizing, as I /did/ have the following experience (anecdote): One time I was presented a document which I was supposed to read and sign. I read through the whole document all fine and only at the very end I noticed that the whole document is consistently written in the female form (and that was in German, there is no distinct neutral "the"). I made a joke about it asking where the document version for males is, to which he responded: "Now you know how it feels being female". Which -- and I want to stress this -- I found deeply insulting. "He or she" is problematic in its own way, but you already propose against it. As one of the users whose happiness is being discussed here, I can only ask not to change from singular to plural pronouns. If you must, pick "she", I don't mind. Or "it", or "person", whatever, as long as it matches the cardinality of "the user". > Using singular "they" is also incredibly efficient. Choosing a gendered > pronoun is usually arbitrary between "he" or "she". Using constructs > such as "he or she", "s/he", or "(s)he" are more complicated than > singular "they". > > When choosing a gendered pronoun, that pronoun no longer applies to > nearly half of possible readers. Even if we alternated between "he/him" > and "she/her" perfectly evenly, we would still expect male and female > readers to experience an incorrect pronoun half the time. However, some > readers will not prescribe to either of these binary genders. Those > readers hence suffer an incorrect pronoun the entire time. Singular > "they" applies to every reader. The 'singular "they"' does not apply to every reader and might not even apply to most readers. It might be natural for native speakers to know that "they" is "1 or more people", but that is not what foreigners are taught what "they" means. In my entire curriculum at school I have not once been taught that "they" can mean "one person". Therefore, whenever I see it used that way, I cannot help but stumble. Every time. Not to mention that the documentation does not talk about "the reader" but "the user". Yes, had the documentation talked about me specifically, the reader, and I suddenly had to assume another gender, I might ask myself what's going on. But it never crossed my mind to assume the identity of an unspecified, indeterminate "the user". Thank you, Robert Karszniewicz
Robert Karszniewicz wrote: > On Mon, Jun 07, 2021 at 04:57:48PM +0000, Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget wrote: > > From: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com> > > > > Technical writing seeks to convey information with minimal friction. One > > way that a reader can experience friction is if they encounter a > > description of "a user" that is later simplified using a gendered > > pronoun. If the reader does not consider that pronoun to apply to them, > > then they can experience cognitive dissonance that removes focus from > > the information. > > > > If we use singular "they/them" pronouns instead of "he/him" or "she/her" > > pronouns, then we can avoid this congitive load on the reader. > > That is funny, because I experience cognitive dissonance exactly when > people use singular plural-pronouns. ("What? Did I read right? Is it a > group? Or a company?" [seek back to verify, or explicitly ignore the > hiccup]) Same here. > On the other hand I strongly doubt that such a cognitive dissonance > happens when people come across a wrong gender. When documentation > speaks of "the user" -- *any* user -- then it does not in any way > conflict that that "any user" might be female. Same here. If it is stated that a female reviewer shall do X, I don't see for the life of me why it wouldn't apply to me too. > > Using singular "they" is also incredibly efficient. Choosing a gendered > > pronoun is usually arbitrary between "he" or "she". Using constructs > > such as "he or she", "s/he", or "(s)he" are more complicated than > > singular "they". > > > > When choosing a gendered pronoun, that pronoun no longer applies to > > nearly half of possible readers. Even if we alternated between "he/him" > > and "she/her" perfectly evenly, we would still expect male and female > > readers to experience an incorrect pronoun half the time. However, some > > readers will not prescribe to either of these binary genders. Those > > readers hence suffer an incorrect pronoun the entire time. Singular > > "they" applies to every reader. > > The 'singular "they"' does not apply to every reader and might not even > apply to most readers. It might be natural for native speakers to know > that "they" is "1 or more people", but that is not what foreigners are > taught what "they" means. That's not even true for native speakers either. There's a difference between singular "they" with semantically plural antecedents, and semantically singular antecedents. For example: Everyone returned to their seats I don't see any problem with that sentence, and it's singular "they" (with semantically plural antecedents). When linguists say singular "they" has been used four centuries, they refer to the usage above. But with semantically singular antecedents it's different: We thank the reviewer for their comments Many native speaker linguist experts see a problem with that sentence (and so do I). Cheers.
Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com> writes: > I'll admit that I was trying to be instructive in my commit message > whenever possible, so specifically chose that option among brian's > preferred pronouns. If I misinterpreted the purpose of "he/him or > they/them" then I will absolutely change this instance. > > For my part, I did run this message by brian before sending the patch, > to be sure that my use of the quote was appropriate. (Also, I'm > purposefully lower-casing "brian m. carlson" to match chosen email > signatures, but perhaps that is also incorrect?) I upcased out of habit, even I know his preference is all lowercase, purely by mistake. This is talking about a particular person and using the name that particular person wants to be called with, so honoring that wish is good regardless of how an unspecified person should be referred to as, and I should have double checked.
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > On Mon, Jun 07 2021, Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget wrote: > > If the reader does not consider that pronoun to apply to them, > > then they can experience cognitive dissonance that removes focus from > > the information. [...] > > When choosing a gendered pronoun, that pronoun no longer applies to > > nearly half of possible readers. Even if we alternated between "he/him" > > and "she/her" perfectly evenly, we would still expect male and female > > readers to experience an incorrect pronoun half the time. However, some > > readers will not prescribe to either of these binary genders. Those > > readers hence suffer an incorrect pronoun the entire time. Singular > > "they" applies to every reader. > > I'd expect most people to not actively read technical documentation and > try to personally actively ascribe themselves to prose that clearly > forms an example of something they may or may not do. > > If that is how people commonly read documentation and find it > off-putting I'd expect gendered language to be the least of our > problems, since even with s/\bhe|she\b/they/g so much of what's left is > still referring to hypothetical situations most users won't want to find > themselves in. > > Maybe I'm overthinking this, but per the above I'd think if this is a > problem with losing the reader that we'd need more structural solutions > to it in the common case, e.g. more guarded language that you should not > read further if you don't care about XYZ aspect of the technical feature > we're about to discuss. Personally I have no trouble at all reading instructions mentioning a female user and see how they apply to me just the same. Using a singular "they" for semantically singular antecedents does sound totally broken to me, and that does distract me from what the documentation is supposedly trying to transmit. I have trouble parsing the documentation as it is--which does feel to be in a very detached and unpersonal style. Changes like s/s?he/they/ only make the situation worse. I would rather have the documentation speak to me more like a person, and less like a previous-generation AI. Cheers.
On Mon, Jun 07, 2021 at 04:57:48PM +0000, Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget wrote: > If we use singular "they/them" pronouns instead of "he/him" or "she/her" > pronouns, then we can avoid this congitive load on the reader. > > Using singular "they" is also incredibly efficient. Choosing a gendered > pronoun is usually arbitrary between "he" or "she". Using constructs > such as "he or she", "s/he", or "(s)he" are more complicated than > singular "they". In general, I do like the efficiency and readability of singular "they". As a native speaker, I have no problem reading it, and I have little sense that most of my native-speaker acquaintances would, either. I _do_ worry that it would be jarring or difficult to read for non-native speakers (or perhaps native speakers who aren't in my circle of acquaintances). There have been a few comments to that effect on the list, but it's hard to consider that data and not anecdotes. One thing that gives me some comfort is your research here: > Perhaps due to similar reasons, official style guides have changed their > stance on singuler "they" in recent years. For example, the APA style > guide changed their official recommendation in 2019 [1]. The MLA > handbook also references helpful ways to use singular "they" [2]. While > not fully endorsing it, the Chicago Manual of Style has removed its > blanket ban on singular "they" [3] (the previous recommendation was to > only use "it" as a singular non-gendered pronoun). > > [1] https://apastyle.apa.org/blog/singular-they > [2] https://style.mla.org/using-singular-they/ > [3] https://libraries.indiana.edu/chicago-manual-style-singular-pronoun-they I don't know to what degree those style guidelines take into account non-native speakers. But they at least provide a sense that this style is in wide-ish use. And probably growing use, as well, considering that they have changed recently. So even if it may be surprising to some readers at first, I hope it may become less so as time goes on and projects (like ours) make it more commonplace. (You could perhaps argue the same "it may become less surprising over time" for something like "xe", but that one does not seem to be in particularly wide or growing use, from my experience). So I think this is a reasonable style suggestion to put in our guidelines. -Peff
Jeff King wrote: > On Mon, Jun 07, 2021 at 04:57:48PM +0000, Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget wrote: > > > If we use singular "they/them" pronouns instead of "he/him" or "she/her" > > pronouns, then we can avoid this congitive load on the reader. > > > > Using singular "they" is also incredibly efficient. Choosing a gendered > > pronoun is usually arbitrary between "he" or "she". Using constructs > > such as "he or she", "s/he", or "(s)he" are more complicated than > > singular "they". > > In general, I do like the efficiency and readability of singular "they". > As a native speaker, I have no problem reading it, and I have little > sense that most of my native-speaker acquaintances would, either. Does this sound correct to you? We thank the reviewer for their helpful comments > One thing that gives me some comfort is your research here: You should look into a carefully crafted usage note written by a panel of linguists and writers. https://ahdictionary.tumblr.com/post/147597257733/updated-usage-note-they Not a blog post written by a psychologist for an association actively criticized by many scolars (Twelve Scholars Respond to the APA’s Guidance for Treating Men and Boys). https://quillette.com/2019/02/04/psychologists-respond-to-the-apas-guidance-for-treating-men-and-boys/
On Mon, Jun 07, 2021 at 04:57:48PM +0000, Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget wrote: > > > Technical writing seeks to convey information with minimal friction. One > way that a reader can experience friction is if they encounter a > description of "a user" that is later simplified using a gendered > pronoun. If the reader does not consider that pronoun to apply to them, > then they can experience cognitive dissonance that removes focus from > the information. > > If we use singular "they/them" pronouns instead of "he/him" or "she/her" > pronouns, then we can avoid this congitive load on the reader. > > Using singular "they" is also incredibly efficient. Choosing a gendered > pronoun is usually arbitrary between "he" or "she". Using constructs > such as "he or she", "s/he", or "(s)he" are more complicated than > singular "they". > > When choosing a gendered pronoun, that pronoun no longer applies to > nearly half of possible readers. Even if we alternated between "he/him" > and "she/her" perfectly evenly, we would still expect male and female > readers to experience an incorrect pronoun half the time. However, some > readers will not prescribe to either of these binary genders. Those > readers hence suffer an incorrect pronoun the entire time. Singular > "they" applies to every reader. > > Perhaps due to similar reasons, official style guides have changed their > stance on singuler "they" in recent years. For example, the APA style > guide changed their official recommendation in 2019 [1]. The MLA > handbook also references helpful ways to use singular "they" [2]. While > not fully endorsing it, the Chicago Manual of Style has removed its > blanket ban on singular "they" [3] (the previous recommendation was to > only use "it" as a singular non-gendered pronoun). > > [1] https://apastyle.apa.org/blog/singular-they > [2] https://style.mla.org/using-singular-they/ > [3] https://libraries.indiana.edu/chicago-manual-style-singular-pronoun-they > > While not all styleguides are updating their recommendations, we can > make a choice as a project to adopt the concept because of the > efficiencies above, as well as the benefits of increased inclusion. > > To futher justify singular "they" as an acceptable grammatical concept, > I include the careful research of brian m. carlson who collected their > thoughts on this matter [2] (lightly edited): > > Singular "they" has been used by native English speakers as part of > the language for over half a millennium and is widely used and > understood. This usage is specified in Merriam Webster[3]: > > The use of they, their, them, and themselves as pronouns of > indefinite gender and indefinite number is well established in > speech and writing, even in literary and formal contexts. > > Wiktionary notes[4] (references omitted): > > Usage of they as a singular pronoun began in the 1300s and has been > common ever since, despite attempts by some grammarians, beginning > in 1795, to condemn it as a violation of traditional (Latinate) > agreement rules. Some other grammarians have countered that criticism > since at least 1896. Fowler's Modern English Usage (third edition) > notes that it "is being left unaltered by copy editors" and is "not > widely felt to lie in a prohibited zone." Some authors compare use of > singular they to widespread use of singular you instead of thou. > > Linguists fit roughly into two camps: prescriptive and descriptive. > The former specify rules for people to use, and the latter document > language as it is actually used without forming a judgment. > > Some prescriptivists think it is acceptable, and some do not. But > descriptivists will rightly note that it is and has been commonly > used in English across countries, cultures, and contexts for an > extended period of time and is therefore generally accepted by most > English speakers as a normal part of the language. Since we are > writing text for an English language audience who are mostly not > linguists, we should probably consider using the language that most > people will use in this context. > > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/git/YKrk4dEjEm6+48ji@camp.crustytoothpaste.net/ > [3] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/they > [4] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/they > > If we refer to a specific person, then using a gendered pronoun is > appropriate. Examples within the Git codebase include: > > * References to real people (e.g. Linus Torvalds, "the Git maintainer"). > Do not misgender real people. If there is any doubt to the gender of a > person, then use singular "they". > > * References to fictional people with clear genders (e.g. Alice and > Bob). > > * Sample text used in test cases (e.g t3702, t6432). > > * The official text of the GPL license contains uses of "he or she", but > modifying the license this way is not within the scope of the Git > project. > > Other cases within the Git project were cleaned up by the previous > changes. > > Signed-off-by: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com> Well said. Acked-by: Emily Shaffer <emilyshaffer@google.com> > --- > Documentation/CodingGuidelines | 5 +++++ > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/Documentation/CodingGuidelines b/Documentation/CodingGuidelines > index e3af089ecf26..78cd399f7cf5 100644 > --- a/Documentation/CodingGuidelines > +++ b/Documentation/CodingGuidelines > @@ -648,3 +648,8 @@ Writing Documentation: > inline substituted text+ instead of `monospaced literal text`, and with > the former, the part that should not get substituted must be > quoted/escaped. > + > + When referring to an anonymous user, use singular "they/them" pronouns > + as opposed to choosing between "he/him" and "she/her". Do not use more > + complicated constructs such as "he or she" or "s/he". This recommendation > + also applies to code comments and commit messages. > -- > gitgitgadget
Emily Shaffer <emilyshaffer@google.com> writes: > On Mon, Jun 07, 2021 at 04:57:48PM +0000, Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget wrote: >> If we refer to a specific person, then using a gendered pronoun is >> appropriate. Examples within the Git codebase include: >> >> * References to real people (e.g. Linus Torvalds, "the Git maintainer"). >> Do not misgender real people. If there is any doubt to the gender of a >> person, then use singular "they". >> >> * References to fictional people with clear genders (e.g. Alice and >> Bob). >> >> * Sample text used in test cases (e.g t3702, t6432). >> >> * The official text of the GPL license contains uses of "he or she", but >> modifying the license this way is not within the scope of the Git >> project. >> >> Other cases within the Git project were cleaned up by the previous >> changes. >> >> Signed-off-by: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com> > > Well said. > Acked-by: Emily Shaffer <emilyshaffer@google.com> > >> --- >> Documentation/CodingGuidelines | 5 +++++ >> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/Documentation/CodingGuidelines b/Documentation/CodingGuidelines >> index e3af089ecf26..78cd399f7cf5 100644 >> --- a/Documentation/CodingGuidelines >> +++ b/Documentation/CodingGuidelines >> @@ -648,3 +648,8 @@ Writing Documentation: >> inline substituted text+ instead of `monospaced literal text`, and with >> the former, the part that should not get substituted must be >> quoted/escaped. >> + >> + When referring to an anonymous user, use singular "they/them" pronouns >> + as opposed to choosing between "he/him" and "she/her". Do not use more >> + complicated constructs such as "he or she" or "s/he". This recommendation >> + also applies to code comments and commit messages. I am not sure if this "here is the rule and you will follow it" is helpful without hinting what the rule is trying to achieve. It is more so that the four-bullet-point list in the proposed log message that says when not to blindly apply the singular they rule will not be seen by intended readers---we who are reviewing this change in the patch form may understand and embrace it, but the readers have less than we have to go with. Perhaps start the whole paragraph a bit differently, like this? Refer to an anonymous user in a gender neutral way. Use singular "they/them" pronouns as opposed to ... The added single phase will be a sufficient clue to readers that this is about inclusion, and will tell readers that singular they is not a hard and fast rule but one of the suggested ways to achieve that goal. To be even clearer, we may probably want to add "One way to do so is to" before the second sentence.
On 6/8/2021 4:11 AM, Felipe Contreras wrote: > Jeff King wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 07, 2021 at 04:57:48PM +0000, Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget wrote: >> >>> If we use singular "they/them" pronouns instead of "he/him" or "she/her" >>> pronouns, then we can avoid this congitive load on the reader. >>> >>> Using singular "they" is also incredibly efficient. Choosing a gendered >>> pronoun is usually arbitrary between "he" or "she". Using constructs >>> such as "he or she", "s/he", or "(s)he" are more complicated than >>> singular "they". >> >> In general, I do like the efficiency and readability of singular "they". >> As a native speaker, I have no problem reading it, and I have little >> sense that most of my native-speaker acquaintances would, either. > > Does this sound correct to you? > > We thank the reviewer for their helpful comments In the case of an anonymous reviewer (such as a single-blind review of an academic paper), then this is exactly how one should acknowledge a single reviewer. If we know the identity of the reviewer, then we should use their preferred pronouns to the best of our ability. Thanks, -Stolee
On 6/9/2021 12:44 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Emily Shaffer <emilyshaffer@google.com> writes: > >> On Mon, Jun 07, 2021 at 04:57:48PM +0000, Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget wrote: ... >>> + >>> + When referring to an anonymous user, use singular "they/them" pronouns >>> + as opposed to choosing between "he/him" and "she/her". Do not use more >>> + complicated constructs such as "he or she" or "s/he". This recommendation >>> + also applies to code comments and commit messages. > > I am not sure if this "here is the rule and you will follow it" is > helpful without hinting what the rule is trying to achieve. It is > more so that the four-bullet-point list in the proposed log message > that says when not to blindly apply the singular they rule will not > be seen by intended readers---we who are reviewing this change in > the patch form may understand and embrace it, but the readers have > less than we have to go with. I went to far trying to be brief in CodingGuidelines in favor of a long commit message (that can be blamed). But you're right. "Start with why" is a good strategy. > Perhaps start the whole paragraph a bit differently, like this? > > Refer to an anonymous user in a gender neutral way. Use > singular "they/them" pronouns as opposed to ... > > The added single phase will be a sufficient clue to readers that > this is about inclusion, and will tell readers that singular they is > not a hard and fast rule but one of the suggested ways to achieve > that goal. To be even clearer, we may probably want to add "One way > to do so is to" before the second sentence. That's a good idea. The other thing I have added is to recommend changing the sentence to use different nouns so that singular "you" or plural "they" are appropriate. Thanks, -Stolee
Derrick Stolee wrote: > On 6/8/2021 4:11 AM, Felipe Contreras wrote: > > Jeff King wrote: > >> On Mon, Jun 07, 2021 at 04:57:48PM +0000, Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget wrote: > >> > >>> If we use singular "they/them" pronouns instead of "he/him" or "she/her" > >>> pronouns, then we can avoid this congitive load on the reader. > >>> > >>> Using singular "they" is also incredibly efficient. Choosing a gendered > >>> pronoun is usually arbitrary between "he" or "she". Using constructs > >>> such as "he or she", "s/he", or "(s)he" are more complicated than > >>> singular "they". > >> > >> In general, I do like the efficiency and readability of singular "they". > >> As a native speaker, I have no problem reading it, and I have little > >> sense that most of my native-speaker acquaintances would, either. > > > > Does this sound correct to you? > > > > We thank the reviewer for their helpful comments > > In the case of an anonymous reviewer (such as a single-blind review of > an academic paper), then this is exactly how one should acknowledge a > single reviewer. That was not the question.
Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes: > Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget wrote: >> From: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com> >> >> Technical writing seeks to convey information with minimal friction. One >> way that a reader can experience friction is if they encounter a >> description of "a user" that is later simplified using a gendered >> pronoun. If the reader does not consider that pronoun to apply to them, >> then they can experience cognitive dissonance that removes focus from >> the information. Why should the pronoun apply to the reader? If the documentation wants to refer to the reader, it should use "you". If it's using "he" then it's referring to someone else previously mentioned in the documentation, not to me. Just because I am male does not mean I suffer from confusion when I read documentation like: "Alice wants to communicate with others securely. She can do that by using gpg." > But it's not part of standard English language. <snip> > You can use "nucular" if you want (many people do). I will use > "nuclear". You can use "nucular", but you will look stupid. > Both can be valid, and we shouldn't demand the use of one over the > other. Sure we can; one is not valid. You also may not "axe" me a question, or drink an "expresso". Also you argued against using they because it is not standard English, but then argued that it is fine to use non standard English.
Phillip Susi wrote: > Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes: > > > Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget wrote: > >> From: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com> > >> > >> Technical writing seeks to convey information with minimal friction. One > >> way that a reader can experience friction is if they encounter a > >> description of "a user" that is later simplified using a gendered > >> pronoun. If the reader does not consider that pronoun to apply to them, > >> then they can experience cognitive dissonance that removes focus from > >> the information. > > Why should the pronoun apply to the reader? If the documentation wants > to refer to the reader, it should use "you". If it's using "he" then > it's referring to someone else previously mentioned in the > documentation, not to me. Indeed, and the patches don't apply exclusively to the reader. Here [1] the relevant person is somebody else who rebased a branch. It is unclear what kind of "cognitive dissonance" would a reader experience when she reads that that somebody happens to be a she. > > You can use "nucular" if you want (many people do). I will use > > "nuclear". > > You can use "nucular", but you will look stupid. I do think so, but that doesn't stop people from using it. Such is the nature of language. > > Both can be valid, and we shouldn't demand the use of one over the > > other. > > Sure we can; one is not valid. You also may not "axe" me a question, or > drink an "expresso". According to some dictionaries "nucular" is valid [2]. Plus, I don't think "valid" is the right word. Some people have a descpritive view of language, and in that view all words are valid, or rather: no word is invalid. What makes words land in a dictionary is simply how much people use them. The word "cute" used to mean "clever" [3], and it was "invalid" to use it as we use it today. But people didn't care, and the meaning of the word was forced to change. Dictioaries simply recorded the will of the people. > Also you argued against using they because it is not standard English, > but then argued that it is fine to use non standard English. I didn't argue either of those things. Yes, I did argue that "single they" isn't part of standard English (with a semantically singular antecedent), that doesn't necessary mean we shouldn't use it. And I did argue "nucular" is part of standard English (many people use it), that doesn't mean we should use it. Basically whether or not a word is part of "standard English" is orthogonal to the fact that we should use it. In my view. Let me be clear on what I do argue: we shouldn't ban perfectly standard words such as "she" and "he". Cheers. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/git/fb7a7573782ae8ba3bc5341d6aaee704af88fdcf.1623246878.git.gitgitgadget@gmail.com/ [2] https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/nucular [3] https://slate.com/human-interest/2015/02/cute-etymology-and-history-from-sharp-keen-or-shrewd-to-charming-and-attractive.html
Hi Junio, On Tue, 8 Jun 2021, Junio C Hamano wrote: > "Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes: > > > To futher justify singular "they" as an acceptable grammatical concept, > > I include the careful research of brian m. carlson who collected their > > thoughts on this matter [2] (lightly edited): > > The use of "their" here I found going overboard, given that (1) it > is outside the topic of this change, where you are not referring to > a non-specific person, and (2) as Brian's siglines indicate, the > preferred pronouns for the particular person you are referring to is > "he/him or they/them". For your record, while I sometimes mention that I use "he/him" to refer to myself, I promise I will never be offended if you refer to me via "they/them". ;-) Ciao, Dscho
On 2021-06-07 at 19:05:19, Derrick Stolee wrote: > On 6/7/2021 2:56 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > "Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes: > > > >> To futher justify singular "they" as an acceptable grammatical concept, > >> I include the careful research of brian m. carlson who collected their > >> thoughts on this matter [2] (lightly edited): > > > > The use of "their" here I found going overboard, given that (1) it > > is outside the topic of this change, where you are not referring to > > a non-specific person, and (2) as Brian's siglines indicate, the > > preferred pronouns for the particular person you are referring to is > > "he/him or they/them". > > I'll admit that I was trying to be instructive in my commit message > whenever possible, so specifically chose that option among brian's > preferred pronouns. If I misinterpreted the purpose of "he/him or > they/them" then I will absolutely change this instance. The intended meaning is that either is fine, whichever the speaker prefers. Most people do use he/him for me, probably because most people are more comfortable doing that, but either option is equally acceptable. > For my part, I did run this message by brian before sending the patch, > to be sure that my use of the quote was appropriate. (Also, I'm > purposefully lower-casing "brian m. carlson" to match chosen email > signatures, but perhaps that is also incorrect?) Also correct. I typically lowercase my name, and I prefer it that way. For legal purposes, at least in the locales which are relevant to me, case is not considered important, and most legal documents scream my name in uppercase. But when I have an option, I prefer lowercase when that's possible.
On 2021-06-08 at 07:10:36, Jeff King wrote: > On Mon, Jun 07, 2021 at 04:57:48PM +0000, Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget wrote: > > > If we use singular "they/them" pronouns instead of "he/him" or "she/her" > > pronouns, then we can avoid this congitive load on the reader. > > > > Using singular "they" is also incredibly efficient. Choosing a gendered > > pronoun is usually arbitrary between "he" or "she". Using constructs > > such as "he or she", "s/he", or "(s)he" are more complicated than > > singular "they". > > In general, I do like the efficiency and readability of singular "they". > As a native speaker, I have no problem reading it, and I have little > sense that most of my native-speaker acquaintances would, either. I agree. I'm very much in favor of singular "they". > I _do_ worry that it would be jarring or difficult to read for > non-native speakers (or perhaps native speakers who aren't in my circle > of acquaintances). There have been a few comments to that effect on the > list, but it's hard to consider that data and not anecdotes. I have heard these arguments, and as a someone who speaks two other languages, I'm sympathetic to the argument that this is a little tricky. For me, personally, I liken it to the French "on" (one), which can be used in many, but not all, places that "nous" (we) is used, to reflect the first-person plural, but with some slightly different shades of meaning. This is a tricky part of the language and it's a hard one to get right, but it's also extremely commonly used, so it's nearly obligatory to be comfortable with it in order to be reasonably conversant in French. Similarly, singular "they" is extremely common in informal written English (e.g., texts and tweets) and nearly ubiquitous in spoken English, where people use it routinely without thinking[0]. So while I am in favor of making things easier for non-native speakers, this is so common in actual usage that it's practically unavoidable and it's a feature of the language that almost every speaker will be exposed to and they will need to be comfortable with it to function effectively. Given this context, I'm comfortable with adopting this change. > One thing that gives me some comfort is your research here: > > > Perhaps due to similar reasons, official style guides have changed their > > stance on singuler "they" in recent years. For example, the APA style > > guide changed their official recommendation in 2019 [1]. The MLA > > handbook also references helpful ways to use singular "they" [2]. While > > not fully endorsing it, the Chicago Manual of Style has removed its > > blanket ban on singular "they" [3] (the previous recommendation was to > > only use "it" as a singular non-gendered pronoun). > > > > [1] https://apastyle.apa.org/blog/singular-they > > [2] https://style.mla.org/using-singular-they/ > > [3] https://libraries.indiana.edu/chicago-manual-style-singular-pronoun-they > > I don't know to what degree those style guidelines take into account > non-native speakers. But they at least provide a sense that this style > is in wide-ish use. And probably growing use, as well, considering that > they have changed recently. So even if it may be surprising to some > readers at first, I hope it may become less so as time goes on and > projects (like ours) make it more commonplace. I agree that this is becoming more common, not less, and that it is gaining acceptance by many authorities. > So I think this is a reasonable style suggestion to put in our > guidelines. I agree with this as well. [0] I have noticed this to be true of non-native but fluent colleagues, for example.
brian m. carlson wrote: > Similarly, singular "they" is extremely common in informal written > English (e.g., texts and tweets) and nearly ubiquitous in spoken > English, where people use it routinely without thinking[0]. Singular "they" with semantic plural antecedents, yes, singular "they" with semantic singular antecedents, no. That's like saying we should all eat mushrooms because they have many beneficial properties, which is true... but not *all* mushrooms.
diff --git a/Documentation/CodingGuidelines b/Documentation/CodingGuidelines index e3af089ecf26..78cd399f7cf5 100644 --- a/Documentation/CodingGuidelines +++ b/Documentation/CodingGuidelines @@ -648,3 +648,8 @@ Writing Documentation: inline substituted text+ instead of `monospaced literal text`, and with the former, the part that should not get substituted must be quoted/escaped. + + When referring to an anonymous user, use singular "they/them" pronouns + as opposed to choosing between "he/him" and "she/her". Do not use more + complicated constructs such as "he or she" or "s/he". This recommendation + also applies to code comments and commit messages.