Talk:Gender-inclusive language/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 28 April 2023. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Russian topic

да, у каждого свое мнение. хотя предыдущий коммент полностью охарактеризовал то, что многие из нас хотели бы видеть в инете. ^{— Unsigned, by: 91.205.173.2 / talk / contribs}

Yes, every opinion. Although previous Comment is fully described what many of us would like to see in inete. - For those too lazy to translate themselves. ^sshole 10:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Move Article

I really think this article should be moved to 'Gender-inclusive language', or 'Gender-neutral pronouns', or something similar, because gender is its only focus. ^{— Unsigned, by: An American Nihilist / talk / contribs} Requesting thread archival (why?) Plutocow (talk)

"by what standard 'the best'"?

Easy to understand, intuitive, makes sense. I can't think of a better set of gender-neutral pronouns than than the 'X' ones. And I think it's pretty indisputable that these pronouns are a better solution than other methods -- it's just a matter of getting used to them. Fallacy (talk) 04:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

That's your view, and you have a right to it, but it should not be "the" RW view, unless others agree. I personally like "they" frankly, but that doesn't make me more right. GodotI smell roasted chestnuts. droollllllll. 04:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I also happen to like "they." I won't argue that it should be enshrined in the article as the "best," but I do feel it merits a mention. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 05:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Spivak also deserves a shout-out, I think. Blue (is useful) 05:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem is fictional to start with. The solution is artificious, contrary to the principle of economy and an example of nefarious "regulation by exception". Good luck having speakers accepting such unnecessary burden.2001:985:C551:1:3865:FF2F:F725:42D9 (talk) 17:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Good luck getting a response from any of the people in this years-old thread you have just necro'd. --Yay for me, 🎄RightyBlueLuigi!🎄^{(Not a Mod)} 19:58, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

He/She

I'm not a massive fan of he/she, but this sentence is pushing the limits of my (generally pretty broad) tolerance to inclusive language

"A flaw of the "he/she" formation is the assumption that a person must be either one or the other, and hence this language excludes those who does not conform to the traditional gender binary (such as those who choose not to identify with a gender)."

Do we really want to discourage use of that system because it may offend a tiny amount of the population? I doubt it would even really be offensive in any case, unless someone was looking to be offended. Is there at least a source to back up the proposition that transgendered people are offended by its usage? --Damo^Hi 23:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm unaware of anyone taking offence for the reasons described. That said, anything which breaks down a dichotomous view of gender is a good thing, as far as I'm concerned. The relatively small size of the trans population is irrelevant, especially given that they are subject to abuse and discrimination on a pretty intense scale, and to stop that, some basic transformations in how we understand gender need to happen. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 00:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

From what i understand it's already pretty widespread, especially in formal writing. It's a convention with its own common usage and set of rules that would likely continue to be used even if a neologism got popular; i doubt that pointing out it's not a perfect solution in a world where the boundaries of gender are probably going to keep loosening will harm the overall movement. Besides, it has other problems, as i just added. Nihilist 00:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I take offence to "s/he" on stylistic grounds. ^{d hominem} 00:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

(EC) I don't know if I totally buy that the small size is irrelevant, but leaving that to one side, I'm not sure that he/she implies that one has to be one or the other. I would just like to see some evidence somewhere of a group of people objecting to it on this ground. Just looking around at some google searches on the subject [1] [2] [3] [4] it isn't mentioned anywhere as being an issue. If it really were an issue worth mentioning, RW wouldn't be the only ones to bring it up. I want a cite for it, otherwise I am going to insist its inclusion be reconsidered. Damo^Hi 00:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem removing it if offence cannot be documanted. But I still like the idea of tearing down the gender dichotomy in daily usage. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 00:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

It pretty-clearly implies one or the other. As for the taking of offense, i found this (cached version because the site isn't working for me right now). Nihilist 00:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

There's a difference between it being "offensive" and it being "non-inclusive". The quote above doesn't suggest it's to avoid offence, but to include those who don't use the gender binary or view it as strict. ^bomination 00:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Besides, in an article entitled "Gender-inclusive language", yes, of course it's a valid point to raise. ^sshole 00:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The singular "they" has been used in vernacular English at least since Shakespeare. Blue (pester) 03:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

'They' is good for generic statements, but if you're referring to a specific person it doesn't really work well. Nihilist 04:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)