[OTR-users] sexist assumptions in README, process_receiving_im()

[Gregory Maxwell]

On 12/3/05, Jason Cohen <jcohen07 at brandeis.edu> wrote:
>  I'm surprised David's remarks were immediately attacked as "stupid" and
> "bullshit" without even a consideration of their validity. Some have said
> that he must be a non-English speaker to have made such a ridiculous
> request.
[snip]

It's an artifact of the language, yes, to accuse the author of the
readme (or the readme itself) of sexist assumptions as David did is
both stupid and bullshit.

>  If you're trying to refer to an individual with an unknown gender you have
> three options: 1) use "him" (the common solution), 2) use "their" even
> though it is a plural pronoun,or 3) use his/her, which I would imagine some
> of you may find awkward English.

Or just use a sentence structure that doesn't require a pronoun, as is
most natural here.

>  Why can't we just change the sexist and illogical convention and begin
> using "his/her"?

We're talking about a readme for a somewhat obsecure piece of software
here, not the chicago manual of style.

People in writing and academic circles have not solved this in a way
which makes everyone happy, so it would be foolish to assume we could.

>This sounds awkward to most English speakers only because
> they're not accustomed to hearing or seeing it. Yet, that strikes me as a
> pretty poor argument for continuing to use "his" when referring to an
> individual of unknown gender that not only sounds awkward to non-English
> speakers but is in addition conceptually flawed and a vestige of a
> patriarchal society that did consider women second-class citizens.

The claim that the mere use of the male word is an example of sexism
has not been substantiated. If it sounds odd to a non-native speaker
it is because they do not realize that we use the male word to refer
to gendern unknow as well.

>  It's also not just "his" that poses this problem. People still refer to
> mankind, businessmen, firemen, fisherman, man-made, mailman, policemen,
> congressman etc. There's nothing exclusively male about any of the mentioned
> professions, yet they are commonly or exclusively referred to with a non
> gender-neutral term.

Here your own sexism shows: We are all man, including women.  Here you
attempt to say that men and women are not the same thing.