On Saturday, October 10, 2015 at 7:53:58 AM UTC-4, Stefan Karpinski wrote: > > Anthropomorphization is fine, sexualization is not. The main reason that > using "she" to refer to Julia is not great is that the next thing is so > often to sexualize the term, not because there's anything objectionable > about anthropomorphizing Julia. For example, the Julia-tan anime character > <http://www.mechajyo.org/wp/?page_id=6> is acceptable since it does imply > sexual activity. >
I thought that Anthropomorphization was not fine, the JCS states clearly "the programming language is not a person". Julia-tan can represent a woman scientist/programmer, who happens to love the julia language, and is not *necessarily* an anthropomorphism. > That statement "the programming language is not a person and does not have > a gender" makes perfect sense in any language. While a word may have a > *grammatical* gender in a language, a programming language is not a word, > and does not. This basic distinction between a word and what it refers to, > is especially familiar to speakers of languages with grammatical genders > since there is often a mismatch between grammatical gender and actual > gender. For example, in German, "Mädchen" means "girl" but is a neuter > word, rather than feminine. Do you think that Germans are confused about > the actual gender of girls? To quote the wikipedia article about grammatical > gender <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_gender>: > > In a few languages, the gender assignation of nouns is solely determined >> by their meaning or attributes, like biological sex, humanness, animacy. >> However, in most languages, this semantic division is only partially valid, >> and many nouns may belong to a gender category that contrasts with their >> meaning (e.g. the word for "manliness" could be of feminine gender). In >> this case, the gender assignation can also be influenced by the morphology >> or phonology of the noun, or in some cases can be apparently arbitrary. > > That depends on how it is translated. In Spanish, "género" by itself would generally mean grammatical gender, and you'd say "sexo", o possibly "género natural", which is why the current phrasing might not really be all that clear to somebody whose first language is Spanish, for example. I'm not saying that the point is wrong, just that it should be made clearer, as other people have already agreed. Anyway, I think we've already heard plenty from Scott P. Jones on this > subject. Please refrain from further commentary here, Scott – you've > already said more than your share and you are literally the single most > frequent violator of our community standards, having both made various > sexual jokes about "Julia" and chronically wasting people's time, energy > and patience. > Please refrain from constant ad hominem attacks, here and on GitHub. They definitely do not fit into the "*Be respectful and inclusive" *part of the JCS. Threatening banning, deleting posts, defending other people who make ad hominem attacks, as well as using sexual language in ad hominem attacks (and never once apologizing) are definitely things that don't fit the JCS at all.
