[EOT] Re: Being excellent to one another

[Ricardo Wurmus]

John,

> * I am not playing a game - I think this is very serious.
> * I have not breached the code of conduct (at your request I have just read
>   it again).
> * I am trying my *utmost* to act with restraint and consideration in the face
>   of persistent provocation.
> * I have said on several occasions that we should all agree to live with
>   our differences and let this thread stop.

thank you for your clarification.  We’d like to end discussions in this
thread, so let me just make a final statement on behalf of the
maintainers.

Some of your comments in this thread were considered derogatory, and
they actively made at least one participant uncomfortable.  This outcome
is undesirable and as a group we need to make sure it does not happen
again.

Re-reading the thread I see that some of your earlier off-topic
statements in the thread can be interpreted as antagonising, even if you
hold they were not *meant* to be hurtful or trolling.  The same applies
to some comments and examples that were made in later messages to
illustrate your points.  ng0 asked for multiple times that “singular
they” be used when referring to them.  Your response to the use of
“singular they” was “I refuse to use it”.

  1. In the future, please respect the gender of participants by using
 the pronouns they ask for (when they do).  Alternatively, use
 their names instead of pronouns.

  2. Avoid assumptions by using gender-neutral wording.

This project considers this form of respect to be more important than
what some might consider “good English grammar”.  We also acknowledge
that there have been harsh messages on both sides, including personal
insults; this is also not in the spirit of mutual respect that the code
of conduct suggests, the foundation for communications in this group.

It doesn’t have to be this way.  Like you wrote above, we can agree to
live with our differences and respect them.  Let’s stop this thread and
continue in the spirit of the code of conduct.

--
Ricardo

GPG: BCA6 89B6 3655 3801 C3C6  2150 197A 5888 235F ACAC
https://elephly.net

PS: If any of the participants feel that we have handled this case in an
unsatisfactory manner, please write to the maintainers (Ludo and
myself) off list.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Being excellent to one another

[ng0]

ng0 transcribed 1.3K bytes:
> John Darrington transcribed 1.1K bytes:
> > On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 12:17:08PM +, ng0 wrote:
> >  Word of advice: don't use 'transvestite'. It's a slur.
> > 
> > Is it?  I didn't know that.  I thought it just came from the latin,
> > (or greek or whatever): trans meaning "across" and "vestment" clothing.
> > It certainly wasn't a slur when I first learnt the word, but 
> > meanings change...  Thanks for pointing this out.
> > 
> > 
> > Actually it was a thinko anyway.  I meant to type "transgender".
> > 
> > J'
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Avoid eavesdropping.  Send strong encrypted email.
> > PGP Public key ID: 1024D/2DE827B3 
> > fingerprint = 8797 A26D 0854 2EAB 0285  A290 8A67 719C 2DE8 27B3
> > See http://sks-keyservers.net or any PGP keyserver for public key.
> > 
> 
> It is a slur when used in the sense like you did it, ie it's a slur
> for transpeople (not being specific about wether transgender or
> transsexual was meant).
> 
> I think if literally transvestite[0] is meant, there are nicer words people
> chose for selfidentification, but I'd have to ask friends or search for
> a good introduction which is selfexplanatory.
> 
> Anyway, we are currently looking into the best way to solve this thread
> and the issues it showed with Ludovic and Ricardo.
> 
> [0]: The repetition only because I'm really not sure wether it's a
> general or only specific slur. If it is in general, I'm sorry.
> 

Addition, this is a good summary and shows the development of words.
Summarized, today it's archaic and perceived as slur by many people.

https://www.quora.com/Is-the-term-transvestite-offensive

Re: Being excellent to one another

[ng0]

John Darrington transcribed 1.1K bytes:
> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 12:17:08PM +, ng0 wrote:
>  Word of advice: don't use 'transvestite'. It's a slur.
> 
> Is it?  I didn't know that.  I thought it just came from the latin,
> (or greek or whatever): trans meaning "across" and "vestment" clothing.
> It certainly wasn't a slur when I first learnt the word, but 
> meanings change...  Thanks for pointing this out.
> 
> 
> Actually it was a thinko anyway.  I meant to type "transgender".
> 
> J'
> 
> 
> -- 
> Avoid eavesdropping.  Send strong encrypted email.
> PGP Public key ID: 1024D/2DE827B3 
> fingerprint = 8797 A26D 0854 2EAB 0285  A290 8A67 719C 2DE8 27B3
> See http://sks-keyservers.net or any PGP keyserver for public key.
> 

It is a slur when used in the sense like you did it, ie it's a slur
for transpeople (not being specific about wether transgender or
transsexual was meant).

I think if literally transvestite[0] is meant, there are nicer words people
chose for selfidentification, but I'd have to ask friends or search for
a good introduction which is selfexplanatory.

Anyway, we are currently looking into the best way to solve this thread
and the issues it showed with Ludovic and Ricardo.

[0]: The repetition only because I'm really not sure wether it's a
general or only specific slur. If it is in general, I'm sorry.

Re: Being excellent to one another

[John Darrington]

On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 12:17:08PM +, ng0 wrote:
 Word of advice: don't use 'transvestite'. It's a slur.

Is it?  I didn't know that.  I thought it just came from the latin,
(or greek or whatever): trans meaning "across" and "vestment" clothing.
It certainly wasn't a slur when I first learnt the word, but 
meanings change...  Thanks for pointing this out.


Actually it was a thinko anyway.  I meant to type "transgender".

J'


-- 
Avoid eavesdropping.  Send strong encrypted email.
PGP Public key ID: 1024D/2DE827B3 
fingerprint = 8797 A26D 0854 2EAB 0285  A290 8A67 719C 2DE8 27B3
See http://sks-keyservers.net or any PGP keyserver for public key.



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Being excellent to one another

[ng0]

Word of advice: don't use 'transvestite'. It's a slur.

To find out why doesn't take very long to search, but for completion:
https://www.queerty.com/lets-learn-the-nine-anti-trans-slurs-we-should-avoid-20110620

Re: Being excellent to one another

[John Darrington]

On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 10:14:45AM +0100, Alex Sassmannshausen wrote:
 
 I'm trying to draw this thread to a close as I genuinely believe that
 neither side intends malice:
 - John genuinely does not see how his statements can very easily be
 interpreted as highly disrespectful and even mocking
 - myself and others genuinely do not want to bear down on individuals by
 virtue of simple miscommunication.
 
 John, I would suggest to you that when at least three independent
 individuals read your paragraph in which you (as you confirmed to me) in
 good faith tried to create an extreme example to confirm that you would
 respect (though fallibly) other people's rights to define their own
 identity, then that paragraph was perhaps unfortunately formulated.
 
 An apology and clarification would resolve that matter.
 
 By way of clarification from my side, the paragraph reads like you're
 creating a ("humourous") hyperbolic example that is only tangentially
 related to the real discussion at hand to begrudgingly admit that you
 would be willing to respect other people's identities.
 
 Perhaps in that light you can see how that statement might have
 trivialised other people's experiences and have come across as
 insulting?
 
 It simply wasn't necessary to employ that rhetorical device ??? just
 acknowledging that you might slip up at times, would have been
 sufficient.  The rhetorical device turned your genuine sentiment into a
 statement in which you seemed to accede and simultaniously implicitly
 ridiculed those whom you were acceding to.

Alright.  I see you have a point, albeit stretched.  By way of explanation:

You are right that I deliberately contrived an extreme and rediculous
hypothetical scenario to illustrate a point; or as you put it - a hyberbole.
I DID think about this when I wrote it and I made it absurdly rediculous
precisely *because* I thought doing so would avoid anyone thinking that I was
trying to mock transvestites:  Had I said "... a person that looks clearly
like a bloke ..."  then that would have been potentially hurtful to 
someone reading my mail and trying unsuccessfully to look effeminate.  But by 
making the scenario extreme and rediculous I considered that this danger would 
be eliminated - a person trying to look effeminate, would obviously not have
"a big black wiry beard" - she would be taking hormones - or at the very
least - have shaved.  However I realise now that the 6'4" attribute was not
so carefully thought out.  That person would have no control over her height.   
For this reason it is conceivable that a reader might have thought I was 
mocking that hypothetical person.  I should have chosen an attribute which the
person could change.

I apologise for not thinking carefully enough about that email before
sending it.

Regarding your other comments, for the avoidance of doubt:

* I have no interest in the sex/race/body-size etc of any Guix contributor.

* I do not begrudge anyone their right to self-identify with whatever genre 
pleases the individual concerned.

* I know how it hurts when others deny me the right to voice an opinion so 
I will not deny them that same right.

Thank you all for listening.

J'

-- 
Avoid eavesdropping.  Send strong encrypted email.
PGP Public key ID: 1024D/2DE827B3 
fingerprint = 8797 A26D 0854 2EAB 0285  A290 8A67 719C 2DE8 27B3
See http://sks-keyservers.net or any PGP keyserver for public key.



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Being excellent to one another

[Alex Sassmannshausen]

Hello,

I'm trying to draw this thread to a close as I genuinely believe that
neither side intends malice:
- John genuinely does not see how his statements can very easily be
interpreted as highly disrespectful and even mocking
- myself and others genuinely do not want to bear down on individuals by
virtue of simple miscommunication.

John, I would suggest to you that when at least three independent
individuals read your paragraph in which you (as you confirmed to me) in
good faith tried to create an extreme example to confirm that you would
respect (though fallibly) other people's rights to define their own
identity, then that paragraph was perhaps unfortunately formulated.

An apology and clarification would resolve that matter.

By way of clarification from my side, the paragraph reads like you're
creating a ("humourous") hyperbolic example that is only tangentially
related to the real discussion at hand to begrudgingly admit that you
would be willing to respect other people's identities.

Perhaps in that light you can see how that statement might have
trivialised other people's experiences and have come across as
insulting?

It simply wasn't necessary to employ that rhetorical device — just
acknowledging that you might slip up at times, would have been
sufficient.  The rhetorical device turned your genuine sentiment into a
statement in which you seemed to accede and simultaniously implicitly
ridiculed those whom you were acceding to.

I also believe it is within this context that Ludo considered that you
were in breach of the code of conduct. Specifically the example related
to "Trolling or insulting/derogatory comments".

As I say, I do not believe you intended to troll.  I hope we can move on
from this thread now by way of agreeing concrete steps for the future.

I would request the following moving forward:
- That we respect people's self-identification (which includes
respecting their pronouns)
- That we accept the "Singular They" as a valid form of non-gendered
language in formal and informal communication (this does not mean *you*
have to use it if you don't want to, but at least don't derail other
people's advice that it is a valid form)

Could we leave it at this for now?

It would be cool if we could get explicit or at least silent agreement
(by no longer responding to the thread) on this thread from those
primarily involved.

Best wishes,

Alex

PS: As Ricardo points out in his email to this thread, the issues of
gender/sex, and more widely, identity are enormously complex & I agree
that we cannot resolve them here.  But we can come to a situation where
we treat each other in a way that is non-exclusionary.  Part of this
means that we will have conversations like these at irregular intervals
— precisely because these issues are not resolved in society at large,
they will bubble up here.

In the meantime I would encourage people who care about these subjects
to read up on feminist theory, trans politics & intersectional
politics.  These are big, complex topics — and no-one agrees with all
that is written, but I believe that we as a community would support most
of the issues raised in those contexts.

John Darrington writes:

> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 04:49:13PM +0100, Ludovic Court??s wrote:
>
>  John, people have explained things at length already; you can re-read
>  the project???s code of conduct if in doubt.  This isn???t up for debate.
>  Please stop playing this game right now.
>
> Ludo,
>
> * I am not playing a game - I think this is very serious.
> * I have not breached the code of conduct (at your request I have just read
>   it again).
> * I am trying my *utmost* to act with restraint and consideration in the face
>   of persistent provocation.
> * I have said on several occasions that we should all agree to live with
>   our differences and let this thread stop.
>
> John

Re: Being excellent to one another

[Ricardo Wurmus]

dian_ce...@zoho.com writes:

> For anyone who reads older books, mankind as a whole used to be refered
> to as "he", and while one can certainly make an issue out of that (and
> I'm sure plenty of people have), it does also set a precedent for using
> the male gender as a gender-neutral option, which happens to have a
> rather long history.

The generic masculine is a problem.  Since the 1970s there have been
numerous studies that were published in peer-reviewed journals that
demonstrate that the use of so-called generic masculine (in languages
with a genus) evokes a disproportionate number of male images compared
to gendered split forms or gender neutral terms.

As a result the use of generic “he” contributes to the alienation of
underrepresented groups, especially in fields like software
development.  I suggest reading some relevant research articles or a
literature review on this subject.


> I don't know about anyone
> else, but gender == sex, and that is more-or-less that.

This is not correct.  Gender has little to do with biological sex.  That
too has been the subject of research for many decades, and I encourage
everyone to browse the scientific literature on this matter.  Maybe this
simplistic view explains your misunderstandings in the rest of your
message.

>> 1. Try not to offend.
>> 2. Try not to be offended.
>> 3. Recognise that diversity is an asset.
>> 4. Respect the integrity and right to self-definition of all
>> participants
>
> IMO, the 4th guideline there is entirely redundant and already covered
> by the 3rd.

People, we already *have* a code of conduct.  There’s no need to try to
come up with one from scratch.  Please accept this.

> I don't know if it is a cultural thing, or how I was raised, or what,
> but as far as I am concerned part of basic social etiquette is roughly
> summed up by the first two guidelines in the above list. Call me old
> fasioned or a bigot or whatever, but calling a male "he" and a female
> "she" is and should be perfectly acceptable, especially in this day and
> age.

This is nothing to do with fashion.  What “should” be acceptable is not
up to you to decide.  There is no comparison between the distress caused
by being “othered”, invalidated, and erased and the minor inconvenience
of correcting one’s use of pronouns when talking to or about another
person.

> This whole issue feels like a general lack of reasonable manners[2] and
> interpersonal skills, and not something that really calls for long,
> drawn-out thread on the development mailing list.

It *is* very simple and our Code of conduct (which is much much shorter
than, say, the GPL) reflects that.  We ask everyone to respect other
people; this includes not to purposefully misgender others, not to poke
fun at (= harrass) people who do not confirm to the gender binary, not
to make sexist jokes or using sexualised language, etc.

> [1] If someone wants to try and explain the issue to me, feel free to
> send me a private email, but unless you're actually dealing with this
> issue yourself, don't bother. I have no real tolerance for white knights
> playing at protecting other people with issues, especially when it comes
> to explaining said issues. I have no reason to believe a white knight
> has any grasp on the situation that would prove to be useful to me.

I very much disagree with this.  1) You cannot expect affected
minorities to educate you; there is enough information out there that
you can use to do this yourself.  2) As maintainers and developers who
make up a community it is our duty to tackle these issues head on to
shape the community in a way that ensures a welcoming environment for
everyone.

As a final note I’d like to state that you can read about these things.
Please acknowledge the many researchers in social sciences, who have
worked on these issues since decades.  It is ill-advised to try to
explain away problems that you don’t understand and where you have no
theoretical background.  The hacker ideal of building models from first
principles fails here and is certainly not suited for a sprawling
discussion.  I recommend more reading on these subjects.

--
Ricardo

GPG: BCA6 89B6 3655 3801 C3C6  2150 197A 5888 235F ACAC
https://elephly.net

Re: Being excellent to one another

[dian_cecht]

First of all, I have no clue why my email was explicitly listed in the
CC:; I'll assume that was in error.

Second, it is not my intention to insult or offend anyone here, but
some people seem to be rather thin-skinned about (possibly pretend)
slights. However, I feel I should toss my hat into the ring here for my
own reasons.

I should also make it known I have no clue who anyone in these emails
are apart from ng0 and Ludo', the rest of you could be a very advanced
Eliza for all I'm concerned, so it's pretty much impossible for me to
support anyone here.

Also feel free to ignore it if you so wish, though I'd appreciate
everyone at least read the first footnote for what will be obvious
reasons.

On Mon, 20 Mar 2017 11:17:28 +0100
Alex Sassmannshausen  wrote:

> John Darrington writes:
> > Regarding your other comments,  as we have discussed before, we
> > will have to agree to disagree about singular they.   I have not
> > the benefit of ever having learned English as a foreign language.
> > But I do remember in my elementary school being taught NOT to use
> > it *especially* not in written text.  And - perhaps because of this
> > early tuition - it still sounds clumsy and confusing to me.  
> 
> Perhaps we have to agree to disagree on singular they,

I just want to mention that most, if not all, my English teachers
thought the use of "they" and related was entirely incorrect, so John
isn't alone here. English, simply put, lacks any "correct"
gender-neutral pronouns, despite what common usage suggest. However, as
I'd hope John is aware, common usage these days was considered the
height of vulgarity a century before, at the very least.

For anyone who reads older books, mankind as a whole used to be refered
to as "he", and while one can certainly make an issue out of that (and
I'm sure plenty of people have), it does also set a precedent for using
the male gender as a gender-neutral option, which happens to have a
rather long history.

> but I hope we
> can still agree on the following statements from my earlier email:
> 
> -
> [...] it's super easy:
> - if you're not sure (or have forgotten), use "singular they", or ask
> - if you know someone has a preference for pronouns, use those
> - don't use pronouns when *you know* the other person does not
> identify with them.

I'm just going to point out that this whole 'gendering' issue is, at
least as far as I am concerned, a rather recent developement, and one
that I can't understand in the least [1]. I don't know about anyone
else, but gender == sex, and that is more-or-less that. Certainly some
people don't follow the traditional sex/gender roles (tomboys and
metrosexuals (I think that was the proper term for an effiminent male
used during the 90's, anyways) being the best examples I can come up
with), but this feels very much like hairsplitting to me, and
especially in the case of older generations use of English can very
easily work against decades of normal, /correct/, and proper usage.

> If you make a mistake, no-one will tear your head off

I haven't kept up with this thread for very long, but I will say the
tone, to me, an uninvolved (up until now) individual, sounds like a bit
witch hunt.

> In manuals we can just use "singular they", because it is a well
> established convention and does not cause confusion.

Another alternative that I just remembered running across was swapping
pronoun gender between chapters/sections. This is done with some of the
RPG books I have, so I thought I'd toss that option into the ring.

> 1. Try not to offend.
> 2. Try not to be offended.
> 3. Recognise that diversity is an asset.  
> 4. Respect the integrity and right to self-definition of all
> participants

IMO, the 4th guideline there is entirely redundant and already covered
by the 3rd.

I don't know if it is a cultural thing, or how I was raised, or what,
but as far as I am concerned part of basic social etiquette is roughly
summed up by the first two guidelines in the above list. Call me old
fasioned or a bigot or whatever, but calling a male "he" and a female
"she" is and should be perfectly acceptable, especially in this day and
age. If one takes offense to being called a "he" when they prefer
"she", then as far as I am concerned they are either looking for a
reason to be insulted (which is rather poor manners IMO) or rather
thin-skinned and thus easily injured (which is a handicap in general
social situations and also seems to assume that anyone 'misgendering'
them is making an effort at being insulting, when there is probably no
practical way for someone to identify their prefered pronoun unless
they happen to be a rather capable cross-dresser). For people who are
easily injured, I do feel sorry, and hopefully a capable psychologist
could help with that (I'd make other suggestions, but I don't feel
this is the place for such).

As far as I am concerned, being insulted or injured because someone
misgenders you 

Re: Being excellent to one another

[John Darrington]

On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 04:49:13PM +0100, Ludovic Court??s wrote:
 
 John, people have explained things at length already; you can re-read
 the project???s code of conduct if in doubt.  This isn???t up for debate.
 Please stop playing this game right now.
 
Ludo,

* I am not playing a game - I think this is very serious.
* I have not breached the code of conduct (at your request I have just read 
  it again).
* I am trying my *utmost* to act with restraint and consideration in the face
  of persistent provocation.
* I have said on several occasions that we should all agree to live with
  our differences and let this thread stop.

John

-- 
Avoid eavesdropping.  Send strong encrypted email.
PGP Public key ID: 1024D/2DE827B3 
fingerprint = 8797 A26D 0854 2EAB 0285  A290 8A67 719C 2DE8 27B3
See http://sks-keyservers.net or any PGP keyserver for public key.



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Being excellent to one another

[Ludovic Courtès]

John Darrington  skribis:

> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 10:09:33AM -0500, Christopher Allan Webber wrote:
>  John Darrington writes:
>  
>  > On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 07:57:07PM -0700, dian_ce...@zoho.com wrote:
>  > ... and yes.  If an individual specifically requests to be referred to 
> by
>  > a partcular set of pronouns I will attempt to do so, but may 
> occasionally
>  > forget if that person wants feminine pronouns and is 6'4" and has an 
> enormous
>  > black wiry beard.
>  
>  This was a needlessly hurtful comment, and if you can't see that, I
>  worry about it.  John, I respect your technical contributions to the
>  Guix project, but this isn't okay.
>
> I'm sorry - but WHY is it hurtful?  Whom does it hurt?   How is that person
> hurt?
>
> Please explain.

John, people have explained things at length already; you can re-read
the project’s code of conduct if in doubt.  This isn’t up for debate.
Please stop playing this game right now.

Ludo’.

Re: Being excellent to one another

[John Darrington]

On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 10:09:33AM -0500, Christopher Allan Webber wrote:
 John Darrington writes:
 
 > On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 07:57:07PM -0700, dian_ce...@zoho.com wrote:
 > ... and yes.  If an individual specifically requests to be referred to by
 > a partcular set of pronouns I will attempt to do so, but may occasionally
 > forget if that person wants feminine pronouns and is 6'4" and has an 
enormous
 > black wiry beard.
 
 This was a needlessly hurtful comment, and if you can't see that, I
 worry about it.  John, I respect your technical contributions to the
 Guix project, but this isn't okay.

I'm sorry - but WHY is it hurtful?  Whom does it hurt?   How is that person
hurt?

Please explain.


-- 
Avoid eavesdropping.  Send strong encrypted email.
PGP Public key ID: 1024D/2DE827B3 
fingerprint = 8797 A26D 0854 2EAB 0285  A290 8A67 719C 2DE8 27B3
See http://sks-keyservers.net or any PGP keyserver for public key.



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Being excellent to one another

[John Darrington]

On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 03:27:48PM +0100, Ludovic Court??s wrote:
 Howdy!
 
 John Darrington  skribis:
 
 > As I recall, their request was that I always use "singular they" and 
never to 
 > mention other possible alternatives to anyone.  I acknowledge their 
request and 
 > recognise their every right to make it.  But I feel no obligation to 
comply with
 > their request.  Ng0's reaction to my declining, I interpreted to mean 
that they 
 > considered it not to be a request, but a demand.  If this interpretation 
was 
 > wrong, then I apologise to them.
 
 John, I think you???re playing on words here.

I'm glad you noticed!   If you (or anyone else wishes) I will retype the 
above text using the pronoun of your choice, because I mean what I say.
 
 In this case, what matters is respecting the other participant who
 explicitly asked to be referred to using non-gendered pronouns.  It???s a
 very simple request; honoring it costs us nothing but it can make a big
 difference to this person.

I fully agree.  And I have already said that I have no problem with that, and
will do so without argument.
 
 I don???t want anyone of us to make someone else???s life harder by
 disregarding what they present as important to them.

Nobody should ever set out to make the life of another person harder.  Also,
nobody should ever start believing that what is important to them  must take
priority over what is important to another.

J'

-- 
Avoid eavesdropping.  Send strong encrypted email.
PGP Public key ID: 1024D/2DE827B3 
fingerprint = 8797 A26D 0854 2EAB 0285  A290 8A67 719C 2DE8 27B3
See http://sks-keyservers.net or any PGP keyserver for public key.



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Being excellent to one another

[Ludovic Courtès]

Howdy!

John Darrington  skribis:

> As I recall, their request was that I always use "singular they" and never to 
> mention other possible alternatives to anyone.  I acknowledge their request 
> and 
> recognise their every right to make it.  But I feel no obligation to comply 
> with
> their request.  Ng0's reaction to my declining, I interpreted to mean that 
> they 
> considered it not to be a request, but a demand.  If this interpretation was 
> wrong, then I apologise to them.

John, I think you’re playing on words here.

It’s as simple as Alex wrote it:

> - if you're not sure (or have forgotten), use "singular they", or ask
> - if you know someone has a preference for pronouns, use those
> - don't use pronouns when *you know* the other person does not identify
>   with them.

In this case, what matters is respecting the other participant who
explicitly asked to be referred to using non-gendered pronouns.  It’s a
very simple request; honoring it costs us nothing but it can make a big
difference to this person.

I don’t want anyone of us to make someone else’s life harder by
disregarding what they present as important to them.

Thanks,
Ludo’.

PS: It’s a non-technical discussion but one that’s important to have to
make sure our group works correctly.

Re: Being excellent to one another

[John Darrington]

On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 12:53:38PM +0100, Pjotr Prins wrote:
 Erm. Despite the obvious intelligence of all Guix participants I think
 we ought to stick to technical issues on this mailing list (i.e.,
 guix-technical). 
 
 Maybe we can fork these recent discussions to guix-ethical or
 guix-culture? We all have good intentions, that is the general
 assumption! But I think these discussions will hurt the project as a
 whole. 

I fully agree and have made the same sugggestion a few days ago.


J'

-- 
Avoid eavesdropping.  Send strong encrypted email.
PGP Public key ID: 1024D/2DE827B3 
fingerprint = 8797 A26D 0854 2EAB 0285  A290 8A67 719C 2DE8 27B3
See http://sks-keyservers.net or any PGP keyserver for public key.



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Being excellent to one another

[ng0]

Pjotr Prins transcribed 0.4K bytes:
> Erm. Despite the obvious intelligence of all Guix participants I think
> we ought to stick to technical issues on this mailing list (i.e.,
> guix-technical). 
> 
> Maybe we can fork these recent discussions to guix-ethical or
> guix-culture? We all have good intentions, that is the general
> assumption! But I think these discussions will hurt the project as a
> whole. Take it elsewhere, ladies and gentleman.
> 
> Pj.
> 

Discussions about how the project is perceived and acts through the
actions of one of its members with implicit ignorance and refusal to
simply acknowledge problems, acknowledge differences, language barriers, and the
hint to read and learn (wow, new knowledge, you could actually grow on this),
are not hurting the community. It is what we need. I did not want to
follow this discussion, but it seems as it is necessary. I agree to an
earlier point which was made, and extend it: I don't want to be part of
a project which looks and behaves like almost every other project out
there, an exclusive boysclub.
I understand that the majority at least in the scope of this project is
acting and behaving welcoming,friendly and understanding.
When there are problems, the way to cope with them is not to move them
elsewhere.
This is not only about pronouns. I wished it was that easy, but it
isn't.
The default of John, if you go through irc logs, is to correct
repeatedly people who make mistakes in english. I'm asking to
acknowledge the existence of people who do not define their gender as
binary, to not regard them as exceptional or unusal, and to respect!
people who are not speaking or writing english daily. If you can't
understand them, ask politely.
To correct them without them asking for corrections is a top-down view
you can only allow yourself to have if you have more privileges than the
other person.

Now what I'm personally requesting, it shouldn't be necessary that I have
to do this: don't try to attack me. don't chery pick arguments. I don't
expect everyone to be friendly, I've lived long enough to know that this
won't work out.
We are working on this in our freetime. (as an example, not directly
related to this thread) I would not hang out in my free
time with facists, sexists, or otherwise unfriendly people.

Re: Being excellent to one another

[John Darrington]

On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 12:21:59PM +0100, Alex Sassmannshausen wrote:

 My intention was to call-back to my impression of other parts of this
 conversation where it seemed you were point-blank refusing to
 acknowledge ng0's request.

As I recall, their request was that I always use "singular they" and never to 
mention other possible alternatives to anyone.  I acknowledge their request and 
recognise their every right to make it.  But I feel no obligation to comply with
their request.  Ng0's reaction to my declining, I interpreted to mean that they 
considered it not to be a request, but a demand.  If this interpretation was 
wrong, then I apologise to them.
 
 Say whaat?  Way to blow our discussion out of proportion.  Are you
 seriously suggesting the consensus established through conversation and
 convention in a small community is in any way comparable to the pile of
 dung that is the contemporary ridiculously complex and terrifyingly
 non-egalitarian state of global authoritarian politics?

I believe the current state of global politics has come about through populism.
In part, that means some people have been coerced into supporting what
they would not otherwise have supported - because of peer pressure.  I do
support what I believe to be wrong - ethically, technically or gramatically -
simply because a majority of other people say I should.
 

-- 
Avoid eavesdropping.  Send strong encrypted email.
PGP Public key ID: 1024D/2DE827B3 
fingerprint = 8797 A26D 0854 2EAB 0285  A290 8A67 719C 2DE8 27B3
See http://sks-keyservers.net or any PGP keyserver for public key.



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Being excellent to one another

[Pjotr Prins]

Erm. Despite the obvious intelligence of all Guix participants I think
we ought to stick to technical issues on this mailing list (i.e.,
guix-technical). 

Maybe we can fork these recent discussions to guix-ethical or
guix-culture? We all have good intentions, that is the general
assumption! But I think these discussions will hurt the project as a
whole. Take it elsewhere, ladies and gentleman.

Pj.

Re: Being excellent to one another

[Alex Sassmannshausen]

John Darrington writes:

> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 11:17:28AM +0100, Alex Sassmannshausen wrote:
>
>  Perhaps we have to agree to disagree on singular they, but I hope we can
>  still agree on the following statements from my earlier email:
>
> I agree to a slightly edited version:
>
>  -
>  [...] sometimes there is not a simple solution, however :
>  - if you know someone has a preference for particular pronouns, use 
> those when
>refering to that person.
>  - don't use pronouns when *you know* the other person does not identify
>with them.
>  - if unsure, ask the person how he or she would like to be referenced.
>
>  If you make a mistake, an apology will show your intention was not 
> malicious.
>
>  In manuals we can just use "singular they",  or another non-gender 
> specific
>  form of reference.
>  -

In the end, when you communicate informally, there is no arbiter of what
you write, so, to be clear, the first part above is not some form of
official guideline — just thinking out loud of what it means to engage
respectfully in a public, anonymous space.  I believe you approach in a
similar vein, which I appreciate.

The problem with your above suggestion is that it leaves out the default
case:
How will you write emails to the list?  Will you assume a default "he"?
Or a default "she"?  And what about non-binary identifying people?   We
don't know who's sitting at the other end.

Also, in the context of a default "he" usage (which you may not do, you
mentioned in the past that you sometimes default to "she"), I'm
concerned that emails are archived: they become a written representation
of what our community is like — and I do not want our community to
reinforce in a written form, that "only boys hang out around Guix / are
geeks".

>  Alternatively it would be incumbent on you to provide an
>  alternative that is not just "I will bloody-mindedly stick to
>  gendering people when I don't know anything about them".
>
> It is this tendency to call any difference of opinion by terms such as
> "bloody-minded" which offends me  - I try not to take offence - but I find
> hard not to.  I'm sorry.

My intention was to call-back to my impression of other parts of this
conversation where it seemed you were point-blank refusing to
acknowledge ng0's request.

But I can accept that you may find that an unfair characterisation, and
I phrased my sentiment too sharply in this case. My apologies for this.

> To answer your question:  How about saying "he or she" or "the person".

As mentioned above, the first renders non-binary identifying people
invisible.  For the second, if you can write a section of a manual using
"the person" in such a way that it won't sound clumsy, then by all
means.

Personally I would still suggest that "they/them/their" is wonderfully
short, to the point and unambiguous.  Also, it's a wheel that was
already invented: it has widespread usage outside of our community.

>  In the formal context, well??? I think there is broad consensus that
>  "singular they" is awesome.
>
> There is a broad concensus that Donald Trump, Rodrigo Duterte and
> Recep Erdogan are awesome.However I do not agree.

Say whaat?  Way to blow our discussion out of proportion.  Are you
seriously suggesting the consensus established through conversation and
convention in a small community is in any way comparable to the pile of
dung that is the contemporary ridiculously complex and terrifyingly
non-egalitarian state of global authoritarian politics?

>  > People having been talking about being "welcoming".  Well, I beleive 
> the way
>  > to achieve that is threefold:
>  >
>  > 1. Try not to offend.
>  > 2. Try not to be offended.
>  > 3. Recognise that diversity is an asset.
>
>  Absolutely, wonderful sentiment.  To that I would add:
>
>  4. Respect the integrity and right to self-definition of all participants
>
> I agree.  Put that one in too.

Nice :-)

>From my perspective, I'm probably done with this conversation for now,
though will respond if specific queries are addressed at me.

Alex

Re: Being excellent to one another

[Catonano]

2017-03-20 11:44 GMT+01:00 John Darrington :

>
> There is a broad concensus that Donald Trump, Rodrigo Duterte and
> Recep Erdogan are awesome.However I do not agree.
>

It seems to me that, on some issues you perfectly agree with those three.

Re: Being excellent to one another

[John Darrington]

On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 11:17:28AM +0100, Alex Sassmannshausen wrote:

 Perhaps we have to agree to disagree on singular they, but I hope we can
 still agree on the following statements from my earlier email:
 
I agree to a slightly edited version:

 -
 [...] sometimes there is not a simple solution, however :
 - if you know someone has a preference for particular pronouns, use those 
when
   refering to that person.
 - don't use pronouns when *you know* the other person does not identify
   with them.
 - if unsure, ask the person how he or she would like to be referenced.
 
 If you make a mistake, an apology will show your intention was not 
malicious.
 
 In manuals we can just use "singular they",  or another non-gender specific
 form of reference.
 -

 
 Alternatively it would be incumbent on you to provide an
 alternative that is not just "I will bloody-mindedly stick to
 gendering people when I don't know anything about them".

It is this tendency to call any difference of opinion by terms such as 
"bloody-minded" which offends me  - I try not to take offence - but I find
hard not to.  I'm sorry.

To answer your question:  How about saying "he or she" or "the person".  

 In the formal context, well??? I think there is broad consensus that
 "singular they" is awesome.

There is a broad concensus that Donald Trump, Rodrigo Duterte and 
Recep Erdogan are awesome.However I do not agree.

 > People having been talking about being "welcoming".  Well, I beleive the 
way
 > to achieve that is threefold:
 >
 > 1. Try not to offend.
 > 2. Try not to be offended.
 > 3. Recognise that diversity is an asset.
 
 Absolutely, wonderful sentiment.  To that I would add:
 
 4. Respect the integrity and right to self-definition of all participants

I agree.  Put that one in too.

J'

-- 
Avoid eavesdropping.  Send strong encrypted email.
PGP Public key ID: 1024D/2DE827B3 
fingerprint = 8797 A26D 0854 2EAB 0285  A290 8A67 719C 2DE8 27B3
See http://sks-keyservers.net or any PGP keyserver for public key.



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Being excellent to one another

[Alex Sassmannshausen]

John Darrington writes:

> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 09:57:04AM +0100, Alex Sassmannshausen wrote:
>  >
>  > ... and yes.  If an individual specifically requests to be referred to 
> by
>  > a partcular set of pronouns I will attempt to do so, but may 
> occasionally
>  > forget if that person wants feminine pronouns and is 6'4" and has an 
> enormous
>  > black wiry beard.
>  
>  [I really don't know what your intention is with that last paragraph ??? 
> I
>  will just ignore it, as I wouldn't want to ascribe malice???]
>
> OMG! What is wrong here?  Why would you (or anyone) think this is malicious?  
> The 
> intention, which I thought was clear, is that if people make unusual requests
> we should try to accommodate those requests, but the requestor should not be
> suprised or offended if people don't always remember.  Surely that was 
> obvious?

Not obvious at all, thanks for the clarification.

> [...]
>
> Regarding your other comments,  as we have discussed before, we will have to
> agree to disagree about singular they.   I have not the benefit of ever 
> having learned English as a foreign language.  But I do remember in my 
> elementary
> school being taught NOT to use it *especially* not in written text.  And - 
> perhaps because of this early tuition - it still sounds clumsy and confusing 
> to 
> me.

Perhaps we have to agree to disagree on singular they, but I hope we can
still agree on the following statements from my earlier email:

-
[...] it's super easy:
- if you're not sure (or have forgotten), use "singular they", or ask
- if you know someone has a preference for pronouns, use those
- don't use pronouns when *you know* the other person does not identify
  with them.

If you make a mistake, no-one will tear your head off — it may well feel
like an awkward social faux pas to you, but, c'est la vie! And an
apology will show your intention was not malicious.

In manuals we can just use "singular they", because it is a well
established convention and does not cause confusion.
-

I think if you agree with the sentiment, but dislike singular they as
the "general fall-back" then the above approach provides an inherent
method for you not to have to use that ("just ask") in the informal
context.

Alternatively it would be incumbent on you to provide an
alternative that is not just "I will bloody-mindedly stick to
gendering people when I don't know anything about them".

In the formal context, well… I think there is broad consensus that
"singular they" is awesome.

> People having been talking about being "welcoming".  Well, I beleive the way
> to achieve that is threefold:
>
> 1. Try not to offend.
> 2. Try not to be offended.
> 3. Recognise that diversity is an asset.

Absolutely, wonderful sentiment.  To that I would add:

4. Respect the integrity and right to self-definition of all participants

Ta,

Alex

Re: Being excellent to one another

[John Darrington]

On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 09:57:04AM +0100, Alex Sassmannshausen wrote:
 >
 > ... and yes.  If an individual specifically requests to be referred to by
 > a partcular set of pronouns I will attempt to do so, but may occasionally
 > forget if that person wants feminine pronouns and is 6'4" and has an 
enormous
 > black wiry beard.
 
 [I really don't know what your intention is with that last paragraph ??? I
 will just ignore it, as I wouldn't want to ascribe malice???]

OMG! What is wrong here?  Why would you (or anyone) think this is malicious?  
The 
intention, which I thought was clear, is that if people make unusual requests
we should try to accommodate those requests, but the requestor should not be
suprised or offended if people don't always remember.  Surely that was obvious?

It is the same with the Linux vs. GNU/Linux thing.   When speaking for GNU, I
request people to say GNU/Linux when talking about the operating system.  
However,
I recognise that some people have been exposed to "Linux" for a long time, and
it is hard to break the habit of a lifetime instantly.   Therefore, I don't jump
on someone saying "Gotcha" if they once forget.  I will however give them a
polite and gentle reminder.

Regarding your other comments,  as we have discussed before, we will have to
agree to disagree about singular they.   I have not the benefit of ever 
having learned English as a foreign language.  But I do remember in my 
elementary
school being taught NOT to use it *especially* not in written text.  And - 
perhaps because of this early tuition - it still sounds clumsy and confusing to 
me.

People having been talking about being "welcoming".  Well, I beleive the way
to achieve that is threefold:

1. Try not to offend.
2. Try not to be offended.
3. Recognise that diversity is an asset.


J'

-- 
Avoid eavesdropping.  Send strong encrypted email.
PGP Public key ID: 1024D/2DE827B3 
fingerprint = 8797 A26D 0854 2EAB 0285  A290 8A67 719C 2DE8 27B3
See http://sks-keyservers.net or any PGP keyserver for public key.



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Being excellent to one another

[Alex Sassmannshausen]

John Darrington writes:

> On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 07:57:07PM -0700, dian_ce...@zoho.com wrote:
>  On Sun, 19 Mar 2017 17:40:27 -0500
>  Christopher Allan Webber  wrote:
>  > The important thing is to not assume someone's preferred pronouns
>  > without knowing them.  Singular they isn't your only option; I also
>  > happen to like Spivak pronouns:
>  >
>  >   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spivak_pronoun
>
>  The problem here is that I'd be suprised if many people have even heard
>  about these. I used to play MUDs quite a bit and have /never/ heard any
>  of those. They are certainly not a part of common usage, and I'd say
>  should be avoided for something more standard (them et al). It's a nice
>  idea, but overall seems like it would cause confusion, and probably
>  more than a few "Hey, there is a typo in the manual"-type bugs than
>  anything.
>
>  At least, if I picked up a random bit of documentation and saw things
>  like "e" used constantly, I'd assume it was a typo and not some archaic
>  gender-neutral pronoun.
>
> [...]

> When writing texts, such as this email, and absolutely  *have* to use a 
> personal
> definite pronoun, I default to "she" because whereas vigilantes will pounce 
> upon
> you whenever they see "he" (ironically those people are invariably male), I've
> never had anyone complain when "she" occurs where the gender of the subject
> might well be masculine.
>
>
> ... and yes.  If an individual specifically requests to be referred to by
> a partcular set of pronouns I will attempt to do so, but may occasionally
> forget if that person wants feminine pronouns and is 6'4" and has an enormous
> black wiry beard.

[I really don't know what your intention is with that last paragraph — I
will just ignore it, as I wouldn't want to ascribe malice…]

John, really, it's super easy:
- if you're not sure (or have forgotten), use "singular they", or ask
- if you know someone has a preference for pronouns, use those
- don't use pronouns when *you know* the other person does not identify
  with them.

If you make a mistake, no-one will tear your head off — it may well feel
like an awkward social faux pas to you, but, c'est la vie! And an
apology will show your intention was not malicious.

In manuals we can just use "singular they", because it is a well
established convention and does not cause confusion.

Someone who's learning English as a second language would hopefully have
been exposed to "singular they" in their class.  If not, they should ask
for their money back.

Regardless, it would be great for our manual to introduce them to
this lovely convention that is so widely used.

Cheers,

Alex

Re: Being excellent to one another

[dian_cecht]

On Sun, 19 Mar 2017 17:40:27 -0500
Christopher Allan Webber  wrote:
> The important thing is to not assume someone's preferred pronouns
> without knowing them.  Singular they isn't your only option; I also
> happen to like Spivak pronouns:
> 
>   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spivak_pronoun

The problem here is that I'd be suprised if many people have even heard
about these. I used to play MUDs quite a bit and have /never/ heard any
of those. They are certainly not a part of common usage, and I'd say
should be avoided for something more standard (them et al). It's a nice
idea, but overall seems like it would cause confusion, and probably
more than a few "Hey, there is a typo in the manual"-type bugs than
anything.

At least, if I picked up a random bit of documentation and saw things
like "e" used constantly, I'd assume it was a typo and not some archaic
gender-neutral pronoun.

Re: Being excellent to one another

[Christopher Allan Webber]

Ludovic Courtès writes:

> Hi there,
>
> Gentlefolks, please everyone calm down.  Being rude or insulting to
> fellow hackers is not acceptable on the project’s communication
> channels, period.  When you feel unable to express your disagreement in
> a constructive and respectful manner, please delay your reply until you
> can do that.

[...]

> Besides, while I appreciate it when native English speakers provide
> corrections and guidance, I think we as a project must tolerate English
> mistakes in our communication.  The reason for this is very simple: most
> contributors are not native English speakers.  English is our
> communication medium; it shouldn’t be a hindrance to the inclusion of
> contributors who do not master it.

About English though, I do agree with ng0 about they/them... as a
default pronoun, especially when you don't know.  It's good English,
with longstanding history:

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they

The important thing is to not assume someone's preferred pronouns
without knowing them.  Singular they isn't your only option; I also
happen to like Spivak pronouns:

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spivak_pronoun

... which have the delightful connection to hacker culture in their
popularity with Lambdamoo, an oldschool MUD. :)  Singular they (or even
spivak) is also acceptable as a pronoun if someone chooses that.

Of course it's possible to make mistakes, but it *is* important to try
not to misgender people... both by not making assumptions, and
especially when using the right pronouns once you do know.  I have both
seen people break down into tears and also walk away from communities
from being misgendered.  That's an important sign of respect towards the
person...  and it doesn't cost you anything to do it.

Be excellent to each other indeed... and here's one critical way to do
it.

Re: Being excellent to one another

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi,

 skribis:

> On Sat, 18 Mar 2017 14:43:20 +0100
> l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) wrote:
>> Besides, while I appreciate it when native English speakers provide
>> corrections and guidance, I think we as a project must tolerate
>> English mistakes in our communication.  The reason for this is very
>> simple: most contributors are not native English speakers.  English
>> is our communication medium; it shouldn’t be a hindrance to the
>> inclusion of contributors who do not master it.
>
> Are there any guidelines as to what parts of English one should avoid
> using in documentation? If most (as you put it) contributors aren't
> native English speakers, doesn't that mean we should attempt to use a
> simpler vocabulary so users and contributors can read and understand
> things easier?

I was referring mostly to informal communications among contributors.
For the manual, I think it makes sense to stick to “correct English”.
Ideally, we’d have translations of the manual, but we’re not there yet.

Ludo’.

Re: Being excellent to one another

[John Darrington]

On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 08:47:17AM -0700, dian_ce...@zoho.com wrote:
 
 Are there any guidelines as to what parts of English one should avoid
 using in documentation? 
 

There are some such guidlines.  See: 
 https://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/standards.html#Documentation

   If most (as you put it) contributors aren't
 native English speakers, doesn't that mean we should attempt to use a
 simpler vocabulary so users and contributors can read and understand
 things easier?

I think that is a good general policy.

J'
 

-- 
Avoid eavesdropping.  Send strong encrypted email.
PGP Public key ID: 1024D/2DE827B3 
fingerprint = 8797 A26D 0854 2EAB 0285  A290 8A67 719C 2DE8 27B3
See http://sks-keyservers.net or any PGP keyserver for public key.



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Being excellent to one another

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi there,

Gentlefolks, please everyone calm down.  Being rude or insulting to
fellow hackers is not acceptable on the project’s communication
channels, period.  When you feel unable to express your disagreement in
a constructive and respectful manner, please delay your reply until you
can do that.

We added to the contribution guidelines in the manual a while back an
item about using gender-neutral wording in our documentation.  We’ll do
that because I believe it’s one of the modest ways in which we can help
fight gender bias in our domain, and because it’s a tiny effort and
leads to “valid” understandable English (there’s lots of documentation
about the origins of singular they, BTW.)

Besides, while I appreciate it when native English speakers provide
corrections and guidance, I think we as a project must tolerate English
mistakes in our communication.  The reason for this is very simple: most
contributors are not native English speakers.  English is our
communication medium; it shouldn’t be a hindrance to the inclusion of
contributors who do not master it.

Happy hacking!

Ludo’.