Thread: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Use gender-neutral language in documentation

On 2015-09-22 04:59, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Use gender-neutral language in documentation
>
> Based on patch by Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>,
> although
> I rephrased most of the initial work.
>
> Branch
> ------
> master
>
> Details
> -------
> http://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/741ccd5015f82e31f80cdc5d2ae81263ea92d794
>


I think this compulsive 'he'-avoiding is making the text worse.


-      environment variable); any user can make such a change for his
session.
+      environment variable); any user can make such a change for their
session.

Yuck.  even worse:

-   might not be the same as the database user he needs to connect as.
+   might not be the same as the database user that is to be connect as.


It is not an improvement.  I would like to see this change rolled back.


thanks,

Erik Rijkers

On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 9:32 PM, Erik Rijkers <er@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> I think this compulsive 'he'-avoiding is making the text worse.
>
>
> -      environment variable); any user can make such a change for his
> session.
> +      environment variable); any user can make such a change for their
> session.

-1. It seems fine to me.

> Yuck.  even worse:
>
> -   might not be the same as the database user he needs to connect as.
> +   might not be the same as the database user that is to be connect as.
>
>
> It is not an improvement.  I would like to see this change rolled back.

I think that this should be reworded, since there is a grammatical
error as things stand. I suggest the whole sentence be modified to
read:

When using an external authentication system such as Ident or GSSAPI,
the name of the operating system user that initiated the connection
might not be the same as the intended corresponding database user.

--
Peter Geoghegan

Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 9:32 PM, Erik Rijkers <er@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>> I think this compulsive 'he'-avoiding is making the text worse.
>>
>>
>> -      environment variable); any user can make such a change for his session.
>> +      environment variable); any user can make such a change for their session.
> 
> -1. It seems fine to me.

(Disclaimer: I am not a native speaker.)

Using the pronoun of the third person plural as a replacement for "his or her"
has become widely used, at least in the U.S., and the OED condones that use:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/they

Do we want to have that everywhere?

Yours,
Laurenz Albe 

On 22/09/15 21:33, Geoff Winkless wrote:
> On 22 September 2015 at 09:28, Albe Laurenz <laurenz.albe@wien.gv.at
> <mailto:laurenz.albe@wien.gv.at>>wrote:
>
>     Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>     > On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 9:32 PM, Erik Rijkers <er@xs4all.nl
>     <mailto:er@xs4all.nl>> wrote:
>     >> I think this compulsive 'he'-avoiding is making the text worse.
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> -      environment variable); any user can make such a change
>     for his session.
>     >> +      environment variable); any user can make such a change
>     for their session.
>     >
>     > -1. It seems fine to me.
>
>     (Disclaimer: I am not a native speaker.)
>
>     Using the pronoun of the third person plural as a replacement for
>     "his or her"
>     has become widely used, at least in the U.S., and the OED condones
>     that use:
>     http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/they
>
>
> Without wanting to get into a grammar war, ​I'm not so sure I agree
> that it "condones" it. Dictionaries reflect the current state of
> usage, they don't act as arbiters of correctness. The abuse of
> "literally" as an emphasiser (which usage is now listed in the OED) is
> a prime example.
>
> As an Englishman ​I would prefer "his or her" over "their". Perhaps
> our American cousins might disagree though.
>
> WRT the second, it probably doesn't help that "might not be the same
> as the database user that is to be connect as" is incorrect anyway -
> it should perhaps be "that is to be connect*ed *as" (although I still
> find the construction clumsy).
>
> Geoff
I am an Englishman.

I prefer "their" rather than "his or her", it is less clumsy & there is
no point in specifying gender unless it is relevant!

Besides, some people are neither, or their biological gender is
ambiguous - so a few people fit into neither the male nor the female
category (depending on precise definitions, about 0.5%)!


Cheers,
Gavin

On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 11:17:54 +0100
Geoff Winkless <pgsqladmin@geoff.dj> wrote:

> On 22 September 2015 at 10:52, Gavin Flower <GavinFlower@archidevsys.co.nz>
> wrote:
>
> > On 22/09/15 21:33, Geoff Winkless wrote:
> >> ??
> >> Without wanting to get into a grammar war, ?I'm not so sure I agree that
> >> it "condones" it. Dictionaries reflect the current state of usage, they
> >> don't act as arbiters of correctness. The abuse of "literally" as an
> >> emphasiser (which usage is now listed in the OED) is a prime example.
> >>
> >> I would prefer "his or her" over "their". Perhaps our American cousins
> >> might disagree though.
> >>
> >> I prefer "their" rather than "his or her", it is less clumsy & there is
> > no point in specifying gender unless it is relevant!
>
> I agree in that I prefer "their" in informal speech; however in a formal
> document I would find it sloppy.? I don't think "his or her" is inherently
> clumsy; m
> aybe I'm just showing my age.?
>
> Besides, some people are neither, or their biological gender is ambiguous -
> > so a few people fit into neither the male nor the female category
> > (depending on precise definitions, about 0.5%)!
>
> My understanding is that most intersex (and certainly all trans) people
> would identify with one or the other, and even those who don't select
> exclusively identify with a mix of both (and would therefore still be
> covered by "his or her", no?) although I don't pretend to be an expert.
>
> Perhaps it would be easier to avoid the controversy by actually rewording
> into the plural, where possible?
>
> So
>
> "any user can make such a change for his session."
>
> becomes
>
> "Users can make such a change for their individual sessions"
>
> or similar?

+1

As an American/native English speaker, I find the use of the plural pronoun
in combination with a singular noun (which is not grammatically correct)
in formal writing to be sloppy and jarring to read. The change you suggest
above reads more professionally while still avoiding offending anyone.

--
Bill Moran

On 22/09/15 22:17, Geoff Winkless wrote:
> On 22 September 2015 at 10:52, Gavin Flower
> <GavinFlower@archidevsys.co.nz
> <mailto:GavinFlower@archidevsys.co.nz>>wrote:
>
>     On 22/09/15 21:33, Geoff Winkless wrote:
>
>         ​ ​
>         Without wanting to get into a grammar war, ​I'm not so sure I
>         agree that it "condones" it. Dictionaries reflect the current
>         state of usage, they don't act as arbiters of correctness. The
>         abuse of "literally" as an emphasiser (which usage is now
>         listed in the OED) is a prime example.
>
>         I would prefer "his or her" over "their". Perhaps our American
>         cousins might disagree though.
>
>     I prefer "their" rather than "his or her", it is less clumsy &
>     there is no point in specifying gender unless it is relevant!
>
>
> I agree in that I prefer "their" in informal speech; however in a
> formal document I would find it sloppy.​ I don't think "his or her" is
> inherently clumsy; m
> aybe I'm just showing my age.​
>
>     Besides, some people are neither, or their biological gender is
>     ambiguous - so a few people fit into neither the male nor the
>     female category (depending on precise definitions, about 0.5%)!
>
>
> My understanding is that most intersex (and certainly all trans)
> people would identify with one or the other, and even those who don't
> select exclusively identify with a mix of both (and would therefore
> still be covered by "his or her", no?) although I don't pretend to be
> an expert.
>
> Perhaps it would be easier to avoid the controversy by actually
> rewording into the plural, where possible?
>
> So
>
> "any user can make such a change for his session."
>
> becomes
>
> "Users can make such a change for their individual sessions"
>
> or similar?
>
> Geoff
To me, the key things is NOT to specify gender, unless it is relevant -
and I don't think gender is relevant in describing how to use a database.

I was using "Gender Appropriate" language long before the Politically
Correct craze started (over 50 years ago)!  I was told references to
"he" in rules included females, which I thought was daft!


Cheers,
Gavin

On 09/22/2015 06:17 AM, Geoff Winkless wrote:
> On 22 September 2015 at 10:52, Gavin Flower
> <GavinFlower@archidevsys.co.nz
> <mailto:GavinFlower@archidevsys.co.nz>>wrote:
>
>     On 22/09/15 21:33, Geoff Winkless wrote:
>
>         ​ ​
>         Without wanting to get into a grammar war, ​I'm not so sure I
>         agree that it "condones" it. Dictionaries reflect the current
>         state of usage, they don't act as arbiters of correctness. The
>         abuse of "literally" as an emphasiser (which usage is now
>         listed in the OED) is a prime example.
>
>         I would prefer "his or her" over "their". Perhaps our American
>         cousins might disagree though.
>
>     I prefer "their" rather than "his or her", it is less clumsy &
>     there is no point in specifying gender unless it is relevant!
>
>
> I agree in that I prefer "their" in informal speech; however in a
> formal document I would find it sloppy.​ I don't think "his or her" is
> inherently clumsy; m
> aybe I'm just showing my age.​
>
>     Besides, some people are neither, or their biological gender is
>     ambiguous - so a few people fit into neither the male nor the
>     female category (depending on precise definitions, about 0.5%)!
>
>
> My understanding is that most intersex (and certainly all trans)
> people would identify with one or the other, and even those who don't
> select exclusively identify with a mix of both (and would therefore
> still be covered by "his or her", no?) although I don't pretend to be
> an expert.
>
> Perhaps it would be easier to avoid the controversy by actually
> rewording into the plural, where possible?
>
> So
>
> "any user can make such a change for his session."
>
> becomes
>
> "Users can make such a change for their individual sessions"
>
> or similar?
>
>


You are fighting a losing battle. Think of they/them/their/theirs as
being indefinitely gendered third person singular pronouns, as well as
being third person plural pronouns. Yes it's a relatively new usage, but
I don't think its at all unreasonable (speaking as someone who has been
known to dislike some new usages and neologisms). It's not at all
sloppy. On the contrary, it's quite deliberate. It's just not quite
traditional. You need to get over that.

Your proposed style would make writing docs a lot harder, forcing us to
avoid use of the singular in cases where it is quite natural. I'm
strongly opposed to such a style rule.

cheers

andrew

On 09/22/2015 12:32 AM, Erik Rijkers wrote:
>
>
> -   might not be the same as the database user he needs to connect as.
> +   might not be the same as the database user that is to be connect as.
>
>
> It is not an improvement.  I would like to see this change rolled back.
>
>
>

I agree this is awkward.

I would use "might not be the same as the database user they need to
connect as." Let's be consistent about the use of they/them/their/theirs
as indefinitely gendered singular pronouns.

cheers

andrew

On 09/22/2015 09:25 AM, Geoff Winkless wrote:
>  If someone sends me a document that uses "their" in a singular usage,
> I will think that person is lazy. That will continue to be the case,
> whether people tell me that it's accepted usage or not.


You can think that if you like, but it's not even remotely true. It's a
deliberate choice to use a new, perfectly reasonable and now widely
accepted style of which you disapprove, but it's not lazy.


cheers

andrew

On 09/22/2015 10:29 AM, Geoff Winkless wrote:
> Oh, good! We're actually going to have this argument? Even though I
> said I don't care what you do?
>
> On 22 September 2015 at 15:11, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net
> <mailto:andrew@dunslane.net>> wrote:
>
>     On 09/22/2015 09:25 AM, Geoff Winkless wrote:
>
>          If someone sends me a document that uses "their" in a
>         singular usage, I will think that person is lazy. That will
>         continue to be the case, whether people tell me that it's
>         accepted usage or not.
>
>
>     You can think that if you like,
>
>
> ​Thanks!​ That's a great relief to me, as I'm sure you can imagine.
>
>     but it's not even remotely true.
>
>
> ​ You just stated that the reason you don't want to use the plural
> form I suggested is because it's too hard/time-consuming. That does
> suggest you accept that it's a valid solution but you're too lazy to
> use it.​
>
>     It's a deliberate choice to use a new, perfectly reasonable and
>     now widely accepted style of which you disapprove, but it's not lazy.
>
>
> ​ That's your opinion; my opinion remains otherwise. It's not
> "perfectly reasonable" to abuse the plural because some 1960s
> feminazis either misunderstood or didn't like the fact that (because
> of history) in English the gender-neutral singular happens to also be
> the male singular.
>
> Happily for me, I can continue to write documents in a grammatically
> correct way, and no-one will read them and think I'm a grammar-nazi
> (or obstinate, or old-fashioned or whatever) because unless they're
> specifically looking for it no-one will notice that I'm avoiding the
> contentious usage altogether. On the other hand, there _will_ be a
> (perhaps significant) proportion of people who read your documents and
> think that you're incapable of writing a grammatically correct sentence.
>
>


Wow, 1960s feminazis, eh? I originally thought you were just a narrow
minded, pedantic and antiquated grammarian. Now I realize that's the
least of your troubles. Please take your misogyny elsewhere. I hear the
Rabid Puppies have openings.

cheers

andrew

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
>> Happily for me, I can continue to write documents in a grammatically
>> correct way, and no-one will read them and think I'm a grammar-nazi (or
>> obstinate, or old-fashioned or whatever) because unless they're specifically
>> looking for it no-one will notice that I'm avoiding the contentious usage
>> altogether. On the other hand, there _will_ be a (perhaps significant)
>> proportion of people who read your documents and think that you're incapable
>> of writing a grammatically correct sentence.
>
> Wow, 1960s feminazis, eh? I originally thought you were just a narrow
> minded, pedantic and antiquated grammarian. Now I realize that's the least
> of your troubles. Please take your misogyny elsewhere. I hear the Rabid
> Puppies have openings.

I think this discussion could benefit from a little more light and a
lot less heat.

Here's my contribution: the use of they does sometimes seek awkward.
However, it's not remotely new:

https://stroppyeditor.wordpress.com/2015/04/21/everything-you-ever-wanted-to-know-about-singular-they/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they#Older_usage_by_respected_authors
http://englishbibles.blogspot.com/2006/09/singular-they-in-english-bibles.html

And I do think it's generally worthwhile to avoid the use of "he"
where possible.  Would I have done it exactly the way that Peter did
it here?  Uh, no.  Is it better than not doing anything?  In my
opinion, yes.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 11:59:21AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
> >> Happily for me, I can continue to write documents in a grammatically
> >> correct way, and no-one will read them and think I'm a grammar-nazi (or
> >> obstinate, or old-fashioned or whatever) because unless they're specifically
> >> looking for it no-one will notice that I'm avoiding the contentious usage
> >> altogether. On the other hand, there _will_ be a (perhaps significant)
> >> proportion of people who read your documents and think that you're incapable
> >> of writing a grammatically correct sentence.
> >
> > Wow, 1960s feminazis, eh? I originally thought you were just a narrow
> > minded, pedantic and antiquated grammarian. Now I realize that's the least
> > of your troubles. Please take your misogyny elsewhere. I hear the Rabid
> > Puppies have openings.
> 
> I think this discussion could benefit from a little more light and a
> lot less heat.
> 
> Here's my contribution: the use of they does sometimes seek awkward.
> However, it's not remotely new:
> 
> https://stroppyeditor.wordpress.com/2015/04/21/everything-you-ever-wanted-to-know-about-singular-they/
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they#Older_usage_by_respected_authors
> http://englishbibles.blogspot.com/2006/09/singular-they-in-english-bibles.html
> 
> And I do think it's generally worthwhile to avoid the use of "he"
> where possible.  Would I have done it exactly the way that Peter did
> it here?  Uh, no.  Is it better than not doing anything?  In my
> opinion, yes.

I agree, I think we should avoid gendered pronouns.  

Also, the modern use of they/their absolutely fits here.  It reflects a
deliberate considered choice of of the writer to be inclusive and correct.

Constructs like 'he or she' exclude people.  Enumerating genders is not 
inclusive.  It leads to exclusion and erasure of people who have an non-binary
identities. 

Garick

On 2015-09-22 19:25, Garick Hamlin wrote:
> 
> Constructs like 'he or she' exclude people.
> 

This remains difficult for me to follow but with all the native speakers 
being in favor of this change I for one retract my objections.


thanks,

Erik Rijkers

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 7:11 AM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
> You can think that if you like, but it's not even remotely true. It's a
> deliberate choice to use a new, perfectly reasonable and now widely accepted
> style of which you disapprove, but it's not lazy.

It never occurred to me that this usage is even non-traditional. I am
a native English speaker born in Ireland in the 1980s.

--
Peter Geoghegan

> On Sep 22, 2015, at 6:09 AM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
>
> You are fighting a losing battle. Think of they/them/their/theirs as being indefinitely gendered third person
singularpronouns, as well as being third person plural pronouns. Yes it's a relatively new usage, but I don't think its
atall unreasonable (speaking as someone who has been known to dislike some new usages and neologisms). It's not at all
sloppy.On the contrary, it's quite deliberate. It's just not quite traditional. You need to get over that. 

The use of "their" as singular dates back at least as far as Chaucer in the 14th century, prior to
the use of "you" as a singular pronoun.  Militant grammarian schoolteachers may have told you
not to use it that way, but that doesn't change the history of its use.

Mark Dilger

On 09/22/2015 01:43 PM, Mark Dilger wrote:
>> On Sep 22, 2015, at 6:09 AM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
>>
>> You are fighting a losing battle. Think of they/them/their/theirs as being indefinitely gendered third person
singularpronouns, as well as being third person plural pronouns. Yes it's a relatively new usage, but I don't think its
atall unreasonable (speaking as someone who has been known to dislike some new usages and neologisms). It's not at all
sloppy.On the contrary, it's quite deliberate. It's just not quite traditional. You need to get over that.
 
> The use of "their" as singular dates back at least as far as Chaucer in the 14th century, prior to
> the use of "you" as a singular pronoun.  Militant grammarian schoolteachers may have told you
> not to use it that way, but that doesn't change the history of its use.
>

[recipient list trimmed]

Good point. In the 18th and 19th centuries it was deemed by some 
grammarians to be incorrect for some reason, (and yet Thackeray still 
used it in Vanity Fair, for instance) and now some reactionaries and 
misogynists are fighting to maintain that somewhat latter day rule. But 
I'm pretty certain their numbers will dwindle, as they preach to an ever 
shrinking choir.

cheers

andrew

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
> Good point. In the 18th and 19th centuries it was deemed by some grammarians
> to be incorrect for some reason, (and yet Thackeray still used it in Vanity
> Fair, for instance) and now some reactionaries and misogynists are fighting
> to maintain that somewhat latter day rule. But I'm pretty certain their
> numbers will dwindle, as they preach to an ever shrinking choir.

I agree that this construction is grammatically acceptable in many if
not all cases, but I still think that phrasing the sentences to avoid
this construction is a good idea where we can do it easily.  For
example, this is clearly a good idea:
    So the database administrator can    decide which languages are available in which databases and can make
-    some languages available by default if he chooses.
+    some languages available by default if desired.

And so is this, which just gets rid of a sentence that really isn't needed:
    Possibly, your site administrator has already created a database
-    for your use.  He should have told you what the name of your
-    database is.  In that case you can omit this step and skip ahead
+    for your use.  In that case you can omit this step and skip ahead    to the next section.

But consider this one:

-    return any user name he chooses. This authentication method is
+    return any user name they choose. This authentication method is

You could say "any arbitrary user name" or "any username whatsoever".

Or here:
      or within a session via the <command>SET</> command.  Any user is
-      allowed to change his session-local value.  Changes in
+      allowed to change their session-local value.  Changes in

You could say "This requires no special privileges".  This isn't
really an exact rewrite of the sentence, but in context it means the
same thing.

Or here:

-        -- Who works for us when she must pay for it?
+        -- Who works for us when they must pay for it?

You could say "-- We pay employees; they don't pay us."

I don't think any of these changes are outright wrong except for
"might not be the same as the database user that is to be connect as",
which seems like a muddle.  But I think some of them could be changed
to use other wording that would read more smoothly.

Of course, that is just my opinion, and I clearly feel a lot less
strongly about this than some other people.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

On 2015-09-22 20:33, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> 
> now some reactionaries and misogynists are fighting to maintain
> that somewhat latter day rule.
> 

That's almost as offensive a qualification as 'feminazi', don't you 
agree?

And it rather makes the gender-avoidance sound as a 
political-correctness undertaking which, by the way, was not the reason 
I objected to it.  (It just sounded strange to me (and apparently a few 
others too))

Most likely the original author never thought about giving offence.  And 
most likely he never did give offence.

And as I said earlier: to me it's enough that a few native speakers have 
said this is the way it should be.


Erik Rijkers

Hello,

-      environment variable); any user can make such a change for his 
session.
+      environment variable); any user can make such a change for the 
session.

Or

+ environment variable); any user can make such a change for the 
connected session.

-      allowed to change his session-local value.  Changes in
+      allowed to change the connected session-local value.  Changes in

-   might not be the same as the database user he needs to connect as.
+   might not be the same as the database user that one is connected as.

-    return any user name he chooses. This authentication method is
+    return any user name one may choose. This authentication method is


etc...

JD


-- 
Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/  503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Announcing "I'm offended" is basically telling the world you can't
control your own emotions, so everyone else should do it for you.

>>> Wow, 1960s feminazis, eh? I originally thought you were just a narrow
>>> minded, pedantic and antiquated grammarian. Now I realize that's the least
>>> of your troubles. Please take your misogyny elsewhere. I hear the Rabid
>>> Puppies have openings.

The term feminazi has zero business in this community.

JD

-- 
Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/  503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Announcing "I'm offended" is basically telling the world you can't
control your own emotions, so everyone else should do it for you.

On 9/22/15 11:00 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> On 09/22/2015 10:29 AM, Geoff Winkless wrote:
>> ​ That's your opinion; my opinion remains otherwise. It's not
>> "perfectly reasonable" to abuse the plural because some 1960s
>> feminazis either misunderstood or didn't like the fact that (because
>> of history) in English the gender-neutral singular happens to also be
>> the male singular.
>
> Wow, 1960s feminazis, eh? I originally thought you were just a narrow
> minded, pedantic and antiquated grammarian. Now I realize that's the
> least of your troubles. Please take your misogyny elsewhere. I hear the
> Rabid Puppies have openings.

I think conversations like this are a part of why we have trouble
attracting new contributors (of any gender) to the community.

--
-David
david@pgmasters.net

> I think conversations like this are a part of why we have trouble attracting
> new contributors (of any gender) to the community.

+1

On 23/09/15 08:17, Christopher Browne wrote:
[...]
>
> "The user should do [something]; he or she or it, or the cis/trans/asexual
> personage or connection used by a web application, whether written in
> C, Java, Perl, PHP, running on Windows or Unix or ..." as the increasing
> inclusions heads to some pathological limit.
[...]
> order to be politically correct" will irritate people; instead, make the
> documentation *better*.  Replacing "he" with 
> "he/she/cis/trans/Unix/Windows"
> (or some such) wouldn't make it *better*.  (And probably that's a phrase
> that's missing some legalistic wherefores whereases!)
[...]

You also have to include "they" as some people have multiple 
personalities, I actually met one (but only - as far as I can tell - saw 
one of them) - in the early 1990's I conversed with several people on 
alt.sexual.abuse.recovery, so got more insights into these types of 
complexities than most people.  I was doing a project in network 
traffic, and got to look at some high volume usenet groups, of which 
that group was one.

Don't forget GNU/Linux,  & GNU/Hurd, plus many others...  :-)

I'll settle for avoiding unnecessary use of gender!


Cheers,
Gavin

An example from a book on PostgreSQL server programming that I'm working
through (Note that it is obviously awkward to write with gender pronouns
when gender is irrelevant, note the "he she" in one place and "he/she"
in another!):

    "If the user is a superuser, then he she has permission to see the
    full query. If the user is a regular user, he/she will only see the
    full query for his/her queries."

Written in 'Gender Appropriate' style (only refer to gender when it is
relevant):

    "If the user is a superuser, then they have permission to see the
    full query. If the user is a regular user, they will only see the
    full query for their queries."

I think the second version is easier to read - and in this case, shorter!


-Gavin

On 24/09/15 22:41, Geoff Winkless wrote:
> On 24 September 2015 at 11:33, Gavin Flower
> <GavinFlower@archidevsys.co.nz
> <mailto:GavinFlower@archidevsys.co.nz>>wrote:
>
>     An example from a book on PostgreSQL server programming that I'm
>     working through (Note that it is obviously awkward to write with
>     gender pronouns when gender is irrelevant, note the "he she" in
>     one place and "he/she" in another!):
>
>        "If the user is a superuser, then they have permission to see the
>        full query. If the user is a regular user, they will only see the
>        full query for their queries."
>
> Can I quietly suggest "​Users with superuser pemissions can always see
> the full query​, while regular users will only see the full query for
> their own queries."?
>
> Geoff
By all means say it quietly!  :-)

But I was simply trying to change it into Gender Appropriate form,
rather improve it in other aspects.

However, your rephrasing is better still!


-Gavin