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

--
Sent via pgsql-committers mailing list (pgsql-committers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-committers

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

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

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

--
Sent via pgsql-committers mailing list (pgsql-committers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-committers

On 22 September 2015 at 09:28, Albe Laurenz <laurenz.albe@wien.gv.at> wrote:

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

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

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

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

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?

Geoff

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

--
Sent via pgsql-committers mailing list (pgsql-committers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-committers

Hello all,

I'm a non-native speaker and to my shame not very good in english at all. So just my 2c on the topic:

"Users can make such a change for their individual sessions" is for me perfectly understandable.
"any user can make such a change for their session" is for me a mixture of a singular and a plural form and difficult to understand whether this is just a spelling error (is it individual sessions?) or just another gap in my knowledge. From my point of view the documentation is not just for english native speakers but for all the ones which don't have a translation to their language and as such one shouldn't look at the newest trends in "correctness".

RegardsWolfgang

Geoff Winkless <pgsqladmin@geoff.dj> schrieb am 12:18 Dienstag, 22.September 2015:

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; maybe 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

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

--
Sent via pgsql-committers mailing list (pgsql-committers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-committers

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

--
Sent via pgsql-committers mailing list (pgsql-committers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-committers

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

--
Sent via pgsql-committers mailing list (pgsql-committers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-committers

On 22 September 2015 at 14:09, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:

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.

​​It _is_ sloppy. It says "I can't be bothered to write a sentence that's
grammatically correct".
​

You need to get over that.

I don't need to get over anything. 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.

In much the same way, I know that I can safely discount the opinion of
anyone who uses "literally" to mean anything other than "literally"
(
​similarly anyone who uses
"like" as a quotative)
​, even though both of those things are now in fairly common usage.​
​

Your proposed style would make writing docs a lot harder,

I don't buy that at all. It takes a couple of seconds, if that, to come up
with something.

forcing us to avoid use of the singular in cases where it is quite
natural.

​Better than using the plural in the singular case.
​

I'm strongly opposed to such a style rule.

​Meh. I don't really care how it's written, certainly not enough to make a
stand about it. I'd rather you guys concentrate on writing the brilliant
software than wasting time on stuff like this. I only replied because the
conversation popped up in my inbox and it seemed to be something on which
opinions were requested.

Geoff

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

--
Sent via pgsql-committers mailing list (pgsql-committers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-committers

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> 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.

Geoff

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

--
Sent via pgsql-committers mailing list (pgsql-committers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-committers

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

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

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

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

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

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

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 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.

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

--
Sent via pgsql-committers mailing list (pgsql-committers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-committers