A lack of neutrality on gender neutrality

[hyatt]

Back in September 2007 Tony1 added a section on "gender-neutral" language to the Manual of Style and pushed it by insulting everyone who pointed out that gender-neutral words were already gender-neutral.

But some of the language of the draft is inaccurate: The meaning of The Ascent of Man is not males, but human beings; to claim otherwise is a confusion, now all too common. There is no harm in the substitution when it can be done, as often, without harming cadence; but we should not misstate the grounds for it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

You just don't get it, do you. Tony 01:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The issue has nothing to do with whether women are considered inferior or not. It just happens to be that the English language uses the word "he" in two different senses. It may mean "a human being" or "a male being". There are many words with several meanings. It is usually not a problem and it is up to the reader to determine which is meant in a specific case. −Woodstone 15:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised to have to debate this in 2007. Not any more is he understood in the first sense, at least not by a significant proportion of English-speakers. Sorry, you'll just have to face up to that change. We're no longer living in the 1950s. That is why most style guides now recommend (some insist) on respecting modern perceptions. Your perceptions don't appear to be modern, that's all. Tony 15:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It is utterly ridiculous to ask editors to avoid a properly grammatical language that some have become so accustomed to using in intellectual settings (which is what I thought an encyclopedia - even one like WP - was supposed to be). Despite what Tony asserts, the use of the third person singular pronoun "he" as a universal term is still widely used, and more importantly it is still accepted. ... Stanselmdoc 13:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Still widely used by the odd sexist male. Sure. ... Tony 13:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

He did not argue, he threw an insult whenever he lost the argument. There was a similar discussion on a talk page where the users who knew English were falsely accused of being sexist and out of date.

This is an early case of Wikipedia instituting speech codes.

[CrowsNest]

Insulting and berating opponents whether right or wrong (or simply mistaken, deliberately or otherwise) is normal for Wikipedians. Tony1 has always been that way, and administrators have always turned a blind eye. Editors with better manners only got a respite recently when he finally burned out and engineered his own departure on a manufactured point of principle.

But it appears he was right in the argument, and got it adopted there and then. Advice to use gender neutral language is now an established part of the MoS, although one wonders how effectively this is implemented, given the general lack of respect for the MoS and its implementers by many a notable Wikipedian who consider themselves a content person.

What particular issue do you have with gender neutral language? It makes perfect sense to me - I've even dropped my old romantic notions that ships etc. are "she" after recognising it as a lazy and sexist use of language, borne of a different time. Notably this is still not prohibited by the MoS, but it will be eventually.

[ericbarbour]

Ah, Tony Souter. So annoying they had to create a new WMAU mailing list--to get rid of him.....

http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtop ... =14&t=3425
http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtop ... =14&t=4249

Judging from WMAU's website, they successfully forced Tony out at the end of 2013. But, but, but, Wikipedia is magic! And nothing bad ever happens there!!