Hacker News Reader

Comment by zackkatz | Hacker News Reader

This article assumes it’s a man.

The researcher only uses male pronouns. “This guy…or guys”!

I find it shocking that this gets past the editing room in 2019.

The so-called masculine pronouns can be gender neutral. Their use is usual and proper when the gender of someone is unknown. This is true of practically every language on Earth.

Another way to see it is that he/him/his are always gender neutral, and only the feminine forms are gendered for clarity when context calls for it. Most often context does not, which could be why you’ll so regularly hear all-women groups referring to each other as “guys”.

Millennia of human societal development doesn’t care about the enlightened PC arrogance of 2019.

Sure, there are reasons why having gendered pronouns at all can be bothersome in today’s world. There is some merit to the idea of doing away with them, but you can’t force cultural change on human beings. Even if we move to gender neutral pronouns, the zeitgeist would most likely simply revert to he/his/him like it always has, rather than some contrived “xe” or similar such.

>The so-called masculine pronouns can be gender neutral. Their use is usual and proper when the gender of someone is unknown. This is true of practically every language on Earth.

In theory, sure.

But imagine I told that riddle where the solution is "the surgeon is the boy's mother". But I kept referring to the surgeon by the "gender neutral" pronoun "he".

You wouldn't feel like you had been misled? You wouldn't feel I had committed to a gender?

I'm not a fan of being super-PC about pronouns, myself. But you have to admit, they do trick you into certain assumptions about the referent that can lead you astray (unless you practice Herculean levels of epistemic hygiene).

I'd rather err on the number than accidentally rule out a gender.

> But imagine I told that riddle where the solution is "the surgeon is the boy's mother". But I kept referring to the surgeon by the "gender neutral" pronoun "he".

In that case you would indeed be deliberately misleading your hearer. Given that you know the gender of the surgeon, and indeed this information is key to your riddle, you would be expected to use a specifically matching pronoun (if any - in practice, of course, the riddle is carefully phrased so as to avoid using a pronoun for the surgeon).

That's not comparable to referring to an unknown person of unspecified gender, where the long-established English convention is to use "he" as a non-gender-specific singular pronoun.

Let me say it a different way then.

You can't both say that "he" is a gender neutral pronoun for a generic person, and that I'm affirming a specific gender for said person with "he". Those are directly contradictory.

"He" - like many words - has multiple meanings and usages. Context matters. In some contexts, it is an unambiguously male pronoun. In others, it's not.

It doesn't work to pick just one specific definition, and then interpret the word according to that definition in every context. Human language is rarely that rigid.

If "he" really, unambiguously functions as a gender neutral pronouns for persons of unspecified identity, that shouldn't matter, though.

Enlightened arrogance is one thing. Being aware of—and addressing—bias in articles is another.

“They” doesn’t cost anyone anything. It’s not a new word. It’s gender-neutral. It’s an easy win, and a change worth making.

Generally I agree with you. However using "he" also doesn't cost anyone anything in this context. After reading I couldn't have told you if the author had used "he," "she," or "they" until you mentioned it.

Their gender identity is inconsequential to the story. He, she, they, whatever. Does it change the story?

It does change the story. “He” excludes 50% of potential perpetrators. Using “they” does not.

No, it doesn't.

Excerpted from the Oxford English Dictionary (the full entry being far too long for a comment here):

he, pron., n.1, and adj.

A. pron. The subjective case of the masculine third person singular pronoun.

I. As personal pronoun.

...

b. In anaphoric reference to a singular noun or pronoun of undetermined gender. Cf. they pron. 2.

(http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/84893#eid302969944)

No. Any reasonable reader can conclude that the author does not know the identity of the perpetrator thus "he" is simply a placeholder for an unknown person. Yes, they author could have used, "they" instead, but they didn't. Hardly a mortal sin.

Let's see why author might say that:

- 90% of people involved in crypto are male

- 80% of programmers are male

- 60%-80% of criminals are male (depending on what you count)

So use those stats in the story and back up why the author assumes it’s a man.

Assumptions blind you to reality, however.

Even worse: This article perpetuates the gender disparity in tech you reference.

The story has absolutely nothing to do with whether the perpetrator is male, female or a group of people. Not everything needs to have a social justice slant. Arguing about the use of gender pronouns in this context is nonsensical and devalues the entire mission of gender equality. There's a reason why "social justice warrior" has become a derogatory term. Inciting fights over minutia only serves to piss off reasonable people who might otherwise be on your side.

While the usage of pronouns in this particular article has no impact on gender equality, the sum of the hundreds of other that do the same absolutely have one. It feed the expectation that hacker are all men, which push away women, which makes it more true. And since most people are not aware of this it does make sense to inform them.

guy is not a male pronoun

Women have been historically oppressed and that most criminals (including rapists) are male anyway. Your "not all men" sentiment is unwelcome here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com