[flagged]
> When a user visits a web page, he expects [...]
then yes, I'd even just say that's wrong, no opinion or politics about it.
However if it's:
> So once Alice has published the website, and Bob visits it in his browser, he expects [...]
and the PR is suggesting that actually we don't know how fictional Bob identifies... Then personally I just think that's tedious, the pronouns are helpful to disambiguate Alice & Bob in shorthand anyway, and that is bringing 'political' (ish? Societal?) views into it.
The change was to replace:
To prevent this, remove `anon` from the `wheel` group and he will no longer be able to run `/bin/su`.
To prevent this, remove `anon` from the `wheel` group and they will no longer be able to run `/bin/su`.
At least, that's what I was taught at a private school, in a Conservative-voting area, ~25 years ago.
(I've always disliked the 'unknown-she/her' for 'important' roles too, for the same reason: it's fighting wrong with opposite wrong. Matt Levine for example will write 'if you ask someone on the front desk I feel like she will tell you' - it's an abstract person, they will tell you. Grr. Anyway.)
In this particular case I might actually say 'it' anyway. But in general I think to native English speakers (because we don't gender most things) it's pretty clear it should be 'they' if the sentence is more mundane and bias-free, like 'find someone to ask for directions, and if they don't know [...]' - it's just weird if you substitute '(s)he doesn't' isn't it?
This was the closest one I could find https://github.com/LadybirdBrowser/ladybird/pull/366