[issue41743] Remove Unnecessarily Gendered Language from the Documentation

[Steven D'Aprano]

Steven D'Aprano <steve+python at pearwood.info> added the comment:

Hello David,

I really don't think you speak for the entire LGBTQ community. You don't speak for me or my wife.

You mention two issues here:

"First is that break and continue don't allow the programmer to do anything, they cause the program control flow to change."

And by changing program control flow, they allow the programmer to do many things. That's why we use them: because we want to do something, and the break and continue statements allow us to do so more conveniently that the alternatives.

You say:

"Second, there is no reason to appeal to gendered pronouns which are antiquated."

If gendered pronouns are antiquated, why do people care about choosing their pronouns?

David, I would like to assume good faith, but coming in here and declaring that pronouns are antiquated seems a bit... trollish. I am sure that there are many people who do not agree that pronouns are antiquated or irrelevant. I am pretty sure that there are some people in the mailing list who would be very upset if you misgendered them by insisting that they need no gendered pronouns.

Many people consider their personal choice of pronoun important enough to list it in their mail signature or profile, at possible risk to their own safety.

What you describe as "more include[sic] and parsimonious form (less chatter)" reads to me as a more passive, excessively terse, less inclusive form that is also incorrect, since "Python syntax is limited..." is not a *motivation*. Motivation must refer to human desire, and your version not only has no human desire, it has no reference to humans at all. It reads to me as a  cold, abstract statement divorced from any motivation or human need.

----------
nosy: +steven.daprano

_______________________________________
Python tracker <report at bugs.python.org>
<https://bugs.python.org/issue41743>
_______________________________________