[randomdata]

Regardless, it remains that gender-neutral "they" was considered a suitable replacement, thereby indicating that gender was irrelevant to the subject of the comment all along. The gender correction seems to be more about pedantry than confusion. "They" could not possibly work in the comment if gender was a required part of understanding it.

[masklinn]

> Regardless, it remains that gender-neutral "they" was considered a suitable replacement, thereby indicating that gender was irrelevant to the subject of the comment all along.

Of course it was, as specifically noted in said corrective comment. Your comment could either use the author's actual gender or not involve gender at all./

> The gender correction seems to be more about pedantry than confusion.

No, the gender correction was about getting the author's gender wrong.

[randomdata]

> Your comment could either use the author's actual gender or not involve gender at all.

To be clear, I was not the one who originally used gender-neutral "he" over "she".

> No, the gender correction was about getting the author's gender wrong.

Due to overzealous pedantry, or a misunderstanding of what "he" means in english? Understandably not everyone comes here with english as their first language, so I can appreciate that the word may be not fully understood by some.

[kbp]

> overzealous pedantry

Some people might consider it pedantic to insist to someone who was confused by a choice of wording, and offered a less potentially confusing alternative, that actually it's fine because it's technically correct, regardless of how people understand it when they read it.

[randomdata]

Absolutely it is. Nothing wrong with pedantry per-se, but with respect to this particular discussion it helps to understand the motivation to understand if the person is not clear on what "he" means, which we can help correct to prevent future confusion when future comments use gender-neutral "he", or is just trying to have some fun, which we can safely ignore.

[kbp]

Sorry, I just edited in a second quote to my previous comment that addresses that part of your point.

[randomdata]

No worries. To your edit:

> Would you be so defensive about someone correcting a wrong, but not critically important, date?

First of all, the usage of "he" is not technically wrong.

I do not know if there is a great date analogy here, but perhaps "tomorrow" carries enough ambiguity across timezones that we can work with it. If I say tomorrow is Tuesday, but you are in a timezone where tomorrow is Wednesday, then you're fine to say that tomorrow is Wednesday, and I'll chime in to say that tomorrow is also technically Tuesday. To continue to argue that the original comment shouldn't have used "tomorrow" as it is too ambiguous to understand is fine, but given that you say it is not critically important, I'm not sure what there is to gain?

If, by "tomorrow", I mean Tuesday and you think I'm talking about Wednesday, does it really matter when it is just a passing fact and not something particularly relevant to the overall message?