Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by viraptor 1535 days ago
Keep in mind that many languages are inherently gendered and to ask someone "what did you today?" for example in Polish, you need to use the right gender. Answering anything will also reveal you gender.
2 comments

> Answering anything will also reveal you gender.

Well, in the internet no one knows you're a dog. Some women used to answer using masculine conjugation as a default, to avoid their gender to distract from the things they did or had to say. Some men did the opposite to get attention or more eager responses.

I know it's inconvenient and to some may be considered even insulting as a suggestion, and I don't think it should be the norm. However, it's still a choice you're free to make.

This seems like the ultimate manifestation of old adage "there are no girls on the internet." I suspect that females (especially those not in the tech industry) tend to overwhelmingly hold accounts in their real name, whereas the vast majority of pseudonymous posters are men. It makes a lot of sense from a social conditioning perspective of communication: that females tend to be more relationship-focused whereas males tend to be more object-focused.

As a result, for girls, getting misgendered under a pseudonymous account is seen as danger that comes with the territory. And of course they take it in stride, because that's just what women do all the time.

Only if you declare yourself masculine or feminine, doesn't go any further. Someone could be non-binary and declare themselves more feminine than masculine
In some languages it is impossible to avoid this.
well, luckily most languages are modernizing to accommodate marginalized people! Historical patterns are no excuse to deliberately misgender or genderify language. E.g. for Spanish a lot of people use an X or @ instead of -o -a, same in German. In Scandinavia hön as a pronoun.

In mean eyes what is most important: grammatical correctness or kindness?

Truthful description of relevant info is most important. The constructed profile of the person I'm talking to online is uninteresting to me. You might actually be a dog for all I know. If you want me to play along so you're never confronted with being identified as a dog... then I'm not sure I'm really doing you a favor. Maybe the kindest thing is not to play along with your language game.
> Maybe the kindest thing is not to play along with your language game.

My comment was in response to someone indicating that certain European languages forced you to know the gender of the person you were speaking to. So, the "language game" is already ongoing. This is why people have constructed careful expansions to the grammar, to make language non-genderized.

What is the alternative? To assume everyone identifies as a male?

To understand that terms like mankind already refer to all humanity is a small part of it. Another part is that communication serves us in finding suitable mates and manipulation of language towards social goals is likely to have outcomes that are eventually counter to what is meaningful to us as individuals.

I'd also disagree that expanding a language carefully is what is being done here. It is unlikely towards the goal of expressing ourselves more clearly.

Yes.
“a lot of people” who don’t live in Spanish-speaking countries.

Grammatical incorrectness is unkind to anyone who has to listen to you.

In the USA, one of the world's most populous spanish-speaking countries, Spanish communication is often conducted using -x ending, even by the president.
The US is actually #2, behind Mexico (closely tied with Spain).

> Spanish communication is often conducted using -x ending

That’s true if by “Spanish communication” you mean NPR reporters sprinkling a couple of “Latinx”s into their English-language articles.

> even by the president

This does not make the case you might be hoping it makes.

The USA is not the epicenter of the Spanish language. The world does not revolve around the USA.
In Polish language it is flatly impossible, male/female/neuter is strongly built into grammar.

It would require remaking significant part of language, it is not a minor tweak like singular they in English.

Demanding this is a runaway imperialism.