Gender biases

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by kriesel

a hardware-savvy support guy can open it

I think you mean person.

[kriesel]

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

I think you mean person.

Good grief, you're still looking for trouble where there isn't any, I see. See definition 1b of https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/guy
(usually used in the plural, but the singular logically follows)
A good friend was a network engineer, and at a slight 4'11", particularly valued for tracing network cables through spaces others could not fit through.

[Uncwilly]

Just wanting to remove gender bias in our language. Guy referring to a female is generally only used in the collective, not the singular.

Just like the fact that we should use police officer, fire fighter, or mail carrier vs. their male gendered versions.

[kriesel]

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

Just wanting to remove gender bias in our language. Guy referring to a female is generally only used in the collective, not the singular.

Just like the fact that we should use police officer, fire fighter, or mail carrier vs. their male gendered versions.

The "fact" you refer to is an opinion.
Does your PC bias also extend to an aversion to actor and/or actress?
How far should this go; gender neutral avatars?

How about instead something that actually helps the OP solve the posted problem.

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by kriesel

Does your PC bias also extend to an aversion to actor and/or actress?
How far should this go; gender neutral avatars?

A person is free to express their identity as they will. I don't care if you use an avatar that is a pig, a boat, a man, a woman, or a planet.

Using "PC bias" shows that you have a bias. When we use words in various ways that can show our bias. Saying "guy" is biased toward IT hardware person being a male. Saying "person" or "staffer" shows that you believe that the job should be open to anyone.

I have no problem using actor and actress. When referring to a particular person or a role for a particular gender, it is commonly ok to use actress. But, if the role has no cause for a particular gender to play it, it can be open to any actor. Currently that is term that includes all persons of that profession. There have been moves in some occupations to move beyond certain gendered names for a profession, such as seamstress changing to sewer.

[kriesel]

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

Using "PC bias" shows that you have a bias.

It shows that I object to being nitpicked over a 3-character word selected while focused on the task at hand, the purpose of the thread, helping the OP. A word that is pretty accurate even in your most gender-specific interpretation, statistically speaking. Even working for decades at a very progressive/left leaning university, whose gender equity committee was a very inequitable 90% female, it was rare to even receive a resume for an IT person that was female when recruiting publicly for our little department. Great care was taken to seek women employees, and on one occasion it was clear that only a female would be considered for an engineering post, regardless of qualifications other than gender.

As a relative of both males and females of working age, I object to discrimination in hiring for or against either based on gender, unless it is one of the rare exceptions where it is central to performance of the work.

I object to the constant tax on productivity that constant vigilance toward what the PC police may imagine represents some possible clue to a possible sliver of perceived bias, actively seeking bias and seeing what they're looking for whether it's there or not. A momentary lapse in following current PC doctrine or ambiguity of wording is pounced upon. It is very one-sided though. And not inconsistent with a love of wielding power over others.

This forum is about Mersennes, not gender studies or poli sci. It's unfortunate when that intrudes.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by kriesel

This forum is about Mersennes, not gender studies or poli sci. It's unfortunate when that intrudes.

Conversely, while we're not "snowflakes" here, I'd argue this fight should be taken to any and all fronts possible.

Without meaning to blow sun-shine up my own butt, when I was the lead drafts-person for the Barbados VoIP Policy I made sure all references to humans were gender-neutral.

It's not really all that difficult to do, and in my opinion, is "cleaner code"...

[VBCurtis]

Originally Posted by kriesel

How about instead something that actually helps the OP solve the posted problem.

Since you insert your opinion into pretty much every thread on this forum, educating *you* contributes to the quality of the forum. That's what multiple users are attempting here, but it's surely not your way to conclude "ok, that's the way the wind blows around here", let alone consider the perspective of a woman in such roles; rather, you argue and complain.

"I oppose discrimination, but no woman should care whether we refer to her job by a male pronoun" is hardly a defensible position.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

There have been moves in some occupations to move beyond certain gendered names for a profession, such as seamstress changing to sewer.

Even as a young child, I appreciated Roddenberry's use of the "Mr." honorific for all sentient entities. Men, women, aliens (of god-knows-what gender) and, of course, our beloved Mr. Data.

[preda]

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

Just wanting to remove gender bias in our language. Guy referring to a female is generally only used in the collective, not the singular.

Just like the fact that we should use police officer, fire fighter, or mail carrier vs. their male gendered versions.

This line of discussion could form the basis of a fascinating separate thread, IMO.

[ixfd64]

Originally Posted by preda

This line of discussion could form the basis of a fascinating separate thread, IMO.

Agreed. I've moved the posts to a new thread.