I feel like I should point out that “fireman” and “women” are not pronouns, they are nouns.
No conservative Bingo card is complete without a “Berkely” and an “AOC”.
I’m surprised Berkeley hadn’t already done this. Wasn’t the gender neutral pronoun debate done years ago?
For right wing demagoguery being wrong, even egregiously wrong, I irrelevant. Just drop a Bombay characterizing “the libs” as idiots and no after what the truth is, the targets’ “feelings” have been successfully reinforced.
It’s trolling as a political strategy and a way of life.
I think autocorrect may have murdered your post.
Maybe it’s Cockney rhyming slang … lemme make something up … okay, it’s a shortening of “Bombay Duck” to rhyme with clusterf*ck.
And the goal of the trolling is not to convert liberals. The intended audience is backsliding conservatives, who need reassurance that the outside world is full of crazies.
Good lord. Can this thread be put out of ēs misery, please?
I’m also surprised Berkeley’s just getting to it; maybe they haven’t rewritten the relevant sections of code in a while? I got male-specific pronouns pretty well out of the town zoning book in, it must have been the revision done somewhere in the 1990’s; though each time we go through the book again I seem to find an instance or two that got missed. (It’s slightly more complicated than just doing a word search, as some sentences become awkward if not changed a bit otherwise; but I’d still expect $600 to have been used mostly for reprinting any needed hardcopies. It shouldn’t cost much for what actual rewriting would be necessary. Changing text is otherwise a lot cheaper than it used to be.)
This is overall a very red area, full of conservative rural people, a number of whom are on the board. Back in the 90’s I had to argue with the oldest planning board member, while everybody else on the board just waited for me to argue him down and then voted for the changes. Since he retired there hasn’t even been an argument, just ‘oh we did miss that one, didn’t we? everybody approve [thorny’s] rewrite of the sentence? OK then.’
Considering they’ve been doing that kind of thing since the 1980s, why would anyone be so upset over this now? I can’t remember the last time anyone freaked out about “firefighter” or “mail carrier”?
Yeesh.
Heh. (But, “es” is for people)
I see your trap, I am NOT calling for putting Velocity out of ēs misery. Nice try, but no warning for me!
Well, certainly bruised it, anyway.
It is still a waste of $600. Doesn’t change a single thing and only makes liberals feel better. What is the pressing need for it?
It only costs $600 and makes liberals feel better. That’s reason enough.
Actually, legislative drafters tell me it provides greater precision. Sometimes “he” and “him” can be ambiguous when there are several individuals or positions being referred to. If the statute always says things like “the complainant”, “the licence-issuer”, the “applicant”, it’s always clear exactly who is being referred to. If that greater precision prevents even one lawsuit, that will pay for the $600 cost.
That is a different issue, but it doesn’t seem like what Berkeley is doing simply by eliminating gendered pronouns. They or them is even more ambiguous (as it could refer to the plural) than he or him or “he or she” or “him or her.”
My state, whenever it amends a statute, substitutes “he or she” for “he” and “him or her” for “him.” There is also a catch all provision that any gendered pronouns shall refer to either sex.
Many statutes also refer to “the county jail” even though we don’t have county jails anymore and “the penitentiary” even though we have several prisons and don’t refer to them as penitentiaries anymore (at least officially). But again, a catchall provision says basically that anytime you see “county jail” it means “regional jail” and when you see “penitentiary” it means in the custody of the Division of Corrections.
I have never heard a single individual see a statute like “If any person commits murder, he shall be imprisoned for life” and be outraged by it. If a handful of people are, it is not worth the cost of rewriting a code.
Why assume outrage is the motive rather than precision? You say your state has catch all’s for improper verbiage. Did those catch alls cost less than $600 to write up? Is it a better solution?
Whatever it costs, the catchall is cheaper that rewriting the whole code. And precision? Are you or anyone you know confused with something like “If a man litters on the highway he shall be fined $500”? Do you read that and believe that a woman can litter without penalty?
If nobody is confused by that, then it is a solution in search of a problem.
And to be fair, it is not really improper, but antiquated. AFAIK, the French still use the male form of a singular pronoun when the gender of the individual is unknown or generic, and the male form of the plural pronoun when the group is unknown or comprised of at least one male. We used to do that with the singular, and some old people still do it.
Yes, I have no problem changing that to meet with the custom of the times, but we can do that piecemeal without expending any money unnecessarily.