-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 207
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Use "It" in example should be removed #278
Comments
Hi there, thanks for the issue! The list of suggestions is not meant to be a list of equivalents although I understand that it is easily seen that way and that that hurts. Instead it’s meant as a list of alternatives depending on context. When you say |
Ah I see. That's a fair point. We do use person pronouns in place non-person entities and in that case "it" would be better. That's also not something that is easily determined programmatically so I can see why both would be suggested. In that case, could a note be added to the docs that states it's not meant to be an equivalent but that people will need to determine which word is appropriate? |
Good to hear Merlin! If you’re interested, I recently wrote more about why alex exists, what its problems are, and where I see it going: https://wooorm.com/blog/alex/
Yes! I want to make it much clearer that there are significant shortcomings! While I do understand that I am responsible for the current state, it is open source, so it will unfortunately take some time. |
Subject of the feature
"It" should not be used in an example
Problem
In the below example, "it" is offered as a replacement for "he." "They" is sufficient. The problem with using "it" is that this equivocates "it" and "they." "It" is used for non-person entities and so by using the term here, this implies that people who use "they" aren't people. If you want to use a second example, use another pronoun like "xe"
Expected behaviour
Either only list "they" or use a different pronoun in place of "it"
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: