Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs

Lloyd Wood <lloyd.wood@yahoo.co.uk> Fri, 21 September 2018 04:35 UTC

Return-Path: <lloyd.wood@yahoo.co.uk>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC6B8130DFC for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 21:35:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=yahoo.co.uk
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MQTY_Roa67GB for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 21:35:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sonic301-20.consmr.mail.ir2.yahoo.com (sonic301-20.consmr.mail.ir2.yahoo.com [77.238.176.97]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B6CB1130DF0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 21:35:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.co.uk; s=s2048; t=1537504515; bh=ketIallHaaVY715vytPB3miN98GrU5SDS5QS7kvzn7w=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From:Subject; b=Jrta+00xz9jsRcW4TiMKCJgebLWuU5UtWqd00tkbdDRTV+VEhLx2lVDHN91JsPYdhq/WCIBAwS497MssifkR52cRZJC9oZJmKajznH2UWWeJjiSv1yqRSVW8eCyFj9HxxC73fgnkdKWpirG/9ddxOlkipBbtfMv78u82LVGmIleGGvY6+B6zL3cn2FeaE9aSNPnIE44AsH4kOQ5GQK+1EuGVthFDRYW/0DMcJ1+JQEfrckg3o3zJ0ZwNXEUk8AR2ZcYa/NLqpzmVqZu5a7OWo2zkiw6q5JFhPZGEX8a8PW7yCdj+ESlKHCLXTgvNenPGu8SNPjBPGXSO+HPfKDUkAw==
X-YMail-OSG: nxRYA7oVM1np9F0NriEsqfVWfEMpzhxtjwON9OPcVmTuVCGI6bo6Oc8UU1Hp02D szt6iQfgXDiws1eYuokwUrIyTPbFKT52P4e53y.DA_JXut57Z.ihsMJBLUsvHHLdOhxNWzuXLFxx 9SiL5XARbD5NUlF62T1WsjPICoBh78dmGpvwhKYth0O4XwF73MPewW6Px_oauTWHLOAAIy55kcX7 HjUmwq7HK7f2P4cpKQfU5PAz9oXybWvynN0tEcDSdJAdsWdqOOMIa2paoPLg2zRn0HtVPkJJKlLv n1sQjer6CaIvLr0Cp2ooqm_pSCetbKGrMONvBH89ioFL_AdjIcocayLTsOC6zExbW0P3aLnHfXKt QtoAzOeHNCd5Gv7X1Ap6Gwnx_VldrPdaGpU0qmR7G5qnM_SIGoI5vKZm9ux4O4rZByAdT7eN3Azn 4zKkP2GIWJ8920B9BPzmTZHzvoSyDmnpXNq5HRaILqq9QE.cmYwSZGgam73OVbko.qoPjXUubTic JmDPOsVa.xk4r28lRrA6jCJJxvbOTsEOpMdHDox7_qbuVfolS1rOSqhtxPyE_kGfXmI34EO6Gvbt meSBwxTB2bkXt1ahWR.B8.0mFK3fJFJwuJ53cpJOz2pkRLgB9OClmFfhUXXHYJPhtMFipc6Sj6DH .X5eggJ8.jUiV.hnyL_BCQF9FMoQZOD7SkCtzyrzWEPfGWajVDrF8lMnv2e_6pjAN9aUTf0ggB.x vuZtT707XD6ST1KnPBxlNHrXB_k3uaKzbCntsQlNhwr9PrTsEjQQeTR5uv5eYpoh4QSbbArfnrgr rO65qaAmAXexW1n0AzbCkJy.Dem9rGXnPhi7Do7Q_.bROQVG_vdQXUvDF4QdszXnhKBHc3TQBVUc XBv5yHJqm7brvtsmtH2MBb_eWJbsrhItxcCvzCr.SL6TPR_I2Bvd.qxyq2MjUCzDJcsXILr7yXjI Qtyd73Q3sWF1s7qtcMTEGwoInbZyZDfa9KXCRfRpHLOthNqBX19pKAA--
Received: from sonic.gate.mail.ne1.yahoo.com by sonic301.consmr.mail.ir2.yahoo.com with HTTP; Fri, 21 Sep 2018 04:35:15 +0000
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2018 04:34:58 +0000
From: Lloyd Wood <lloyd.wood@yahoo.co.uk>
Reply-To: Lloyd Wood <lloyd.wood@yahoo.co.uk>
To: Mark Rousell <mark.rousell@signal100.com>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <682311723.14104310.1537504498982@mail.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <5BA466B2.8060705@signal100.com>
References: <cafa1282-ae6a-93de-ea4a-d100af28d8b8@digitaldissidents.org> <20180920174256.GC68853@isc.org> <5BA454E1.4020105@signal100.com> <CAG4d1rd6e0yG_OffDcCVgLa0ayEDPcfF4yb1a=1d0d3rMZD=0w@mail.gmail.com> <5BA45FFF.80004@signal100.com> <5BA466B2.8060705@signal100.com>
Subject: Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_14104309_867528553.1537504498980"
X-Mailer: WebService/1.1.12406 YahooMailNeo Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/69.0.3497.100 Safari/537.36
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/KNu78VhzFPXn-ZH0X1M3PZZo7ks>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2018 04:35:19 -0000

'"Guys" or "Folks" (which, as an aside, is commonly seen as a rather annoying and jarring phrase where I am)'
Oh, agreed. 'Folks' means I'm about to be patronised by an American. Lloyd Wood lloyd.wood@yahoo.co.uk http://about.me/lloydwood 

      From: Mark Rousell <mark.rousell@signal100.com>
 To: ietf@ietf.org 
 Sent: Friday, 21 September 2018, 13:35
 Subject: Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs
   
 On 21/09/2018 04:05, Mark Rousell wrote:
 
 

 
   Here's another trivial one - people using "guys" instead of "folks" - each use serves to remind women that they are the exception or allowed because their gender doesn't matter.   
 
 "Guys" or "Folks" (which, as an aside, is commonly seen as a rather annoying and jarring phrase where I am) are not industry standard terminology.
 
 
 Although "folks" has nothing to do with industry standard terminology of any sort, I mentioned as an aside that it is commonly seen as a rather annoying and jarring phrase where I am. I said this merely to note it as an aside. I'd never actually complain about it, no matter how annoying I might find it. The reason I would not complain about it is because I am not so selfish or self-centred as to expect other people to change their culture to suit me. As an adult, I accept that I can adapt to work with their culture (if I work within it, join it, live with it or communicate with it), even if some of their phraseology might privately annoy me.
 
 In the parallel context of industry terminology, for a newcomer to a particular industry to get upset over certain well established industry standard terms is making a mistake: They are making the mistake of thinking that it's all about them when, in fact, the usage of the terms that bother them (if any) are nothing whatsoever to do with them (just as the use of "folks" would not be aimed at me)! The industry terms are entirely neutral terms, used only because they have clearly understood meaning in that industry. Joining the industry means, amongst other things, learning the terminology and learning not to take it personally when it is in reality entirely non-personal. Industry terminology really is just neutral, non-harmful communication. Learning it is part of education and adaptation as an adult. In short, no one should expect the mass of people to adapt to you just because it's you; try instead to adapt to the already existing standards that everyone else has been able to adapt to, standards that are not in any way whatsoever shutting you out (since any words you don't like are not aimed at you at all) and which are fully inclusive to everyone involved in the industry, both old and new, not just you.
 
 -- 
Mark Rousell