Re: SV: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs

[Heather Flanagan <[e-mail]>]

>> On Sep 20, 2018, at 10:52, Michael StJohns <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> On 9/20/2018 1:09 PM, Evan Hunt wrote:
>> I think the issue with "man-in-the-middle" isn't that it's offensive,
>> per se, but that the unnecessary use of gendered terminology tends to
>> reinforce mental biases.  In my lifetime in the US, we've largely shifted
>> from "fireman" and "mailman" and "stewardess" to "firefighter" and "mail
>> carrier" and "flight attendant" for similar reasons.  "Man-in-the-middle"
>> carries with it a subtle, unnecessary suggestion that the clever indivdual
>> between Alice and Bob is probably named Carl not Carol.
> 
> Generically, there are some differences between the swap to non-gendered nouns and terms like man-in-the-middle.  The former reflects the reasonable desire to allow people to choose what they'll be called or how they're referred to - there are other examples that are obvious.   But "man-in-the-middle" is just a term of art - one that's succinct and in our context unmistakable.
> 
> I'm concerned we're again off in the weeds here.  English has a lot of words with overloaded meanings and multiple definitions and others that do not. For example - whitelist and blacklist have pretty much singular meanings related to acceptance or rejection, while master has a bunch.    OED says blacklist goes back to at least 1619.  See a discussion on this about 10 years ago at http://garysaid.com/are-the-terms-whitelist-and-blacklist-racist/
> 
> Lastly, words can have cultural overlays that are not obvious. Continuing from Adrian's bundle of sticks, a similar word is a synonym for a cigarette and another similar word expression is a synonym for being tired.  The latter definition appearing around 1450 according to dictionary.com.
> 
> For better or for worse, we have our jargon (and invent it at dizzying rates with every RFC), we borrow jargon from related fields, and we base the remainder of text on established English (please don't use twerk in your RFC's!).    Let's not see shadows that have not yet overtaken us.   And please - let's not require Heather and the RFC folks to become our word conscience.

I can only imagine the possible discussions between the editors and authors, given the heated debates now over ‘simple’ terms like that versus which.

I’m glad the community is having this conversation, because any changes to the use of terms and language in an RFC must come from the community. I don’t think it can reasonably be imposed by the editors. Not unless we significantly change the relationship between the RFC Editor and the authors.

-Heather



> 
> If you feel strongly about this AND you're authoring a draft or RFC - by all means, wordsmith to your hearts content.  Please use words that lead to only one meaning in context where those words are necessary and try not to invent new ones.
> 
> Later, Mike
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>