The Python documentation contains unnecessarily verbose and gendered language which does not enhance clarity, and rather, serves as non-inclusive to the LGTBQ community

For example:
https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3136/


"Introduction
The break statement allows the programmer to terminate a loop early, and the continue statement allows the programmer to move to the next iteration of a loop early. In Python currently, break and continue can apply only to the innermost enclosing loop.

Motivation
If the programmer wishes to move to the next iteration of an outer enclosing loop, or terminate multiple loops at once, he or she has a few less-than elegant options."

There are 2 issues here. First is that break and continue don't allow the programmer to do anything, they cause the program control flow to change. Second, there is no reason to appeal to gendered pronouns which are antiquated. The motivation section could easily be rewritten to a more include and parsimonious form (less chatter):

"Motivation
Python syntax is limited when it comes to moving to the next iteration of an outer enclosing loop, or terminating multiple loops at once, "

Hi,

https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3136/ is not really directly part of Python. The document is hosted at https://github.com/python/peps/ and was authored by Matt Chisholm. I suggest you to propose a PR on the PEP document and try to get it reviewed by Matt Chisholm.

See also https://github.com/python/devguide/issues/605 "List terms which should be avoided".

Hello David,

I really don't think you speak for the entire LGBTQ community. You don't speak for me or my wife.

You mention two issues here:

"First is that break and continue don't allow the programmer to do anything, they cause the program control flow to change."

And by changing program control flow, they allow the programmer to do many things. That's why we use them: because we want to do something, and the break and continue statements allow us to do so more conveniently that the alternatives.

You say:

"Second, there is no reason to appeal to gendered pronouns which are antiquated."

If gendered pronouns are antiquated, why do people care about choosing their pronouns?

David, I would like to assume good faith, but coming in here and declaring that pronouns are antiquated seems a bit... trollish. I am sure that there are many people who do not agree that pronouns are antiquated or irrelevant. I am pretty sure that there are some people in the mailing list who would be very upset if you misgendered them by insisting that they need no gendered pronouns.

Many people consider their personal choice of pronoun important enough to list it in their mail signature or profile, at possible risk to their own safety.

What you describe as "more include[sic] and parsimonious form (less chatter)" reads to me as a more passive, excessively terse, less inclusive form that is also incorrect, since "Python syntax is limited..." is not a *motivation*. Motivation must refer to human desire, and your version not only has no human desire, it has no reference to humans at all. It reads to me as a  cold, abstract statement divorced from any motivation or human need.

The other issue aside, changing

"If the programmer wishes to move to the next iteration of an outer enclosing loop, or terminate multiple loops at once, he or she has a few less-than elegant options."

to

"If the programmer wishes to move to the next iteration of an outer enclosing loop, or terminate multiple loops at once, they have a few less-than elegant options."

seems pretty straight forward. But like Victor said, this discussion should be happening on an issue in the peps repo and not here.

Thanks Victor, I will submit a change request for both of the documents you specified.

https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3136/ https://github.com/python/devguide/issues/605

Steven, it sounds like we agree to the change proposal, which is to remove gendered language from the documentation.

Thanks also for your input and feedback, Ammar.

On Tue, Sep 08, 2020 at 06:23:58PM +0000, David Williams wrote:
> Steven, it sounds like we agree to the change proposal, which is to 
> remove gendered language from the documentation.

What?

Did you even read what I wrote?