Post by @keithreeder@newsie.social

2023-01-14 15:03 UTC

@Kay@mastodon.nz @weaniejeanie53@mas.to Why not? It's a *very* long-standing convention (which began in British jurisprudence) that in the absence of specific information as to sex, references to "he" can be construed to include "she". It's just a traditional shorthand, nothing more.

Replies (3)

@weaniejeanie53@mas.to 2023-01-14 16:41

@keithreeder@newsie.social @Kay@mastodon.nz yes I tend to do it if I don’t know the gender of an animal apart from with cats who I tend to assume are female.

Open ##2927265
@Kay@mastodon.nz 2023-01-15 00:33

Colonial history is or should be outdated. NZ jurisprudence is based on Westminster/ British law but has moved on to plain language and nongendered terms in most instances, and even recently started honouring treaty with indigenous people Māori on observance of law. Isn't it time for UK authorities to modernize too?

Open ##2927272
@till@nerdica.net 2023-01-23 09:32

@keithreeder@newsie.social @Kay@mastodon.nz @weaniejeanie53@mas.to I'm not that far in to learning Japanese, but as far as I can tell, it easily allows to refer to stuff without assigning any gender at all. In (most? all?) European languages, this is simply not possible. Could this be a lazy translation?

Open ##2927283