Andrew Braithwaite wrote:
>When I first read the phrase in question it made perfect sense in the
>context in which it was written.
>
The fact that it made sense to you is somewhat irrelevant to whether it
made sense to the complainant(s).
>mysql> UPDATE persondata SET age=age*2, age=age+1;
>
>Removed because it's ageist and therefore branded as non politically correct
>and subsequently binned?
>
>
You seem to have a hard time distinguishing between valid complaints of
usage and invalid ones. How, may I ask, is the use of "age = age + 1"
supposed to be politically incorrect? The fact that an unspecified
individuals' age has increased by a year is not a matter of political
incorrectness by any definition or from any angle. You can't even spin
that to look politically incorrect if you were the type to do such a
thing. Obviously you believe that the very mention of something that is
remotely linked to something politically incorrect makes the former
worthy of mention, but this is not the case for those who are in fact
concerned about not being offensive.
I've never pushed anyone to say 'person-hole cover' or 'person-made' or
even told someone to avoid referring to one's actions as 'maternal' when
being caring. I do however see the potential for confusion in the 'sex'
case, especially when it is so _simple_ to change it to 'gender'. You
cannot argue against the use of 'gender' in this case (although Paul
made an admirable attempt to do so) and there is no meaning lost by
doing so (and therefore no reason _not_ to do it, except sheer laziness,
of which most of us are probably guilty).
My appologies for spamming the list with this drivel.
--
Michael T. Babcock
C.T.O., FibreSpeed Ltd. SQL
http://www.fibrespeed.net/~mbabcock
