bug#57046: Spanish documentation uses exclusive language

[pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)]

Thank you Csepp/raingloom for speaking up.

Csepp <raingloom@riseup.net> writes:
> Just a thought, but maybe it shouldn't be a group of men who decides
> what language is and is not inclusive

I believe we don’t disagree on what is / is not inclusive.

> and whether that's important.
> We've had some Outreachy interns, maybe some of them wouldn't mind being
> consulted on this.

There has been plenty of debate elsewhere; no need to bother; I guess
there won’t be consensus.  Yes, we could have a policy without
consensus.  Actually there may be a majority in favor of using verbose
speech that includes all.

Like "Once the patch is committed in the Guix repository[…].  Users can
obtain the new package definition simply by running guix pull"

"Una vez el parche se haya incorporado al repositorio de Guix[…].  Las
usuarias y los usuarios pueden obtener la nueva definición de paquete
ejecutando simplemente guix pull"

But doing that for every such sentence seems bothersome to read even in
cases when the sentence isn’t long already.  For French this is done but
not always.  Should it still be policy?  A strict or a lenient policy?

We could also just leave it to the individual Weblate translators until
an actual edit war occurs.  Even generic las usuarias had bothered
someone before on the Guix mailing lists but didn’t bother that much.
(I cannot find the link; it was a discussion involving Miguel Ángel
Arruga Vivas and that he uses “New Spanish”.)

Though the translation has become stale anyway and doesn’t fit the
English anymore; someone would need to update it.  Then generic las
usuarias stays until someone changes it on Weblate.

Should this bug be closed then?


> (Or we could do what Michael Warren Lucas does in his books: switch
> between female, male, and neutral.  I don't see how that would be
> exclusive.)

Well yeahh, yet another option. xD

Regards,
Florian