Template talk:User -genderneutral
Untitled
No vandalism here, just an incomplete template. First, the template was completely empty, so I copied into it what was called "gender-inclusive". Next, I considered the possibility and (messy) consequences of renaming the -(minus)genderneutral template. BTW, to be more in line with the other userboxes, this box should be labeled "genderneutral:No".
The actual -(minus)gender-neutral box was misnamed "gender-inculsive", the latter being the true
Gender-neutral : no reference to gender :: gender-inclusive : reference to both genders
examples: All students should bring their books. :: Each student should bring his or her book.
As for the -(minus)gender-neutral box, it contains both an error and a politics-based, not grammatical comment.
1. ERROR - A traditional and long-standing language practice has nothing to do with "(the) vernacular". This term, therefore, is out of place. There's no need to appeal to false authority/majority to justify a common and transparent language practice.
2. BIAS - The "politically-correct" comment is unnecessary, the more so in that it's in scare quotes instead of necessary, basic quotes.
The boxes reflect _grammatical_ stances, not political ones and even if they are tinged with politics it's an issue of clarity or simple humor, i.e. Am English and BS, respectively.
Consequently, I'm thinking up an appropriate maxim for the -(minus)genderneutral box.CJ Withers 19:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
===>Ah. Now I understand. I thought you were changing the userbox to change the stance of editors on their personal pages, and that seemed pernicious. I didn't name the box, so I have no vested interest in it staying under this name, so please feel free to move it as far as I'm concerned. -Justin (koavf), talk 23:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
The newly updated maxim by CJ Withers is very good, totally outclassing my barely adequate stop-gap edit to remove the political content. I propose the maxim remain unaltered henceforth. TheKaplan 05:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)