But isn't your restriction of my language and how I refer to the people I love pretty much the opposite of "inclusion"?
What if my wife would prefer if I referred to her as my "wife" instead of as a generic, faceless "partner"? By insisting that I refer to her as a genderless "partner", you are failing to respect her chosen pronoun.
Re:How Basecamp Blew Up
by joshuamorton on Thursday May 06, 2021 @01:42AM
(#27059556)
This is almost certainly for product or marketing materials, and not for you talking about your personal relationships. That is Okta should not talk about building a security tool for you and your wife to use, but instead for you and your partner to use.
Because I have no clue who your partner is (or really if you have one) so I shouldn't assume until I have that information. Note that the words in the example are all plural, presumably referring to multiple other peoples' partners.
Oh, I see what you are saying. I can definitely get behind the use of gender neutral language in product and marketing materials. That part makes sense anyways.
Re:How Basecamp Blew Up
by evrydayhustling on Tuesday May 04, 2021 @11:59PM
(#27046034)
Curious about the context here - is the guidance page suggesting how to refer to your own relationships, or when referring to an abstract group of relationships?
"More inclusive: Spouses/partners <> Less inclusive: Wives, husbands, boyfriends, girlfriends"