After reading this, in particular the “The Facts” section, my understanding is: he got pulled into making a political statement about gender and he didn’t want to get involved with that.
Yet again, that “crowd” didn’t like Ladybird’s refusal to play, therefore that “crowd” does what they’re known best doing: cry high and loud on the internet playing the victim.
In a sense, that “crowd” shoved their political agenda down his throat, and that’s the only thing I personally find reprehensible here.
Refusal to make a “political” statement is very much political when the politics in question is about acknowledging non-men exist. There is no politically neutral choice when there are two options who are both political.
It isn’t totally false; the claim that the use of the generic masculine is the result of or may have been informed by sexism is based on the fact that it hasn’t always been that way.
Here is a more nuanced and better take:
The generic masculine in modern English is a recent development, as you noted: English used the non-gendered “they” for groups of people and hypothetical/non-specific individuals until prescriptive efforts arose to make it more like Latin. (You can find lots of traces of these prescriptive efforts in modern English: “don’t split infinitives” and “don’t strand prepositions” are similar rules imposed to make English more like Latin, which are still taught in schools but most people don’t really follow.)
After reading this, in particular the “The Facts” section, my understanding is: he got pulled into making a political statement about gender and he didn’t want to get involved with that.
Yet again, that “crowd” didn’t like Ladybird’s refusal to play, therefore that “crowd” does what they’re known best doing: cry high and loud on the internet playing the victim.
In a sense, that “crowd” shoved their political agenda down his throat, and that’s the only thing I personally find reprehensible here.
Refusal to make a “political” statement is very much political when the politics in question is about acknowledging non-men exist. There is no politically neutral choice when there are two options who are both political.
That’s totally false.
One can write using the generic masculine form without making a political statement.
This is not even close to not acknowledge there is non-men in this world.
What you are putting forward is absurd. No one is saying that only men exist anywhere in here.
It isn’t totally false; the claim that the use of the generic masculine is the result of or may have been informed by sexism is based on the fact that it hasn’t always been that way.
Here is a more nuanced and better take:
Source
It was a trivial change to some documentation. The fact that he chose this hill to die on says a lot.