Because Satoshi's identity and whether or not they were a singular individual or a group of individuals is unknown. It is entirely acceptable, and more often than not probabilistically and politically correct, to use they/them here.
I doubt anyone would be upset at people using he/him when referring to Satoshi, but also along those same lines, it seems strange to be upset at they/them usage for an unknown entity.
The individual used a male name, so it’s reasonable to make that assumption in common speech.
In terms of individual vs group, it seems unlikely that a group would have the discipline to not do anything with billions of dollars or expose the individual with control of the same.
Right. I’ve never experienced dialog or writing where somebody elects a gendered pronoun based on the pseudonymous handle used to reference the antecedent when their gender is either irrelevant, unspecified, or unknown. I’m curious which communities practice this colloquially?
If someone chooses a male pseudonym, is it sensible for everyone to individually decide what pronouns to use? This strikes me as opposed to similar etiquette.
"The singular they emerged by the 14th century,[3] about a century after the plural they. It has been commonly employed in everyday English ever since then and has gained currency in official contexts. Singular they has been criticised since the mid-18th century by prescriptive commentators who considered it an error."
There is nothing woke about this. Trust me I am not a fan of useless woke constructs that exist to signal virtue. I’m sure we agree on that. This is not one of those things. When you are referring to some entity with unknown gender, you use “they” and “their” so as not to lead the reader or the person you're speaking towards any assumptions and just because it’s the clearly correct way to convey the state of affairs to your audience (this matters to pedantic people). To someone who practices this in their own communication, it conveys a real signal that others pick up on. Pseudonyms generally aren’t referred to by the gender of the chosen name/handle but rather act as a proxy for the person who uses them, therefore you wouldn't refer to Satoshi as “he/him” but as the gender of the user of the pseudonym which is unknown, hence they/them. The author, while making the case that Len may be Satoshi, never asserts as much to be true. So I also read the usage of they/them as a reminder that they are presenting an argument/case not declaring fact.
An author on the internet has adopted a writing style that you're clearly uncomfortable with, it's not grounds for disparaging the author.
Your individual politics don't matter here, it is a technology article that happens to use a pronoun for an unknown entity which is entirely acceptable in common parlance. No one is clamoring that he/him is unacceptable, but to disparage people for their choice of expression in writing feels awfully similar to what the anti-woke crowd claim the woke do.
Additionally, plenty of languages use non-gendered pronouns.
You've "made stuff up" about entire languages in your previous reply. I am struggling to find more ways to explain that, in English, it is acceptable to refer to unknown quantities or identities of people with "they" and "them".
"My bank denied my loan application again, I can't believe them!" - Correct - Unknown, amorphous entity, regardless if the rejection was specifically caused by a man or woman or otherwise.
"temp8964 replied to me on HN again, she's quite persistent." - Incorrect - Without knowing who you are, is it still acceptable for me to blindly assert that you must be a woman and doing otherwise is wrong?
It is curious to me that it seems okay to defer to the author's assumption that Satoshi is a singular person, while at the same time denouncing how they refer to that person. You are okay with one uncertain assumption but not another. I think if you are willing to defer to the author here that benefit of the doubt should extend to the rest of their writing.
However, if we assume that Satoshi is a singular person, how do you suggest we refer to pseudonymous individuals whose gender and identity are unknown? Again, is it acceptable that I insist on referring to you as she/her without knowing who you are?
Assuming that it is the chosen, gendered name-on-the-internet that matters, if I were born biologically male but then undergo a sex change procedure and then and adopt a feminine name like Jane Smith in my work, would it be acceptable in your eyes to refer to me as she/her by default? Surely in this case, he/him or they/them would be unacceptable, if I follow your logic correctly.
The norm is follow the gender assumption based on the pseudonym. If the person picked a female name, everyone would happily call the person “she”, as it should be. It has nothing to do with the real person’s gender.
I'm glad to hear you think we should refer to people by their chosen pronouns! Perhaps there's some woke to you after all? ;)
I still would love to hear how you think people should refer to you, especially if you have not asserted your own pronouns. It seems, in reference to you, this is a classic, centuries-old case of singular 'they' being perfectly acceptable.
I don't believe this to be generally true but would believe that you have experienced communities that practice this convention. For the curious, in which communities do you find this to be the norm?
It is not the norm no, as multiple people have pointed out to you. The norm is to use they when uncertain. You’ve been given plenty of examples but persist in your denial. I wonder why you want to police how other people speak and connect this with some bizarre right wing conspiracy (wokeness)?
If you read the replies to your other comments before writing this you would know that “they as singular” has centuries of use (which is besides the point as language is a living thing).
No. The norm is follow the gender assumption based on the pseudonym. If the person picked a female name, everyone would happily call the person “she”, as it should be.
However, in an article in which you speculate about the real identity behind a pseudonym, suggesting any possible gender or plurality, you should use /they/, this being the whole point of what your doing.
Can you link a style guide that captures this norm? I usually consider pseudonyms to function like a pointer to the real person when the real person is in scope. If my HN handle was JaneAustism and I was being referenced in a discussion about things pertaining to my meatspace identity and I was a male, I would expect to be described with masculine pronouns. If the discussion was not related to my meatspace identity, I would, in a pseudonymous context, not expect to be referred to as she/her just because my handle contains a female name. My gender is likely irrelevant (or at least unknown) in that context and I would expect they/them.
It’s only inconsistent to you because your understanding of english language usage seems to also be inconsistent (at least with mine, others’ commenting on this thread, and the author’s of the linked article). I find this interesting in the abstract.
I think that would be a more appropriate theory if we were talking about all the silly pronoun fields every site feels the need to add so that everyone and their mother can virtue signal to infinity and beyond as if they were a good/correct UX or as if they enriched the content of the site or something unfounded. But we're talking about something that predates any sort of culture war of the last 20 years (which I do not deny exists, I just don't see it being waged here).
>The only harm happening here is people like you overstepping bounds and ultimately trashing actually correct usage of the language because you are operating under some pretext that there's a woke conspiracy to remove all gendered pronouns from colloquial usage.
So it seems like you agree with me. The sensitivity and derision of the (more or less) correct usage of a pronoun indicates culture war malarky here.
No, I’m a pedantic grammar nazi. I’m responding to people overcorrecting and suggesting incorrect language usage because of the perception that there’s a culture war to fight. I just want people to use language correctly and with precision because it soothes my OCD.
The only harm happening here is people like you overstepping bounds and ultimately trashing actually correct usage of the language because you are operating under some pretext that there's a woke conspiracy to remove all gendered pronouns from colloquial usage. This conspiracy may well exist, but it simply does not apply to this situation. As multiple people have explained and linked, the singular "they" is used to refer to an antecedent of unknown or unspecified gender or when gender is simply irrelevant. "They" is not being used because "satoshi could be trans let's not hurt zer feelings". It's because we literally don't know. You're barking up the wrong tree here. I care because I cringe every time someone says "We were just at Mary and I's house baking cookies." which is so obviously incorrect it drives me up a wall. I guess that makes me a grammar nazi.
I'm not being an anti-trans culture warrior with this argument. My point is that this post is made less clear and harder to read by referring to Satoshi as 'they' whenever possible. I am being anti-political-correctness because it's ruining written and spoken English.
Satoshi is a masculine name, so it's reasonable to expect the author to use masculine singular pronouns. Even if Satoshi is a woman or a group of people, we can still refer to the pseudonym construct as 'he' because the construct is masculine.
It's needlessly confusing to use the singular 'they' in reference to a specific individual with a gendered name, especially when the whole point of the article is that Satoshi is this one man. And most other writing I find on Satoshi refers to him as a 'he' without a problem.
> I am being anti-political-correctness because it's ruining written and spoken English.
You incessantly continue to miss the point. People have explained multiple times that this isn't about political correctness. You are seriously missing the point.
It doesn't matter what you think about whether it's politically correct or not to assume Satoshi's gender. And it doesn't matter what I think either. And it doesn't matter whether either of us even give a shit.
What matters is that it is objectively correct, colloquial, and precise to wield the singular `they` when discussing an unknown person. It doesn't matter whether they've picked Mary or Satoshi as their pseudonymous handle.
> we can still refer to the pseudonym construct as 'he' because the construct is masculine.
I'd love to be introduced to a group or style guide that has adopted this style. I have never encountered it. The closest I've encountered is just a default "use he/him because most people just assume male without really thinking about it when online". I would never, as a pedant, use a masculine pronoun to describe e.g. a forum user of unknown meatspace characteristics irrespective of the gender of their handle unless there was a pretext of role playing. If I'm Jisoo on waffles.fm I don't expect to be referred to as "she".
Even if you're correct (and I think you are) that it can be considered correct to use a gendered pronoun when a pseudonym is clearly masculine or feminine and you're strictly referring to the pseudonym, the author of the essay is simply making a style choice and I'm perplexed how you consider his correct usage of the english language (as it's been used since the 14th century) to be ruining the english language. EDIT: also I actually think the author is not referring to the "pseudonym construct" in the essay, I think the author is deliberately referring to the unknown entity that goes by satoshi rather than satoshi full stop (but I may be wrong).
Now if the author said something along the lines of "Satoshi and I's shared understanding of the cypherpunk ... ... " I'd pull out the pitchfork immediately.
