I'm not sure about the person you replied to, but it's the presumption that the reader is a straight male implicit in that question that bugs me. Unless the author is known for his bi/lesbian audience...
It's not that one thing or another makes it okay. There are more neutral ways to phrase it that don't needlessly exclude vast potential audiences.
> Instead of scratching only your own itches, why not scratch your partner’s itch?
> Instead of scratching only your own itches, why not scratch your lover’s itch?
> Instead of scratching only your own itches, why not scratch your sweetheart’s itch?
> Instead of scratching only your own itches, why not scratch your mate’s itch?
Depending on who you ask, at least a plurality of men are at least a little bi, but a double whammy of homophobia and biphobia keeps them closeted. Why make them twitch a little when a small change in wording solves the problem? Being a good for-public writer is all about maximizing your potential audience without diluting the message. "Girlfriend" rather than any of a slew of more neutral terms needlessly dilutes the message.
Personally, I would cut the question entirely since restricting the message to partnered people doesn't serve any purpose.
> ...that bugs me. Unless the author is known for his bi/lesbian audience...
OK, well you said it yourself. It bugs you unless the author has a bi/lesbian audience. So either you were wrong for saying that or you're wrong here. Which is it?
> There are more neutral ways to phrase it that don't needlessly exclude vast potential audiences.
In this situation, there was no vast audience that was excluded. However, in any case (thankfully) you're under no obligation to please every single minority group with your speech.
> ...restricting the message to partnered people doesn't serve any purpose.
Gee, I bet you're real fun at parties. It was one little line item out of a list of other situations. Try getting over it maybe?
Also, try being yourself instead of attempting to please every single other person in the world (and failing, since it simply cannot be done). Life is way easier and more fun if you just accept yourself instead of constantly trying to contort your personage to please others.
When I say things, they're coming from my point of view. Not yours or anybody else's. So, I might put something about "wives" in there since I'm married. (Oh, the horror!!!!!) You're being selfish by denying me my point of view and demanding that I not offend you in any small way.
What right do you have to demand that I couch everything in neutral terms??
Not a single one of your interpretations of my words was correct. Take a deep breath and read again, with the understanding that I'm not making a...
> complaint
It was a simple, honest, friendly suggestion on word choice from one writer to another. This was a professional courtesy, not the rabid screed you misread it as. What I did is constructive criticism, something I see lauded here a lot at HN, and with good reason. You misread it as something very different.
You can either read again, interpreting it in a reasonable manner, or you can take your own advice:
> Try getting over it maybe?
And move on. Either way, my participation in this thread is over. I'm not sure if you're the author of the piece, but you're behaving the way an inexperienced writer does the first time they receive anything other than praise, and I find it very annoying (which means you're probably not the author, given his credentials).
Is that a complaint or a suggestion? He is saying that it was a "friendly" suggestion and that I somehow interpreted it as a complaint.
It also clearly says that he would NOT be annoyed (i.e. it would be OK) by the author's words if the author is known for having a bi/lesbian audience. True or false?
There's really not much there to misinterpret. So, I look forward to hearing your own analysis. Thank you!
