Remaining usages of gender specific terms

[adrinjalali]

While reading PEP 3119, I noticed the usage of some gender specific terms such as:

• Like all other things in Python, these promises are in the nature of a gentlemen's agreement,

• Consider e.g. the plight of a mathematician who wants to define his own kind of Transcendental numbers

Similarly, PEP 3127 has:

• silently do the wrong thing with his numbers, as it does now;

• So while a new Python user may (currently) be mystified at the
  delayed discovery that his numbers don't work properly, ...

PEP 381:

• It is obvious that some packages will not be uploaded to PyPI, whether
  because they are private or whether because the project maintainer
  runs his own server where people might get the project package.

On the other hand, I also noticed that (at least in one instance) "her" is put as a default; PEP 311:

• The reason for this is that
  the first thread to call PyEval_InitThreads() is nominated as the
  "main thread" by Python, and so forcing the extension author to
  specify the main thread (by forcing her to make this first call)
  removes ambiguity.

There are also a few cases where both pronouns are mentioned:

• PEP 458:

  • A possible future extension to this PEP, discussed in Appendix B, proposes the maximum security model and allows a developer to sign for his/her project.

• PEP 355

  • The programmer does not need to learn a new API, but can reuse his or her knowledge of Path
    to deal with the extended class.

I guess it was the "gentlemen's agreement" that made me take a closer look, and it seems at least on PEPs that's the only instance of the phrase. Otherwise, to me it seems like at some point the issue has been addressed in the new documents, and there are a few left in the older ones (just an impression). It would be awesome if you/we could resolve those as well.

[hoylemd]

How do folks feel about using 'they/their' etc instead of the pronouns?

As for "gentlemen's agreement", that's a bit tougher. 'gentleperson' works, but is rather cumbersome, and I suspect would invite toxic criticism. Maybe 'friendly agreement'? 'casual aggreement' maybe?

[merwok]

«consenting adults» is used elsewhere.

[AA-Turner]

We generally don't update text of PEPs after approval / rejection / etc -- I would leave this to individual authors going forwards, and see past PEPs as a historical record.
A

[gpshead]

the right thing to do is make these edits when pointed out. PR forthcoming.

[Rosuav]

Churn is generally considered unnecessary.

[gpshead]

Thanks adrinjalali and hoylemd, I used your suggestions.

[hoylemd]

Thanks so much for doing that @gpshead. I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels more included as a result :)

[CAM-Gerlach]

The other changes are all good, of course, but I wonder about "gentleman's agreement". It is a specific term that has a concrete, well-defined and accepted meaning, that "friendly agreement" does not fully capture. At least after some searching, I wasn't able to find a reference to it being deprecated in modern usage, or a preferred term to replace it with (but I may simply not have found it, and would appreciate being made aware if so) — @adrinjalali , do you have a link or other reference you could share about this? Thanks!