Upgrade Storagegender discrimination in Zotero性别歧视
The "parent" code is translated as "father" （父）code in Chinese version of Zotero. As a new user, I feel angry. It is gender discrimination. The translation team is willing to practice gender discrimination at the cost of wrong translation! l firmly refuse that, and l hope you would recorrect it.
here is the evidence:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/zotero.org/images/forums/u15993683/i82h14e2sudj2yjgdk34.png
here is the evidence:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/zotero.org/images/forums/u15993683/i82h14e2sudj2yjgdk34.png
If there's something you think should be different, suggest a specific alternative, and if others agree, someone involved with the translation can change it.
The translation of parent as “父” is a computer convention, just as “Parent Companies” is translated as “母公司”. They no longer represent gender per se, but exist as an abstract, extended concept.
As one of the contributors to the Chinese translation, we do not have a problem of “sexism” when we translate terms according to the conventions of translation.
If you still think there is a problem with this translation, you need to give specific advice.
BTW, GPT says:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/zotero.org/images/forums/u7424907/twbu9gxakpizwoink1bj.png
However, the Chinese character 父 is undeniably less gender-neutral than the English word "parent." This is because its other (more abstract) meanings are derived from its original sense of "father," whereas "parent" encompasses both "mother" and "father." 父 is also closely tied to masculine authority, as highlighted in GPT's mentioning of 《说文解字》. As a male human and native Chinese speaker, I can clearly feel this connotation when I saw the character 父 in 父项 or 父类---well, why not 母项 or 母类? There must be a reason. Gender inequality is unfortunately deeply encoded in human languages.
Therefore, I suggest using 上级条目 or 主条目 instead, with a slight preference for the former. These terms are more neutral and universally applicable for the following reasons: 1) the alternatives clearly explain the relationship between items (literally, upper-level item versus lower-level item for the former, and main item versus subitem for the latter) 2) almost nobody is likely to deny—or feel offended by—the reality that we live in a hierarchical world. 3) While 父项 or 父类 is clear and accurate in programming contexts, Zotero's users come from diverse backgrounds.
Take, for instance, why we say “字母” and “航空母舰” instead of “字父” and “航空父舰.” The former indicates that letters form the components of all words, while the latter signifies that the aircraft carrier serves as a collection for all planes.
The translation team chose “父条目” instead of “上级条目” because Zotero also has “child notes.” How should we translate “child notes” then? Clearly, “下级条目” does not fit the conventions of the Chinese language. Therefore, the team opted for “父条目” and “子条目” to maintain elegance and consistency in translation.
If we view the characters “父” and “母” without bias, they carry no inherent connotations; they are merely neutral descriptive terms.
In the thread, RonBurk explained the reason why "item note" was selected:
"Since a child note is irrevocably tied to an item and does not enjoy the privileges of an item (can't appear in multiple collections, can't drag it elsewhere), it is plausibly clearer to call it an 'item note' to help remind of its restrictions."
While I will always respect the translation team's decision, it would be regrettable to ignore the fact that 父 is consistently associated with hierarchically superior positions, while 母 is always associated with sources, origins, birth, or home to something. This reflects a long-lasting stereotype about the roles certain genders should or always play. Perhaps we can take small steps to help eliminate this stereotype.
But 'Child Item' is not 'Child Note', 'Child Item' is still exist.
I don't understand why you associate 'Item Note' with 'Child Item'.
As for child items/sub-level items, 附属条目 could be a potential candidate. It clearly express the hierarchical relationship between different items even better than 父 and 子. So 上级条目/主条目-附属条目.
Once again, I must clarify that I have no intention of rejecting the team's word choice, as 子条目 and 父条目 are established parts of modern Chinese. Their use is entirely legitimate. I am merely discussing alternative options—ones that, in my opinion, might be better.
Also, I am directly addressing to phrases like "I don't understand why" or "I don’t understand your perspective."
Oh.. got it, I missed TA's comment.
I personally hold a slightly different view from yours. You mentioned that “父 is consistently associated with hierarchically superior positions, while 母 is always associated with sources, origins, birth, or home to something.” The reason "父" conveys a sense of hierarchy might stem from early societies where men were often responsible for hunting and distributing resources. Meanwhile, "母" is associated with life and origins, which is likely influenced more by objective biological structures. I do not believe this reflects stereotyping; if we were to associate "母" exclusively with housewives or nurturing roles, that would be the true stereotype.
Words themselves simply serve as referential tools, and any emotional connotations attached to them are subjective. For example, many wonder why we say "history" instead of "herstory," only to find that "history" predated the coining of "story." In reality, "history" likely evolved independently. As you can see, the evolution of words often diverges from their original paths. It is contemporary society that has attributed additional emotional and political layers to them. Is it truly necessary to revise such terms? Of course, in China, the characters "父" and "母" have also undergone numerous evolutions. From a modern perspective, discussing historical usages is often more of an exploration than a definitive conclusion.
In my view, true equality lies in the equality of consciousness—treating others fairly in social interactions, allowing each gender to fully utilize their strengths, and avoiding discrimination based on perceived gender weaknesses.
Of course, I agree with your point that we should contribute to gender equality. In terms of translation, however, we still need further discussion and exploration to find the most appropriate vocabulary.
However, such a society has yet to come. That’s why the association between 父 and hierarchically superior positions may make some of us, especially women, feel uncomfortable---why "father" but not "mother" is still used to refer to something in superior position? Would this invoke or reinforce the impression that males should hold more power or be in a controlling position? Therefore, in today’s context, I think we still need to seriously consider the gender issue—especially the opinions of users from social groups who have not fully enjoyed true equality—when using our language. What sounds natural or unbiased to us does not always have the same impact on others. It is important to see from others' perspectives and understand their feelings, even if they don’t make sense to us at first—this is part of everyday consciousness of equality.
Speaking of the word choice itself, 父条目-子条目 is a slightly more straightforward and intuitive choice for expressing the current logical relationship (hierarchy, and perhaps also recursion) between Zotero items than 上级条目/主条目-附属条目. Perhaps only the 主-从 pair can be on par with it. But unfortunately, 从条目 is much less frequently used than 子条目. So, there are pros and cons to both options. It seems like a matter of how much weight we are going to give to the gender connotation and different users' perceptions of these terms.
Well, for classical Chinese, this probably won’t be a problem at all because 主-从 or 主-属 sounds equally, if not better than 父-子. The same applies to Japanese: 親-子 perfectly corresponds to "parent-child." Language is constantly evolving, so perhaps we should embrace its fluidity and proactively make changes when necessary.