5 ms·

So this guys problem is that the new CoC requires him to respect peoples chosen pronouns? And it looks like this was that Monica person's problem too. I think

by rozab 7y ago

So this guys problem is that the new CoC requires him to respect peoples chosen pronouns? And it looks like this was that Monica person's problem too. I think SE are totally within their rights to enforce a policy like this without negotiation, although clearly a miscommunication has occurred. I think the people who object to it are imagining a situation with a mythical SJW boogeyperson saying "Don't misgender me! my pronouns are xe/xem/xyr on weekdays and xi/hir/hir after 7 o'clock, unless I feel like a ve/ver/vis in which case you must read my mind and use those." In reality, I think the likely scenario is more like "I'm a she :)", and unless you continue to use 'he' pronouns then there isn't a problem. When put this way, it sounds like a much more reasonable policy and I think it would be fair to eject people who object to this from the community (with due process of course). SE have failed to communicate this properly, and also have failed to react to this crisis in a reasonable way. However, from reading this blog post (which actually goes as far as to quote that "First they came..." poem), and Monica's one, I suspect this is not the root of the problem. Not all beliefs can or should be tolerated, as is touched upon in a quote in Monica's post. That is the purpose of a CoC, to set up a reasonable framework of rules upon which debate and discussion can take place.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Elrac 7y ago
I read most of that salty social-media-suicide note and got the same vibe. "Help! This site is failing to tolerate my religiously motivated bigotry -- I'm being oppressed!" I would not be surprised if SE's internal dialog includes the words "good riddance."
- alerque 7y ago
  Salty eh? Okay. I explicitly noted I wasn't being repressed, but thanks for thinking about me. The way volunteers have been treated is not good, and the rules the company is making are going alienate lots of people. Not the ones they care about apparently, but lots of people none the less. There is a difference been limited speech (which SE has always been a limited zone, not a free zone) and forced speech. You might not care about this issue, but someday when somebody wants to force you to do something you don't believe in, you'll understand the difference. I sincerely hope its for something minor for you and you get enough early warning that it doesn't get out of hand. By the way I'd be surprised to learn _anybody_ at SE thought I did a bad job for the site they appointed me to help with.
  - ianleeclark 7y ago
    > I explicitly noted I wasn't being repressed Dude you quoted Niemöller. The first line of the poem immediately brings to mind political prisoners being thrown into Dachau.
    - alerque 7y ago
      I have made a substantial rewrite to my post, including adding some context to explain why I used that poem.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
tsukurimashou 7y ago
How about we just stick to usernames and don't care about pronouns, I don't care about the gender of the person replying to me. Maybe I miss remember but when I started using the internet we were using usernames and being constantly told not to expose personal information. I feel like people were focusing more easily on whatever their community was dedicated to.
- ianleeclark 7y ago
  > How about we just stick to usernames and don't care about pronouns There are some stack exchange sub-sites that this would be reasonable to do, but many others that aren't. That's why. It's pertinent information for a lot of questions that are going to be asked.
  - tsukurimashou 7y ago
    Why not restrict it only where it matters?
    - ianleeclark 7y ago
      > Why not restrict it only where it matters? It's likely easier for StackOverflow, the corporate entity itself, to only have a single rule-set, rather than have to manage and ensure moderators are adhering to a bunch of different rule-sets.
      - beerandt 7y ago
        I think this points more to the root of the overall problem.
gedy 7y ago
If this is accurate, it's not quite as simple as that: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/333965/firing-mods-and-forced-relicensing-is-stack-exchange-still-interested-in-cooper#comment1090942_333972 https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/333965/firing-mods-...
XCabbage 7y ago
> In reality, I think the likely scenario is more like "I'm a she :)", and unless you continue to use 'he' pronouns then there isn't a problem. This is flatly contradicted by both Caleb's post (upon which this whole thread is based) and Monica's. Caleb resigned because the new rules proposed would not allow him to compromise by simply referring to trans people by name and avoiding all pronouns. His issue is not that he insists on using "he" for a transwoman, but that he refuses to use "she", and would rather stick to names. Likewise, per the from-memory transcript she posted, Monica - who has no issue referring to a person who has changed gender by their preferred gendered pronoun! - simply stated that she often prefers to avoid the singular genderless "they" when referring to a specific person, and so would prefer to refer to a person who has that as their preferred pronoun by name. That, apparently, was enough to get her fired.
- jasonvorhe 7y ago
  Then why don't they just use the pronouns the persons chose and communicated to address them?
  - kilo_bravo_3 7y ago
    Because they are jerks. And they think that "freedumb" and "freeze peach" means that if people they voluntarily and freely associate with decide to call them out on their jerkiness, then it is they who have been aggrieved and had their rights trampled upon. There are only two types of people who are unable to address others in a manner that makes that person feel comfortable: 1. Jerks 2. People who aren't native speakers of the language being used.
    - reggintoggaf 7y ago
      Address me as Hitler Was Right from now or you're a jerk and bigot. While the whole 'hate speech' concept does have its issues, it's still only about what you say, not what you don't say. What is debated here is actually compelling speech, forcing someone to say specific things or be punished. This is not covered by hate speech concept/laws, and firmly puts its proponents on the level of medieval Church.

by rozab 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

Elrac 7y ago

I read most of that salty social-media-suicide note and got the same vibe. "Help! This site is failing to tolerate my religiously motivated bigotry -- I'm being oppressed!" I would not be surprised if SE's internal dialog includes the words "good riddance."

alerque 7y ago
Salty eh? Okay. I explicitly noted I wasn't being repressed, but thanks for thinking about me. The way volunteers have been treated is not good, and the rules the company is making are going alienate lots of people. Not the ones they care about apparently, but lots of people none the less. There is a difference been limited speech (which SE has always been a limited zone, not a free zone) and forced speech. You might not care about this issue, but someday when somebody wants to force you to do something you don't believe in, you'll understand the difference. I sincerely hope its for something minor for you and you get enough early warning that it doesn't get out of hand. By the way I'd be surprised to learn _anybody_ at SE thought I did a bad job for the site they appointed me to help with.
- ianleeclark 7y ago
  > I explicitly noted I wasn't being repressed Dude you quoted Niemöller. The first line of the poem immediately brings to mind political prisoners being thrown into Dachau.
  - alerque 7y ago
    I have made a substantial rewrite to my post, including adding some context to explain why I used that poem.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

tsukurimashou 7y ago

How about we just stick to usernames and don't care about pronouns, I don't care about the gender of the person replying to me. Maybe I miss remember but when I started using the internet we were using usernames and being constantly told not to expose personal information. I feel like people were focusing more easily on whatever their community was dedicated to.

ianleeclark 7y ago
> How about we just stick to usernames and don't care about pronouns There are some stack exchange sub-sites that this would be reasonable to do, but many others that aren't. That's why. It's pertinent information for a lot of questions that are going to be asked.
- tsukurimashou 7y ago
  Why not restrict it only where it matters?
  - ianleeclark 7y ago
    > Why not restrict it only where it matters? It's likely easier for StackOverflow, the corporate entity itself, to only have a single rule-set, rather than have to manage and ensure moderators are adhering to a bunch of different rule-sets.
    - beerandt 7y ago
      I think this points more to the root of the overall problem.

gedy 7y ago

If this is accurate, it's not quite as simple as that: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/333965/firing-mods-and-forced-relicensing-is-stack-exchange-still-interested-in-cooper#comment1090942_333972 https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/333965/firing-mods-...

XCabbage 7y ago

> In reality, I think the likely scenario is more like "I'm a she :)", and unless you continue to use 'he' pronouns then there isn't a problem. This is flatly contradicted by both Caleb's post (upon which this whole thread is based) and Monica's. Caleb resigned because the new rules proposed would not allow him to compromise by simply referring to trans people by name and avoiding all pronouns. His issue is not that he insists on using "he" for a transwoman, but that he refuses to use "she", and would rather stick to names. Likewise, per the from-memory transcript she posted, Monica - who has no issue referring to a person who has changed gender by their preferred gendered pronoun! - simply stated that she often prefers to avoid the singular genderless "they" when referring to a specific person, and so would prefer to refer to a person who has that as their preferred pronoun by name. That, apparently, was enough to get her fired.

jasonvorhe 7y ago
Then why don't they just use the pronouns the persons chose and communicated to address them?
- kilo_bravo_3 7y ago
  Because they are jerks. And they think that "freedumb" and "freeze peach" means that if people they voluntarily and freely associate with decide to call them out on their jerkiness, then it is they who have been aggrieved and had their rights trampled upon. There are only two types of people who are unable to address others in a manner that makes that person feel comfortable: 1. Jerks 2. People who aren't native speakers of the language being used.
  - reggintoggaf 7y ago
    Address me as Hitler Was Right from now or you're a jerk and bigot. While the whole 'hate speech' concept does have its issues, it's still only about what you say, not what you don't say. What is debated here is actually compelling speech, forcing someone to say specific things or be punished. This is not covered by hate speech concept/laws, and firmly puts its proponents on the level of medieval Church.