5 ms·

It's a bit confusing because a mod was removed, and a bunch of other mods resigned in support, and then it came out that she'd been removed for refusing to use

by DanBC 7y ago

It's a bit confusing because a mod was removed, and a bunch of other mods resigned in support, and then it came out that she'd been removed for refusing to use people's preferred pronouns. Stack Exchange is perceived by many people to be unwelcoming. There has been persistent concern that SE is even more unwelcoming to people with protected characteristics. SE have made considerable effort to fix this. Recently they've been looking at codes of conduct. The most recent version of this includes a request, or maybe a requirement, to use a person's preferred pronouns. Some people refuse to do this because God tells them it's wrong to do so. Other people refuse to do this because, well, I dunno I've never understood why calling someone "he" instead of "she" is such a burden. Stack Exchange is telling those people that their refusal to use a preferred pronoun is not compatible with being a moderator at SE, and so they removed one mod. She posted her version of events to one of the SE sites, and this caused a bunch of other mods to "resign" their posts in support of her. EDIT: I've tried to word this as neutrally as I can. To respond to a couple of comments: Bob says "please use 'he' when talking about me, and Ann says "No, I can't do that because God tells me it's wrong. I'll use 'them' instead." -- I don't see how this can be anything other than Ann refusing to use Bob's choice of pronouns. Note that I haven't used the word "misgendering".

myrion 7y ago
Thank you, this is a very good summary!
- JeremyBanks 7y ago
  It's false. Monica is an LGBT Ally and much of the anger is that she's being publicly smeared as a bigot when we know her not to be
steve_taylor 7y ago
You conveniently omitted that the definition of misgendering had been reinterpreted to include using “their” as a gender-neutral pronoun, which (until now) is a common practice intended specifically to avoid misgendering.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- oh_sigh 7y ago
  As a person who is 100% supportive of trans choosing he/she pronouns to fit their identity, and someone who hates the idea of "non-binary" people demanding a "they" pronoun, - I can kind of see a point, depending on how singular they is used. If it is always used regardless(as the demodded person claimed they do), then I see no problem with it. If it is only used to avoid someone's preferred pronoun, then I can see it being discriminatory behavior. E.g. every cis female in a class is referred to as she or they, every cismale is referred to as he or they, but every trans male or female is only referred to as they.
- McGlockenshire 7y ago
  > the definition of misgendering had been reinterpreted to include using “their” as a gender-neutral pronoun Citation needed.
- MauranKilom 7y ago
  I have followed the discussions on SE closely and your assessment is not one I have seen anywhere. Can you support your statement with a source?
luckylion 7y ago
> it came out that she'd been removed for refusing to use people's preferred pronouns. That's not true. She was removed for asking whether, after the not-yet-current CoC was made official (which asks to use preferred pronouns) it would be allowed to use third person pronouns to circumvent the issue. Neither was preferred pronoun-usage a rule, nor had she disobeyed that rule (yet).
- danaris 7y ago
  If you don't know someone's gender or preferred pronouns, it's reasonable to use "they/them". If someone has explicitly asked you to use "she/her", and you exclusively use "they/them", you are still not using that person's preferred pronouns.
  - luckylion 7y ago
    I don't disagree on the facts, but neither was there a rule (yet) that says you have to, nor has she done that. She has asked whether it would be against the future CoC not to. No comparison is perfect, but it feels similar to me asking a cop whether it's going to be illegal to do X under the new law that is being discussed, and them arresting and charging me for doing X. Neither is X currently outlawed, nor have I committed X, I have merely inquired about the legality of X.
    - shkkmo 7y ago
      The StackExchange staff did clarify elsewhere that they believe the old CoC prohibits misgendering and that the CoC changes are just meant to clarify the matter. They claim she repeatedly refused to change CoC violations, she claims she was just asking about using gender neutral language. It seems to me that there were likely several misunderstandings that lead to increasingly heated discussion and then the SE staff decided to remove a moderator without following their own established process for doing so.
      - luckylion 7y ago
        SO leaked some parts of the chat but not the relevant parts, according to a staff member that was in the chat. As the fired moderator asked for evidence, it would be easy for SO to release it. This reeks of a political firing under some pretense. Misunderstandings have been suggested by the fired moderator as well, with a plea to talk to her. According to her, they haven't been taking her calls and not replied to emails. That's consistent with their public stance, so it seems plausible to me. My pet theory: it's a "punish one, educate a hundred" move. They chose a respected moderator for a laughable offense to send a clear signal that they won't allow any amount of violation of their new rules and that reputation and contributions do not protect you. Question authority and you're gone, no matter who you are. That this comes a month after the new CEO makes me believe it's the shift to a new policy, one that runs the site not as a community, but as a product to sell to other corporations.
chrisweekly 7y ago
It's ironic that you used the homograph "resign" in both words' meanings -- re-sign (soft "ess", to sign again) and resign (hard "z" sound, to quit) -- in a comment about careful word choice. Did SE mods re-sign their posts, or quit (abandon moderator role)?
- phyzome 7y ago
  That's not ironic, because no one was actually confused.
  - chrisweekly 7y ago
    I beg to differ. The relevant part of the top-level story boils down to "Someone was fired, and others resigned in protest / solidarity". Do you really believe that "no one" was confused? I think it's hard _not_ to read the wrong "resigned" there in this context. More relevant to the subject matter, your confident assertion, speaking for everyone, belies a lack of empathy. Finally, I find it interesting that none of this would have been confusing or even ambiguous except that we're using written language to communicate. Have a nice day!
    - DanBC 7y ago
      I'm a bit confused by your post. What did you think the moderators signed? What did you think they had re-signed?
      - chrisweekly 7y ago
        They'd "(re-)sign" their profiles with "preferred pronoun" designations, eg "he/his" or "she/her". A visible (but less extreme) show of support, vs quitting -- which for moderators who aren't even employees of SE per se, isn't even really an applicable concept. All of which underscores the point of my original (and annoyingly if predictably downvoted) comment about there being ambiguous -- hence ironic -- use of a particular homograph.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
braindeath 7y ago
Perhaps I just don't want to fucking be bothered with a gender label and will use the perfectly acceptable gender-neutral pronoun. God tells me that this is a reasonable thing to do. Somebody recently referred me to this nonsense: https://www.mypronouns.org/how https://www.mypronouns.org/how It's funny that this pronoun debate in the US is so anglocentric, too. Just shows the level of critical thinking these agenda pushers really have. Why? Why is it only the 3rd person pronouns that are special. Why are 1st and 2nd person "as-is"?

by DanBC 7y ago

myrion 7y ago

Thank you, this is a very good summary!

JeremyBanks 7y ago
It's false. Monica is an LGBT Ally and much of the anger is that she's being publicly smeared as a bigot when we know her not to be

steve_taylor 7y ago

You conveniently omitted that the definition of misgendering had been reinterpreted to include using “their” as a gender-neutral pronoun, which (until now) is a common practice intended specifically to avoid misgendering.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
oh_sigh 7y ago
As a person who is 100% supportive of trans choosing he/she pronouns to fit their identity, and someone who hates the idea of "non-binary" people demanding a "they" pronoun, - I can kind of see a point, depending on how singular they is used. If it is always used regardless(as the demodded person claimed they do), then I see no problem with it. If it is only used to avoid someone's preferred pronoun, then I can see it being discriminatory behavior. E.g. every cis female in a class is referred to as she or they, every cismale is referred to as he or they, but every trans male or female is only referred to as they.
McGlockenshire 7y ago
> the definition of misgendering had been reinterpreted to include using “their” as a gender-neutral pronoun Citation needed.
MauranKilom 7y ago
I have followed the discussions on SE closely and your assessment is not one I have seen anywhere. Can you support your statement with a source?

luckylion 7y ago

> it came out that she'd been removed for refusing to use people's preferred pronouns. That's not true. She was removed for asking whether, after the not-yet-current CoC was made official (which asks to use preferred pronouns) it would be allowed to use third person pronouns to circumvent the issue. Neither was preferred pronoun-usage a rule, nor had she disobeyed that rule (yet).

danaris 7y ago
If you don't know someone's gender or preferred pronouns, it's reasonable to use "they/them". If someone has explicitly asked you to use "she/her", and you exclusively use "they/them", you are still not using that person's preferred pronouns.
- luckylion 7y ago
  I don't disagree on the facts, but neither was there a rule (yet) that says you have to, nor has she done that. She has asked whether it would be against the future CoC not to. No comparison is perfect, but it feels similar to me asking a cop whether it's going to be illegal to do X under the new law that is being discussed, and them arresting and charging me for doing X. Neither is X currently outlawed, nor have I committed X, I have merely inquired about the legality of X.
  - shkkmo 7y ago
    The StackExchange staff did clarify elsewhere that they believe the old CoC prohibits misgendering and that the CoC changes are just meant to clarify the matter. They claim she repeatedly refused to change CoC violations, she claims she was just asking about using gender neutral language. It seems to me that there were likely several misunderstandings that lead to increasingly heated discussion and then the SE staff decided to remove a moderator without following their own established process for doing so.
    - luckylion 7y ago
      SO leaked some parts of the chat but not the relevant parts, according to a staff member that was in the chat. As the fired moderator asked for evidence, it would be easy for SO to release it. This reeks of a political firing under some pretense. Misunderstandings have been suggested by the fired moderator as well, with a plea to talk to her. According to her, they haven't been taking her calls and not replied to emails. That's consistent with their public stance, so it seems plausible to me. My pet theory: it's a "punish one, educate a hundred" move. They chose a respected moderator for a laughable offense to send a clear signal that they won't allow any amount of violation of their new rules and that reputation and contributions do not protect you. Question authority and you're gone, no matter who you are. That this comes a month after the new CEO makes me believe it's the shift to a new policy, one that runs the site not as a community, but as a product to sell to other corporations.

chrisweekly 7y ago

It's ironic that you used the homograph "resign" in both words' meanings -- re-sign (soft "ess", to sign again) and resign (hard "z" sound, to quit) -- in a comment about careful word choice. Did SE mods re-sign their posts, or quit (abandon moderator role)?

phyzome 7y ago
That's not ironic, because no one was actually confused.
- chrisweekly 7y ago
  I beg to differ. The relevant part of the top-level story boils down to "Someone was fired, and others resigned in protest / solidarity". Do you really believe that "no one" was confused? I think it's hard _not_ to read the wrong "resigned" there in this context. More relevant to the subject matter, your confident assertion, speaking for everyone, belies a lack of empathy. Finally, I find it interesting that none of this would have been confusing or even ambiguous except that we're using written language to communicate. Have a nice day!
  - DanBC 7y ago
    I'm a bit confused by your post. What did you think the moderators signed? What did you think they had re-signed?
    - chrisweekly 7y ago
      They'd "(re-)sign" their profiles with "preferred pronoun" designations, eg "he/his" or "she/her". A visible (but less extreme) show of support, vs quitting -- which for moderators who aren't even employees of SE per se, isn't even really an applicable concept. All of which underscores the point of my original (and annoyingly if predictably downvoted) comment about there being ambiguous -- hence ironic -- use of a particular homograph.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

braindeath 7y ago

Perhaps I just don't want to fucking be bothered with a gender label and will use the perfectly acceptable gender-neutral pronoun. God tells me that this is a reasonable thing to do. Somebody recently referred me to this nonsense: https://www.mypronouns.org/how https://www.mypronouns.org/how It's funny that this pronoun debate in the US is so anglocentric, too. Just shows the level of critical thinking these agenda pushers really have. Why? Why is it only the 3rd person pronouns that are special. Why are 1st and 2nd person "as-is"?