14 ms·

"require use of preferred pronouns and avoiding them is forbidden" This line of thinking is so bizarre to me, but seems to be increasingly common (or at least

"require use of preferred pronouns and avoiding them is forbidden" This line of thinking is so bizarre to me, but seems to be increasingly common (or at least loud enough in the right places to be noticed). There is a segment of the population that seems intent on being able assign and punish that assumed thought crime. Now your lack of a specific behavior is suspect!

trentnix 7y ago
Exactly as was foreseen.
reanimus 7y ago
I think it's just rude behavior, honestly. If I ask you to call me something and you go out of your way not to do that, how is that not a dick move?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- phyzome 7y ago
  I'm pretty sure cellio specifically said that they were fine with using pronouns when specified.
  - reanimus 7y ago
    Really? The post here seemed to indicate otherwise: > I said I avoid singular they for that reason, 95% of the time you can write around the problem, and (on SE) I'm offended when someone edits my posts badly to solve a gender-neutrality problem. (Editing well is fine, which usually means pluralizing or using a name or something like that instead of either generic "he" or singular "they".) Some people said not using preferred pronouns invalidates the person; I said for me it's not about the person at all but the quality of my own writing (an important part of my identity). and later: > I answered saying that we already have a negative commandment, don't call people what they don't want to be called (like wrong pronouns), which is proper, but this question calls for adding a positive requirement to use specific language and we shouldn't do that. I talked about writing in a gender-neutral way, that we rarely even need third-person-singular pronouns in our discussions, and not using a pronoun at all isn't misgendering. This, to me, sounds like "I refuse to use the pronouns you ask me to use for you and will instead rewrite whenever possible to not use pronouns for you".
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - simo7 7y ago
      Pronouns are meant to be a finite set, contrary to names which are an infinite (or unlimited) set. That way you can group many multiple names under few pronouns. If you want to allow an infinite set of pronouns you might just as well remove pronouns altogether as they would stop serving the purpose they are meant to serve.
    - fencepost 7y ago
      Where are pronouns specified? How much digging are volunteer mods required to do under penalty of censure? Will all Stack Exchange sites add a "pronouns" field to user profiles that can be displayed along with user IDs? Are mods going to be required to go look at each user account's free-form description each time to check for pronoun information and possible changes (there have been references to 'gender-fluid' which makes me think the pronoun may change frequently)? Will there be history tracking so when a mod says 'she' and gets called on it by a 'he' it can be shown that the expressed preference has changed since a response was written? You couldn't do a better job of building a system of unavoidable traps if you were actively trying to sabotage the system. By the time this is all done every.single.moderator will be guaranteed to have violated the CoC at least once and can be censured or fired for it on a whim.
      - morelisp 7y ago
        > Will all Stack Exchange sites add a "pronouns" field to user profiles that can be displayed along with user IDs? You ask this rhetorically and like it's some big challenge, but it's genuinely a good idea and straightforward to implement for any community site.
        michannne 7y ago
        The answer to the questions asked on StackExchange have nothing to do with the gender of the asker, they are intended for anyone who has the same question.
- freehunter 7y ago
  It's not a dick move because the singular "they" covers every conceivable pronoun that could ever possibly exist. Saying "they" is not the same as calling a man "she" or calling a woman "he" or any combination of genders and pronouns. The singular "they" is as accurate for one gender as it is for any other possible genders and covers all of them exactly the same. That's the entire reason neutral words like "they" exist, to cover every possible case to avoid mis-gendering. If we decide that the singular "they" is inappropriate, we might as well do away with pronouns altogether and refer to people by name every time we mention someone.
  - reanimus 7y ago
    This is unrelated to what I'm talking about lol
  - comex 7y ago
    This post is about a case where someone was avoiding singular they, in favor of changing the wording to avoid pronouns altogether.
  - simonblack 7y ago
    English already has a non-specific pronoun that's been around for hundreds of years. It has come from the French, so it's been around at least since the Norman Invasion of 1066. So roughly 1050 years. One can use it at any time.
    - LordDragonfang 7y ago
      At least in modern English, "one" is specifically an indefinite pronoun, and is therefore inappropriate for use when referring to a specific individual. And before anyone claims otherwise, "they" was still in use as a definite, gender-neutral pronoun long before its NB usage began to become mainstream.
      - esyir 7y ago
        "They" might be a definite pronoun, but it is almost exclusively used as a plural. It's also a pretty bad drop in replacement; "They is currently running" sounds weird as all hell for instance. That there has been an explicit and forced attempt to shift it towards that doesn't make it sound any better. Furthermore, "He" has been used as a generic pronoun long predating the singular they. While it comes with some ambiguity as well, it flows a lot better and does not screw around with singular/plural ambiguity.
- Wowfunhappy 7y ago
  What is the alternative on a Q&A site that explicitly restricts tangential conversation?
- michannne 7y ago
  > I answered saying that we already have a negative commandment, don't call people what they don't want to be called (like wrong pronouns), which is proper Straight from the article. You can tell people not to call you something, Cellio will not call you that thing. However, they will not go out of their way to call you what you want to be called, it's their choice in what they call you, as well as how they respond to names you don't like.
  - dgabriel 7y ago
    What? You can't say "call me they/them," rather you can only say "don't call me him/her/or any other pronoun besides they"? That's very silly. Clarification of rules, even to the point where they may seem redundant, is completely fine and often important. This is such a weird hill for them to die on.
    - michannne 7y ago
      The new rule is not a clarification of the existing rule. If you'd not like me to call you "OP", that's fine, I can refer to you by your username or they or I can refer only to "the post", and if you prefer a pronoun, Cellio states she will use that pronoun. The issue is that the new rule states you must use a certain term whichever the user specifies.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- trentnix 7y ago
  You know what else is a dick move? - punishing people for wrongthink.
  - fzeroracer 7y ago
    Let's use a hypothetical here. Let's say you're on a team with someone named Mike. Mike has a team member that keeps referring to him as 'Mikey'. Mike doesn't like this, because he feels it's demeaning and rude. He insists on being called Mike, but his teammate refuses. If his manager gets involved and tells said team member to cut it out, is that punishing someone for wrongthink? Do you think it's acceptable to repeatedly call someone a name that they don't like?
    - crististm 7y ago
      Are you talking about name-calling? Cause people already know what to do about it. Is "Mikey" pejorative?
    - iMerNibor 7y ago
      There's a huge difference between calling someone you know and have interacted with for a significant amount of time or a random internet stranger the wrong thing though (not to mention the overhead of looking up & remembering the pronoun vs just writing around it for technical/factual answers)
      - fzeroracer 7y ago
        Except that's not the scenario in question. The person I was responding to (and in turn, the OP) was about someone explicitly not calling you by what you request even after you ask them to please to so. In my scenario, it doesn't change much if Mike is a new employee at said company. The coworker still calls him Mikey even after the employee's requests to stop, which would be considered rude by a lot of people.
    - anang 7y ago
      There is a distinct difference between asking to be called something, and asking to not be called something. I don’t think anyone is arguing that it’s right or correct to continue using a pronoun or name that someone has specifically objected to.
- unreal37 7y ago
  Edited to say... I think we (as humans on this planet) need to be respectful of each other. Not go out of our way to hurt each other. But "being respectful" needs to have a standard, society-wide definition. We cannot allow individuals to set their own standard of what they demand in order to feel respected, because then people can invent unreasonable demands on others and then claim to be harmed when that fails to happen. For instance, I can go around demanding people call me "your lordship". No, my name is not Scott. My name is not unreal37. I am not he/she/they. Call me "your lordship" or I will consider that an insult. Individuals cannot define the rules like this. We need a standard of what is considered respectful behavior and it applies to everyone.
- loco5niner 7y ago
  If you ask me to do something that I am not comfortable with or goes against my values, I will not do that thing. Nothing wrong with that.
phyzome 7y ago
It's also super weird because everyone I know who is NB, trans, or genderqueer is fine with singular they and absolutely supports its use when someone's pronouns are unspecified.
- detaro 7y ago
  This appears to have been more specifically about using neutral forms (EDIT: specifically avoiding any pronouns at all), if someone's preference otherwise is known.
  - mentat 7y ago
    It's about writing around pronouns, not using neutral or gendered either way. That was said to be unacceptable.
- JumpCrisscross 7y ago
  > It's also super weird It’s a private organisation. The person “let go” was a volunteer. It sucks, but both parties acted within their rights, legally and I’d argue morally. Lots of places have weird norms—dress codes, for instance. This group has a different view of pronouns. They want to enforce that as a cultural value. Apparently, their leadership either agrees or doesn’t find the topic worth burning political capital over. The author did find it worth burning political capital over, which caused him [EDIT: oops, them] to be ejected. The cost of vilifying norms we disagree with is a reduced cultural space private organisations can explore. That loss of dynamism may reduce the frequency of seemingly-silly subcultures, but it also hits our broader culture’s flexibility.
  - herostratus101 7y ago
    What's the point of noting that they have the right to do this? Was anyone arguing that SE violated the law? Their culture is stupid and alienating to many intelligent people.
    - geofft 7y ago
Barrin92 7y ago
>Now your lack of a specific behavior is suspect! this has been established practise since the dawn of time, to the point where some languages have honorifics built into their grammar. Communities have guidelines and addressing someone with their preferred pronoun seems as simple to me as addressing someone with their proper name and title. If someone is not up to the task to treat others with at least a modicum of respect they probably shouldn't moderate communities.
- luckylion 7y ago
  Avoiding pronouns appears to be an offense in that new CoC though. If I was to refer to your comment saying "As Barrin92 wrote", I'd be close to a ban if you've stated your preferred pronouns in your profile, as those are to be used.
- humanrebar 7y ago
  > ...addressing someone with their proper name and title. Except titles were banned by the U.S. Constitution. I'm not sure why Your Honor and Dr. stuck around, probably because of the immediacy of the need to oblige onesself to them. But it's important to remember that the Dr. honorific is cultural and unenforced. And the Your Honor is only enforced in court. If someone wants to call the President "Donny", there are no legal repercussions. Not that Donny T will be a grown-up about it necessarily.
  - Barrin92 7y ago
    this isn't a legal matter, nobody on stackoverflow is going to sue you, they're apparently just going to stop you from being a moderator. If you work at the white house and you call the president Donny I would expect you don't have your job for very long. And that wouldn't be exclusive to the white house or stackoverflow either. If you start a pronoun rebellion at waffle house or are rude to your customers in some other way the same thing would happen.
    - humanrebar 7y ago
      I was making the point that the U.S. has never been big on honorifics and that it influences even its laws going back hundreds of years. And volunteering as a moderator in a forum isn't the same thing as being a sworn secret service agent part of a chain of command or something.
DaniloDias 7y ago
Bullies.
austincheney 7y ago
This may seem shocking but it is absolutely not any form of attack: One person's identity crisis is very likely not another person's problem. Trying to force that problem where it is not well understood causes confusion and miscommunication issues, especially for people who not using the current language as a comfortable native language. Furthermore, a difference of opinion is not a form of attack. People forcing the narrative that any difference of opinion must be some form of attack are perhaps a source of the problem. When these sorts of issues come up in an online community I do myself the service of abandoning the community before watching things get out of hand.
d_e_solomon 7y ago
I don't think it's particularly difficult to refer to a person how they want to be referred to. Enforcing that as a standard isn't thought crime and the amount of hand wringing over this supposed 'thought crime' is gross. I call Robert, Robert - and not Bob, Bobby, or Teddy. Because Robert goes by Robert. Similar to pronouns. Not difficult at all.
- Pfhreak 7y ago
  Not only is it not difficult to use someone's correct name and pronouns, frankly it's just basic politeness to call people what they want to be called.
  - metafunctor 7y ago
    You don't think it's a little bit difficult to check what someone wants to be called before posting, say, a reply? There, I did it. I didn't check if “you” was OK with you. Shit, I did it again. I'm joking, of course (not really, check my profile).
    - Pfhreak 7y ago
      > You don't think it's a little bit difficult to check what someone wants to be called before posting, say, a reply? I don't. And it's only going to get easier when this stuff is a part of the profile next to a users name/avatar. > There, I did it. I didn't check if “you” was OK with you. Shit, I did it again. :eyeroll:
      - metafunctor 7y ago
        That would probably make it somewhat easy enough for most native English speakers who keep up with the times. It would still be difficult enough that a big majority of my peers (middle-aged+ non-native English speakers) would get it wrong a lot of the time. This whole thing is just a little alien and baffling to me. I don't understand why all interactions should take into account gender (or religion, age, seniority, or insert-your-favorite-disposition-here). I respect your choices and accomplishments about these things, but it's hard for me to remember to weave them into every sentence when it has nothing to do with the matter at hand. I've had quite a few fruitful and interesting discussions online without having to bring in gender, religion, age, sex, or any number of other irrelevant preferences into it. In most contexts, I don't see the point of making a point of any of those. I could call rank and require myself be called with all sorts of names (check my profile), but what would that benefit? I'm interested in your opinions; not on making you follow my rules.
djaque 7y ago
This is a straw man. > There is a segment of the population that seems intent on being able assign and punish that assumed thought crime. Nobody really believes this outside of trolls and maybe a tiny fraction of people that only exist on the internet. There are real people out there that are uncomfortable with their biological gender and I can promise you that none of them are asking to be called "xe/xey/xem" or whatever people want to beleive now. I don't think refering to trans people by the gender they want or by "they" is too much to ask.
- SnarkAsh 7y ago
  I agree that it's a tiny minority view, but it's not a straw man when that tiny minority are making the decisions at Stack Overflow.
- djaque 7y ago
  Although, I should mention that the way SE is handling this is still very strange.
- unreal37 7y ago
  The Stack Exchange rule forbids calling them "they" and requires calling them the pronoun they wish to be called. The original post is saying "I refer to people as they" and SE is saying that's a violation of the code of conduct. So what do you think of that?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - latk 7y ago
    I think the situation is the other way around: * Singular “they” can be the correct pronoun for some people, especially enbies. * Monica does not want to use singular they for grammatical/stylistic reasons – when talking about persons of unspecified gender, alternative constructions are available. * SE's CoC clarification supposedly says you must use the correct pronoun if it is known, including singular they. Constructions that intentionally avoid pronouns would then be ruled out. * This is not a ban on the use of singular they. Of course, SE's new CoC or new interpretation is still not public, so its actual contents are unknown.
caconym_ 7y ago
The behavior of the far-left identity politics crowd has crossed over into outright bullying. I say this as someone who self-identifies fairly left and extremely liberal. Their central rhetorical tool is extremely effective: if you are not a member of a marginalized identity group (this category itself being fluid), you do not have a right to question anything they say (according to them). This works on thoughtful people who want to do the right thing, because such people tend to take the general concept of social justice very seriously (as they should, it's important). We need to collectively realize how toxic these people are, and start pushing back.
- Nuzzerino 7y ago
  If you are part of the identity group, and if you question what they say, they'll call you a traitor. It's thinly veiled fascism to say the least.
  - caconym_ 7y ago
    I don't really think calling it "fascism" is especially accurate or productive. It stinks of "the other side" which is, frankly, much scarier, whether you think I'm referring to the far-right fringe or the propaganda operations that are working to deepen these divisions. See also e.g. the widely documented fake BLM pages on Facebook. It's just a meme that spreads through its appeal to a certain type of person.
    - smudgymcscmudge 7y ago
      The other side in this case isn’t the far right. The other side are just ordinary people who don’t want to be called names for forgetting to use the right pronoun or even not using a pronoun at all.
      - caconym_ 7y ago
        Yeah, those aren't the people labeling it "fascism" as far as I can tell. GP of this comment was specifically responding to GGP.
nazgulnarsil 7y ago
Everything that is not forbidden is mandatory.
yashap 7y ago
IMO internet communities make this worse - it’s a lot easier to be a bully online than in person. Also, internet communities are so large that the chance of running into a bully is much higher. I have plenty of LGBT friends and family, and none of them get too caught up in language. I’d assume this is the norm? Nobody wants to be disrespected - if someone clearly identifies as a man, then referring to them as “she” (especially if done in a spiteful manner/tone) is disrespectful. Using gender neutral pronouns, or avoiding pronouns altogether ... I don’t think many would consider that an issue? Especially online, gender is normally not known at all, and that’s fine. Calling someone a bigot because they avoid using gendered pronouns seems like bullying to me. Communities should stand up to bullies, not cave in to them, especially internet communities where bullying is so easy and common. This is true whether the bullies are extreme left, extreme right, or just assholes. I consider myself fairly left of centre, but siding with someone just because they’re on your end of the political spectrum is wrong. People can share some beliefs with you but still behave as bullies, and if they do it’s important to stand up to them. From what I’ve read of this Stack Exchange mess, it seems like the people who won were the bullies, and that’s unfortunate.
WhiteOwlLion 7y ago
Those that forcibly suppress of opposing thought on pronouns share characteristics that define fascism.
stackptr 7y ago
One line of thinking around requiring usage of preferred pronouns is that normalizing the act of giving/asking for pronouns allows for more inclusive spaces. For instance, if someone is transitioning between genders it might not be obvious what their gender identity is, and assuming their gender identity can lead to further dysphoria. At the same time, if you are someone who sees that the only people who get asked for their pronouns are people who do not obviously exist at either of edge of the gender spectrum, then the act of being asked for pronouns is tantamount to someone admitting their own confusion of your identity. This issue can be resolved for all parties and gender identities when asking/giving pronoun preference is the norm. For people with more straightforwardly normative gender identities, offering preferred pronouns is an act of solidarity with people who might not have the privilege of their gender identity being so obvious.
- nullc 7y ago
  Doesn't that approach have the downside risk strongly elevating gender to be essential to activities where it really has no business? I have no idea what your gender is and I don't think our interaction would be improved by forcing you-- by either rule or convention-- to specify something. Doing so would unnecessarily prime my sterotypes and perhaps leave you and/or me worrying that my response was unduly biased by the knoweldge. An effective requirement-to-specify implicitly makes a strong assumption that your gender can be described categorically rather than as, say, the fractal attractor of a complex collection of partial differential equations. :) For a long time online I've tended to fill out apparently pointless gender fields with a "none of your business". I'm happy to support people identifying in whatever way they find most enabling, but at the same time it feels like a step back to elevate gender as important in contexts where it isn't after working so long to push towards a more gender blind world.

trentnix 7y ago

Exactly as was foreseen.

reanimus 7y ago

I think it's just rude behavior, honestly. If I ask you to call me something and you go out of your way not to do that, how is that not a dick move?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
phyzome 7y ago
I'm pretty sure cellio specifically said that they were fine with using pronouns when specified.
- reanimus 7y ago
  Really? The post here seemed to indicate otherwise: > I said I avoid singular they for that reason, 95% of the time you can write around the problem, and (on SE) I'm offended when someone edits my posts badly to solve a gender-neutrality problem. (Editing well is fine, which usually means pluralizing or using a name or something like that instead of either generic "he" or singular "they".) Some people said not using preferred pronouns invalidates the person; I said for me it's not about the person at all but the quality of my own writing (an important part of my identity). and later: > I answered saying that we already have a negative commandment, don't call people what they don't want to be called (like wrong pronouns), which is proper, but this question calls for adding a positive requirement to use specific language and we shouldn't do that. I talked about writing in a gender-neutral way, that we rarely even need third-person-singular pronouns in our discussions, and not using a pronoun at all isn't misgendering. This, to me, sounds like "I refuse to use the pronouns you ask me to use for you and will instead rewrite whenever possible to not use pronouns for you".
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - simo7 7y ago
    Pronouns are meant to be a finite set, contrary to names which are an infinite (or unlimited) set. That way you can group many multiple names under few pronouns. If you want to allow an infinite set of pronouns you might just as well remove pronouns altogether as they would stop serving the purpose they are meant to serve.
  - fencepost 7y ago
    Where are pronouns specified? How much digging are volunteer mods required to do under penalty of censure? Will all Stack Exchange sites add a "pronouns" field to user profiles that can be displayed along with user IDs? Are mods going to be required to go look at each user account's free-form description each time to check for pronoun information and possible changes (there have been references to 'gender-fluid' which makes me think the pronoun may change frequently)? Will there be history tracking so when a mod says 'she' and gets called on it by a 'he' it can be shown that the expressed preference has changed since a response was written? You couldn't do a better job of building a system of unavoidable traps if you were actively trying to sabotage the system. By the time this is all done every.single.moderator will be guaranteed to have violated the CoC at least once and can be censured or fired for it on a whim.
    - morelisp 7y ago
      > Will all Stack Exchange sites add a "pronouns" field to user profiles that can be displayed along with user IDs? You ask this rhetorically and like it's some big challenge, but it's genuinely a good idea and straightforward to implement for any community site.
      - michannne 7y ago
        The answer to the questions asked on StackExchange have nothing to do with the gender of the asker, they are intended for anyone who has the same question.
freehunter 7y ago
It's not a dick move because the singular "they" covers every conceivable pronoun that could ever possibly exist. Saying "they" is not the same as calling a man "she" or calling a woman "he" or any combination of genders and pronouns. The singular "they" is as accurate for one gender as it is for any other possible genders and covers all of them exactly the same. That's the entire reason neutral words like "they" exist, to cover every possible case to avoid mis-gendering. If we decide that the singular "they" is inappropriate, we might as well do away with pronouns altogether and refer to people by name every time we mention someone.
- reanimus 7y ago
  This is unrelated to what I'm talking about lol
- comex 7y ago
  This post is about a case where someone was avoiding singular they, in favor of changing the wording to avoid pronouns altogether.
- simonblack 7y ago
  English already has a non-specific pronoun that's been around for hundreds of years. It has come from the French, so it's been around at least since the Norman Invasion of 1066. So roughly 1050 years. One can use it at any time.
  - LordDragonfang 7y ago
    At least in modern English, "one" is specifically an indefinite pronoun, and is therefore inappropriate for use when referring to a specific individual. And before anyone claims otherwise, "they" was still in use as a definite, gender-neutral pronoun long before its NB usage began to become mainstream.
    - esyir 7y ago
      "They" might be a definite pronoun, but it is almost exclusively used as a plural. It's also a pretty bad drop in replacement; "They is currently running" sounds weird as all hell for instance. That there has been an explicit and forced attempt to shift it towards that doesn't make it sound any better. Furthermore, "He" has been used as a generic pronoun long predating the singular they. While it comes with some ambiguity as well, it flows a lot better and does not screw around with singular/plural ambiguity.
Wowfunhappy 7y ago
What is the alternative on a Q&A site that explicitly restricts tangential conversation?
michannne 7y ago
> I answered saying that we already have a negative commandment, don't call people what they don't want to be called (like wrong pronouns), which is proper Straight from the article. You can tell people not to call you something, Cellio will not call you that thing. However, they will not go out of their way to call you what you want to be called, it's their choice in what they call you, as well as how they respond to names you don't like.
- dgabriel 7y ago
  What? You can't say "call me they/them," rather you can only say "don't call me him/her/or any other pronoun besides they"? That's very silly. Clarification of rules, even to the point where they may seem redundant, is completely fine and often important. This is such a weird hill for them to die on.
  - michannne 7y ago
    The new rule is not a clarification of the existing rule. If you'd not like me to call you "OP", that's fine, I can refer to you by your username or they or I can refer only to "the post", and if you prefer a pronoun, Cellio states she will use that pronoun. The issue is that the new rule states you must use a certain term whichever the user specifies.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
trentnix 7y ago
You know what else is a dick move? - punishing people for wrongthink.
- fzeroracer 7y ago
  Let's use a hypothetical here. Let's say you're on a team with someone named Mike. Mike has a team member that keeps referring to him as 'Mikey'. Mike doesn't like this, because he feels it's demeaning and rude. He insists on being called Mike, but his teammate refuses. If his manager gets involved and tells said team member to cut it out, is that punishing someone for wrongthink? Do you think it's acceptable to repeatedly call someone a name that they don't like?
  - crististm 7y ago
    Are you talking about name-calling? Cause people already know what to do about it. Is "Mikey" pejorative?
  - iMerNibor 7y ago
    There's a huge difference between calling someone you know and have interacted with for a significant amount of time or a random internet stranger the wrong thing though (not to mention the overhead of looking up & remembering the pronoun vs just writing around it for technical/factual answers)
    - fzeroracer 7y ago
      Except that's not the scenario in question. The person I was responding to (and in turn, the OP) was about someone explicitly not calling you by what you request even after you ask them to please to so. In my scenario, it doesn't change much if Mike is a new employee at said company. The coworker still calls him Mikey even after the employee's requests to stop, which would be considered rude by a lot of people.
  - anang 7y ago
    There is a distinct difference between asking to be called something, and asking to not be called something. I don’t think anyone is arguing that it’s right or correct to continue using a pronoun or name that someone has specifically objected to.
unreal37 7y ago
Edited to say... I think we (as humans on this planet) need to be respectful of each other. Not go out of our way to hurt each other. But "being respectful" needs to have a standard, society-wide definition. We cannot allow individuals to set their own standard of what they demand in order to feel respected, because then people can invent unreasonable demands on others and then claim to be harmed when that fails to happen. For instance, I can go around demanding people call me "your lordship". No, my name is not Scott. My name is not unreal37. I am not he/she/they. Call me "your lordship" or I will consider that an insult. Individuals cannot define the rules like this. We need a standard of what is considered respectful behavior and it applies to everyone.
loco5niner 7y ago
If you ask me to do something that I am not comfortable with or goes against my values, I will not do that thing. Nothing wrong with that.

phyzome 7y ago

It's also super weird because everyone I know who is NB, trans, or genderqueer is fine with singular they and absolutely supports its use when someone's pronouns are unspecified.

detaro 7y ago
This appears to have been more specifically about using neutral forms (EDIT: specifically avoiding any pronouns at all), if someone's preference otherwise is known.
- mentat 7y ago
  It's about writing around pronouns, not using neutral or gendered either way. That was said to be unacceptable.
JumpCrisscross 7y ago
> It's also super weird It’s a private organisation. The person “let go” was a volunteer. It sucks, but both parties acted within their rights, legally and I’d argue morally. Lots of places have weird norms—dress codes, for instance. This group has a different view of pronouns. They want to enforce that as a cultural value. Apparently, their leadership either agrees or doesn’t find the topic worth burning political capital over. The author did find it worth burning political capital over, which caused him [EDIT: oops, them] to be ejected. The cost of vilifying norms we disagree with is a reduced cultural space private organisations can explore. That loss of dynamism may reduce the frequency of seemingly-silly subcultures, but it also hits our broader culture’s flexibility.
- herostratus101 7y ago
  What's the point of noting that they have the right to do this? Was anyone arguing that SE violated the law? Their culture is stupid and alienating to many intelligent people.
  - geofft 7y ago

Barrin92 7y ago

>Now your lack of a specific behavior is suspect! this has been established practise since the dawn of time, to the point where some languages have honorifics built into their grammar. Communities have guidelines and addressing someone with their preferred pronoun seems as simple to me as addressing someone with their proper name and title. If someone is not up to the task to treat others with at least a modicum of respect they probably shouldn't moderate communities.

luckylion 7y ago
Avoiding pronouns appears to be an offense in that new CoC though. If I was to refer to your comment saying "As Barrin92 wrote", I'd be close to a ban if you've stated your preferred pronouns in your profile, as those are to be used.
humanrebar 7y ago
> ...addressing someone with their proper name and title. Except titles were banned by the U.S. Constitution. I'm not sure why Your Honor and Dr. stuck around, probably because of the immediacy of the need to oblige onesself to them. But it's important to remember that the Dr. honorific is cultural and unenforced. And the Your Honor is only enforced in court. If someone wants to call the President "Donny", there are no legal repercussions. Not that Donny T will be a grown-up about it necessarily.
- Barrin92 7y ago
  this isn't a legal matter, nobody on stackoverflow is going to sue you, they're apparently just going to stop you from being a moderator. If you work at the white house and you call the president Donny I would expect you don't have your job for very long. And that wouldn't be exclusive to the white house or stackoverflow either. If you start a pronoun rebellion at waffle house or are rude to your customers in some other way the same thing would happen.
  - humanrebar 7y ago
    I was making the point that the U.S. has never been big on honorifics and that it influences even its laws going back hundreds of years. And volunteering as a moderator in a forum isn't the same thing as being a sworn secret service agent part of a chain of command or something.

DaniloDias 7y ago

Bullies.

austincheney 7y ago

This may seem shocking but it is absolutely not any form of attack: One person's identity crisis is very likely not another person's problem. Trying to force that problem where it is not well understood causes confusion and miscommunication issues, especially for people who not using the current language as a comfortable native language. Furthermore, a difference of opinion is not a form of attack. People forcing the narrative that any difference of opinion must be some form of attack are perhaps a source of the problem. When these sorts of issues come up in an online community I do myself the service of abandoning the community before watching things get out of hand.

d_e_solomon 7y ago

I don't think it's particularly difficult to refer to a person how they want to be referred to. Enforcing that as a standard isn't thought crime and the amount of hand wringing over this supposed 'thought crime' is gross. I call Robert, Robert - and not Bob, Bobby, or Teddy. Because Robert goes by Robert. Similar to pronouns. Not difficult at all.

Pfhreak 7y ago
Not only is it not difficult to use someone's correct name and pronouns, frankly it's just basic politeness to call people what they want to be called.
- metafunctor 7y ago
  You don't think it's a little bit difficult to check what someone wants to be called before posting, say, a reply? There, I did it. I didn't check if “you” was OK with you. Shit, I did it again. I'm joking, of course (not really, check my profile).
  - Pfhreak 7y ago
    > You don't think it's a little bit difficult to check what someone wants to be called before posting, say, a reply? I don't. And it's only going to get easier when this stuff is a part of the profile next to a users name/avatar. > There, I did it. I didn't check if “you” was OK with you. Shit, I did it again. :eyeroll:
    - metafunctor 7y ago
      That would probably make it somewhat easy enough for most native English speakers who keep up with the times. It would still be difficult enough that a big majority of my peers (middle-aged+ non-native English speakers) would get it wrong a lot of the time. This whole thing is just a little alien and baffling to me. I don't understand why all interactions should take into account gender (or religion, age, seniority, or insert-your-favorite-disposition-here). I respect your choices and accomplishments about these things, but it's hard for me to remember to weave them into every sentence when it has nothing to do with the matter at hand. I've had quite a few fruitful and interesting discussions online without having to bring in gender, religion, age, sex, or any number of other irrelevant preferences into it. In most contexts, I don't see the point of making a point of any of those. I could call rank and require myself be called with all sorts of names (check my profile), but what would that benefit? I'm interested in your opinions; not on making you follow my rules.

djaque 7y ago

This is a straw man. > There is a segment of the population that seems intent on being able assign and punish that assumed thought crime. Nobody really believes this outside of trolls and maybe a tiny fraction of people that only exist on the internet. There are real people out there that are uncomfortable with their biological gender and I can promise you that none of them are asking to be called "xe/xey/xem" or whatever people want to beleive now. I don't think refering to trans people by the gender they want or by "they" is too much to ask.

SnarkAsh 7y ago
I agree that it's a tiny minority view, but it's not a straw man when that tiny minority are making the decisions at Stack Overflow.
djaque 7y ago
Although, I should mention that the way SE is handling this is still very strange.
unreal37 7y ago
The Stack Exchange rule forbids calling them "they" and requires calling them the pronoun they wish to be called. The original post is saying "I refer to people as they" and SE is saying that's a violation of the code of conduct. So what do you think of that?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- latk 7y ago
  I think the situation is the other way around: * Singular “they” can be the correct pronoun for some people, especially enbies. * Monica does not want to use singular they for grammatical/stylistic reasons – when talking about persons of unspecified gender, alternative constructions are available. * SE's CoC clarification supposedly says you must use the correct pronoun if it is known, including singular they. Constructions that intentionally avoid pronouns would then be ruled out. * This is not a ban on the use of singular they. Of course, SE's new CoC or new interpretation is still not public, so its actual contents are unknown.

caconym_ 7y ago

The behavior of the far-left identity politics crowd has crossed over into outright bullying. I say this as someone who self-identifies fairly left and extremely liberal. Their central rhetorical tool is extremely effective: if you are not a member of a marginalized identity group (this category itself being fluid), you do not have a right to question anything they say (according to them). This works on thoughtful people who want to do the right thing, because such people tend to take the general concept of social justice very seriously (as they should, it's important). We need to collectively realize how toxic these people are, and start pushing back.

Nuzzerino 7y ago
If you are part of the identity group, and if you question what they say, they'll call you a traitor. It's thinly veiled fascism to say the least.
- caconym_ 7y ago
  I don't really think calling it "fascism" is especially accurate or productive. It stinks of "the other side" which is, frankly, much scarier, whether you think I'm referring to the far-right fringe or the propaganda operations that are working to deepen these divisions. See also e.g. the widely documented fake BLM pages on Facebook. It's just a meme that spreads through its appeal to a certain type of person.
  - smudgymcscmudge 7y ago
    The other side in this case isn’t the far right. The other side are just ordinary people who don’t want to be called names for forgetting to use the right pronoun or even not using a pronoun at all.
    - caconym_ 7y ago
      Yeah, those aren't the people labeling it "fascism" as far as I can tell. GP of this comment was specifically responding to GGP.

nazgulnarsil 7y ago

Everything that is not forbidden is mandatory.

yashap 7y ago

IMO internet communities make this worse - it’s a lot easier to be a bully online than in person. Also, internet communities are so large that the chance of running into a bully is much higher. I have plenty of LGBT friends and family, and none of them get too caught up in language. I’d assume this is the norm? Nobody wants to be disrespected - if someone clearly identifies as a man, then referring to them as “she” (especially if done in a spiteful manner/tone) is disrespectful. Using gender neutral pronouns, or avoiding pronouns altogether ... I don’t think many would consider that an issue? Especially online, gender is normally not known at all, and that’s fine. Calling someone a bigot because they avoid using gendered pronouns seems like bullying to me. Communities should stand up to bullies, not cave in to them, especially internet communities where bullying is so easy and common. This is true whether the bullies are extreme left, extreme right, or just assholes. I consider myself fairly left of centre, but siding with someone just because they’re on your end of the political spectrum is wrong. People can share some beliefs with you but still behave as bullies, and if they do it’s important to stand up to them. From what I’ve read of this Stack Exchange mess, it seems like the people who won were the bullies, and that’s unfortunate.

WhiteOwlLion 7y ago

Those that forcibly suppress of opposing thought on pronouns share characteristics that define fascism.

stackptr 7y ago

One line of thinking around requiring usage of preferred pronouns is that normalizing the act of giving/asking for pronouns allows for more inclusive spaces. For instance, if someone is transitioning between genders it might not be obvious what their gender identity is, and assuming their gender identity can lead to further dysphoria. At the same time, if you are someone who sees that the only people who get asked for their pronouns are people who do not obviously exist at either of edge of the gender spectrum, then the act of being asked for pronouns is tantamount to someone admitting their own confusion of your identity. This issue can be resolved for all parties and gender identities when asking/giving pronoun preference is the norm. For people with more straightforwardly normative gender identities, offering preferred pronouns is an act of solidarity with people who might not have the privilege of their gender identity being so obvious.

nullc 7y ago
Doesn't that approach have the downside risk strongly elevating gender to be essential to activities where it really has no business? I have no idea what your gender is and I don't think our interaction would be improved by forcing you-- by either rule or convention-- to specify something. Doing so would unnecessarily prime my sterotypes and perhaps leave you and/or me worrying that my response was unduly biased by the knoweldge. An effective requirement-to-specify implicitly makes a strong assumption that your gender can be described categorically rather than as, say, the fractal attractor of a complex collection of partial differential equations. :) For a long time online I've tended to fill out apparently pointless gender fields with a "none of your business". I'm happy to support people identifying in whatever way they find most enabling, but at the same time it feels like a step back to elevate gender as important in contexts where it isn't after working so long to push towards a more gender blind world.