4 ms·
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 belie
by 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 agoI 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 agoAlthough, I should mention that the way SE is handling this is still very strange.
- unreal37 7y agoThe 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 agoI 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.
- that_guy1 7y agoIt is a violation of a code of conduct that doesn't exist yet. It is a proposed future code of conduct. She was kicked out because it was decided that questioning the logic of the future code of conduct meant she didn't (or wouldn't -- I'm not sure which one is worse) follow the code of conduct that hadn't been implemented yet.
- adamrezich 7y agoa pre-pre-thoughtcrime
- shrimp_emoji 7y agoI agree. Recently, though, a trans acquaintance told me that some trans people do find gender-neutral pronouns like "they" to trigger dysphoria. I said I don't understand how that's possible (not that I understand dysphoria to begin with). They said they don't get it either. Have we then found the line separating the realms of cultural accommodation and psychiatric help, and is that minority of trans people across it? If not, the pronoun floodgates are loose! https://uwm.edu/lgbtrc/support/gender-pronouns/ https://uwm.edu/lgbtrc/support/gender-pronouns/ How will civilization endure? After us, the deluge. We shall not last, the die is cast. YwY
- iagovar 7y agoSo why is this situation even happening? Can you explain it?
- aldoushuxley001 7y ago> I don't think refering to trans people by the gender they want or by "they" is too much to ask. It's not, but it shouldn't be a punishable offense either.
- eecc 7y ago> I don't think refering to trans people by the gender they want or by "they" is too much to ask. "They" apparently is wrong. You see, it depends. That's the issue.