6 ms·

IMO the real issue here is not pronouns per se but rather it is SO's behavior in response (firing, ghosting, inconsistency).

beerandt 7y ago
No, it's pronouns. More generally, it's "I expect you to conform with the way I perceive the world, even if it's not the way you perceive it." The entire point of a pronoun is to convey my perceived relation to the noun. We do it all the time with possessives and formalities; if gender is truly a fluid, to-be-perceived, non-biological construct, then why shouldn't we treat it the same way?
- PhasmaFelis 7y ago
  Based on Monica Cellio's blogpost (https://cellio.dreamwidth.org/2064709.html https://cellio.dreamwidth.org/2064709.html), I think what happened is that, last year, she posted saying that she prefers, when possible, to refer to people in ways that don't require using pronouns at all. Later, this was misinterpreted to mean that she refused to use people's requested pronouns, and she was fired from her position. That might have been reasonable if she had actually said that, but it sounds like she didn't say anything of the sort. That makes me think that it's not really about pronouns, it's about people using bad-faith misinterpretation and unjustified accusations to hold a witch-hunt. Pronouns are just the purported subject. But I'm new to the whole kerfuffle, so I may be missing something.
  - beerandt 7y ago
    You're giving them too much credit. She said she'd prefer not using pronouns at all. They said if she avoids using pronouns, she's just as guilty as using the wrong one. Then they fired/de-moded her based on her stated preference, assuming she would not follow the future rules. They also did this at 6 pm on a Friday. She's Jewish.
    - brandmeyer 7y ago
      > They also did this at 6 pm on a Friday. She's Jewish. In fairness, there really isn't a good time to fire someone. I would normally think that the end of the work week is one of the least bad times to fire someone.
      - beerandt 7y ago
        Agreed, but I'm speaking more to the hypocrisy of being expected to be sensitive to the personal beliefs / self-identity of the person you're addressing. The very principle they "fired" her for. Edit: Also, even if that's the best time, you should ensure you make personal contact, and not just do the equivalent of a ghosting.
        brandmeyer 7y ago
        No, I agree. There is a minimum level of etiquette that should be followed when terminating someone, even if it is for cause, and even if they are a volunteer.
    - Ruthalas 7y ago
      Is this particularly onerous because she'd be unable to do work to defend herself the following day, as it was the sabbath? (Honesty question. I'm curious what the connection is, and that's the best I can think of.)
      - beerandt 7y ago
        Basically yes. Using their own standards, they should have known that she wouldn't be able to receive any notification for at least a day. Not only didn't they discuss it privately with her before taking action, they essentially allowed rumor to spread unanswered for a full day, if not all weekend.
    - bwat49 7y ago
      > They said if she avoids using pronouns, she's just as guilty as using the wrong one. People that think like this baffle me When I refer to people online, I rarely use 'pronouns'. IMO in online communication, it's most clear/neutral to just refer to people by their name or username, e.g. if I'm referring to you I might just say @beerandt. I can't imagine how that could be seen as offensive in any way
  - AgentME 7y ago
    The way she writes about a sharp distinction about a "negative commandment" vs "positive requirement" in the rules here makes it sound like she's really against respecting people's preferred pronouns and looking for a loophole that doesn't require her to do so. I don't have anything against gender-neutral language, but that kind of seemingly-motivated reasoning makes me uncomfortable, and I wouldn't be surprised if this sort of thing made SE think she was looking for loopholes to get out of respecting the CoC. If it were a common expression of homophobia to to refer to gay people's husbands/wives/boyfriends/girlfriends as their "roommate", SE made a rule against doing that, and a moderator asked if it would be fine if they always referred to the partners by their full names ... I wouldn't really get the impression that the moderator is trying to follow the spirit of the CoC. Maybe not every user needs to be on board with the spirit of the CoC, but the moderators that are responsible for enforcing it probably should be.
- mcv 7y ago
  I suspect the reason that some people are so insistent on preferred pronouns, is a backlash against people who insist on misgendering them. They've had to fight for every shred of recognition. This could have been a complete non-issue if there hadn't been so much stubborn hate and disrespect towards transgender and non-binary people. A single case of misgendering would be easy to take as an honest mistake if it wasn't against a context of decades of hate and denial of their identity. So use of pronouns seems to have become the main signifier of whether they're getting the respect they deserve. That doesn't make one particular view on the use of pronouns right or wrong, but it does make it complex and laden with a lot of baggage that not everybody is aware of.
  - beerandt 7y ago
    I get that, and sort of sympathized at one point. But for one thing, if you're not allowed to avoid the controversy except by not speaking at all, then the hands been overplayed. Personally, I always try to draw the line from a natural rights approach. If one "right" requires the infringement of the rights of someone else, then it's not really a natural right. If your personal belief requires me to have a certain personal belief, it's not a natural-right, it's a form of religious jihad. People need to realize that if you aren't "normal" in some way (whether it's a personality quirk, weird hobby, odd fetish, or disability, or whatever) that life isn't guaranteed to be easy, and you're going to need to take certain conversations or commentary with a thick skin. (I know "normal" can be a no-no in this topic, but I mean in general terms, which I think is still appropriate for this context.) And the "coerced" or "forced speech" approach really doesn't make sense in practice if we're strictly looking at self-identity. If it were strictly about self-identity, we'd still say pro-life and pro-choice, instead of pro-woman and anti-abortion. "Racist" would basically be off limits except for the very small number of people that openly embrace it as a badge. Making any assumption about anyone's outward appearance (or any assumption about the underlying motive of anyone's actions) could land you in trouble with the thought police. People say 1984 and BNW, but I think the whole thing is...it's very Victorian- just with a different set of taboos and standards. Although with the direction me-too is headed, with people being offended (or even feeling harassed or assaulted) just by being asked-out in (what they perceive to be) an offensive manor, we've almost come full circle.
- Gibbon1 7y ago
  > if gender is truly a fluid, to-be-perceived, non-biological construct, then why shouldn't we treat it the same way? Because no one sane can keep up outside of a small personal group of friends.
  - beerandt 7y ago
    That's what I'm saying. Pronouns (of all types, not just gender) should convey the speakers perception and intent, so there's nothing to keep track of. Think of vous/tu or thou/you. If you have kids, it's the difference between saying to your spouse "our kid drew all by himself" and "your kid drew on the wall". The pronoun selection conveys meaning perceived by the speaker, and not always the literal categorical noun substitution. But it's for the speaker to decide.
    - Gibbon1 7y ago
      I'll leave you with this. An older gay friend was involved in gay rights stuff back in the 1970's. He said there were two kinds of activists in the organizations. Those that wanted to achieve goals and those that wanted to involve themselves in internecine politics. His experience is the latter win. I suspect that's what's going on at SO.

beerandt 7y ago

No, it's pronouns. More generally, it's "I expect you to conform with the way I perceive the world, even if it's not the way you perceive it." The entire point of a pronoun is to convey my perceived relation to the noun. We do it all the time with possessives and formalities; if gender is truly a fluid, to-be-perceived, non-biological construct, then why shouldn't we treat it the same way?

PhasmaFelis 7y ago
Based on Monica Cellio's blogpost (https://cellio.dreamwidth.org/2064709.html https://cellio.dreamwidth.org/2064709.html), I think what happened is that, last year, she posted saying that she prefers, when possible, to refer to people in ways that don't require using pronouns at all. Later, this was misinterpreted to mean that she refused to use people's requested pronouns, and she was fired from her position. That might have been reasonable if she had actually said that, but it sounds like she didn't say anything of the sort. That makes me think that it's not really about pronouns, it's about people using bad-faith misinterpretation and unjustified accusations to hold a witch-hunt. Pronouns are just the purported subject. But I'm new to the whole kerfuffle, so I may be missing something.
- beerandt 7y ago
  You're giving them too much credit. She said she'd prefer not using pronouns at all. They said if she avoids using pronouns, she's just as guilty as using the wrong one. Then they fired/de-moded her based on her stated preference, assuming she would not follow the future rules. They also did this at 6 pm on a Friday. She's Jewish.
  - brandmeyer 7y ago
    > They also did this at 6 pm on a Friday. She's Jewish. In fairness, there really isn't a good time to fire someone. I would normally think that the end of the work week is one of the least bad times to fire someone.
    - beerandt 7y ago
      Agreed, but I'm speaking more to the hypocrisy of being expected to be sensitive to the personal beliefs / self-identity of the person you're addressing. The very principle they "fired" her for. Edit: Also, even if that's the best time, you should ensure you make personal contact, and not just do the equivalent of a ghosting.
      - brandmeyer 7y ago
        No, I agree. There is a minimum level of etiquette that should be followed when terminating someone, even if it is for cause, and even if they are a volunteer.
  - Ruthalas 7y ago
    Is this particularly onerous because she'd be unable to do work to defend herself the following day, as it was the sabbath? (Honesty question. I'm curious what the connection is, and that's the best I can think of.)
    - beerandt 7y ago
      Basically yes. Using their own standards, they should have known that she wouldn't be able to receive any notification for at least a day. Not only didn't they discuss it privately with her before taking action, they essentially allowed rumor to spread unanswered for a full day, if not all weekend.
  - bwat49 7y ago
    > They said if she avoids using pronouns, she's just as guilty as using the wrong one. People that think like this baffle me When I refer to people online, I rarely use 'pronouns'. IMO in online communication, it's most clear/neutral to just refer to people by their name or username, e.g. if I'm referring to you I might just say @beerandt. I can't imagine how that could be seen as offensive in any way
- AgentME 7y ago
  The way she writes about a sharp distinction about a "negative commandment" vs "positive requirement" in the rules here makes it sound like she's really against respecting people's preferred pronouns and looking for a loophole that doesn't require her to do so. I don't have anything against gender-neutral language, but that kind of seemingly-motivated reasoning makes me uncomfortable, and I wouldn't be surprised if this sort of thing made SE think she was looking for loopholes to get out of respecting the CoC. If it were a common expression of homophobia to to refer to gay people's husbands/wives/boyfriends/girlfriends as their "roommate", SE made a rule against doing that, and a moderator asked if it would be fine if they always referred to the partners by their full names ... I wouldn't really get the impression that the moderator is trying to follow the spirit of the CoC. Maybe not every user needs to be on board with the spirit of the CoC, but the moderators that are responsible for enforcing it probably should be.
mcv 7y ago
I suspect the reason that some people are so insistent on preferred pronouns, is a backlash against people who insist on misgendering them. They've had to fight for every shred of recognition. This could have been a complete non-issue if there hadn't been so much stubborn hate and disrespect towards transgender and non-binary people. A single case of misgendering would be easy to take as an honest mistake if it wasn't against a context of decades of hate and denial of their identity. So use of pronouns seems to have become the main signifier of whether they're getting the respect they deserve. That doesn't make one particular view on the use of pronouns right or wrong, but it does make it complex and laden with a lot of baggage that not everybody is aware of.
- beerandt 7y ago
  I get that, and sort of sympathized at one point. But for one thing, if you're not allowed to avoid the controversy except by not speaking at all, then the hands been overplayed. Personally, I always try to draw the line from a natural rights approach. If one "right" requires the infringement of the rights of someone else, then it's not really a natural right. If your personal belief requires me to have a certain personal belief, it's not a natural-right, it's a form of religious jihad. People need to realize that if you aren't "normal" in some way (whether it's a personality quirk, weird hobby, odd fetish, or disability, or whatever) that life isn't guaranteed to be easy, and you're going to need to take certain conversations or commentary with a thick skin. (I know "normal" can be a no-no in this topic, but I mean in general terms, which I think is still appropriate for this context.) And the "coerced" or "forced speech" approach really doesn't make sense in practice if we're strictly looking at self-identity. If it were strictly about self-identity, we'd still say pro-life and pro-choice, instead of pro-woman and anti-abortion. "Racist" would basically be off limits except for the very small number of people that openly embrace it as a badge. Making any assumption about anyone's outward appearance (or any assumption about the underlying motive of anyone's actions) could land you in trouble with the thought police. People say 1984 and BNW, but I think the whole thing is...it's very Victorian- just with a different set of taboos and standards. Although with the direction me-too is headed, with people being offended (or even feeling harassed or assaulted) just by being asked-out in (what they perceive to be) an offensive manor, we've almost come full circle.
Gibbon1 7y ago
> if gender is truly a fluid, to-be-perceived, non-biological construct, then why shouldn't we treat it the same way? Because no one sane can keep up outside of a small personal group of friends.
- beerandt 7y ago
  That's what I'm saying. Pronouns (of all types, not just gender) should convey the speakers perception and intent, so there's nothing to keep track of. Think of vous/tu or thou/you. If you have kids, it's the difference between saying to your spouse "our kid drew all by himself" and "your kid drew on the wall". The pronoun selection conveys meaning perceived by the speaker, and not always the literal categorical noun substitution. But it's for the speaker to decide.
  - Gibbon1 7y ago
    I'll leave you with this. An older gay friend was involved in gay rights stuff back in the 1970's. He said there were two kinds of activists in the organizations. Those that wanted to achieve goals and those that wanted to involve themselves in internecine politics. His experience is the latter win. I suspect that's what's going on at SO.