6 ms·

Stack Exchange deletes most downvoted post on Meta (gender pronoun FAQ)

20 points by hkai 7y ago

lawlorino 7y ago
Can anyone detail what exactly this is about? This link just redirects to a 404.
- Arnt 7y ago
  We don't know. There was a post explaining how to use pronouns, by a well-respected stackexchange.com employee, not fantastic but, well, one doesn't have to follow all the rules all the time anyway. There may also have been something else. Then a very-well-respected moderator was thrown out rather abruptly (and whatever "else" might be was surely was no fault of hers). After that, and because of various other tonedeaf behaviour on part of stackexchange.com in the past couple of years, umpty more moderators quit, https://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/390427 https://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/390427 is an example.
  - Craighead 7y ago
    Rather than allowing you to continue to create your own narrative, the actual post is archived and the link is visible in this thread. So, we do know.
  - Arnt 7y ago
    Replying to myself to add this link, which explains much of the anger well: https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/334268 https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/334268 Note that "I was there" comment.
    - brudgers 7y ago
      To me, the long-term unhappiness with StackExchange expressed in the many posts on Meta suggest the necessity of creating a tipping point. Every moderator has a chance to air their grievances. Every moderator has an opportunity to move on in a principled way when their core values conflict with the proposed workplace standards.
- brudgers 7y ago
  StackExchange appointed a new CEO. Shortly thereafter, StackExchange announced that a code of conduct for moderators was in the works. StackExchange indicated that one element of the still unreleased code of conduct expected moderators to use the referent's preferred gender pronoun when referring to individuals who had expressed a gender pronoun preference. StackExchange's position is that this is a direct implication of the general "be nice" expectation. The announcement also included a plan to change the license for user generated content from CC-by-SA 3.0 to CC-by-SA 4.0. My understanding is CC-by-SA 3.0 allows relicensing under "later versions" and that CC-by-SA 4.0 is considered compatible with the Gnu Public License. To me, compatibility with GPL seems reasonable for sites with freely available code. YMMV. Shortly thereafter, StackExchange revoked a moderator's status. Other moderators across the network have also quit since. In addition, StackExchange has announced it is creating a formal process for removing moderators. -- My take is that StackExchange views a moderator code of conduct as a business necessity. One of the sites the removed moderator moderated is dedicated to religious practice. This seems a place where the wider community standard regarding gender pronouns might be likely to conflict with a moderator's profound beliefs and non-negotiable behaviors. I suspect the moderator code of conduct has been in the works for a long time and addresses long standing problems. The obvious one is moderators deliberately behaving in ways that are at odds with the types of communities StackExchange is trying to create. The less obvious problem is moderator burnout. The recent events create a context in which anyone who wants to quit the opportunity to quit on principle. It is also a way of shedding moderator behaviors that are primarily expressions of bureaucratic power. Inertia of bound identity is a side effect of active participation in online communities. Online communities natural move to a state of insiders and outsiders. From the start, Spolsky intended for StackOverflow to avoid that social dynamic. It's a major theme of the podcasts he and Atwood made while founding StackOverflow. [1] Moderators are inherently insiders. A moderator code of conduct formalizes what it means to be an insider. It defines inside and outside in terms of business function not longevity or popularity among regulars. The code of conduct addresses the tribal behaviors that evolve in online communities by reducing the ability of moderators to build tribes arbitrarily. [1]: The first StackOverflow podcast from 2008: https://stackoverflow.blog/2008/04/17/podcast-1/ https://stackoverflow.blog/2008/04/17/podcast-1/
  - 7y ago
neonate 7y ago
https://web.archive.org/web/20191020051643/https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/334900/official-faq-on-gender-pronouns-and-code-of-conduct-changes https://web.archive.org/web/20191020051643/https://meta.stac...
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
rurban 7y ago
Maybe it's in order to cite an upvoted blunt answer there: > This post seems to simply continue the same tone-deaf tradition we've been seeing throughout this whole debacle. Since the SE folks don't seem to be good at picking up on hints, perhaps a bit of bluntness is in order: > StackExchange, it's not Monica's values that are out of alignment. Your values are out of alignment. The overwhelmingly negative response to this post is pretty solid proof of that; this is the community telling you in no uncertain terms that your values are not aligned with ours! > Compelled speech, even in the name of a worthy cause, has no place in civilized society. Period. Our values reject it. > Forcing people to choose between violating their conscience or leaving, in the name of inclusiveness, is an Orwellian nightmare that has no place in our community. Our values reject it. > Telling people that the acceptable solution to being in a position where they might be required to violate their conscience is to "disengage" (refrain from posting at all) is incompatible with a site in which reputation is built entirely on posting. Our values reject it. > Telling people that the acceptable solution to being in a position where they might be required to violate their conscience is to "disengage" (refrain from posting at all) sets up a "heckler's veto," incentivizing people to act in bad faith in order to force people they disagree with to disengage rather than voice their opinions. Our values reject it. > Putting identity politics front-and-center in what is supposed to be a neutral, objective Q&A environment promotes division and strife, not inclusion, and more importantly, it distracts from the primary mission of these sites: getting good answers to good questions. Our values reject it. > If you truly value your community, that means respecting the community's values, not attempting to impose new and incompatible ones by fiat. Your values are out of alignment with the values of the community you are supporting. Please fix them.
luckylion 7y ago
As for most downvoted, I think Sara Chipps' Non-Apology [1] has taken the crown for now. [1] https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/334248/an-update-to-our-community-and-an-apology https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/334248/an-update-to...
GGfpc 7y ago
I still don't understand why using people's request pronouns is a problem, or even why some feel the like they need to walk on eggshells because of these issues. Just be respectful.
- brudgers 7y ago
  Because the removed moderator moderated a site on religious practice (among other sites moderated), it is possible the proposed gender pronoun standard might conflict with the moderator's profound beliefs and non-negotiable practices. My impression from reading the resignations of other moderators is the proposed gender pronoun standard may affront a moderator's beliefs regarding free speech. In other cases, the resignations seem to reflect a long growing general unhappiness with StackExchange and a need to move on. The code of conduct proposal creates an opportunity to do so with dignity.
- frittig 7y ago
  I'll copy a response that I wrote elsewhere. One issue that a lot of trans supporters don't realize is that similarly to how trans people could be offended when they are referred to by a gender not of their choice, so to could some speakers be offended if they are forced to refer to a person as a gender not of their (the speaker) choice. This may be easier to understand by using a comparison. When I talk about the Muslim prophet I say Muhammad. However, many Muslims would say Muhammad pbuh (peace be upon him). This isn't that problematic, but let's say they the term was Muhammad ttp (the true prophet). Now I as a non Muslim believer would never use ttp because that would be insulting for whoever I believe in. If SE required that whenever I mention Muhammad that I append ttp, I would refuse as it would be extremely offensive to me. Similarly by referring to a person with XX chromosomes [1] as she, is offensive to people who believe that genders cannot change. A reasonable compromise would be to let whoever is righting chose what they want, or even allow gender neutral pronouns. But what SE chose to do was to say that people who believe that XY is a guy are wrong and deserve no respect for their beliefs. [1] someone corrected me and pointed out that there is a rare genetic condition where someone could have XX chromosomes but have many other male characteristics. So I would like to correct myself and say that for certain rare genetic conditions, I wouldn't mind being corrected. But for the vast majority of transgenders who are genetically similar to either males or females the above holds.
trecorcorin 7y ago
I'm done with stackoverflow and anyone who would infringe on my rights in the excitement of pandering to someone else's ad hoc demands when there was no substantial or life-threatening need to do so in the first place. What is this world coming to, is everyone so asleep as not to notice that something is very wrong? This is an example where sick and toxic meets nonsensical and comedic. Im ready for an alternative.

20 points by hkai 7y ago

lawlorino 7y ago

Can anyone detail what exactly this is about? This link just redirects to a 404.

Arnt 7y ago
We don't know. There was a post explaining how to use pronouns, by a well-respected stackexchange.com employee, not fantastic but, well, one doesn't have to follow all the rules all the time anyway. There may also have been something else. Then a very-well-respected moderator was thrown out rather abruptly (and whatever "else" might be was surely was no fault of hers). After that, and because of various other tonedeaf behaviour on part of stackexchange.com in the past couple of years, umpty more moderators quit, https://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/390427 https://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/390427 is an example.
- Craighead 7y ago
  Rather than allowing you to continue to create your own narrative, the actual post is archived and the link is visible in this thread. So, we do know.
- Arnt 7y ago
  Replying to myself to add this link, which explains much of the anger well: https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/334268 https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/334268 Note that "I was there" comment.
  - brudgers 7y ago
    To me, the long-term unhappiness with StackExchange expressed in the many posts on Meta suggest the necessity of creating a tipping point. Every moderator has a chance to air their grievances. Every moderator has an opportunity to move on in a principled way when their core values conflict with the proposed workplace standards.
brudgers 7y ago
StackExchange appointed a new CEO. Shortly thereafter, StackExchange announced that a code of conduct for moderators was in the works. StackExchange indicated that one element of the still unreleased code of conduct expected moderators to use the referent's preferred gender pronoun when referring to individuals who had expressed a gender pronoun preference. StackExchange's position is that this is a direct implication of the general "be nice" expectation. The announcement also included a plan to change the license for user generated content from CC-by-SA 3.0 to CC-by-SA 4.0. My understanding is CC-by-SA 3.0 allows relicensing under "later versions" and that CC-by-SA 4.0 is considered compatible with the Gnu Public License. To me, compatibility with GPL seems reasonable for sites with freely available code. YMMV. Shortly thereafter, StackExchange revoked a moderator's status. Other moderators across the network have also quit since. In addition, StackExchange has announced it is creating a formal process for removing moderators. -- My take is that StackExchange views a moderator code of conduct as a business necessity. One of the sites the removed moderator moderated is dedicated to religious practice. This seems a place where the wider community standard regarding gender pronouns might be likely to conflict with a moderator's profound beliefs and non-negotiable behaviors. I suspect the moderator code of conduct has been in the works for a long time and addresses long standing problems. The obvious one is moderators deliberately behaving in ways that are at odds with the types of communities StackExchange is trying to create. The less obvious problem is moderator burnout. The recent events create a context in which anyone who wants to quit the opportunity to quit on principle. It is also a way of shedding moderator behaviors that are primarily expressions of bureaucratic power. Inertia of bound identity is a side effect of active participation in online communities. Online communities natural move to a state of insiders and outsiders. From the start, Spolsky intended for StackOverflow to avoid that social dynamic. It's a major theme of the podcasts he and Atwood made while founding StackOverflow. [1] Moderators are inherently insiders. A moderator code of conduct formalizes what it means to be an insider. It defines inside and outside in terms of business function not longevity or popularity among regulars. The code of conduct addresses the tribal behaviors that evolve in online communities by reducing the ability of moderators to build tribes arbitrarily. [1]: The first StackOverflow podcast from 2008: https://stackoverflow.blog/2008/04/17/podcast-1/ https://stackoverflow.blog/2008/04/17/podcast-1/
- 7y ago

neonate 7y ago

https://web.archive.org/web/20191020051643/https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/334900/official-faq-on-gender-pronouns-and-code-of-conduct-changes https://web.archive.org/web/20191020051643/https://meta.stac...

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

rurban 7y ago

Maybe it's in order to cite an upvoted blunt answer there: > This post seems to simply continue the same tone-deaf tradition we've been seeing throughout this whole debacle. Since the SE folks don't seem to be good at picking up on hints, perhaps a bit of bluntness is in order: > StackExchange, it's not Monica's values that are out of alignment. Your values are out of alignment. The overwhelmingly negative response to this post is pretty solid proof of that; this is the community telling you in no uncertain terms that your values are not aligned with ours! > Compelled speech, even in the name of a worthy cause, has no place in civilized society. Period. Our values reject it. > Forcing people to choose between violating their conscience or leaving, in the name of inclusiveness, is an Orwellian nightmare that has no place in our community. Our values reject it. > Telling people that the acceptable solution to being in a position where they might be required to violate their conscience is to "disengage" (refrain from posting at all) is incompatible with a site in which reputation is built entirely on posting. Our values reject it. > Telling people that the acceptable solution to being in a position where they might be required to violate their conscience is to "disengage" (refrain from posting at all) sets up a "heckler's veto," incentivizing people to act in bad faith in order to force people they disagree with to disengage rather than voice their opinions. Our values reject it. > Putting identity politics front-and-center in what is supposed to be a neutral, objective Q&A environment promotes division and strife, not inclusion, and more importantly, it distracts from the primary mission of these sites: getting good answers to good questions. Our values reject it. > If you truly value your community, that means respecting the community's values, not attempting to impose new and incompatible ones by fiat. Your values are out of alignment with the values of the community you are supporting. Please fix them.

luckylion 7y ago

As for most downvoted, I think Sara Chipps' Non-Apology [1] has taken the crown for now. [1] https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/334248/an-update-to-our-community-and-an-apology https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/334248/an-update-to...

GGfpc 7y ago

I still don't understand why using people's request pronouns is a problem, or even why some feel the like they need to walk on eggshells because of these issues. Just be respectful.

brudgers 7y ago
Because the removed moderator moderated a site on religious practice (among other sites moderated), it is possible the proposed gender pronoun standard might conflict with the moderator's profound beliefs and non-negotiable practices. My impression from reading the resignations of other moderators is the proposed gender pronoun standard may affront a moderator's beliefs regarding free speech. In other cases, the resignations seem to reflect a long growing general unhappiness with StackExchange and a need to move on. The code of conduct proposal creates an opportunity to do so with dignity.
frittig 7y ago
I'll copy a response that I wrote elsewhere. One issue that a lot of trans supporters don't realize is that similarly to how trans people could be offended when they are referred to by a gender not of their choice, so to could some speakers be offended if they are forced to refer to a person as a gender not of their (the speaker) choice. This may be easier to understand by using a comparison. When I talk about the Muslim prophet I say Muhammad. However, many Muslims would say Muhammad pbuh (peace be upon him). This isn't that problematic, but let's say they the term was Muhammad ttp (the true prophet). Now I as a non Muslim believer would never use ttp because that would be insulting for whoever I believe in. If SE required that whenever I mention Muhammad that I append ttp, I would refuse as it would be extremely offensive to me. Similarly by referring to a person with XX chromosomes [1] as she, is offensive to people who believe that genders cannot change. A reasonable compromise would be to let whoever is righting chose what they want, or even allow gender neutral pronouns. But what SE chose to do was to say that people who believe that XY is a guy are wrong and deserve no respect for their beliefs. [1] someone corrected me and pointed out that there is a rare genetic condition where someone could have XX chromosomes but have many other male characteristics. So I would like to correct myself and say that for certain rare genetic conditions, I wouldn't mind being corrected. But for the vast majority of transgenders who are genetically similar to either males or females the above holds.

trecorcorin 7y ago

I'm done with stackoverflow and anyone who would infringe on my rights in the excitement of pandering to someone else's ad hoc demands when there was no substantial or life-threatening need to do so in the first place. What is this world coming to, is everyone so asleep as not to notice that something is very wrong? This is an example where sick and toxic meets nonsensical and comedic. Im ready for an alternative.