5 ms·

It wasn't the company, it was an individual of high visibility employed at the company. SO chose to circle the wagons and stick to their guns. The actions of th

It wasn't the company, it was an individual of high visibility employed at the company. SO chose to circle the wagons and stick to their guns. The actions of the SO representative were hasty, frankly in my view pattern match much more closely to knee jerk emotional defense of a protected class than anything else. I'm all for LGBTQ+ rights and I get that in the real world this sometimes means being uncompromising. Fighting for equality is complex. Here's what went down. The mod made statements that vaguely pattern match as onerous hair splitting in order to undermine LGBTQ+ rights. They did this in a private setting and there was absolutely no history that would imply they were trying to push an ulterior motive. The SO representative identifies strongly as a defender of LGBTQ+ rights and viewed this as "definitely this person doesn't think LGPTQ+ people should have rights" and de-modded them. SO made the initial choice to circle the wagons and back up one of their own and then got stuck hard on that path for months even when it became clear they'd made a mistake. It's a problem with management and it's not going to be solved without changes in management. A sorry would have sufficed if it had come many months ago. The SO rep just needed to admit to being human and making a bad call. (P.S. this whole row was over the style in which I've written this post, the new code of conduct would have me use gender specific pronouns if the preferred pronouns of the subjects are known and using a genderless style of writing would be against it)

finnthehuman 7y ago
>sometimes means being uncompromising. Fighting for equality is complex. Fighting for anything is complex. If it wasn't complex it wouldn't take a fight. But people get blinded by their righteousness and fight in ways that waste time at best, can make people disengage or set their goals back at worst. If anyone thinks they're fighting the good fight, they owe it to their cause to understand their actions. I often find myself getting ignored or on the wrong side of an accusation for thinking about the "ends vs means" of goals I agree with. I'm running low on patience for getting asked to diminish or overlook hamfisted actions after the fact because the motivation was proper.
wizzwizz4 7y ago
Monica prefers "she/her" pronouns; given the context, I think it's best not to use others to refer to her.
- jjeaff 7y ago
  Wasn't that actually the crux of the original ban? The moderator argued that using gender neutral pronouns (like they and their) should always be ok and to expect everyone to keep track and use a specific pronoun for everyone was a bit too much to ask? So they banned them because the SO employee thought that you should only use exactly what everyone requests. I have to agree that it's a bit too much to ask in a forum that we all keep track of everyone's preferred gender pronouns rather than using something generic.
  - chrismcb 7y ago
    One should always be careful with using pronouns. Especially if the only pronouns are going to be they and them. In this case "so they banned them" who is they and who is them?
  - Izkata 7y ago
    > The moderator argued that using gender neutral pronouns (like they and their) should always be ok IIRC it wasn't even that, Monica was wondering whether it would still be okay to continue writing in a style that would avoid using pronouns altogether. For example, my previous sentence.
    - wizzwizz4 7y ago
      Note the word "wondering". She was not insisting, just discussing the implications of not changing her entire writing style. The situation is complicated by other factors I am not at liberty to discuss, but Monica was not at fault – or if she was, at much less fault than others in the room.
  - KabaKun 7y ago
    From what I’ve read, it’s the opposite. Someone’s pronouns are they/them and Monica refused to refer to them with those pronouns. Monica will not use singular they, even as a personal pronoun. According to the MSE FAQ, SO doesn’t care if you get it wrong as long as you’re willing to change the pronouns moving forward to reflect the correct ones. SO also prefers gender neutral writing (not using pronouns or using singular they) if you don’t know the correct pronouns for someone. They don’t even require using pronouns at all unless avoiding it is really obvious (userx wrote in userx’s question that userx failed to find a solution - obvious example is obvious but I think it makes the point) but telling someone you refuse to use their pronouns is considered rude and moderators are expected to be willing to use correct pronouns. In most cases, avoiding pronouns in day-to-day interactions is not noticeable. It’s more obvious when you interact with them (or talk about them) regularly. No one is expecting anyone to memorize hundreds of pronouns for people you only talk to once.
zozbot234 7y ago
> The mod made statements that vaguely pattern match as onerous hair splitting in order to undermine LGBTQ+ rights. The actual point is, there's no such thing as a "right to be addressed by one's preferred pronoun". Attempts to introduce such a purported "right" can easily pattern match to many other sorts of compelled speech, which in a genuinely liberal, rights-focused and non-oppressive political culture are generally rejected altogether - for very good reasons dating back to many centuries ago, that have zilch to do with the (very real and concrete, unfortunately) plight of a number of sexual and gender minorities. Basically, this whole "you must use my preferred pronouns, or else" thing is a huge distraction that does nothing to make LGBTQetc. folks better off.
- sizzle 7y ago
  Does compelling people to use pronouns conflict with the notion of freedom of speech?
  - EpicEng 7y ago
    In what way would it not? I'm free to call you or anyone else a jerk if I like, but I'm barred from calling you a pronoun you don't like? As if that in any way would change my view of the issue? As if it's anything more than some silly notion of protecting people's feelings? Why not worry about real injustices? You have no right to be free from being offended or having your feelings hurt, but you should be able to get a job, get married, get medical treatment, etc.
    - damnyou 7y ago
      You are in fact not free to call people jerks in a professional context.
      - EpicEng 7y ago
        You're not? Is the fed going to throw you in prison for doing so? Of course you're free to call someone at work a jerk. Your boss is also free to fire you. Freedom of speech is a concept that applies to our government, not private entities. That said, we can still discuss whether or not specific limitatations on speech by private entities are a good or bad thing. In this case, I believe it's a bad thing to codify. Rules which apply to harassment, which almost every forum has in place, still apply. The question is how far do we go? Are we really going to force people to use gender neutral ponouns at all times as a matter of course in order to protect some small portion of an estimated 0.6% of the population's feelings?

finnthehuman 7y ago

>sometimes means being uncompromising. Fighting for equality is complex. Fighting for anything is complex. If it wasn't complex it wouldn't take a fight. But people get blinded by their righteousness and fight in ways that waste time at best, can make people disengage or set their goals back at worst. If anyone thinks they're fighting the good fight, they owe it to their cause to understand their actions. I often find myself getting ignored or on the wrong side of an accusation for thinking about the "ends vs means" of goals I agree with. I'm running low on patience for getting asked to diminish or overlook hamfisted actions after the fact because the motivation was proper.

wizzwizz4 7y ago

Monica prefers "she/her" pronouns; given the context, I think it's best not to use others to refer to her.

jjeaff 7y ago
Wasn't that actually the crux of the original ban? The moderator argued that using gender neutral pronouns (like they and their) should always be ok and to expect everyone to keep track and use a specific pronoun for everyone was a bit too much to ask? So they banned them because the SO employee thought that you should only use exactly what everyone requests. I have to agree that it's a bit too much to ask in a forum that we all keep track of everyone's preferred gender pronouns rather than using something generic.
- chrismcb 7y ago
  One should always be careful with using pronouns. Especially if the only pronouns are going to be they and them. In this case "so they banned them" who is they and who is them?
- Izkata 7y ago
  > The moderator argued that using gender neutral pronouns (like they and their) should always be ok IIRC it wasn't even that, Monica was wondering whether it would still be okay to continue writing in a style that would avoid using pronouns altogether. For example, my previous sentence.
  - wizzwizz4 7y ago
    Note the word "wondering". She was not insisting, just discussing the implications of not changing her entire writing style. The situation is complicated by other factors I am not at liberty to discuss, but Monica was not at fault – or if she was, at much less fault than others in the room.
- KabaKun 7y ago
  From what I’ve read, it’s the opposite. Someone’s pronouns are they/them and Monica refused to refer to them with those pronouns. Monica will not use singular they, even as a personal pronoun. According to the MSE FAQ, SO doesn’t care if you get it wrong as long as you’re willing to change the pronouns moving forward to reflect the correct ones. SO also prefers gender neutral writing (not using pronouns or using singular they) if you don’t know the correct pronouns for someone. They don’t even require using pronouns at all unless avoiding it is really obvious (userx wrote in userx’s question that userx failed to find a solution - obvious example is obvious but I think it makes the point) but telling someone you refuse to use their pronouns is considered rude and moderators are expected to be willing to use correct pronouns. In most cases, avoiding pronouns in day-to-day interactions is not noticeable. It’s more obvious when you interact with them (or talk about them) regularly. No one is expecting anyone to memorize hundreds of pronouns for people you only talk to once.

zozbot234 7y ago

> The mod made statements that vaguely pattern match as onerous hair splitting in order to undermine LGBTQ+ rights. The actual point is, there's no such thing as a "right to be addressed by one's preferred pronoun". Attempts to introduce such a purported "right" can easily pattern match to many other sorts of compelled speech, which in a genuinely liberal, rights-focused and non-oppressive political culture are generally rejected altogether - for very good reasons dating back to many centuries ago, that have zilch to do with the (very real and concrete, unfortunately) plight of a number of sexual and gender minorities. Basically, this whole "you must use my preferred pronouns, or else" thing is a huge distraction that does nothing to make LGBTQetc. folks better off.

sizzle 7y ago
Does compelling people to use pronouns conflict with the notion of freedom of speech?
- EpicEng 7y ago
  In what way would it not? I'm free to call you or anyone else a jerk if I like, but I'm barred from calling you a pronoun you don't like? As if that in any way would change my view of the issue? As if it's anything more than some silly notion of protecting people's feelings? Why not worry about real injustices? You have no right to be free from being offended or having your feelings hurt, but you should be able to get a job, get married, get medical treatment, etc.
  - damnyou 7y ago
    You are in fact not free to call people jerks in a professional context.
    - EpicEng 7y ago
      You're not? Is the fed going to throw you in prison for doing so? Of course you're free to call someone at work a jerk. Your boss is also free to fire you. Freedom of speech is a concept that applies to our government, not private entities. That said, we can still discuss whether or not specific limitatations on speech by private entities are a good or bad thing. In this case, I believe it's a bad thing to codify. Rules which apply to harassment, which almost every forum has in place, still apply. The question is how far do we go? Are we really going to force people to use gender neutral ponouns at all times as a matter of course in order to protect some small portion of an estimated 0.6% of the population's feelings?