Stack Exchange Removes Moderator For Preferred Pronouns Policy (theregister.co.uk) 800
An anonymous reader shares a report: In the past month or so, about 20 volunteer moderators out of about 600 have distanced themselves from Stack Exchange, the online network of Q&A communities, to protest corporate policy changes and the removal of a moderator, Monica Cellio, over alleged violations of as-yet unpublished Code of Conduct changes. Cellio on Friday posted her account of what happened, claiming that her moderator status had been revoked by a Stack Exchange employee on the assumption Cellio "will in the future violate a thoughtcrime-style provision of a Code of Conduct change that hasn't been made yet." Cellio raised concerns that the Q&A site's revised Code of Conduct would require people to use other people's preferred gender pronouns -- a phrase that advocacy group Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education (GLSEN) says should be simply "pronouns" to assert that their chosen pronouns are mandatory and not optional.
Caleb Maclennan, a Stack Exchange moderator who resigned in protest of Cellio's treatment, offered his own take on the dust-up. He suggests Stack Exchange intends to treat refusal to use a person's designated pronouns as a code of conduct violation. In a post on Monday evening, Cellio offered more details about what happened to complement Maclennan's account. "In January a mod asked a discussion question on the mod team: should we require that people use preferred pronouns?" she explains. "My answer said we must not call people what they don't want to be called, but there are multiple ways to avoid misgendering and we should not require a specific one. Under some pressure I said I don't use singular they or words like chairwoman but solve the problem other ways (with examples)." She said the moderator linked to her question and called her a bigot. Things went downhill from there. In response to an email from The Register, Stack Exchange director of community Sara Chipps said, "On Friday, we revoked privileges for one Stack Exchange moderator when they refused to abide by our Code of Conduct (CoC) after being asked to change their behavior multiple times. The disagreement stemmed from an interpretation of a certain policy, but our CoC is not up for debate."
Caleb Maclennan, a Stack Exchange moderator who resigned in protest of Cellio's treatment, offered his own take on the dust-up. He suggests Stack Exchange intends to treat refusal to use a person's designated pronouns as a code of conduct violation. In a post on Monday evening, Cellio offered more details about what happened to complement Maclennan's account. "In January a mod asked a discussion question on the mod team: should we require that people use preferred pronouns?" she explains. "My answer said we must not call people what they don't want to be called, but there are multiple ways to avoid misgendering and we should not require a specific one. Under some pressure I said I don't use singular they or words like chairwoman but solve the problem other ways (with examples)." She said the moderator linked to her question and called her a bigot. Things went downhill from there. In response to an email from The Register, Stack Exchange director of community Sara Chipps said, "On Friday, we revoked privileges for one Stack Exchange moderator when they refused to abide by our Code of Conduct (CoC) after being asked to change their behavior multiple times. The disagreement stemmed from an interpretation of a certain policy, but our CoC is not up for debate."
Today (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Today (Score:5, Informative)
Making up words for nonexistent "genders" over the last five years and insisting everyone use them is lamer joke. It's nonsense, and the human race won't do it for any language.
Re:Today (Score:5, Informative)
Calling you out on your bullshit. Name one language that has such pronouns.
What you will find is words like SE asian "katoy" for man who dresses, acts or gender changes into female. Slang meaning exactly what the English slang "pussy" does by the way. And those certain native americans that had similar words for those people, but still the pronouns were "he" and "she', none others.
Re:Today (Score:5, Informative)
And those certain native americans that had similar words for those people, but still the pronouns were "he" and "she', none others.
For instance: "bardash" - a male homosexual (though "transgender" may be closer). But (at least according to my wife, describing a tribe she's descended from): a bardash is considered a male body with a female soul. (Is an origin story where the trickster fools the mother into choosing the wrong soul during pregnancy.) They are accepted - as females, with an unfortunate physical deformity. They dress and act as females and take the female role in the social structure.
Re:Today (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I don't have a problem with the creation of a new pronoun. I think "It" works. As long as I don't need to call a man in a dress "Her". As far as I'm concerned, if a person can bear children, they are a woman, if they can impregnate a woman, they are a man, and if they can do neither, they have a medical condition and deserve compassion.
Being forced to call a dude in a dress "Her" is an insult to my mother, and anyone who feels they have the right to force me to do so can go fuck themselves.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Am I the only one wondering ... (Score:4, Insightful)
... when this total non-issue about neurotic pseudo-activists pushing their non-agenda into common law and others screaming "OMG, compelled speach, the fascists are upon us!" finally will disappear?
Re:Am I the only one wondering ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Am I the only one wondering ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Am I the only one wondering ... (Score:4, Insightful)
There are mentally ill people walking around right now who believe they are Jesus or Napoleon. Do you pretend they are too so as not to offend them? Is reinforcing those delusions helping them?
Re:Am I the only one wondering ... (Score:4, Interesting)
That would actually be more effective than having to stop and remember that the butch in front of you prefers the term "he", or that the dude in cube 9 wants "zer".
Pronoun obsession dilutes the purpose of communication ( unless the topic is, of course, pronouns themselves ). It's madness that we have to play these stupid games.
Re:Snowflakes (Score:5, Insightful)
Using a different pronoun is not "turning society on its head." Terminating someone for failing to use a different pronoun is turning society on its head.
Are you really that delicate that you can't just ignore a person using a word that's different than what you'd prefer?
Forcing people to comply with your preferred behavior never solves the problem. All it does is create a bunch of people resentful of whatever change it is you're trying to implement. Best case it just covers up the problem - they reluctantly comply, but will rebel the moment the first opportunity presents itself. Worst case they end up fighting against you just because they don't like being told how to behave.
Real change comes from convincing people that your way is the right way. When you do that, they will comply with your preferred behavior of their own free will. In fact that's the entire premise behind democracy - the free exchange of ideas so people can hear all sides, and decide for themselves which is right. Forcing them to comply with your new ideas just because you're the one in power setting the policies, is inherently undemocratic.
Re:Snowflakes (Score:4, Insightful)
Forcing people to pretend that a man dressed as a woman is actually a woman certainly IS "turning society on its head".
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Am I the only one wondering ... (Score:5, Interesting)
That is NOT what it s about that and you know it. How about I don't want to live in a world where if I accidentally forget you like to be all zie or whatever and say he or she because that is what I SEE in front of me I can get dragged off to some kangaroo proceeding and lose my job, etc over it.
I am perfectly okay with referring to people by their name and making a effort to avoid using pronouns to refer to them at all if they find it offensive. I don't have any desire to hurt someones feelings but I also don't desire to be compelled to play along with what appears to me to be their game of pretend. If you look like Gene but tell me you are Gina; fine Gina is a name you call yourself great, that is a matter of fact. I'll call you Gina. If you don't like being referred to as "he", fine I'll try to use Gina. I am not going to imply something about you I think is false by using "she" because you want me to. I'd rather just avoid the issue of your entirely unless that is specifically the topic at hand; which in most situations it really should not be.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
False equivalence. There is a big difference between giving a couple marital rights regardless of their respective genders and compelling people to be "nice." You might as well outlaw all pejoratives.
Whether or not "they" in singular form is correct English is very much up for debate. All of my English teachers would have disagreed. The argument that it's been used for centuries doesn't wash because people have been using incorrect English in many forms for centuries. People say "irregardless," but tha
Re:Am I the only one wondering ... (Score:4, Insightful)
They said the same shit about gay people. "It's a mental illness, attraction to the opposite sex is natural! Why should society have to redefine relationships and marriage? They can just get therapy!"
Because there is actually a good argument for allowing consenting adults to do what they want in the bedroom, and to enter into a legally binding contract with each other in the eyes of the state in order to facilitate cohabitation. Superstitious nonsense and "Adam and Steve" arguments are irrational reasons for denying basic liberties that are afforded by the supreme law of the land.
What SJWs want is completely different. They want to dictate the terms for lawful speech. If society does not immediately conform to their standards, laws must be enacted to criminalize those who do not comply. The wedge that will be used for these tyrants will be "hate speech" because subjective terms they can define at will gives them the power over others they crave.
Re:Am I the only one wondering ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I would imagine this will disappear when the attempts to compel language (and thus thought) by today's modern day fascists disappear. Forcing someone to use certain language under duress of cancel culture is no better than the fascists of old.
Offend the wrong group and we'll fine you $250.000! Offend the wrong group and we'll put you in you in jail for being politically incorrect. Use this pronoun or lose your job, do it again and we'll cancel your career!!! The woke thought police have no tolerance for dissent! It's all more than a little bit dystopian.
Re:Am I the only one wondering ... (Score:4, Insightful)
So what do you think is the appropriate societal response to you using a racial slur?
"Oh, but that's different!!"
No, it really isn't. It's using words deliberately intended to offend someone in order to demean them.
Re: (Score:3)
What is the appropriate societal response to using a racial slur? That is a fair question. I remember when the guidance was "sticks and stone may break my bones but words will never hurt me". The premise being that people can be jerks and you need to get over it and get on with it.
Do I believe that it's okay to ostracize someone, ruin their relationships, get them fired and destroy their career? No. Do I believe it's appropriate to call them a Jackass in response? Yes. Better yet talk to that person and ope
Re:Just use THAT PERSON (Score:4, Informative)
That is precisely why they fired her. She specifically said she prefers to use gender-neutral language rather than gender-specific. That is when they called her a bigot for refusing to use the preferred pronouns and fired her.
ahhh jeez... (Score:5, Funny)
where does this end?
Re: ahhh jeez... (Score:5, Insightful)
> where does this end?
With a meritocratic competitor.
And now that I know that good answers on Stack may be missing because their authors aren't compliant with the woke thoughtcrime of the day, its value just dropped substantially for me.
For mercy's sake, many of the good answers there are from people "on the spectrum" who can't even reliably engage in regular social norms, much less rules that change by the week as the leftist Twitter winds blow.
That's it - I am pissed at Stack for discriminating against our very good friends the Autists. It's disgusting and sad.
Re: (Score:3)
Compelled respect is not respect at all, it's violence. And it will never be enough. What about air quotes or using them in a venomous or otherwise negative tone? Is your demeanor when speaking going to be the next crime? This road leads to hell.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a joke. It's all a joke. Out the window I go. (Score:5, Interesting)
40 years ago, someone wrote a letter to Dear Abby, when "Ms." started coming into fashion.
"Should I call a woman I have just met Mrs., or Miss, or Ms.?"
Answer: Call her Ms. unless you know she prefers Mrs. or Miss.
The modern problem, though, is the use of reeducation camps, not just for violators, but for those who even question the wisdom of it. There's your evidence something is wrong, well beyond the virtue signalling aspect of it.
You should know by now... (Score:4, Insightful)
Stay the hell away from anything that features a Code of Conduct.
Stack is banned (Score:5, Funny)
"Chipps's reply refers to the unnamed moderator using the plural "they,"..."
All stack domains now banned on this network.
Big CoC up (Score:4, Funny)
Sounds like the Code of Conduct (CoC) is a bit hard to swallow.....
Whatever happened to (Score:3)
Self-contradiction (Score:5, Interesting)
On Friday, we revoked privileges for one Stack Exchange moderator when they refused to abide by our Code of Conduct (CoC) after being asked to change their behavior multiple times.
(The former admin uses feminine pronouns to refer to herself and explicitly states that she does not use singular they.) Aside from some pretty gross "SJWs run amok" regressivism in this thread, it is obvious that Stack Exchange overreacted here: it's fine to demand to not be called something but it's not fine to expect that you can positively demand every particular circumlocution that you prefer. If someone personally dislikes "chairwoman" and chooses to not use it, that is not bigotry.
Communication (Score:5)
Tangent: There's of course an overlapping problem here of people identifying with one cluster of cultural preconceptions (aka a particular gender) and other people declining to acknowledge that. My take on that is that if these preconception clusters (like gender) are causing this much drama, maybe it's time to move past them. Maybe Joe isn't a guy, girl, genderqueer, or whatever other litany of 99 gender combinations I don't bother remembering. Maybe Joe is just Joe, for all the things that entails. And for the laws and practices that we have that rely on gender, maybe we should reconsider whether we should separate on that basis at all, and if we should, if maybe biological sex wouldn't be a better fit (e.g. for health-related things like pregnancy).
Re:Communication (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm with this guy. I think most of the proposed gender-neutral pronouns/descriptor sound silly. I especially don't like the use of "X" as it implies an association with counter-culture, not normalcy, and is thus less likely to be accepted in normal conversation. Xir, LatinX, ChicanX, etc. all sound so... 1st-year undergraduate. I especially take offense to LatinX-- "Latino" is already gender neutral.
When I say, "We are a group of Latinos," you can't know if we're all men or a mix of men & women. LatinA is gendered. If I say, "We're a group of Latinas," you know that we're all women. Moreover, I can't even SAY LatinX in Spanish. Even MOREover, screw you for trying (poorly) to de-gender my language. If someone's going to change how the Spanish language works, it should be the people who use the Spanish language.
Despite all that, I'm more than willing to adopt a new gender-neutral pronoun now than I used to be (just so people will shut up), but I doubt we'll ever start using one because we'll never get majority buy-in on any particular word. Here's my suggestion. It's just bland enough to work.
He/Him/His - Masculine
She/Her/Hers - Feminine
Sa/Sim/Ser - Irrelevant
What is gender? My gender is "normal". (Score:5, Interesting)
I was recently at the mandatory training where the first speaker told us that gender is not, and has NEVER BEEN, about body parts and chromosomes. Gender is how you see yourself in society and is very fluid. You can be different genders at different times of the day. To me, this makes the concept of gender meaningless. Unless someone has told you their gender in the last five minutes, you have no idea what gender they are. I have no idea what anyone in this rooms gender is, and no one knows what my gender is.
The second speaker then proceeded to tell how they knew that they were a woman trapped in a mans body when they were 6 years old. This seemed to me to be a glaring contradiction. But what the heck.
And there are an infinite number of genders. And anyone that "forces" a gender on someone is causing them irreparable psychological harm, and should be immediately fired. And that no one can tell you that your gender identity is invalid.
To which, I replied that my gender is "normal". Well, evidently there are invalid gender identities. And you can tell someone that their gender identity is invalid. And I am obviously a man.
So how do they know what gender someone is when they doing their social justice hiring and promoting of "women"? Actually, I'm a woman and no one can say otherwise, right?
Avoid the Power Hungry Parasites (Score:4, Insightful)
There has existed, for a long time, the ACM code of ethics.
Copies abound online.
It is sound, rational and expresses well: the Ethos of Engineering.
Should anyone propose a Code of Conduct, say:
"Great Idea! Let's use the ACM one!"
IF in response, you hear:
"No! You have to use ours",
then you *know* that you face manipulation, by the politically motivated.
Reject them!
Otherwise, nothing you do or say will be sufficient to appease them.
They seek obedience. Dominion.
Accepting their Code of Conduct, gives them power over you, ..."
which they *will* yield. "Ethical engineers would agree to X, Y, Z,
An open-ended, never ending litany of complaint and demand.
Ultimately, you will have no-one else to blame, but yourself.
Reject the politicization of engineering.
Defend the Enlightenment.
ACM, for the win.
Fuck this. (Score:4, Informative)
I spent most of my life not knowing if I was male or female, and my parents elected to give me a gender neutral name so I could decide what I was, but I always considered myself a man. This caused problems for me in school, high school, and employment. It took me nearly three decades to find someone who would accept the fact that I am both sterile and incapable of sex, and only because she is in the same boat due to a hormonal disorder.
Growing up I wasn't allowed to have sleepovers because of intersexism, and my mother had to sue my primary school to not segregate me as a "third gender" from things as simple as getting changed for PE or using a bathroom, and to not discuss my status as an intersex in hushed tones in the staff room. People say that any relationship I have "doesn't count" because sex is physically impossible for me.
My father was convicted of assault and battery because he put well-deserved hands on a doctor who demanded that my genitals be "fixed" beyond repairing my urethra and even threatened to have me taken away from my parents, he missed my first birthday while in prison. Even though I consider myself male, I have had to all but scream that I am a man at people who address me as a "they" or worse, a "xie", and I recently had to demand discipline against a coworker who outed my condition by stating I was "non-binary". People have excluded and singled me out with their pronoun parade in a false attempt to be inclusive, even though I am as much of a man as a eunuch is. I am chromosomally male, I dress male, I call myself a male, and I have a penis with no function, the only thing about me that is not male is my name and if you ask people to name famous people called "Ashton" you will get Ashton Kutcher and Ashton Agar long before someone names Ashton Shepherd.
Meanwhile, these people cry crocodile tears over someone "assuming" a gender. My objectively measurable disorder is treated like a disease that affects nobody that needs to be fixed, while a subjectively measurable gender expression or identity is put on a pedastal that is one wrong pronoun away from a rampage. I have spent the past eight years blocking LGBT community (not gender or sexuality minorities in general, just LGBT community) assholes trying to drag me into their cult to where I've gone back into the closet for my own safety. I've even had people tell me that my intersexness is "all in my head", "completely made up", and so on, because the LGBT harassment mob decided to add an I on their alphabet soup.
Thank you for coming to my TED Talk. I recommend reading Intersex Society of North America's website if you would like to learn more. [isna.org]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Already in force (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, this is just people looking for a reason to be offended.
Are we now really going to have to watch out for the small minority of people that don't "feel" like the sex/gender they were born with...and walk on eggshells to not call them Miss or Mr by accident...or fucking risk losing your job?
This is ridiculious....this shouldn't even be a problem, regardless if you think having 337 different perceived fucking genders today is a thing or not.....just grow a bit thicker skin and realize the world doesn't fucking stop if someone uses the wrong pronoun in your direction.
And on top of it all, the vast, overwhelming majority of people in this world fall into either the boy camp or the girl camp.....if you are doing to be the outsider to that, learn to live with it, it shouldn't be up to the vast majority to go out of their way to coddle or codify you into what is largely recognized world wide as normal.
I don't wish you harm or a bad life, but just get the fuck over yourself, and everyone please stop walking on eggshells about language.
We worked VERY hard over the past century to get to where we could freely speak and say things you could not say...
And right now, there are forces out there trying to prevent people from saying this, or that....
Are we going back to the days where a Lenny Bruce would be arrested today for language?
For God's sake people.....remember "Sticks and Stones...."
Now...get off my lawn.
Re:Already in force (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, this is where we are. I just don't understand why we're stopping at pronouns. Why not make all nouns whatever I want? Is that a car over there? Nope, it's a watermelon. While I'm in the room, everyone must now refer to "cars" as "watermelons", or I'll flip out. Go ahead, say it's a car, I dare you!!
Re:Already in force (Score:5, Insightful)
Literally the intention.
To directly or indirectly control people and make them actually live in fear of misstep or else.
To learn who is in charge, find the people you are not allowed to insult.
The Alphabet groups have the thinnest skins and tyrannical minds on the planet. Just refusing to call them a name you have a philosophical disagreement with is grounds to end your career and turn you into a public pariah.
This must be fought back against. How would they like it if I wanted to be labeled as "Superior Gender" with a similarity implied gender specific pronoun. They would be required by their own conduct to use it.
I think I will doing that now.
Please refer to me as SuGen. SirAstral. SuGen is my preferred gender pronoun!
Lets play their game and win!
Re:Already in force (Score:5, Informative)
The Alphabet groups have the thinnest skins and tyrannical minds on the planet.
The hilarious thing is if you talk to actual feminists or people in the GLB community, they can't stand the current modern "woke" take on these issues either. (Did you know it used to just be "GLB" without all the other random letters? The L was moved to the front to place women first, and then all the other letters were just slowly appended in an attempt to try and "ride the coattails" so to speak of the existing LGB movement.)
If you actually talk to LGB people and feminists, you'll find that they consider the whole "pronoun" thing to be absolutely ridiculous. That they can't stand being grouped together with "trans" people, and that they can't understand why anyone would announce that they're "Q" or what that even means. (How is being "Q" different from being "LGB"? No one knows.)
A lot of people in the gay and lesbian community are absolutely furious at crap like this, and - quite probably correctly - view the attempts to merge their issues with all sorts of silly unrelated junk as an attempt to roll back gay and lesbian acceptance.
Feminists and lesbians are quite possibly the most concerned, because they see the forced acceptance of trans as an attempt by men to invade their community.
Yet for some reason, despite the fact that these communities themselves do not want this, disagree with it, and are constantly asking for people to stop lumping them together, stop it with the silly pronouns, and stop pretending you can change your gender, people assume that the "alphabet groups" all want to let men into the women's bathroom when that simply is not true.
Re:Already in force (Score:4, Interesting)
yea, I hear their outrage over it all over the news... NOT!
"Yet for some reason, despite the fact that these communities themselves do not want this, disagree with it, and are constantly asking for people to stop lumping them together, stop it with the silly pronouns, and stop pretending you can change your gender, people assume that the "alphabet groups" all want to let men into the women's bathroom when that simply is not true."
Wait, people do not want to be lumped in with others that do not see eye to eye with them? When did this revelation land? I thought they WANTED to be all lumped in together, is that not what their entire damned alphabet was about? All of them vs all of us unwashed bastards?
You are not going to win. the LGB and Feminists are going to have to conform too. This is the price of you joining a group... you get your fucking voices taken away and co-opted for shit you don't agree with and the moment you try to nay say it then you get excommunicated! They made their shit salad beds, they need to lay in them!
I say the same thing about the Democrats and the Republicans for the exact same reasons. You all went to your respective hills to die on and you refused to die on them like good little soldiers... you get what you deserve!
I warned them a long time ago they are all just fair weather friends and that this would happen. It always happens this way. If they are going to "respect" the the pro-nouners then they need to accept all of the absurdity that it requires.
Re: (Score:3)
yea, I hear their outrage over it all over the news... NOT!
Cancel culture hits them as well, so they're as hesitant to speak openly about this as folks in the broader community are.
In some communities, "TERF" (trans-excluding radical feminist) is as much of a slur as "racist" or "bigot" is... and perhaps even moreso as there's an element of presumed class-traitorness being invoked.
Re: (Score:3)
Yep, but we cannot defend them for it. This is literally their comeuppance. This is what that looks like.
They should have stopped this inside of their ranks before they let it get this bad just like Germany should have stopped Hitler, Democrats should have stopped Hillary, and the Republicans should have stopped Trump.
You need to pay for the result of your work. If you stand idle while something bad is being done then you don't get to claim innocence. You are at least required to speak up.
Re: (Score:3)
and that they can't understand why anyone would announce that they're "Q" or what that even means. (How is being "Q" different from being "LGB"? No one knows.)
It's to provide inclusion for people who don't fit in the other letters but get shit on for mostly harmless behaviors. Like a heterosexual man who wears makup and skinny jea^H^H^H^H^H camisoles or like when a straight woman wears sensible clothing.
Re:Already in force (Score:4, Insightful)
This reminds me of recent diversity training at my company and how offensive I found it to be. We are classifying groups of people together based on characteristics no one has any control over: skin color, gender, sexual orientation, etc. First, I think people within those groups find it offensive to be lumped together with others based on those characteristics, and the completely-insane belief that it implies they think alike.
As an example, across my large team, I have a couple East Indian fellows who work in the same area. One was born and raised in Canada, the other in Indian. They could not be further from each other in terms of perspective, yet by modern diversity standards, they are considered a single viewpoint. On the other hand, I have a gay white male and an East Indian woman on another team, and they are actually highly aligned in terms of viewpoints and perspectives. If my team was only them, I would have no "thought diversity", but those ingrained in diversity for careers would say "mission accomplished".
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Already in force (Score:4, Insightful)
....this is just people looking for a reason to be offended
Because it allows them to wield power. Totalitarianism is the impulse. This is just the tactic of the day. When pronouns stop becoming an effective wedge, they'll move on to the next thing.
Re:Already in force (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Already in force (Score:4, Interesting)
The thing is if some one is using the wrong pronoun intentionally they are being a jerk, and will probably annoy you, but rules and laws should be there to stop the extremes happening, not the minor annoyances in life. From my point of view I don't like these rules not because I particularly want to offend someone, but because I don't think I can remember to do it, an may repeatedly get it wrong. I find it hard to remember peoples names. I also have bigger concerns in life than to put significant time into getting it right.
People can't be protected from every minor offense, the cost of doing so is too high, and that cost is effective and open communication, which I for one value much more than not offending anyone.
Re:Already in force (Score:5, Insightful)
Life is uncomfortable. It sucks. And while I agree we *should* be nice to each other, the reality is, there are plenty of people and instances where they are not. But I believe those people are perfectly welcome to their opinion, and I would lay down my life to defend their right to say it. I also tolerate it--I'm still on Slashdot and converse freely with people who disagree with me.
Keep in mind this person was fired for raising an objection to the proposed policy's mandate to use someone's personal pronoun. Her argument was that, as it was written, you must use the requested pronoun to comply with the Code of Conduct (CoC). Her specific objection was to compelled speech--as written, avoiding all pronouns is against the proposed CoC. For politely raising such an objection to a proposed CoC, she was terminated without recourse right before a holiday. She never violated any CoC, and the proposed CoC isn't even in force yet.
This is the same thing that happened to Peter Vlaming. It's straight out of 1984, and it's wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
Now that is fucking stupid. Telling a professional writer how to use pronou
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, there's always going to be somebody to insult you, but generally you don't want it to be the moderator of the forum. Maybe the owners of the forum don't want their moderators berating or offending the people who frequent the site.
Re:Already in force (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't disagree with people not wanting to be insulted, but I do disagree with people making everything an insult to press agendas. This is where people are never going to avoid being insulted because they make everything an insult. Perhaps I could do better with phrasing my point but we all know this is not the last stop here.
Nothing but complete worship and adoration will be enough. Everyone must be brought to compliance no exception. I am just saying that there will never been an end to this so we better nip this one sooner before it becomes another problem. Maybe we should all just go ahead and not look each other in the eyes... someone might mistake that as an act of aggression. People are going to have to accept that identity is a cultural thing... each culture has a different way of identifying all sorts of folks and some have even more gender specific pronouns than English speakers. They are just going to have to take a loss on this or they are going to create a backlash against them.
Re: (Score:3)
No I get it... only YOU get to decide what is reasonable and I don't get to have a say.
Maybe you did not get my fucking point!
you WILL call me SuGen muther fucker or I will go to the end of the earth to find you and reveal the world that you are disrespecting me!!!!
(did I do that right?)
You fundamentally are not understanding what is going on here. We are not being ASKED! We are being FORCED!
This is not reasonable, because if they can force that, then I can enforce this.
I would like an apology and for yo
Re: (Score:3)
I agree, Trump has some mighty thin skin.
But so does all the people bitching about him too!
Just Saying!
FYI, I am not a Trump or Hillary supporter. I am one of the few people left with a functional brain.
Re:Already in force (Score:5, Insightful)
Have said it before, will say it again.. tolerating someone else's delusion is no longer sufficient -- now you must participate in it.
Re:Already in force (Score:5, Interesting)
How could one possibly know the gender of an online poster in any case? How is this even an issue?
What is the gender of "Anonymous Coward" for example?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I am a 'pers'. Also, Stack has posted a (lame) apology - https://meta.stackexchange.com... [stackexchange.com]
I am a 'thelord'. I personally find it highly offensive when people do not use a thelord's chosen pronoun. It is being purposefully disrespectful to thelord. You should respect thelords pronoun, and treat thelord with the same respect that thelord gives to you.
Re:Already in force (Score:5, Insightful)
It should be extremely easy. Historically the male pronouns have always been used neutrally, at least in English, and in more recent times female pronouns have also become neutral pronouns. Therefore the speaker/writer is free to use either one at their preference. The key part there is that the speaker uses THEIR preference.
We are entitled as a matter of basic human respect and decency to choose our own patterns of speech and words. Everyone has the same freedom and nobody is subjected to the tyranny of the whims of another with regard to how they are allowed to think and speak.
Re: (Score:3)
Pronouns isn't gender though. I'm all for being nice to people but this is just childish and chilling.
Re:Already in force (Score:5, Insightful)
"If you do accidentally misgender someone then just apologise and get it right next time. "
Always have but these are people requiring they be misgendered. I don't recall granting them the authority to require anything of me. I reserve my right to speak freely and describe the world as I see it.
"Your job is only at risk if you keep doing it deliberately and refuse to treat them as their gender."
Yes but which one, their actual gender or the one they are requiring? Since we have different opinions and are both entitled to that he is entitled to take my use of he and she as gender neutral since both are valid gender neutral pronouns as well. Then we can have equality by splitting the difference with neither party entitled to coerce the other.
Re:Already in force (Score:4, Insightful)
"They" should be an out though. It's gender neutral. If that pisses you off (either way), get bent.
The only thing that bothers me about "they" is using it as a singular. At least no one seems to expect verbs to be conjugated in singular form, because I think I would just be incapable of saying "They is" or "They has". But while the plural conjugation is grammatically consistent, it also makes the use of "they" to refer to a single person ambiguous.
Granted that we've been doing that for a very long time in cases where the referent is an unknown person, but such usage is rare enough that people are usually careful to provide the necessary disambiguation. I find that with the much greater increase in use of singular "they" to refer to specific, known individuals, this care is often lost.
I have no personal objection to calling people whatever they want to be called. It's no skin off my nose, as long as they aren't jerks about it if I screw up from time to time (and I've never encountered a person who was a jerk about such honest mistakes). But I was somewhat relieved when a non-binary person I work with who preferred the singular "they" decided she felt mostly female and switched to a feminine name and feminine pronouns. It's just much easier for me to keep straight. I still have to catch myself from time to time because she looks somewhat masculine, but that I can handle without trouble. I've known cis-gendered women who look quite masculine, too.
Although in the short term it might be more difficult, I think a set of actual, singular gender-neutral pronouns would make this simpler. Ze and Zir sound a bit odd at first, and constructions like "zirself" take even more getting used to, I think they're preferable to the ambiguity of "they".
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The singular "they" has been around for half a millennium. I agree, the verb conjugation is a bit weird, but that's hardly the weirdest thing about English, and it's been done that way for so long that, as you pointed out, using singular verbs sounds wrong. It's in the bible. It's in Chaucer. Apparently surveys have found that the actual English use the singular they more often than they use the gender neutral he.
Coining a new neutral pronoun in English was tried. I remember from decades ago, people trying
Re:Already in force (Score:4, Insightful)
They is plural. It doesn't work for a reference to a specific person.
"if I continue calling you a she then I'm kind of a dick"
Only if I am a he and you are calling me a she. If I'm a he asking people to call me a she due to whatever mental illness I might have then I just need to come to terms with the fact that not everyone is going to cater to or remember my oddball requirement. If I really have that much of an issue with it then I am entitled to pretend they are using the word in a gender neutral fashion alongside pretending that they are using the wrong pronoun.
That said being a dick typically isn't an offense you get fired for in most workplaces. Generally that is called "lacking soft skills." Not being a "people person", etc. If I prefer to be called Joe and someone calls me Joseph that kind of makes them a dick as well but nobody should be getting fired over it.
If my name is actually Joe and someone calls me douchlicker instead THEN maybe I have a complaint. The appropriate action is the boss saying "cut it out" and if they don't do it then escalating not so much because they are being a dick but because at that point they are refusing to follow direction from the boss.
Re:Already in force (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't cost anything to be nice to people. It's not "walking on eggshells".
It's not nice to force people to be nice to people.
Don't be a baby.
Don't be a tyrant.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Already in force (Score:5, Insightful)
That's why people are so up in arms about this. You must use their preferred language or face termination.
Re:Already in force (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
If someone prefers 'she' even though that person was born male, and I'm referring to something that person did before said decision, do I use 'he' or 'she'?
Say I wrote something on stack exchange, using 'he', when the person still identified that way. Do I then have to retroactively edit any previous mention once that person decide to change the pronoun to 'she'?
Re:Already in force (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess at that point refer to them as "it".
Or better yet, maybe best to just stop talking to them at all...since they are obviously looking t
Re:Already in force (Score:5, Funny)
I guess at that point refer to them as "it". Or better yet, maybe best to just stop talking to them at all...
You seem to be more interested in intentionally being an arsehole than simply doing something as mind-boggling complicated and referring to someone based on their preference. I will refer to you by "Arsehole" in the future. The fact you prefer "cayenne8" is irrelevant to me. Thanks for enlightening me on how to treat others Arsehole.
Re:Already in force (Score:5, Interesting)
You seriously need to do some studying.
X – Roughly 1 in 2,000 to 1 in 5,000 people (Turner’s )
XX – Most common form of female
XXY – Roughly 1 in 500 to 1 in 1,000 people (Klinefelter)
XY – Most common form of male
XYY – Roughly 1 out of 1,000 people
XXXY – Roughly 1 in 18,000 to 1 in 50,000 births
Gender does not conform to your beliefs.
Re:Already in force (Score:5, Informative)
Biology huh?
You seriously need to do some studying.
X – Roughly 1 in 2,000 to 1 in 5,000 people (Turner’s )
XX – Most common form of female
XXY – Roughly 1 in 500 to 1 in 1,000 people (Klinefelter)
XY – Most common form of male
XYY – Roughly 1 out of 1,000 people
XXXY – Roughly 1 in 18,000 to 1 in 50,000 births
Gender does not conform to your beliefs.
These genetic defects do not result in any new genders. All of the defects result in body with a normal, gendered appearance. Klinefelter, for example, results in a normal male; in fact, the people affected often don't even realize it, unless they go for medical diagnosis due to fertility problems. XYY also result in a male, without fertility problems, but possibly with a learning disability. Turner Syndrome results in a female with various disabilities. Etc, etc.
So: your information is valuable, but does not support your argument. We still have only two genders: male and female. Plus a fair few people with mental issues.
Re: (Score:3)
If the argument you are making is that more than two genders exist because more than two sexes exist, your argument does not follow. Ge
Re:Already in force (Score:4, Interesting)
It's simple.
It used to be termed "Common Fucking Sense".
Something that seems to be rapidly declining this decade for some reason.
Re:Already in force (Score:4, Funny)
Do you inspect people's genitalia when you meet them, before introducing yourself?
What do you mean? That is me introducing myself.
Sorry, I had to.
Re:Already in force (Score:4, Funny)
Do you inspect people's genitalia when you meet them, before introducing yourself?
Well, no. Not before introducing myself. That would be rude.
Re:Already in force (Score:5, Interesting)
If they get in your face, require "ZE" or some other stupid pronoun, than just walk away.
I agree that if they're obnoxious about it, you should just walk away. But there's nothing wrong with a polite reply indicating their preference. And if you refuse to deal with them because of that request, or continue talking to them but ignore their request, then you're the asshole.
By the way, my pronoun is "Hewhoisalwaysright".
Too many syllables. Pronouns have to be short, else it's more convenient to simply use the person's name.
Re: Already in force (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole reason making this sort of thing a firing offense sucks is that acknowledging it is even possible for the trans person to be the jerk in that situation is itself considered unthinkable bigotry by even relatively moderate trans standards. I *like* trans people, but I also think what we're doing about this is wrong. That means I don't like them enough; I'm an enemy because I would defend enemies. My stance makes me unemployable in some areas unless I hide it.
Re: (Score:3)
It isn't the social protocol of making a good faith effort to go along with what people pretend I object to. The fact is I mostly try to be agreeable with someone is exhibiting some kind of strong preference like that but I object to policy around it as if it were some kind of obligation or they have an entitlement.
You are asking for something that requires effort on my part and you aren't entitled to effort from me for free. My respect and courtesy are not things you are entitled to and I have the right to
Re:Already in force (Score:4, Funny)
This is the internet. You don't know anyone's gender, ever! You can only go based on how they identify in their profile. For all we know, they cold be a dog. [wikipedia.org]
Dogs have genders too you insensitive clod!
Re:Already in force (Score:5, Funny)
Clearly, all of this belongs on expertsexchange.:-)
Re:Already in force (Score:5, Insightful)
How would a moderator justify refusing to use "they" when requested?
Notice how the post said "(with examples)"? Perhaps you should look at those, and the argument they presented, rather than assuming they have no argument.
Re:Already in force (Score:5, Interesting)
It is not that they do not have a perfectly sound argument --- It is that the people on the other side of that argument prefer to use means of force rather than means of reason.
Essentially --- "The position you have expressed although perfectly reasonable is disagreeable to me, and since I don't have an easy way of arguing against it using logic, therefore, to convince everyone that you are wrong: I will make sure you get deleted, rather than try further discussion."
Re:Already in force (Score:5, Informative)
I read all the posts linked to by TFA, it didn't seem to include the examples.
The news is about conversation that took place in a private moderation-team discussion,
so I suppose the full text of what went down is not even available for the public, and
we would never have heard of it if not for an incident...
I certainly do NOT appreciate the way StackExchange runs their site if they are not allowing their moderator teams to have reasoned discussions and speak of their opinions and disagreements on important issues such as this.
"Our CoC is not up for debate" <-- That is something that should NEVER be stated about any statement of policy.
CoCs can be wrong, or someone's interpretation of a CoC can be wrong, and these are important issues that should be open to at least discussion, and With no fear of retribution merely for holding discussion or sharing opinion ---- Even if ultimately the outcome is that some team members disagree personally, but still have to abide by team's decision with respect to moderation, Etc.
Re: (Score:3)
The CoC says you should be nice to people and treat them with respect. Not mis-gendering them seems pretty basic and covered by that.
That means authors TOO should be treated with respect, as in not trying to dictate the manner in which he or she may structure their sentences -- the word "they", for example, is not a drop-in replacement for the word he, because it is a plural or follows from a different style of sentence structure; choosing their preferred sentence form is the speaker/author's right.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The CoC says you should be nice to people and treat them with respect.
Nearly every time I bother using this site questions have been locked by a swarm of moderators for one reason or another. Most of the time a question is marked "ambiguous" or some such bullshit simply because moderators do not understand the material.
Systematic intolerance on the site has significantly reduced its value.
How would a moderator justify refusing to use "they" when requested?
It's a common word, it's been used as a gender neutral pronoun for centuries. Doesn't seem like she has much of a case here.
Only in a world where tolerance is optional and people have a right not to be offended by ridiculously petty things.
Re: (Score:3)
Presumably because they have respect for the English language?
Re: (Score:3)
It's a common word, it's been used as a gender neutral pronoun for centuries. Doesn't seem like she has much of a case here.
Doesn't seem like they has much of a case here.
If you're using a singular they, shouldn't you then use the singular verb form with it? To avoid confusion with the royal plural or the standard plural.
Re:Already in force (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Those aren't pronouns, they are titles.
"Sorry you disagree, but I have chosen these as my pronouns, and therefore, you are required to use them when referring to me, Otherwise you will get reported to StackExchange moderators and may expect sanctions."
Re:Already in force (Score:4, Insightful)
No, what's unreasonable is forcing us to pretend that a man dressing up as a woman is actually a woman.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"That person is a woman at this time. You may explain that she was a man at the time if required"
How does one change their chromosomes?
Re: (Score:3)
It is really hard to get the he/she thing right on-line. It's best to stick to the passive voice or use they until things become obvious. For instance:
1. You might not even know the person's real name. Is the email address "I_Love_Rabbits@gmail.com" a male or female?
2. Even if you know their real-name, it might not be helpful. Is "Dana" or "Leslie" male or female?
3. You might not be talking to only one person. Is "GreatRabbits@gmail.com" a kid, an adult, a family, a business, etc.?
Speaking diplomat
Re: (Score:3)
if you don't know which one to use, just use 'they' or stick to passive voice. nobody will complain about that.
the big problem occurs AFTER someone makes their pronouns clear, and THEN you refuse to use them and intentionally misgender someone. THAT is being a dick.
Re: Why not just call them "it"? (Score:3)
Linguists classify words by how easy it is to coin new ones. There's a continuum. English verbs, for example, are very easy to create. You can verb any noun you want; I just did it. But in French for example, it's quite a bit harder, because everyone needs to know how to conjugate the new verb. Most new verbs enter French as group 1 ("manger") ver