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.
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.
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.
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.
Forgive me, but this is a load of absolute horseshit. There's a gulf of difference between choosing given terminology based on religious belief and choosing terminology based on personal interpretation of scientific text.
Sex and gender aren't the same thing. It boggles my mind how seemingly complicated this is for some people to grasp. There's a substantial corpus of established science and historical research that more or less proves that physiological sex and social gender are not and never have been mutually causal; your argument here is predicated upon the notion that a person's chromosomes are inextricably linked to their gender, which simply isn't true.
In [1], you're literally making the exception that proves the rule here. What do you define as "male characteristics"? Doesn't it seem like that might not be the most rigorous qualifier for determining whether or not somebody falls on one side or another of whatever arbitrary boundary you seem to be defining?
Does it not strike you as a little cruel to suggest that treating a person with a modicum of respect over a social issue that barely (if at all) affects you is as offensive as disrespecting an entire religious viewpoint?
Is it really that hard to understand that in pursuit of whatever maladaptive compromise makes you feel more comfortable in your belief, you're actively harming people who have to constantly struggle to be understood or even recognized in modern society?
Doesn't that feel a little selfish? Like you're missing the point a little?
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.
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 is an example.
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.
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.
A few problems with that. This was never just a moderator code of conduct, but a change to the regular code of conduct for all users. It was just revealed to moderators early. (And with the clear statement that it applied to them immediately, even though the policy was still being written.)
Also, this new policy requires the use the the pronouns whenever known if you would normally use pronouns in that circumstance. [1][2] But that is for any pronoun. This includes all the weird neo-pronouns: xe, per, ze, hu, sie, kit, thon. Do you know how to conjugate all those? Most you can probably guess and be correct, but a few can be surprising).
But technically the stated policy did not stop there. So if somebody says their preferred pronoun is ghaH (The Klingon third person singular intelligent pronoun), users would need to use that. I for one, have absolutely no idea how to conjugate Klingon pronouns, so I would be hard pressed to actually use that pronoun.
[1]: They were really unclear about that for a while. The fired moderator wanted to know if just generally avoiding pronouns for all users was acceptable. They finally answered that as yes, but not before they totally misunderstood what she was asking and fired her.
[2]: StackExchange wanted to avoid people with non-standard pronouns getting singled out by others avoiding pronouns only for these people
Thanks for clarifying. I've been following it generally. Not in detail because the meta discussions are just that meta and their structural form tends to be similar to other good-bye's I've read going back to usenet and bulletin boards and here on HN.
What I have read makes it clear that good faith use of pronouns is consistent with "be nice" even if a particular pronoun is used in error. Personally, I think moderators quitting over the pronoun policy is evidence that it is the right move.
The goodfaith way of addressing Klingon pronouns is honesty. Admit you don't know and ask the person. In general, being nice is more important than grammatical perfection. It's ok to misconjugate a pronoun. No body write perfect english all time.
> 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.