Hacker News Reader

Comment by 9HZZRfNlpR | Hacker News Reader

The whole pronoun drama that is inherently American is tearing down international communities left and right despite it not being even an issue.

View on HN

If it really wasn't even an issue, this wouldn't be coming up as often as it does, though, would it? To me, "if someone tells you they prefer singular 'they', use that" is non-controversial, just like "if someone tells you they go by 'Goldie,' use that" should be. Insisting "No, I am going to call you by the pronouns I believe are 'correct' for you" is akin to "No, your legal name is 'Marigold,' and I am going to call you 'Mary.'" Insisting that you will not, under any circumstances, call a person what they've requested you call them is -- to me -- pretty clearly being a discourteous jerk.

There are a lot of valid complaints about the way Stack Overflow moderates in general, but I don't get the impression that this particular squabble is over moderation practices -- it seems to be about upcoming changes to SO's Code of Conduct. I don't know what those changes are, so I'll reserve judgement. I am certainly hoping that it doesn't boil down to "I cannot abide being required to refer to transgender women with 'her' and 'she'," though.

It's StackEexchange. Pronouns don't matter. I've never seen a reason for this person pronouns to be used. No one's generalist are topic of conversation, and it's not a a gossip forum, so there is no reason to use third person pronouns to refer to users at all!

If this is true, it's damning:

> Now if I avoid pronouns altogether by sticking to proper names or disengaging from the individual, that's being considered an insult too.

The complaints seem to be about some proposed new rule requiring users to explicitly write other users' pronouns, for no other reason than as a performative display of respect. This is quite different from a rule that says "If a user states that they prefer pronoun X, don't use other pronouns."

I read that quote, too, but here's the thing -- I can't imagine a Code of Conduct actually demanding that staff go out of their way to explicitly write other user's pronouns just for the sake of demonstrating that they will, in fact, use the pronouns the users are requesting.

If moderators are really, truly being directed the way that quote suggests, then yeah, that's a bad directive, whether or not the intentions are good. But some comments here suggested that this had to do with a trans moderator, not a trans user, which makes me suspect the pronouns in question may have been not on public-facing Stack Exchange but in moderator chats/forums. And if moderator X is pointedly avoiding ever "engaging" with moderator Y when the position requires it, then that's going to be a personnel problem.

Moderators, as community leaders, need to go out of their way to signal inclusion for trans people. If they are unwilling to they should resign or be fired.

I think that connects with events like Princess Diana touching a patient with AIDS, Mr. Rogers inviting a black man to share the pool with him, etc. It's a top down change the role models (in this case moderators) can implement to improve equality and show humans as humans which in my experience goes a long way toward shutting down any *phobic type mentalities. It's never an easy or quick change but it's important.

You can't force or even ask someone to be a role model because than that's not being a role model. Much like telling someone to volunteer makes them "not a volunteer".

If I started referring to the men at my work place with "she and her" I would be dropped at the human resources office for harassment. I do not believe it is unreasonable for a public forum such as Stack Exchange to enforce such a policy. If this change forces transphobic people to leave the platform then it is for the better.

I agree. As I mentioned to another commenter, I have a suspicion that the fired moderator was insisting that they be able to basically avoid interacting with a trans moderator, and that this is indeed an HR problem (or the equivalent when you're talking about volunteer moderators). I have a suspicion that when/if a new Code of Conduct is revealed for Stack Exchange it's not going to be particularly controversial except with the crowd who gets up in arms at anything that says "no bigotry" and "no harassment" (which the current COC actually already says).

Imposing speech codes is most definitely an issue. It goes to the core of deeply held values. It replaces tolerance with intolerance as the value to be upheld.

Those imposing the CoC are getting exactly what they want - driving anyone who disagrees from the field.

Driving transphobia out of society is a good and noble goal.

Don't label anything you disagree with as a phobia.

If you can say that people you disagree with have a phobia (a psychiatric disorder), I can say that trans people are mentally ill.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com