Brothers, I Must Go
christianity.meta.stackexchange.com
christianity.meta.stackexchange.com
I think SE are totally within their rights to enforce a policy like this without negotiation, although clearly a miscommunication has occurred. I think the people who object to it are imagining a situation with a mythical SJW boogeyperson saying "Don't misgender me! my pronouns are xe/xem/xyr on weekdays and xi/hir/hir after 7 o'clock, unless I feel like a ve/ver/vis in which case you must read my mind and use those."
In reality, I think the likely scenario is more like "I'm a she :)", and unless you continue to use 'he' pronouns then there isn't a problem.
When put this way, it sounds like a much more reasonable policy and I think it would be fair to eject people who object to this from the community (with due process of course).
SE have failed to communicate this properly, and also have failed to react to this crisis in a reasonable way. However, from reading this blog post (which actually goes as far as to quote that "First they came..." poem), and Monica's one, I suspect this is not the root of the problem. Not all beliefs can or should be tolerated, as is touched upon in a quote in Monica's post. That is the purpose of a CoC, to set up a reasonable framework of rules upon which debate and discussion can take place.
There are some stack exchange sub-sites that this would be reasonable to do, but many others that aren't. That's why. It's pertinent information for a lot of questions that are going to be asked.
It's likely easier for StackOverflow, the corporate entity itself, to only have a single rule-set, rather than have to manage and ensure moderators are adhering to a bunch of different rule-sets.
This is flatly contradicted by both Caleb's post (upon which this whole thread is based) and Monica's.
Caleb resigned because the new rules proposed would not allow him to compromise by simply referring to trans people by name and avoiding all pronouns. His issue is not that he insists on using "he" for a transwoman, but that he refuses to use "she", and would rather stick to names.
Likewise, per the from-memory transcript she posted, Monica - who has no issue referring to a person who has changed gender by their preferred gendered pronoun! - simply stated that she often prefers to avoid the singular genderless "they" when referring to a specific person, and so would prefer to refer to a person who has that as their preferred pronoun by name. That, apparently, was enough to get her fired.
And they think that "freedumb" and "freeze peach" means that if people they voluntarily and freely associate with decide to call them out on their jerkiness, then it is they who have been aggrieved and had their rights trampled upon.
There are only two types of people who are unable to address others in a manner that makes that person feel comfortable:
1. Jerks
2. People who aren't native speakers of the language being used.
Both are self selected descriptors which could be reasonably objected to without denigrating or disrespecting the person specifically.
Removing the ability to engage in thoughtful conversation where parties disagree is a travesty.
I'll be blunt - as a strong atheist, I'm in full agreement with the moderator who posted this. I personally don't agree with his opinions on gender pronouns, but I think his point stands loud and clear: Respectful disagreement is no longer allowed.
I think that is especially poignant given the community he moderates almost certainly aligns with his views.
I believe many of the communities that press these gender issues are broken. Not because I care about "pronouns" but because when disagreement with the majority opinion is IN ITSELF considered an insult worthy of exclusion or derision, there is no longer any apparatus to allow honest discussion.
I have the same opinion of the most restrictive church communities. The mental process is the same - Disagreement is threatening, remove the threat through ostracism and social pressure instead of honest conversation. Fuck that. Fuck that on both sides.
As for respectful disagreement, far as I can tell, concerning pronouns, if people see discussion as tantamount to disrespect, it is often because they believe that the overwhelming majority of people who insist on pronouns should be taken in good faith. There will always be people who use discussion as an excuse to in fact disrespect. It is a difficult issue and I really don't know what to think.
In saying this, you are doing exactly the thing that I've been called a bigot for. You've excluded me from "we" because I do see religion as fundamental to my identity. In fact my identify is first and foremost defined by the my maker and redeemer. If the God who made the very material from which I am made and breathed breath into my body isn't allowed to be a core part of my identity, then what is? Just because you believe I'm wrong about those facts doesn't give you the right to force me to affirm your view of them.
A question was asked, then it was answered by the only party who can give an accurate answer.
This vote demonstrates to me the animus towards people of faith. This is an example of the wrong-headedness in how we approach disagreements. Conform or leave.
This mod actually had a post named "brothers we are not Christians" where he explained the plurality of the community. This SE certainly does not have any real unity in belief.
A good comparison would be pointing to Bernie Sanders and to Rand Paul and saying "your views likely align because you're both Americans."
In the case of Caleb, I assume because he has a religious objection to it - he thinks that a person cannot alter truly the gender given to them by God, and thinks it would be against his faith to use pronouns in a manner that implies otherwise. Though I may be misstating his view, in which case I apologise to him - I have not seen anything he's written where he spells out the basis for his objection, and may be guessing / inferring wrongly.
In the case of Monica, she would in fact do this in all but maybe a situation involving the singular they where she might prefer stylistically to use names (which seems fair enough, since it's clearer).
>That agency has been stripped away from us. I feel like if I stay hiding behind my diamond moderator I'll be like a captain staying at the tiller of a boat whose rudder has been removed. The wheel I'm holding doesn't do anything any more and I know it. So why pretend this is going to be anything but a shipwreck eventually?
Regardless of one's viewpoint, the whole letter is a great example of persuasive-testimony. Or I thought so, anyway.
Or are you just happy to see less platform space given to belief systems that differ from your own?