Hacker News Reader

Comment by thelazydogsback | Hacker News Reader

It's hard to be believe that people who are brave enough to deal with LGBTQIA issues in their own lives and face actual in-your-face challenges would actually give a crap what pronoun someone used on a technical forum, and it seems absurd to regulate such behavior. If I don't want to be a dick and am aware of the preference, then I will try and use the person's preferred pronoun - but I'm certainly not obligated to do so on SO or even in person. The other person can take offense or not, it is their/his/her own choice. I suppose the problem can be solved by just always using the person's name, or using other anaphora such as "the OP", or @username, etc.

View on HN

The problem with forcing compliance is some people are naturally going to want to resist the demand regardless of their personal opinions.

I took a technical writing class in college where I attempted to use "they/their" as a gender neutral pronoun. This was not a political statement, I just felt it sounded more natural. The professor objected and gave me a disproportionately poor grade, insisting that I use either "he" or "he or she" instead. It felt unjust that a paper could be either an "A" or "D" because a handful of instances of "he" were written "they". To me, this felt like the professor was asserting authority, not trying to improve my writing.

When I showed him that the dictionary definition of "they" from Websters website included, "used to refer to a person of unspecified gender," he opted to make fun of me in front of the entire class (by saying, "oh, well if it's on the INTERNET, it must be true") and stand his ground on my grade.

Incensed, I tried my damnedest to get the grade over-tuned. I went to the other professor who taught the class, as she was an English teacher, unlike my current professor who was an Engineer: she took the other professor's side. I went to the Dean of the College with the same outcome.

I opted to make the irrational decision of standing my ground on principle in all future papers, taking a "D" in said writing class. Authority figures should keep this in mind, people have no problem acting against their own interest when you force them to do things, rather than just ask. It should be evident that I'm still bothered by this all these years later, and probably cemented my opinion on this subject for the rest of my life.

Humans are weird.

This is really distasteful.

I had, as a student, a row with one of my professors. We chemically hated each other and it was showing (he was mean, so I was mean as well).

Then came the exam (oral) . 6 questions, I easily answered 5 of them, the 6th was extremely difficult (neeed much more time and literature).

I told him that the first 5 one are easy but that I could not do the last one because (explanation).

To what he said "well, you see, the better, brighter students manage to do it. I will have to just give you 20/20 and not the 25 or 30/20 you could have had as a bonus".

He was looking at me as on a spit on the floor. I was looking at him as on a bird excrement on a window.

But I told him later that he is one of the most rightful people I know and despite the fact that we will never look at each other in a kind way I truly admire his fairness.

Then repeated this to him some 15 years later.

On the positive side, I did manage to convince my technical writing professor to allow they/them in my paper after showing recent style guide changes allowing it in formal writing. This was in 2016, though.

What year was this? It sounds like English standards 10-20 years ago. Not sure whether this would recur today.

2011ish.

To my professor's credit, he was probably 70-80 years old at the time.

I disagree. This is an actual in-your-face challenge that trans people face - incorrect pronoun usage, both offline and online. Using the wrong pronoun for someone is akin to using the wrong name. It's ok if it happens accidentally, but being incorrect on purpose is quite insulting - in part because it's so simple to do the right thing. I don't want to work with jerks.

It matters because even if you don't think it's a big deal, it can be death by a thousand papercuts for others. Seeing "he" used as a default pronoun just reminds me that people will assume I'm a man, further entrenching this idea subconsciously that people like me don't belong in tech. When I'm misgendered online, I have an internal conversation of "Do I correct them? Do I want to be perceived as not contributing to the discussion and be punished for that? Will I be seen as a crazy SJW and attacked for it?" That's a mental stress that cisgender men simply don't have to deal with.

Use gender-neutral language by default. It's not hard, and simple mistakes are forgiven. However, if one isn't willing to put the slightest amount of effort to either avoid pronouns or use the singular they, it shows they doesn't actually care about the concerns of people unlike themselves. And that shows a lot about what kind of person they are.

Is your last paragraph referring to defaulting to gender-neutral after having been made aware/requested by someone, or that gendered langauge be eradicated from the English language?

>Use gender-neutral language by default. It's not hard, and simple mistakes are forgiven.

Not if you're a Stack Overflow moderator apparently.

I'm not any more privy to the back-end conversation than most anyone else is, but it sounds like what's going on is more nuanced than that. It seems that the idea on the table went beyond using gender neutral language by default: It was to using gender neutral language even when the person's gender was known with certainty, out of concern that occasionally someone's gender might be unacceptable.

While bulldozering across the landscape with a single pronoun like that might be preferable to willfully and specifically misgendering people, trans people could still justifiably interpret it as a deliberate act of erasure. I'm certainly having a hard time seeing it otherwise; I just spent a slightly absurd amount of time staring at my screen trying, unsuccessfully, to figure out a better, or at least less provocative, word than "unacceptable" to use in that last paragraph.

There are still a lot of lacunae in my understanding of this story, but the way things seem to be pointing is that the "community standard" that Monica Cellio was in violation of was an opinion as much as an action: It would seem that Stack Exchange wants to make being inclusive (not just tolerant) of trans people a community standard, and, by asking a lot of probing questions about the finer details of pronoun usage, she indicated that she's not comfortable adopting that standard.

I think I agree with others that, while SE certainly figured out a way to make literally everyone angry, there's probably no way to make everyone happy here. I suppose the easy reaction is to say that Monica Cellio was fired for thoughtcrime. And, given that the guidelines in question had neither been adopted nor violated yet, it's hard to argue with that summary. But, setting aside the unequivocally awful way that SE has been handling this situation thus far, it's also true that the organization does have a right to decide that it wants to be welcoming (which, again, goes beyond merely being tolerant). And if they do that, step one is to make sure that representatives of SE are behaving in a welcoming way. Volunteer or not, moderators are public representatives of SE, and so SE does have a reasonable interest in (and right to) directing their comportment when they're acting as representatives of SE. It might just not be possible to do that without stepping on the toes of moderators who have a problem with genuinely respecting trans people.

And if that's all they had wanted to do, I'd be a lot less bothered about this whole affair. As it stands, I'm left fearing that they've managed to do more harm than good by emboldening the folks who like to toss around terms like "SJW", and giving them some legitimately bad behavior that they can proceed to conflate with more reasonably-executed efforts to foster inclusiveness.

>If I don't want to be a dick and am aware of the preference, then I will try and use the person's preferred pronoun - but I'm certainly not obligated to do so on SO or even in person.

I think it's perfectly reasonable and expected for SO to insist that their moderators don't be dicks.

So, the solution you proposed is exactly what the moderators asked to do. Seems fair enough to me. They were told that not playing the pronoun game is the same as harassing whomever they are speaking to.

The whole situation is ridiculous to me. How have we come to a point where not only do people think I care in the slightest who or what they have sex with (or don't, whatever), but they demand I call them by some word they made up to classify themselves as something? Don't tell me what I can or can't say, and I wont tell you who/what you can and can't screw.

How do fascists not realize they are being such? "You don't have proper thoughts on matters so you aren't allowed to speak".

Yes, mywittyname & effingwewt -- I obviously sympathize. It's hard to believe that we are destroying the planet, we are still killing each other over tribal-like issues, people don't have access to clean water and sanitation, various groups are disadvantaged based on where they are born, etc. -- and what pronoun to use for a third party on a technical forum is what we're spending our energy on. We need a new gender-neutral pronoun -- I suggest "whoeverthefuck".

There are people committing suicide, being harassed and not being accepted as they are so using wrong gender is pretty fucked up thing to do especially because it is so easy to do right.

This may be insensitive (and I apologize if it is) but if being referenced by normal pronouns is enough to drive someone to commit suicide (or cause emotional distress), I'd argue that this person is in more need of medical treatment than having his or her quirks pandered to by others.

Using a language normally doesn't cause problems for healthy human beings.

"normal pronouns"?

> "normal pronouns"?

What english language speakers normally use when refering to a person, usually based on the perceived gender of said person.

> it is so easy to do right

Using the wrong gender is enough to cause someone to commit suicide? So instead of getting to the bottom of the issue as to why calling someone "him" instead of "her" is enough for them to take their own life, and then putting up the safety nets so that this does not happen (which CAN be done - type any vaguely suicidal query into Google and you can see suicide hotlines and help center phone numbers and locations at the top of the page), it is more effective to pressure others into using the "correct" pronoun?

It is hard enough to get people to talk strictly about work, at work, but somehow it's easier to convince people to change their entire thought process so that they use the terms you deemed acceptable?

So, you consider it your choice to decide if people should be described using Male or female pronouns, and believe it would be fascist for someone to say "actually, I'm Male. Please refer to me as he, not she?".

It just feels impolite to me to not refer to people by their gender. Is it that upsetting to give people their name and gender? What right of yours does this infringe?

As a trans person, it feels impolite (well, insulting) to refer to people as the _wrong_ gender. I don't see it as impolite to avoid gendered language in the case of not knowing one's gender, and only impolite in the case of knowing one's gender if great lengths are taken to avoid gendering.

No, I'm saying I get to decide what I say, not you. If the gender neutral 'they' ,' you' etc aren't enough for you then we don't need to speak with each other.

What's impolite is demanding I conform to your view and forcing me to learn some words you made up and use them every time we speak.

And again, it's a self-applied label.

Don't force me to use your made up words, I won't tell you what to do with your life.

ps- I grew up in the 80s when gay and trans people were very much oppressed, unlike now. I stood up for their rights, got in actual fights for them on several occasions. And now im called CIS scum for being a straight male.

I have family members I've had to stand with against other family members because they were gay. I love them dearly and even to them I say 'I respect your liberties, please respect mine'.

> How do fascists not realize they are being such?

What an outrageous level of hyperbole. It is not fascism to ask others to not intentionally misgender people.

There's a world of difference between using gender neutral pronouns and purposely misgendering.

And even then, intent matters. Gender does not. I dont care who or what you consider yourself, I'm glad we as a society have choices. I want everyone to be themselves, again I've had friends and family memebers whose lives were ruined or made difficult for being gay.

But to tell me if I dont use whatever flavor of the week pronoun, I am harassing someone, and taking my right to speak for not conforming is facism.

Agreed. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills reading most of the commentary here on HN or elsewhere about this.

I get that there's some details about this case that are a bit ambiguous, but it doesn't seem obviously worth a witchhunt of SO. If it seemed to SO like a moderator was looking for loopholes for not enforcing a CoC, then I don't think it's wrong for them to consider the moderator as working in bad faith and not moderator material.

Likewise. I am shocked by the lack of empathy expressed by many here and on SO. Pronouns may be a small thing for a cis person, but for others they are a way to reclaim an identity denied to them. To deny anyone that basic level of respect is unconscionable, regardless of whether a code of conduct enforces it or not. A person tasked with enforcing community norms who is unwilling to do that and more, who subverts drafting a policy in bad faith, has no business being a moderator.

The problem here is that people aren't being asked; they're being forced and, in this case, punished.

You don't get to dictate others actions just as they don't dictate yours. When you do, don't be surprised when people start fighting back.

Please do not take HN threads further into flamewar.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Reply on news.ycombinator.com