ihatemondays

Obviously some people didn't understand that this policy would be included in "don't be a dick", otherwise we wouldn't be seeing all this pushback.

Relevant: https://xkcd.com/1357/

You're still perfectly "allowed" to maliciously misgender people, it'll just get you warned or banned.

If you don't take part in any conversation that requires use of third party pronouns, then this change doesn't concern you, simple as that.

People are making a huge deal out of nothing.

StackExchange is more than StackOverflow, and StackExchange is more than just the main site. Third party pronouns are widely used in meta and chat.

And according to the SO 2019 survey, "only" 91.7% of people on SO identify as male (do keep in mind that not everyone who identifies as male uses he/him too), yet most people default off to he/him when referring to others.

This can alienate the 8.3%+, and is probably one of the reasons why that percentage is that low.

This change isn't just about trans people, but about anyone who doesn't use he/him or isn't male.

> Also, I wonder what happens the first time somebody says their preferred pronoun is "God", or something 127 characters long? or Little Bobby Tables? or...?

As they said on the answers... bad faith actions like having a 127 character pronoun means that it must be reported: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/334900/official-faq...

The FAQ clearly states that if you don't know then you're free to use they/them, and only are required to use their preferred pronouns if you're asked to do so by the person or if you very clearly knew before (say that you wrote 10 answers to someone over a week, if you defaulted back to they/them on each, then it could be seen as intentional).

I don't get the backlash either, I think it's a combination of genuine bigotry and the "nice" feeling of being on the side of everyone. In the end, it does feel weird to upvote a post that is at -700 or to speak positively when most people's reactions that you see are negative.

So let them speak, not you. Most people I've seen that are complaining about this are from western countries.

One of the central ideas that lead SE is "Assume good intent". There's no presumption of malicious intent.

Article is from 2015, not 2018. Title is incorrect.

I've literally talked to RMS before about this. Torvalds etc might have such views too at more extreme levels, but RMS definitely has it himself.

This.

And on top of all that, he quite literally voluntarily resigned, it's in the title.

...sub-human employees? What?

> If you were both under the age of consent, as is often the case, in many jurisdictions [0], neither of you were able to give consent, and your sex act was technically non-consensual on both sides. This is not just theoretical -- there are many cases of prosecutors charging consensual underage couples with statutory rape, or with child pornography charges for sexting a picture of themselves to their boyfriend/girlfriend, and often using these laws in unjust ways (e.g. charging only the black boyfriend with statutory rape, but not equally charging the white girlfriend).

> Let's assume you and your first love grew up in California, had sex for the first time just days prior to your 18 birthdays (when you both became legal), and are now 30 and have been happily married for 10-years. By your definition, you both committed violent sexual assault, and I'd be correct to go around your workplace saying things like "oh zzzeek? you know he's committed violent sexual assault. Some sort of rape. I don't know the details, but just wanted you to know."

Minsky was not even close to the age of the victim, though. You're creating a false equivalence, and you're even stating this yourself at the last paragraph, so why even talk about these things?

Thanks for the tip, I will gladly lie about who I am by saying that I'm a man, so that I can receive respect for doing the same work I do now.

> It's also the reason we have an Open Source movement, that being the watered down and more corporately palatable version of Stallman's idealistic vision.

If you ever talked with Stallman, read his texts, listened to his talks, you'd know that in certain ways Stallman's views are much weaker than what most people think they are. He doesn't have any issue with corps taking over the FOSS world as long as it compiles on trisquel and comes with a free license.

That's why I'm glad that he's going away now. Hope we can get someone who actually will stand up against the issues that the FOSS world is facing now in his seat.

These are preventable risks. We have the technology where this would be a much less likely problem (hexacopters, octocopters, better string for the parachute etc), as many people in this very thread have pointed out.

Things Tyson pointed out (Medical errors, flu, suicide, car accidents, homicides) are preventable too, but he's making an unfair comparison.

We're already doing a lot to prevent deaths from the reasons he stated (better training, vaccination, suicide hotlines and more available mental healthcare, safer cars and better driver training, [many things]), but we're not doing nearly enough to prevent deaths that are caused by pure hatred towards those that are unlike them. Deaths from those reasons aren't going up by any significant amount while deaths by hate crimes are, which is one of the big reasons why people are taking problem with this, they want to prevent deaths of many innocent people before they happen.