
Stack Exchange deletes most downvoted post on Meta (gender pronoun FAQ) - hkai
https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/334900/official-faq-on-gender-pronouns-and-code-of-conduct-changes
======
rurban
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.

------
neonate
[https://web.archive.org/web/20191020051643/https://meta.stac...](https://web.archive.org/web/20191020051643/https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/334900/official-
faq-on-gender-pronouns-and-code-of-conduct-changes)

------
trecorcorin
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.

Im ready for an alternative.

------
GGfpc
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.

~~~
frittig
I'll copy a response that I wrote elsewhere.

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.

~~~
WanderingArbor
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?

------
luckylion
As for most downvoted, I think Sara Chipps' Non-Apology [1] has taken the
crown for now.

[1] [https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/334248/an-update-
to...](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/334248/an-update-to-our-
community-and-an-apology)

------
lawlorino
Can anyone detail what exactly this is about? This link just redirects to a
404.

~~~
Arnt
We don't know.

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](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/390427)
is an example.

~~~
Arnt
Replying to myself to add this link, which explains much of the anger well:
[https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/334268](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/334268)

Note that "I was there" comment.

~~~
brudgers
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.

