
Stack Overflow Inc. Fiasco: Timeline - SnarkAsh
https://cellio.dreamwidth.org/2019/10/05/stack-overflow-fiasco-timeline.html
======
goostavos
"require use of preferred pronouns and avoiding them is forbidden"

This line of thinking is so bizarre to me, but seems to be increasingly common
(or at least loud enough in the right places to be noticed). There is a
segment of the population that seems intent on being able assign and punish
that assumed thought crime.

Now your lack of a specific behavior is suspect!

~~~
reanimus
I think it's just rude behavior, honestly. If I ask you to call me something
and you go out of your way not to do that, how is that not a dick move?

~~~
freehunter
It's not a dick move because the singular "they" covers every conceivable
pronoun that could ever possibly exist. Saying "they" is not the same as
calling a man "she" or calling a woman "he" or any combination of genders and
pronouns. The singular "they" is as accurate for one gender as it is for any
other possible genders and covers all of them exactly the same.

That's the entire reason neutral words like "they" exist, to cover every
possible case to avoid mis-gendering. If we decide that the singular "they" is
inappropriate, we might as well do away with pronouns altogether and refer to
people by name every time we mention someone.

~~~
simonblack
English already has a non-specific pronoun that's been around for hundreds of
years. It has come from the French, so it's been around at least since the
Norman Invasion of 1066. So roughly 1050 years.

One can use it at any time.

~~~
LordDragonfang
At least in modern English, "one" is specifically an _indefinite_ pronoun, and
is therefore inappropriate for use when referring to a specific individual.

And before anyone claims otherwise, "they" was still in use as a _definite_ ,
gender-neutral pronoun long before its NB usage began to become mainstream.

~~~
esyir
"They" might be a definite pronoun, but it is almost exclusively used as a
plural. It's also a pretty bad drop in replacement; "They is currently
running" sounds weird as all hell for instance. That there has been an
explicit and forced attempt to shift it towards that doesn't make it sound any
better.

Furthermore, "He" has been used as a generic pronoun long predating the
singular they. While it comes with some ambiguity as well, it flows a lot
better and does not screw around with singular/plural ambiguity.

~~~
jsmith45
"They" has been used continuously for the singular since 1300. It has
literally never died out, despite protests from grammatical prescriptivists
beginning around 1795. Even Shakespeare used singular they, but this would
have been considered unremarkable by his audiences.

The only thing that seems relative new here is usage to refer to a specific
known individual, of known gender. Historically singular they was used
definite but unknown individuals, or at least individuals of unknown gender.

In any case, "They is" is wrong for singular, just like "you is".

"You" always takes "are", for both singular and plural "you". Indeed singular
"you" differs from plural "you" only in the reflexive: yourself/yourselves.

Singular "They" is exactly the same. It uses "are" and differs only in the
reflexive: themself/themselves. The only difference here is that the plural
reflexive can be used for the singular, and indeed that has been standard for
several hundred years, but feels extremely awkward with respect to a known
specific individual.

Fun fact: "themself" actually predates "themselves", and was originally used
for both singular and plural they, although around 1450 "themselves" became
standard for plural, with "themself" remaining standard for singular. But
eventually "themself" almost completely died out.

~~~
around_here
“What did they want?” is an easy example of when people use singular they a
lot.

------
miopa
This is getting quite ridiculous.

I don't want to know your gender. I don't care. It's your thing. It's non of
my business, and it makes no difference to me whatsoever.

If I do want to know your gender, then things between us are starting to
become intimate.

To sum things up: I would say it's rude if someone shares his gender identity
with me without being asked. On the same level as if someone shares his/her
dick size without being asked.

~~~
spectramax
I agree, "They" is perfect. If you're offended then so be it. I don't really
care if you're a man, woman, transgender, gay, lesbian, whatever.

We are in a society that demands special treatment and we've become so afraid
of offending people.

To the offended - Don't be, assume the best of everyone and things will be
fine. The problem starts when people are offended and they require special
treatment. Malice, racism, segregation and other forms of abuse is not part of
this clause. Those are universally inexcusable.

~~~
mintplant
You, and most of the commenters in this thread, seem to have somehow missed
that the author specifically objects to using the singular "they". Perhaps
people are skipping to the comments and/or jumping to stock reactions to the
topic of gendered pronouns instead of reading and responding to the content of
the linked post. Otherwise, I've no idea why so much debate is ragimg around,
for example, "custom pronouns" (ze/xir/etc), when the original author doesn't
mention them at all.

~~~
TeMPOraL
There are two ways of avoiding dealing with gender in written communication in
English. You can use singular "they", or you can write in such a way gendered
pronouns or singular they are not necessary. The author seems to prefer the
second one as a stylistic choice, expressed that preference, and apparently
this was what got said author fired.

The way this decision and surrounding information about the new CoC can be
read, is that it's no longer about avoiding misgendering people. It's about
having to pay fealty. Writing around gendered pronouns means weaseling out of
having to make a stand on the issue, which labels you as the enemy.

~~~
tsukikage
Many discussion threads here seem to be losing sight of the fact that these
are internet forums. 99% of the time one doesn't have a clue what gender,
race, species etc one's interlocutor is.

There is a perfectly good third person pronoun for this situation. Some might
decry it as a neologism, but I suggest it has been around long enough and has
firmly entered the language:

"OP".

~~~
TeMPOraL
The worry is though, that under SE's new CoC, this would be found a violation
of "no twisting language to work around the gender pronouns" rule.

------
djsumdog
This is a topic no one can talk about today. Previous discussions on this on
HN quickly dropped off the page.

I've always found the concept of preferred gender pronouns to be problematic
from a pure technical perspective. But I was so afraid of the stigma I haven't
really written about it. Recent events made me finally publish this last
night:

[https://battlepenguin.com/philosophy/perspective/preferred-g...](https://battlepenguin.com/philosophy/perspective/preferred-
gender-pronouns/)

The summary: pronouns reduce cognitive load, because you can refer to someone
by a broad category. With custom pronouns, you now create a way to offend
someone in the base language.

~~~
dwaltrip
Have you ever met a single person who requested anything other than "he",
"she", or "they"?

Those aren't "custom pronouns". Are you pushing back against a real phenomena?

~~~
drdaeman
I've seen a few and that wasn't even online but in a meatspace, at a software
conference. A few persons had bagdes with pronouns other than "he/she/they".
Suppose that was a request of sorts. Although I haven't really talked to...
err... such people ("them"? "xzem?" "xirzey'm?" what I'm supposed to use for
"xe" and "ze" as a generalized group?), only saw that *ey (okay, does it
work?) exist, so can't really tell more.

------
conradfr
I'm appalled that moderators edit posts over pronouns. And not sure why the
gender or sexual orientation of people matters on a site where you can
basically be anonymous. I guess because I only read Stack Overflow questions
from Google searches there's a whole dimension of Stack Exchange that eludes
me.

On Twitter I know not to engage with people that specify their pronouns on
their bio, it's just a waste of time even for trolling. I guess it's something
that I can extend to SE and elsewhere.

And to be clear I've no problem with trans people and calling them what they
want, but sometimes it's just difficult to remind it all (and confusing over
different languages).

About CoCs: who would have thought? Well ...

~~~
martin_a
> And to be clear I've no problem with trans people and calling them what they
> want, but sometimes it's just difficult to remind it all (and confusing over
> different languages).

But wouldn't you have to look in every profile on SE before posting an answer
or comment to make sure you're up to date about the pronoun that person wants
to have used? At least that's what I understood is how it's supposed to be.

~~~
Fellshard
And you can be found retroactively in violation. Time is an element that is
continually rebuffed in consideration of these things.

~~~
martin_a
That was the next thing I was wondering about. Will there be some "visited
your profile"-marker or whatever so that somebody could be "innocent" because
he did actually not visit the profile or will that visit just be mandatory
before commenting on a post?

~~~
Fellshard
Not even that, but what if a post from some years back is now no longer using
matching pronouns?

~~~
conradfr
Maybe pronouns needs to be stored like vat so you can match them with a date.

~~~
TeMPOraL
So now, when referring to an Adam in a third person, I have to write things
like "I like 2019-10-07!his answer, ..."?

~~~
austincheney
One fair option is to outlaw pronouns in the entirety. While this is largely
absurd it solves for any and all related problems of emotional distress
equally to all people.

More seriously though, at one point is catering to somebody's _offense_ the
line too far? I am really of the mind that online posts that voice offense or
defensiveness should be flagged. To me offense is a lazy way to discard
disagreement when remaining objective or simply walking away are more
effective.

------
marcinzm
>The employee did not stay to field questions, but came back a couple hours
later to tell me "we've been as clear as we can and your values are out of
alignment".

The core issue as I see it isn't CoC or gender pronouns. Stack Overflow is
punishing people if their perceived internal views (ie: "values") are not the
same as a set of unwritten allowed views. So basically thought crime mixed
with McCarthyism. Except without any specific clarify on what the allowed
thoughts are.

~~~
harryh
StackOverflow is a community and communities are sustained by shared values.
It makes perfect sense to oust leaders from a community who are out of
alignment with the values the community wants to support.

~~~
blub
StackOverflow used to be a community of people wanting to share technical
knowledge.

Now I don't know what the F it is, but "pronouns" is about as far from
technical knowledge you can get...

~~~
smudgymcscmudge
That’s what surprises me about this. I see the StackExchange sites as a place
where people help each other make their software a little less crappy. In all
my years using it, I don’t think I’ve ever used a third person pronoun
(gendered or not) for another user. I don’t think anybody has used any pronoun
except “you” to refer to me either. Usually if I’m referenced at all it’s
“@smudgy’s answer is wrong because x,y and z”. How often can pronouns come up?

------
anoncareer0212
I'm mildly embarrassed to have written off critiques of the Great Awokening
via CoCs a few years ago – after a few more years dealing with adult life,
it's pretty clear that two constants are A) people, universally, can be in a
dark cloud where unrelated actions by unrelated people are a personal attack
on their existence B) authority _hates_ dealing with issues, especially the
more distant they are from you in the hierarchy, and will always choose the
option that keeps the largest crowd aware of the situation the quietest.

------
wendyshu
Stack Overflow hired a highly political, sanctimonious Community Manager and
this is the result.

E.g. he suggested users who didn't like the rules require therapy
[https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/389935/why-was-
the-...](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/389935/why-was-the-meta-
room-frozen) [http://archive.li/UGUNK](http://archive.li/UGUNK)

~~~
zschuessler
Both links 404 for me. Did they take down the link?

~~~
djsumdog
Yep. Archive.is has a version:

[http://archive.is/UGUNK](http://archive.is/UGUNK)

~~~
vunie
Also down unfortunately.

~~~
vsl
Are you using 1.1.1.1 for DNS? Archive.is actively blocks it to be
inaccessible.

~~~
vunie
That explains it. I just added 8.8.8.8 as a backup DNS and archive.is works
now. Thank you.

------
Wowfunhappy
I was ready to be on Monica's side until I found and read the leaked Teacher's
Lounge transcript. I'm now significantly more conflicted.

In the chat, Monica was asked many times, by _many_ other moderators, to
_please_ use "singular they" for people who she actively knew preferred that
pronoun. Monica flat out refused, saying it was confusing and grammatically
incorrect. She said she'd be happy to use literally any other word, including
"new" pronouns like "Xe". She also suggested that she could avoid using
pronouns altogether, either just for people who preferred singular they, or
universally for everyone. (Other moderators said this last option likely
_would have_ been fine had Monica not made known her reason for doing so.)

Now, on a purely personal level, I _also_ find singular they to be super
confusing in conversation, at least when the subject is unambiguous. But the
extent to which Monica refused to budge, _even after being told that she was
making colleagues uncomfortable_ , struck me as behavior that would need to be
disciplined in any formal workplace.

~~~
blub
There's no formal workplace where anyone would be disciplined because they
don't want to use "they".

This is simply not a concern in the real world, it's another storm in the
internet outrage tea cup.

~~~
einpoklum
Plus - Monica doesn't even f'ing _work_ for them! She's a volunteer moderator,
through elections. Well, she had been anyway.

~~~
Wowfunhappy
Volunteer positions are still positions with responsibilities. If you're doing
more harm than good, any good organization will ask you to leave.

~~~
einpoklum
It's a position to which you're elected by users, not posted by the company
which owns the website.

------
dmix
One of the many reasons I'd never work at a big company.

I just want to build software. I don't go to work to talk politics or have to
keep track of every person's political radicalism for fear of being fired.

I'd also prefer not to add even more social anxiety because I don't keep up
with the latest stuff on Twitter.

~~~
slig
Working from home used to make me feel anxious about being lonely and the lack
of networking. Now I know I made the right decision and plan to stick to it as
long as possible.

~~~
dmix
Coworking spaces help solve this. At least 2-3 times a week. Or find other
remote devs to work with at a space.

Nothing beats being around other smart and motivated people sometimes.

------
narrator
I'd like to learn how to force cultural change on people who don't want it and
don't care about it. It's just a really cool society hacking technique.

So how does a bill become a law with regards to this pronoun stuff? Who were
the people who initiated this policy? What motivated them to do it? Who
influenced them? Who influenced them? Who funded the whole movement?

4chan has been doing research into this by doing enough trolling that they got
the ok hand sign classified as a hate symbol. It seems, based on following the
timeline on that phenomenon that a lot of what is considered forbidden in our
culture is generated by certain 3 and 4 letter non-profits who feed that
information to Google, Facebook, and others. That's just the negative part of
it all though: how behavior becomes forbidden.

I want to know how behavior, like the pronoun stuff, becomes prescribed. I
want to use that machinery to get society to do strange stuff as civilization
level performance art.

~~~
TeMPOraL
If you ever discover the technique, please also make the civilization finally
do something about climate change and getting us gently off the exponent in
our economies. Sincerely, a time traveller from the 2080s.

~~~
narrator
Climate change has been screamed at you from every single information stream
in your entire universe. To act like you're the smart one who has to deliver
this to the people is the height of grandiosity.

What I am asking here is how do we regain control of The Spectacle of Guy
Debord for our own performance art projects that originate nowhere except our
very own minds.

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _The Spectacle of Guy Debord_

Is this a reference to something? I've seen wording similar to this somewhere
recently.

~~~
narrator
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Society_of_the_Spectacle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Society_of_the_Spectacle)

------
wozer
Not directly related, but I'm a bit afraid that as someone who is not a native
speaker of English, it becomes more and more difficult not to inadvertantly
cause a shit storm on American websites. People seem to become incredibly
sensitive to "correct speech".

~~~
audessuscest
It's not just more difficult, it also feels weird (to not say more). In
France, they want to change how to write things so you write the masculine and
feminine version of each word at the same time, and even though it looks like
the most stupid thing in the world, a lot of people working at university or
some politician do it.

Progress they say....

~~~
jraph
> they want to change how to write things

Who? Far from everybody.

> looks like the most stupid thing in the world

At the very least…

> Progress they say....

Almost nobody is for progress for the sake of progress. Rejecting a solution
that tries to address a (arguably) less-than-ideal status quo as stupid is not
very helpful. We could argue that the status quo is stupid too anyway. Don't
you see that the solution you find stupid (which you can, of course) is an
attempt to address something some people see as a problem?

At least, enlighten us with reasons why you find it stupid, it's easy to find
interesting things to say on this matter.

~~~
conradfr
It's unreadable and totally disconnected from the oral form and even these
people can't apply their made-up rules consistently.

------
throwaway8451
Might be a bit meta but could it be that there's a pretty widespread attitude
of 'wanting to be offended' and black and white 'with me or against me'
thinking in America (sorry if over-generalizing here), judging from what I get
to see on Twitter?

How's a society supposed to work like this? Could it be that assuming good
faith more often might be a starting point for a solution to a lot of
problems, this one included?

~~~
Aperocky
You find a common enemy to hate in unison, for example China. And then you
remind other black and white groups that hay we have greater things to hate.

~~~
nojvek
Come on. We’re all children of the Earth. Half of the shit we consume is made
in China. Let’s not spread xenophobia about an entire nation that makes 30% of
the world’s population

~~~
Aperocky
It's not xenophobia, just the sad reality. I've seen rhetoric against China
amp up from almost 0 to 100 real quick in the political discourse, to the
point where any accusation are generally held as verdict, and in turn
generates more hate. But we've seen it before and I'm kind of glad that even
though the hate is universal majority does not intend to invoke MAD, so
there's not much chance of an armed conflict (In comparison to Iraq/Libya)

------
Marazan
This person seems to think using 'they' as a singular is somehow wrong in
English.

That's not correct. It's been used since the 1500s and it was only when the
wave of idiot Victoria grammar prescriptivists started throwing weight around
that there was any dispute at all.

~~~
Freak_NL
I really like how simple it is in English to use the singular pronoun _they_
when the gender of the person you are referring to is not known. I find that
it reads a lot better than the compound _he /she_.

I wish we had something similar in Dutch that didn't sound like a kludge. If
we do, I haven't found it yet.

Interestingly, in Japanese it's rather easy to refer to people in a gender-
neutral way if you know either the profession or the name of that person; the
honorific suffixes for names (e.g., さん or 様) where we would use Mr/Mrs/Ms
don't differentiate by gender in Japanese and professions are often gender-
neutral in name.

It gets trickier if you don't have that information, because you tend to need
_he_ or _she_ (彼 and 彼女 respectively) or one of the very common age bracket
and gender specific classifiers like _(you who could be someone 's) sister_
(お姉さん) for any adult woman under the age of 35 (or older if you want to flirt
a bit). Of course there is always the generic _that person_ (あの方 or あの人).

Luckily, Japanese allows you to complete leave out the subject of a sentence
and still make sense if the context makes it clear, so there is that.

~~~
Strom
It's even easier in a language like Estonian where there's no grammatical
gender or gender pronouns at all. Everything is neutral/universal.

Example: _He wanted her number_ -> _Ta tahtis ta numbrit_.

If for some reason you want to give info about the gender you can use words
like _girl /woman/lady/grandma_ instead of the pronoun.

------
mlthoughts2018
This is a side question, but in regards to the actual gendered pronoun
discussion that seems to be at the center of the policy debate, what even is
the specific set of criteria being used?

It seems like someone is lobbying that moderators _must_ refer to others with
pronouns that the other person chooses. Doesn’t this obviously have unsolvable
problems, in principle?

\- most of the time, responses on a Stack Overflow site are content-specific
(“clinical”) and should not necessarily make reference to another human at all
(and probably should make efforts to avoid such references as often as
possible, for writing clarity).

\- when referencing another comment or answer or something, dry scientific
writing that does so without attributable language attaching it to a person
would be less controversial, more clear, and less likely to bring subjective
opinions into a matter of reference.

\- you could always make all references revert to a chosen username and
restructure language to have no concept of gender, which for clinical writing
is a huge positive aspect, and is in no way connected to the preferences of
those being referred to (by matter of it being clinical, not by any matter of
status of gender identity)

\- even if you assume you did need to refer by pronoun, how could Person A
know what pronoun Person B wishes to be referred by, unless explicitly stated
somewhere?

\- how could you prove negative intent when choosing not to use certain
pronouns, as opposed to a mistake, or pronoun identity that was not publicly
known, etc.?

I’m just curious how such a thing could ever conceivably be part of a policy
that restricts or controls clinical writing style in the moderation of a
forum. Regardless of all the moderator drama, it just appears to me like a
type of policy that functionally cannot exist, regardless of whether a
corporate entity declares it a policy or not.

~~~
Pfhreak
> \- how could you prove negative intent when choosing not to use certain
> pronouns, as opposed to a mistake, or pronoun identity that was not publicly
> known, etc.?

Same way you prove someone is posting maliciously in any other context -- you
make a judgement call based on history? If it looks like an honest mistake and
they say, "Whoops, my bad!", then it's no big deal?

> \- even if you assume you did need to refer by pronoun, how could Person A
> know what pronoun Person B wishes to be referred by, unless explicitly
> stated somewhere?

People who care about having the correct pronoun used will either gently
correct you or have their pronouns in their profiles.

~~~
mlthoughts2018
> “Same way you prove someone is posting maliciously in any other context --
> you make a judgement call based on history?“

Since when is that the evidenciary standard for making a decision like this?
At the very least that certainly doesn’t seem in line with Stack Overflow’s
policy (which favors assuming positive intent and working to rectify before
punishment), so seems implausible in that specific case. More generally, “make
a judgment call based on history” sounds like a recipe for huge abuses of
power and double standards in applying the policy. Instead you need clear
guidelines on exactly what it means (which seems near impossible in this
case.)

> “People who care about having the correct pronoun used will either gently
> correct you or have their pronouns in their profiles.”

There are a lot of problems with this. For one, it assumes you can identify
“people who care” and removes the possibility of people who might care but
don’t speak up for any variety of reasons.

More importantly though, without a clear policy on the first part, then
writing something which presents any way in which someone can “gently correct
you” may already be a violation of the code of conduct, or could selectively
be treated as such, with no hard guidelines by which someone could defend
themselves as having made an honest mistake.

Going further, a lot of the discussion in the SO meta posts seemed to be
around the idea that pursuing a gender-neutral writing style that structures
language so as to not need any type of pronoun reference _was itself a form of
misgendering or disrespect_. It’s not fully clear, but there’s significant
reason to think the people lobbying for the SO policy were trying to say that
you both _have to write using pronouns_ and also _have to know and use the
correct pronouns_ , and that any other type of behavior would potentially be
considered a violation.

~~~
Pfhreak
> Since when is that the evidenciary standard for making a decision like this?

Since internet forums were a thing? Actually, since law was a thing? There's
always a human in the loop, and the human is always making a judgement call.
In some cases there's a lot at stake, at other times there's very little. But
ultimately people look at the guidelines, look at the history, and make a
decision with the best info they have.

> More importantly though, without a clear policy on the first part, then
> writing something which presents any way in which someone can “gently
> correct you” may already be a violation of the code of conduct, or could
> selectively be treated as such, with no hard guidelines by which someone
> could defend themselves as having made an honest mistake.

You are arguing a problem that doesn't exist in practice. I use singular they.
I sometimes include it my profiles online, in other places I don't. If someone
gets it wrong and it bothers me I'll say, "Hey, no big deal, but I use
singular they."

I get one of two outcomes -- either a bunch of downvotes and insults, or a
"Whoops, my bad" response.

And we all move on.

------
michannne
> An employee with a "director" title posted and pinned a message saying the
> company is changing the CoC to require use of preferred pronouns and
> avoiding them is forbidden. I asked questions, most importantly: would it
> now be a violation of this new policy to write in the gender-neutral way
> that I already use? And how are you judging "avoiding", which requires
> knowledge of intent? Other people had questions and issues too. One
> moderator pointed out a problem with something I was proposing to do and I
> agreed after it was explained and said I wouldn't do that. The employee did
> not stay to field questions, but came back a couple hours later to tell me
> "we've been as clear as we can and your values are out of alignment".

In what world is this type of action supposed to be praised?

~~~
Pfhreak
Which action? The directors or the moderators?

------
terfwars
I am left leaning and have actively supported the LGBT community, campaigned
for marriage equality and helped raise someone who is LGBT and who suffered
from brutal bullying in school.

I have moved away from actively supporting the LGBT community but I still
support my friends and family. I did this because the toxicity and witch
hunting has gotten out of hand. We all used to fight the good fight. But the
community has transitioned into a culture that is creating an increasing
number of rules and tribes in order to differentiate themselves from the rest
of society and in order to 'trap' outsiders into making a faux pas and then
elevate themselves by pointing out the mistake. My sense is that this is a
vocal minority in the LGBT community, but also highly influential, and that
influence comes through fear of being called out.

If you'd like to see examples of some of the toxicity inside the LGBT
community itself, just do a search on TERF (Trans Exclusionary Radical
Feminist) on Reddit:
[https://www.reddit.com/search/?q=TERF](https://www.reddit.com/search/?q=TERF)

The LGBT community is managing to alienate those who used to vocally support
them. I think all of us hoped that we would some day be one people. Instead
there is a persecution underway of anyone who is not LGBT - and merely
pointing this out will see me accused of engaging in hate speech.

As a side note: The comment thread here is a bloodbath, in case you hadn't
noticed. Massive swings up upvoted and downvoted posts. The LGBT community
will no doubt explain this away as haters and extremists who waded in and
downvoted anything supportive. In fact many of us are supporters of human
equality. We just don't support persecution, witch hunts and people who need
to bring others down to elevate themselves.

~~~
michannne
The thing with HN and other forums which utilize an upvote/downvote feature,
is that it will always devolve into using downvote as a way to disagree with a
post, or to discourage certain opinions, then coming up with justification for
the downvote only after being called out on it.

I've accepted this inevitability, but that doesn't mean my opinion on issues
will change, the best you can do is to ignore your karma when it comes to
controversial topics or don't bother posting on them at all.

------
wwarner
This is a case in which a Code of Conduct actually creates confusion instead
of dispelling it. The more I think about it the sadder it is. It's tragic when
there should be a rule but when you reach for it you find instead there is an
empty space surrounded by razor wire where a rule should be.

~~~
einpoklum
The SO Code of Conduct was - I believe - not intended to create nor dispel
confusion. It was created to legitimize/bless authoritarian site
management/moderation practices with no due process. Before that code, there
was a general "be nice" principle, and informal customs regarding what happens
when you don't act nice. After the code, it became the accepted, hallowed norm
that you can be kicked off or otherwise harshly penalzied on almost a whim, no
input from by your peers, no public record of what had happened, no
opportunity to argue in your defense etc.

------
alexwennerberg
I don't find it to be unreasonable. If a trans person clearly states that her
pronouns are "she/her" and you twist your sentences around to avoid using
pronouns at all, that could certainly give the impression that you don't
recognize her identity as valid. I am not saying OP did this or did this
intentionally but it's not an unreasonable policy. It sounds to me (without
being intimately familiar with the situation) that OP has esoteric stylistic
preferences that are not transphobic but happen to be consistent with the
language that transphobic people will use.

Pronoun use is pretty straightforward. If someone says their pronouns, you use
their pronouns to refer to them, just like you would anyone else. It may feel
a little disorienting if you don't talk to many trans people and, for example,
they use singular "they" or have a pronoun that seems different than the one
that you would naturally assign to them based on their appearance, but it's
not difficult and you can get used to it pretty quickly.

The reason that people are so sensitive and strict about this is because the
stakes for trans people are very high -- some people don't believe trans
people exist, should exist, or should have the same rights as cis people.
Refusing to use the right pronouns reveals either a benign misunderstanding
about trans people or a willful hostility towards their existence. The latter
is extremely common and can be both hurtful and often scary, as trans people,
especially trans people of color, are often subject to violence because of
their identities.

~~~
pfortuny
And... how is it that you know when someone is __twisting __his or her
sentences?

~~~
geofft
Something like "Jenner said that Jenner's children all have a good
relationship with Jenner and that Jenner values Jenner's time with Jenner's
children."

(To be clear, I made this sentence up just now, I'm not quoting anyone, but
this is presumably the sort of thing that would motivate a policy against not
just misgendering but also deliberately avoiding the use of pronouns. If you
use this construction, and then use "he" to refer to, say, Daley Thompson,
you're sort of calling attention to your refusal to use a pronoun. My reading
of the article is this sort of thing is not the moderator in question's
intention, though.)

~~~
fencepost
Running with your totally made up example, what's the correct pronoun if the
writing is about an interview that happened in the 90s?

~~~
Pfhreak
Typically, you use someone's current pronouns, and in cases of celebrity you
might include something like "nee Bruce Jenner" in a parenthetical.

~~~
benrbray
"When Jenner won the 1976 men's decathalon, she was ecstatic."

~~~
geofft
That seems reasonable to me. Pronouns are mostly there to define a referent,
not to make you think about someone's gender presentation or genitals every
time you see the pronoun. So if you have a long article about Caitlin Jenner
and you consistently refer to her as "she," I think it won't actually be
jarring. (Similar to how if you repeatedly use "... he said" etc. in writing,
it subconsciously disappears to readers, but if you as a writer decide that
it's repetitive and you need to use other synonyms for "said" every time,
that's actually distracting.)

Of course maybe the real answer is to ask her what she'd prefer?

------
ph33t
In short ... too many people take themselves too seriously. too many people
reading the intent to malign from internet postings made by people intending
to help.

------
rjf72
It seems all sites that rely on free labor for moderation end up with similar
sorts of problems. Moderation is time consuming, tedious, and thankless work
when done well. Who wants to spend hours doing this each day without any
financial incentive? You end up getting folks attracted to having some degree
of power over people, or ability to enforce or espouse their own
views/values/ideologies, and so on. But all of these motivations are
completely antithetical to what the position 'ought' be about - which is
essentially a digital janitor.

Pay moderators and the problem goes away since you now attract a pretty normal
pool of people whose motivations might be earning a buck, or career
advancement. I think we can see that clearly enough here where it's self
evident that the moderators are paid. The problem of course is imagine a
larger site wants 100 moderators. OK, you can get 100 people who are going to
do a mixed job at best, but for free. Or you can pay $3,000,000 a year for the
same team. Most companies? Easy decision. That's a $3 million executive bonus
right there!

~~~
MauranKilom
I see no reason to believe that the involved mods are power-hungry. You
generally need to have invested tons of tedious unpaid volunteer work (raising
flags, reviewing questions/answers etc.) to become elected in the first place,
and the subsequent duties are more of that nature.

I mean, there surely is _some_ merit to your thesis, but I have no idea how
you think this is relevant to the situation in question. The people gravely
mishandling things are _exactly the paid employees_ , not the volunteer
moderators.

~~~
rjf72
You have to try to see things from their perspective. Any option they could
choose is going to be bad, so they're incentivized to choose what they
perceive to be the least negative one. Sexual/gender groups tend to be hyper
active on social media and organization - they are also extremely vigilant in
trying to socially damage any perceived enemies. Had Stack Exchange chosen to
not act they would likely be facing an angry mob of people who are hyper
active on social media hounding them about not being inclusive, engaging in
[--]phobia, bigotry, etc.

They probably simply felt that firing one moderator was easier than dealing
with what was likely to become a deluge of public relations damage if they did
nothing. Depending upon the laws in New York, there would even be the
potential of them facing discrimination or other lawsuits. Regardless of the
merit of the claims, it would be enough to severely hurt the company. For
instance see Ellen Pao vs Kleiner Perkins. Even though she decisively lost
every single claim, their company's name and image was dragged through the mud
for months in many major media outlets that draw tech oriented readership. And
that's a company that doesn't, in the same way, rely on general populace brand
value.

The solution, like many things, is to never put yourself in this position to
begin with. And that starts with _paying_ for your labor.

\--

As for the mod selection process itself, it's the same thing everywhere. In
general moderators are hired from the community. The problem is the people you
don't want to be mods are the ones that'd be most interested in such a
position, whereas the people you do want are generally not going to be willing
to do it without compensation. There are some exceptions of course, but I
think it's becoming increasingly clear that they are indeed the exception.

------
throws_gender
This was touched on briefly in the article, but maybe someone else here can
shed some light on this here.

Is it not super confusing for gender neutral to use the 'they' pronoun? It's
already in use in the English language. Every time I've heard people try to
use it in conversation it's sounded like an Abbott and Costello routine.

~~~
ergocoder
As a non-native english speaker, using singular "they" is confusing. It may
even negatively impact some people.

I've seen a recommendation that we should use "on another hand" instead of "on
the other hand". Because, you know, we should avoid seeing things as black and
white. I agree. Things often have more than 2 sides.

My English teacher said "on another hand" wasn't acceptable. You might be
deducted point in a situation like TOEFL exam.

Another example is "I ain't" in some other dialects. We don't want to
discriminate against certain groups. But, at the same time, it's wrong to use
those phrases :S

Using a singular "they" is on a different level of being problematic. You
don't wanna look illiterate in a situation like TOEFL exam and some other
official situation. On another hand, you don't want to be publicly shamed and
ganged up for misgendering others.

~~~
Freak_NL
> My English teacher said "on another hand" wasn't acceptable. You might be
> deducted point in a situation like TOEFL exam.

That is likely because 'on the other hand' is what is known as an idiom; a
fixed saying. Even if some people are advocating for change of certain idioms,
as a (second language) student of a language you are ill-advised to take the
liberty of promoting such a novel phrasing, because people may find it hard to
tell if you are making a mistake (and that they should adjust their language
to your perceived level) or are in fact advocating a different way of saying
things.

When taking an exam you are of course expected to use only language that is
currently seen as obviously correct, because the examiner cannot tell the
difference either.

> "on another hand"

This seems silly. You use _on the other hand_ to contrast two viewpoints.
There are other idioms for enumerating more than two.

~~~
stordoff
> You use on the other hand to contrast two viewpoints. There are other idioms
> for enumerating more than two.

I sometimes find myself using "on the other hand" to contrast three or more
view points, and end up saying "on the other hand" twice. Occasionally, I'll
use "on one hand...on the other hand...on another hand/on a third hand".

------
reilly3000
I know this isn't what is at issue here, but I can't help but feel it's
connected:

Gendered language runs deep, especially in languages like Spanish. Essentially
anything ending in 'a' is considered feminine, and anything ending in 'o' is
considered masculine. How could one hope to bring equality or neutrality to
such language? It almost seems like a new language altogether would be easier
than fighting to modify thousand-year histories and trillions of written
words.

I'm all for healthy dialog that leads to ending oppressive norms, building
compassion and inclusion. This situation feels like its own form of
oppression, and as such ought to be questioned, if not resisted.

I honestly think everybody at the table here is trying to do the right thing
as they see it, yet almost everyone is going to walk away hurt; there are no
winners.

------
ng12
I don't understand why this has become such a common theme in the tech world.
A small clique of non-binary/LGBTQ+ people who wield undue amounts of soft
power and use that soft power to fight pseudo-political internet battles. I've
yet to experience this with any other subculture I'm involved in.

~~~
oefrha
A few years ago when I was a member of a relatively high profile open source
project, I myself was once (informally) accused of non-inclusive behavior
towards a trans person. It was a very confusing experience because I didn’t
even know that person’s gender up until that point, much less whether they
were trans or not; I only found out after the accusation. Nor did I ever care
about their gender before or after the incident — the only thing I gave a damn
about was the code they produced. Turns out my complaint against a poorly
thought-out feature of theirs (which was greenlighted by the project lead,
landed despite much opposition, and subsequently caused quite severe breakage)
was distorted as an attack against their gender.

That experience and experience from other clashes against the broader CoC-
wielding crowd, either firsthand or secondhand, tells me that people who are
determined to inject identity politics into software are either (a) honestly
over-sensitive, can’t imagine other people not giving a shit; or (b) using CoC
as a convenient tool to end technical debates (when they’re out of arguments
or don’t want to argue further) with folks who prefer a more blunt
communication style.

~~~
IanSanders
>Turns out my complaint against a poorly thought-out feature of theirs (which
was greenlighted by the project lead, landed despite much opposition, and
subsequently caused quite severe breakage) was distorted as an attack against
their gender.

You can subvert any community/organisation/process this way. Social "grenade"
in a sense. Scary.

------
nabdab
There is an awefull lot of gender neutral references in the CTO’s apology,
even though it obviously knows that the fired moderators preferred pronouns
are the female gendered ones. Someone should edit to remove all the gender
neutral references to make a point how silly such a policy is.

------
vagab0nd
[https://waitbutwhy.com/2019/08/stick-figure-
guide.html](https://waitbutwhy.com/2019/08/stick-figure-guide.html)

~~~
cryptozeus
Exactly

“3) Use “they” “them” and “their” as gender-neutral pronouns. Almost a good
plan, but it doesn’t work. Too often I’ll be talking about two WBW characters,
and when I say “they,” readers can’t tell if I’m referring to the one I was
just talking about or to both of them.”

~~~
jraph
Do you have a hard time to understand from the context whether "you" is plural
or singular? It seems like it is the same problem but nobody is out there
arguing that we should find a way to disambiguate this.

~~~
MauranKilom
Unlike singular "you", singular "they" can refer to different people.

------
jumpingmice
I've seen first-hand people whining online that someone used the initialism
"LGBT" which apparently can be considered exclusionary by some people. It
seems that "LGBTQIAGNC" exists and may be more expansive, however I can't rule
out the existence of some person who objects to even this.

~~~
scoot
How about "[A-Z]" ?

~~~
jumpingmice
The problem is the people who object to LGBT would see a wildcard expression
in the same way that "black lives matter" folks see "all lives matter": as an
attempt by an oppressive majority to erase their minority identity. For me the
problem is how these things come up in a professional context. The culture of
"bring your whole self to work" seems good at first reading but what it really
means is bringing a lot of irrelevant things to work, none of which are
contributing to the well-being of the workplace. I don't want anyone on my
team to feel excluded at work but I also don't want anyone on my team to feel
like that one non-binary activist from the adjacent team is going to report
them to HR because they overheard them saying "LGBT" and "LGBT" is
exclusionary to nonbinary people. That stuff belongs at the cafe or library or
the debate salon, not in the workplace.

~~~
kube-system
I'm not so sure about that. 'LGBTQIA+' is widely accepted, and the '+' is a
wildcard.

~~~
millwork
>and the '+' is a wildcard.

Well that's just not proper regexp.

------
laurex
At the risk of making mistakes here, where I've come to personally, in a
journey to understand myself, is that the idea of gender seems artificial in
general, for the most part. I've been in a relationship with someone who felt
strongly about being identified "correctly" when they had transitioned, and
also with people who absolutely assume they'll be identified "correctly," when
they had never particularly explored an alternative to how they were
designated at birth. For me, I'm not upset when gender pronouns are applied to
me, but I'd prefer to not be identified this way, even though I often feel
since identification with the cultural experience of being identified as
gendered.

I've had some frustration that "they" has become the "neutral" pronoun, when
earlier I felt more personally identified with pronouns that still
disambiguated plural and singular more clearly, but a friend pointed out that
if referring to an unidentified singular person, "they" is perfectly
grammatical (i.e. "did someone deliver the mail?" "Yes, they did."). I am
concerned that so much of the focus is placed on the problem of the word,
without acknowledging the more fundamental question of willingness to consider
if gendered pronouns are necessary.

What seems problematic for me is trying to strike a balance between personal
identity and "correct" speech. Most of the time, "making sure" that a gender
is assigned in speech doesn't feel relevant to actually understanding general
meaning. I appreciate language that better avoids pronouns rather than uses
them as a means to add clarity. It feels to me that is possible to respect
gender identity without requiring language to be gendered in a general way. At
the same time, I've myself tried to take gender out of my speech and I fall
constantly.

Fundamentally, it feels like a cultural moment where it feels like we're
focusing on very black and white ideas and feeling that others are "not
listening," or on the other hand, "forcing me to do something I feel
uncomfortable about and lying in wait for me to make a mistake." When there's
a possiblity for openness, there's also the possibility of vulnerability,
whereas in a cultural context, it seems like we're moving towards walls and
fortification, which makes me pretty sad and concerned that there's not space
for nuance.

------
ben_jones
> The tone of the answer was pretty combative and people downvoted for that
> reason (as noted in comments). OP interpreted downvotes as transphobia.
> There was another answer that said something like "cultural awareness /
> different cultures, as part of D&I" that was presented positively and got a
> lot of support. (I know gender != culture; I'm pointing out that another D&I
> answer, presented constructively, was well-received.)

Seems like an age old tale of management assessing a situations potential
liability as high, and promptly responding with a zero tolerance policy and
throwing someone under the bus to protect themselves.

------
m-p-3
What a mess of a slippery slope..

------
Lazare
Stack Overflow has handled the communication and PR side of this about as
badly as a company can, and I started - and still want to be - on the side of
the moderators.

However, as near as I can tell from piecing together the different leaks, it
turns out a core issue was that Monica Cellio refused to use the singular
"they" construction, _including when she knew that was someone 's preferred
pronoun_.

In my view she is 1) objectively grammatically wrong and 2) just being
needlessly rude. And ultimately, I can't bring myself to support this position
at all. If you lost your moderator role because of a refusal to use a widely
used and accepted English construction, even though you knew this refusal
would hurt people, then uh, I hope you're happy with your life choices, but I
have no sympathy for you.

~~~
nullc
When you say 'refused to use' it sounds like you're saying Monica insisted on
the wrong pronoun. But my understanding is that the argument was around
drafting to simply avoid the use of pronouns entirely.

I've never previously seen it described as rude to write text that simply
didn't use pronouns, in and of itself.

------
wolco
Isn't a mod a volunteer position? Why waste years working for free without any
control?

~~~
greggman2
do volunteers for not-tech things have control?

I don't feel like I'm working for free when I contribute to stack overflow. I
feel like some company is running a mostly free site (until recently just job
ads you can turn off).

I volunteer to help others. I assume most others do the same. It just feels
good in the same way I'm assuming other volunteer activities feel good. Of
course not everything feels good but over all when I've managed to answer
someone's question it feels like the same feeling I get helping someone on a
non-tech way.

~~~
wolco
I understand the helping feeling.

Stack overflow just hired a ceo to extract as much value as possible. They
should pay you or reward you for years of service. You've saved them
personally over 250k if you have been doing this for 5 years or more.

Volunteering so a for profit company feels helpful but who are you helping? If
no one volunteered then someone paid would perform the same tasks...

------
rdiddly
If referring to someone by the correct pronoun is respectful, referring to
them by their _name_ is even more respectful in my book. Or avoid talking
_about_ them in the third person where possible and only talk _to_ them, for
example. These are among the ways of "writing around" the pronoun, and they're
both _more_ respectful than using the pronoun. I suspect they're more
constructive and efficient in other ways too, but would have to pay attention
to see whether that's true. Anyway, if English is like code, all the pronoun
solutions are currently hacks, so I'm all in favor of refactoring to avoid
them.

~~~
abhorrence
I think what you’re saying is true in the case where you apply it consistently
to all people you talk about. When someone knows many people’s preference of
pronouns but singles one out with “they”, name or avoidance of pronoun, that’s
where the disrespect starts creeping back in.

------
throwaway8291
Language is a sensible thing, and draws all kinds of demarcations. A single
word can shift the perception of a person. A circle might identify an outlier
by just a slip of tongue.

If you are from another socioeconomic stratum (or somewhere else in the
capital quadrant), you might never learn a certain language, that provides a
common ground. There are unspeakable things, I can think of, that I would
never ever bring up in a conversation with a random person.

These exclusions and inclusion have already been there, it seems like some
fights are more naked now, uncovered, harsh and sometimes meaningless to
someone not involved.

I was a top SO contributor and very much enjoyed the site - and still enjoy
finding answers. I fear, I will be policed at some point for something - but
maybe not, because I am usually agreeable - but who knows: only time will
tell.

Edit: I am usually not that impartial, but there is a discourse (where this
particular thread might belong to), where I am not able to take sides -
because my gut feeling says: you cannot shift the responsibility you have,
when you interact with another person, to some abstract law, entity, or
something else - it has to be you, to show respect and to allow for a common
room for everyone - which does not mean, that the room is just there of one.

------
Waterluvian
I identify as a gender akin to a math wizard. The correct pronoun is a newly
discovered prime number, unique each time. You know my preferred pronoun so
please don't use "they."

Now this seems absurd but dare you call me out on it and tell me I'm not
actually who I am? Are we all entitled to commanding everyone's use of the
language by constructing and dictating pronoun usage?

I've had an easy time with gender issues in my life because I'm pretty
carefree and accommodating. But I'm trying to understand where it goes from
here.

I don't see how we can go past he/she/they because it opens the floodgates to
an infinite number of more pronouns, does it not? How does any group get to
decide which new pronouns have enough subscribers to be added to the official
list?

It feels like in a gender fluid model, pronouns just don't work. "He" and
"she" are legacy and "they" is the catch all. So I kind of get this idea of
just not using them anymore. But does that feel manifestly absurd to anyone
else?

This is also why I enjoy the internet so much. Gender doesn't matter and I
have mastered picturing everyone as a cat on a keyboard.

------
pkaye
People are worried about pronouns meanwhile the supreme court is revisiting
the LGBTQ workplace protections laws...
[https://www.vox.com/2019/10/2/20883827/supreme-court-
lgbtq-d...](https://www.vox.com/2019/10/2/20883827/supreme-court-lgbtq-
discrimination-title-vii-civil-rights-gay-trans-queer)

------
einpoklum
This storm is really _not_ about gender pronouns, nor about the use of
singular "they", nor about inclusivity.

It is all about how StackExchange Inc. is managing the StackExchange network;
and the liberties it allows itself vis-a-vis individual moderators and the
community at large.

The fiasco is that the answers to these two questions are really bad.

------
sawmurai
And that’s why I am not twitter anymore ^^ just one giant minefield

------
anm89
I don't think anybody is in the wrong here. These types of forums are communal
in nature, they are the sum of the people who use them. There is really no
right or wrong here, if a thing bothers enough people within a community for
them to speak up then rule changes should be made if that is the consensus
based o. The power structure. If those rule changes push community members
away then that is a natural consequence.

But all of the above is why I feel that it is unwise to engage with these
types of communities or at least that you need to be very selective when you
do. It's either a dictatorship or mob rule and if you buy into these
communities as part of your identity with out being sure your values are
aligned with it's, you're bound to end up frustrated.

------
hirundo
It's hard to know what people want to be called, but there's a technical fix
for that: add keywords to comments, etc., so that Stack Overflow can know it
for you. E.g.

"%pronoun% was a legend in %possessive-pronoun%'s own mind."

Just another markup feature. Let people enter their pronouns in their
profiles, and simply substitute them as needed. This at least relieves the
burden of knowing the intimate preferences of strangers. Use something
neutral, like xe, and xer, for the default, and let users choose their own
defaults.

But if this is about something other than sparing people's feelings then this
wouldn't help.

~~~
johnday
One immediate problem that springs to mind would be for the "they" pronoun
which conjugates differently.

------
cryptozeus
Disagreement between mod and policy makers is hardly a stack Overflow fiasco.

~~~
luckylion
What would you call ~15% of the moderators quitting, the community largely
unified and heavily confronting the company?

~~~
scarejunba
A storm in a teacup. It's the usual internal politics in these communities.
Because the stakes are so low, people's reactions are more violent.

------
hendersoon
The argument came down to "call people what they want to be called" vs. "don't
call people what they don't want to be called". The banned moderator preferred
the latter. Either seems perfectly fine to me but I don't belong to any of the
impacted minorities myself.

Firing someone, even from a volunteer position, over that specific argument
seems like a severe overreaction. Assuming we got the whole story, of course.

Internet drama. Tempest in a teapot.

------
RobertRoberts
Compelled speech should be illegal.

What if my preferred pronoun is "lordmasterofall"? Can I call on the full
force of the law to demand its use?

------
blondin
tangent but, omg livejournal is back?!

~~~
phyzome
Sort of, yeah. Dreamwidth is a fork of the codebase and has some of the
original developers. Technically, Livejournal is still around too, but a lot
of people migrated when LJ was bought by a Russian company and later when the
servers moved to Russia as well. LJ is a total ghost town now.

------
sword_smith
Seeing that the instigator's post is the most downvoted I have ever come
across on Stack Exchange, I thought of the saying "the Revolution devours its
children".

------
King-Aaron
Personally, I go to stack overflow to find out about problems with my code,
not about what set of genitals a person has.

------
Simulacra
Shouldn't the point be to reduce conflict and increase communication? I don't
see that here...

------
scarejunba
What happens to a sentence like " Elle est intelligente". Do the conjugations
change to be neuter?

------
Wowfunhappy
Edit: Never mind

~~~
andreareina
Why shouldn't it apply? The participants of the chat are entitled to their
privacy. If there were some harm to the public at large I'd recognize that as
being an extenuating circumstance but in this case even the party claiming to
be wronged sees the issue of privacy as taking precedence[1].

[1] [https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/334248/an-update-
to...](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/334248/an-update-to-our-
community-and-an-apology/334427#comment1095551_334427)

------
burneraccount12
60 million starving children in Africa. Something like 25,000 people die every
year to war. The US president, leader of the free world, is facing possible
impeachment.

And what are we worried about? Pronoun use and codes of conduct on software
Q&A websites.

Give. Me. A. Break.

Almost 2,000 words on it, no less. Talk about 15 minutes of my life I'll never
have back.

I'm trying to think if there's something dumber to argue about than this, but
right now I can't.

Not sure how the world will continue to spin on its axis what with the
bloodbath of moderators on StackExchange but somehow the universe will find a
way to carry on.

~~~
dmitrybrant
This is actually extremely poignant, because it's a neat encapsulation of the
entire political climate in the US. While the far left are busy arguing and
cannibalizing themselves over pronouns, the Republicans are busy getting
_elected_.

Imagine if these people spent a tenth of that energy on striving towards
positions of actual political power. But no, they must really want four more
years of Trump -- why else would they spend an iota of energy on this
nonsense?

~~~
blub
This is not only happening in the US, but also Western Europe.

Left-leaning social and political elites have jumped the political correctness
shark so hard that they're not being taken seriously by a significant amount
of the population which feel patronized and lied to and turn to voting anyone
that will at least validate their concerns.

------
gcb0
Is this the new hollywood black list/red scare?

Tech behemoths, full of privileged people on top, use the false pretense of
respecting pronouns or other minority demands, to actually oust people that
care about such issues in the first place?

------
eej2ya1K
This is what happens when corporate codes meet kindergarten mindsets. The
longer this continues, the worse the blowback is going to get - I'm just happy
to be far enough away to not have to care (protip: get the fuck out of the
anglosphere as soon as possible)

~~~
iagovar
Yeah this seems an issue in the anglosphere, but similar issues are arising in
Spanish though. There's also push to change the language in weird ways from
the left, although it's true that is not as widespread.

~~~
millwork
The really interesting thing about all this CoC nonsense is how it's making
strange bedfellows between some on the right and the left who have a keen
interest in civil liberties. I'm a lifelong social democrat and have a lot of
issues with barely-regulated free markets, but holy hell am I ever sick and
tired of this identity-politics BS. I just want poor people to have free
healthcare and educational opportunities, man. I didn't sign up for this
personal-pronoun-crusade crap.

If I ever start a project where I need to implement some kind of CoC, I'm
going to base it on the friggin' Discordian Five Commandments and call it a
day.

~~~
iagovar
I'm basically in that place. I'm also a social democrat, yet I'm seen myself
distanced from the left, be it parties, social movements and so on, as they
seem to embrace this more and more. I also studied sociology so I can spot the
BS from miles ahead, even from people who pretends to be thoughtful and so on.

The problem is that my threshold for this BS has become so low that I'm
basically rolling my eyes every time I see it on TV, press or anywhere else.
It looks like the media is really pushing for it, be it because of profits or
some conspiracy-agenda. Sometimes it causes me anger to see how people is
completely distracted from very deep problems that we have to face, be my
country or the whole humanity.

I even lost contact with some lefty "friends" and acquaintances because of my
stances on this, which I found very sad. It made me avoid to talk about
politics, which was something I talked with everyone in the past.

------
0x262d
these comments are a cesspool

------
XPKBandMaidCzun
I have a WIP theory about this type of person on social media.

This isn't about validation or inclusion, if it was, it'd have been over
_years_ ago. We're deep in malingering territory now.

1\. Creating a divisive persona / Integration

Their bio may mention their membership in an off topic, but sensitive,
divisive and prickly issue. The goal is to draw attention to the sensitive
issue in the next phases.

They join the group, sometimes not even in the actual working parts of it, but
after party social/meta scenes.

2\. Exposure and Hijacking

They will tend to put themselves into conversation, conferences, etc. in
preparation and in compulsion recreate the issue. The goal is to shift people
focused diligently to shift their attention to being a caregiver not for their
project or teammates, but to _them_.

3\. Special VIP treatment

Then they get a big smirk when people when management get tongue tied trying
to navigate it gracefully. We've seen many surprising public concessions to
these types, sometimes based off very flimsy reasons. Which tends to _really
annoy_ people who just want to work.

Passerbys also unwittingly aid their endeavors, mistakenly believing they're
helping someone disenfranchised and in need.

4\. Consolidating (destruction)

When they get the thumbs up on being VIP, they can now consolidate their gains
and show what the world is like when only their feelings are cared for.

Cancel culture, trying to ruin people's careers, get them banned, getting in
fights with their bosses and chain of command etc. This way they can solidify
their need for special treatment.

It's a continual loop of positive reinforcement for them. Since people in
power and passerby always cave to them, unwittingly creating more division in
an already annoyed community.

5\. Preservation / Preemption

To draw the sting of critics, they beat them to the punch by calling _them_
entitled and privileged. Further accuse critics can't grasp and judge their
unique plight and never can. Demonstrating evidence of hypocrisy simply
validates their presupposition they're underdogs being hounded. So they can
repeat and get more concessions and attention.

Other facets: My original theory is it was validation based. It maybe play a
role, it's a multi-faceted thing, such as feeling ashamed of their activity
some how and want to "come out" in public. But if it was _just_ that, wouldn't
they get it off their chest and just over it?

------
busterarm
SO seemed all crazypants to me years ago when all of the moderators started
zealously closing down topics as off-topic or duplicate that the moderator had
clearly misunderstood.

That desire to maintain some precious perfect garden of facts drove me to
leave and never look back. Glad I did.

------
recycler02
I've been watching Ken Burns' "The Civil War". There was a bit that got me
thinking about something which I've had trouble fully defining.

In one of the episodes, a historian talks about the simplicity of the values
of the soldiers in that war. He marvels at how they were willing to march a
mile and a half across an open field against a fortified enemy position. Think
of the Union soldiers at Fredericksburg or the Confederate soldiers under Hood
at Franklin. The historian also talks about how, were he in that situation, he
feels like his response might have been "Sir, I don't believe that's a good
idea sir" but how they bore it year after year and slaughter after slaughter.

Someone misgendering another person is a cruelty, just like any bully teasing
a vulnerable person. There have always been cruel people though.

Juxtaposing that example of historical resilience against the increasingly
baroque etiquette we require to insulate ourselves from experiencing garden
variety cruelty, there's an incongruency that bothers me. Why could they bear
that but we cannot bear this?

------
paul7986
Give it 20 to 30 years and he or she won't be used anymore. It will become an
HR issue.

Things change.

~~~
bbanyc
You say that like it's a bad thing. Getting rid of gendered language would
eliminate so many misunderstandings and bigotries (both accidental and
intentional) that it seems like the obvious choice, especially when you
consider that future generations will be raised with it sounding natural.

But I don't think it's going to happen.

~~~
echelon
> Getting rid of gendered language would eliminate so many misunderstandings
> and bigotries

That's only one of so many dimensions. Take it a step further and get rid of
all racial and ethnic language.

And ageist language. And ableist.

Socio-economic, religious, political.

Anything that separates us.

