
Brothers, I Must Go - tomohawk
https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6718/brothers-i-must-go
======
rozab
So this guys problem is that the new CoC requires him to respect peoples
chosen pronouns? And it looks like this was that Monica person's problem too.

I think SE are totally within their rights to enforce a policy like this
without negotiation, although clearly a miscommunication has occurred. I think
the people who object to it are imagining a situation with a mythical SJW
boogeyperson saying "Don't misgender me! my pronouns are xe/xem/xyr on
weekdays and xi/hir/hir after 7 o'clock, unless I feel like a ve/ver/vis in
which case you must read my mind and use those."

In reality, I think the likely scenario is more like "I'm a she :)", and
unless you continue to use 'he' pronouns then there isn't a problem.

When put this way, it sounds like a much more reasonable policy and I think it
would be fair to eject people who object to this from the community ( _with
due process_ of course).

SE have failed to communicate this properly, and also have failed to react to
this crisis in a reasonable way. However, from reading this blog post (which
actually goes as far as to quote that "First they came..." poem), and Monica's
one, I suspect this is not the root of the problem. Not all beliefs can or
should be tolerated, as is touched upon in a quote in Monica's post. That is
the purpose of a CoC, to set up a reasonable framework of rules upon which
debate and discussion can take place.

~~~
XCabbage
> In reality, I think the likely scenario is more like "I'm a she :)", and
> unless you continue to use 'he' pronouns then there isn't a problem.

This is flatly contradicted by both Caleb's post (upon which this whole thread
is based) and Monica's.

Caleb resigned because the new rules proposed would not allow him to
compromise by simply referring to trans people by name and avoiding all
pronouns. His issue is not that he insists on using "he" for a transwoman, but
that he refuses to use "she", and would rather stick to names.

Likewise, per the from-memory transcript she posted, Monica - who has no issue
referring to a person who has changed gender by their preferred gendered
pronoun! - simply stated that she often prefers to avoid the singular
genderless "they" when referring to a specific person, and so would prefer to
refer to a person who has that as their preferred pronoun by name. That,
apparently, was enough to get her fired.

~~~
jasonvorhe
Then why don't they just use the pronouns the persons chose and communicated
to address them?

~~~
vnth93
Apparently the person was concerned that this would allow people to control
any narrative they want. For example he suggested that nobody should have to
be obligated to acknowledged him as, say, a Christian. I genuinely dont know
if this is a good equivalence.

~~~
horsawlarway
I actually think it's a very strong equivalence.

Both are self selected descriptors which could be reasonably objected to
without denigrating or disrespecting the person specifically.

Removing the ability to engage in thoughtful conversation where parties
disagree is a travesty.

I'll be blunt - as a strong atheist, I'm in full agreement with the moderator
who posted this. I personally don't agree with his opinions on gender
pronouns, but I think his point stands loud and clear: Respectful disagreement
is no longer allowed.

I think that is especially poignant given the community he moderates almost
certainly aligns with his views.

I believe many of the communities that press these gender issues are broken.
Not because I care about "pronouns" but because when disagreement with the
majority opinion is IN ITSELF considered an insult worthy of exclusion or
derision, there is no longer any apparatus to allow honest discussion.

I have the same opinion of the most restrictive church communities. The mental
process is the same - Disagreement is threatening, remove the threat through
ostracism and social pressure instead of honest conversation. Fuck that. Fuck
that on both sides.

~~~
vnth93
I guess it is equivalent in some ways. In modern society we don't really see
religion as fundamental to personhood, or perhaps not to the extent of gender.
And many would argue that a person do not choose their gender, although since
I'm also not religious, I can't tell if religious people see themselves as
"choosing" their religion or not.

As for respectful disagreement, far as I can tell, concerning pronouns, if
people see discussion as tantamount to disrespect, it is often because they
believe that the overwhelming majority of people who insist on pronouns should
be taken in good faith. There will always be people who use discussion as an
excuse to in fact disrespect. It is a difficult issue and I really don't know
what to think.

~~~
alerque
> we don't really see religion as fundamental to personhood

In saying this, you are doing exactly the thing that I've been called a bigot
for. You've excluded me from "we" because I do see religion as fundamental to
my identity. In fact my identify is first and foremost defined by the my maker
and redeemer. If the God who made the very material from which I am made and
breathed breath into my body isn't allowed to be a core part of my identity,
then what is? Just because you believe I'm wrong about those facts doesn't
give you the right to force me to affirm your view of them.

~~~
isityouyesitsme
I do not understand why someone would downvote this.

A question was asked, then it was answered by the only party who can give an
accurate answer.

This vote demonstrates to me the animus towards people of faith. This is an
example of the wrong-headedness in how we approach disagreements. Conform or
leave.

------
bjourne
Apparently there is an ongoing Stack Exchange sites' moderator rebellion:
[https://judaism.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5193/stack-...](https://judaism.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5193/stack-
overflow-inc-sinat-chinam-and-the-goat-for-azazel)
[https://cs.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1650/i-am-
resign...](https://cs.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1650/i-am-resigning-as-
a-moderator) [https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/333965/firing-
mods-...](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/333965/firing-mods-and-
forced-relicensing-is-stack-exchange-still-interested-in-cooper)

------
beerandt
I've heard hundreds of versions of this metaphor, but none so affectively well
phrased and poignant.

>That agency has been stripped away from us. I feel like if I stay hiding
behind my diamond moderator I'll be like a captain staying at the tiller of a
boat whose rudder has been removed. The wheel I'm holding doesn't do anything
any more and I know it. So why pretend this is going to be anything but a
shipwreck eventually?

Regardless of one's viewpoint, the whole letter is a great example of
persuasive-testimony. Or I thought so, anyway.

~~~
alerque
Thanks, I hope I didn't ruin it just now with all the copy-editing ;-)

------
charwalker
Can someone leak the new CoC so we can actually see if these issues are valid
or, as all of these self posts seem to be, just transphobic mods going their
own way?

------
amai
There have been many incidents like this lately:
[https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/333965/firing-
mods-...](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/333965/firing-mods-and-
forced-relicensing-is-stack-exchange-still-interested-in-cooper)

------
vcoelho
Yep, definetely this dude must go.

~~~
alerque
Do you think I am unfit to moderate the specific site and community I was
appointed (and later elected) to moderate? Does any of my history indicate
that I did a bad job of that? Has any of my history on any other site on the
network been offensive or been disrespectful even when I disagreed?

Or are you just happy to see less platform space given to belief systems that
differ from your own?

