Monica Cellio's account: https://judaism.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5193/stack-...
A news paper article on the situation: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/10/01/stack_exchange_cont...
A list of mods fired or resigned: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/333965/firing-mods-...
A mods reasons for leaving: https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6718/b...
The reason her questions and were met with summary punishment was due to the fact that the moral crusaders she was attempting to engage with do not tolerate ideological noncompliance. There was no “misunderstanding.” Chipps and the rest could detect that she was likely to continue to ask questions about the policy, and anyone who dares question such policies is clearly a “bigot” and a “transphobe,” and why would you want someone like that to be a moderator?
Word to the wise: people like this (moral crusaders) will not hesitate to burn your organization to the ground if they don’t get their way. They’ll run coups (like this), condemn you on Twitter, and scare everyone into first being silent, then leaving the org, either out of fear of being the next to be condemned, or just the exhaustion of dealing with it all. I have seen this happen to non-profits, conferences, even private school boards (take a look at Oberlin for an example). If you get crusaders like this in your org, you should consider it an existential threat.
Well, off to delete my Stack Overflow account.
I searched the net for a bit and it seems the way to do it is via:
- Select Other in the drop-down list,
- Then you enter a message that you want them to do delete your accounts for you.
If the tech world doesn't realize that having only people on the left and people on the far left is not cultural diversity it will be plagued with this stuff forever.
> If you get crusaders like this in your org, you should consider it an existential threat.
Completely agree. This destructive behavior alone should be reason enough to reject these people, regardless of the merits of their cause. Nobody should be excluded for questioning some rules or debating some definitions or whatever.
I won't delete my account but I will refrain from contributing to the site in the future.
Don't delete your account -- that's a half-measure.
Never use the sites again. Not even the Google / DuckDuckGo SERP clips or some CopyLeft derivative.
People are really really afraid to talk about this particular topic (which they don't mention in the statement), because this type of call-out to be banned happens a lot.
The book "The Coddling of the American Mind" is an amazing book that documents how this is happening in academia, and it's happening on the software world too. Most people in our industry, in the US, EU and others, tend to be moderate and/or centrists. We don't want to rock the boat; politics is fun to talk about but when that one guy and/or girl goes off in the office, everyone wants to change to topic or go back to their desks and code.
But under the surface, no one agrees with extremism; both extreme fake-left or extreme fake-right. I'd like to think the majority of people just want to live and be kind to each other, but that can lead to ambivalence when people with directional agendas want to push a narrative at the expense of everything else.
If people start talking about the hard issues, but do so respectfully and by making arguments that are sound, we should have clear, rational and reasonable debate. A decision might be made we don't agree with, but as long as the discussion happens, everyone can learn from it and we can agree to disagree and move on.
The polarization of groups of people over ideological lines has never ended well.
Reality is obviously much more "blurry". Most political experts would argue (rightfully so, imho) that most "extreme" views are in fact not "left" or "right" of moderate ones; they sit in a different "plane" so to speak, a third space distinct from left/right (you'd indeed find a lot of right-ish and left-ish ideas mixed in with most "extreme" ideologies; you also find lots of moderate and extreme views in otherwise 'normal' (statistically) parties).
Left/right itself, or moderate/extreme, are also pretty poor and unsubstantial ways to define any idea or anyone, it's a poor man's shortcut to summarize a context, not ideas themselves. Most people today would sit far left of anyone in past history, for instance, while being much more individualistic at the same time.
Reality is complex. The media don't like complex (is media plural? shall I call it something else in pronoun?). Hence, theatric storytelling of the left versus the right, and/or moderates vs. extremes, iced with a general misunderstanding of statistics. I will now refrain from making any conclusion.
Anarchists are leftists, Ancaps are on the right.
Relative extremeness, sure, but that makes something more or less extreme, not “extreme” without a comparative.
> Execution as a punishment is more extreme than a fine regardless of how many people favor execution over fines.
But execution for most serious crimes was for a very long time a standard position, not an extreme one, while not executing people was an extreme position (though it's now pretty standard in most of the world, with broad—or indeed any—use of execution being an extreme position.)
> I would argue that generally a position being extreme results in fewer believers, not that fewer believers results in a position being extreme.
If you would argue that, go ahead, but you've provided neither evidence nor much argumentation, just conflation of absolute and relative uses of “extreme”, and your example of capital punishment seems to disprove your thesis.
A fine is an extreme punishment for crimes like rape, while execution is not. (See the reaction to the Brock Turner sentencing.)
Not if you are talking about fining or destroying sentient robots. The sentient robot probably has a pretty good back-up system of his mind, so he can just respawn in a different body, his bank account, though, is singular and coupled to the identity that its brain can prove to be. So executing such a robot is not very extreme, it is at most an inconvenience. Taking his money though, is something that has a more lasting impact. At least this is what I made up.
The point I am making is that what is 'extreme' is dependent on context and there is no such thing as intrinsic extremeness.
What you're getting to is the Golden rule in almost all human civilizations: treat others as you would like to be treated. The problem is when this rule broke down because the majority's "would like to be treated" became a hate crime to a small, but vociferous, radical contingent of the population.
When did this rule break down, in your opinion? When has a society ever fully agreed amongst themselves? There’s certainly not a moment in American history that qualifies, and I doubt you’d find much simultaneous global peace in world history too. It’s never really existed.
There’s actually a fairly compelling argument against the golden rule, often referred to as the platinum rule.
The problem with the golden rule is that it assumes everyone wants to be treated the same way, because doesn’t everyone else want to be treated the same way I do? Not necessarily.
Of course, much of this may be a distinction without a difference in actual application :)
This depends how you define “poorly”. Some progressives would say all sex work is harmful to women. Some sex workers who are women would ask how you dare try to rob them of their agency.
It’s not that simple.
> or the slaves really prefer subservience as it's their destined station in life
Again, this depends on how you define “slavery”. To some, all factory workers are slaves in an evil Capitalist machine, subservient to the guy with the capital; all the guy did was start the company, right? But to the factory worker, he might be very happy with the opportunity to work and provide for his family, and for a multitude of reasons might prefer this to whatever else a typical Socialist might believe all people should want to do with their time.
I agree, which is why I think it's pointless to try to conjecture on what other people want, and jump straight to how I would want to be treated. And of course, even that is tricky, but it's by far a more reliable set of information than guessing the myriad of preferences any given person may have at any given moment.
Again, there's still the possibility of getting it wrong, but if I don't know myself as well as anyone possibly could, how can I think that guessing at what others want is going to somehow be more reliable?
So yes, it's not that simple, but the Golden rule is about as simple as you can reliably go on. Anything else seems to me to be bordering on the presumption of omniscience.
There is another group C, overlapping with B, people scrutinising your every word waiting for something, anything they can use, out of context, to get you fired. That’s problematic.
- Joe won't tell Dani that she can't identify as a she
- Dani won't tell Joe that he should call her "he", not "she"
Do you think these two are really fundamentally equivalent?
If Dani starts calling Joe "she" over Joe's objections, that's totally okay in this schema, right? Deliberately misgendering someone is never harassment?
Ultimately what happens is these issues don't get talked about.
People in the center would rather just have an easy life and not deal with the "cancelling", doxxing, or career consequences that come with having a strong opinion, so don't engage.
That means that the extreme voices on either side end up dominating the conversation.
You're right, I just want to point out for those that aren't aware, this is on stack exchange's meta site. The rules for voting are different, downvotes are more likely than on stack overflow.
1) Context and intent matter
2) It's better not to assume the worst (of the other person's intent)
3) Just because something is uncomfortable or offensive does not categorically make it painful.
For those who can't be bothered with the whole book the authors did an article for The Atlantic that was so well received they did the book.
Did that happen, or was this accepted as reasonable debate points?
Once you realize that people's politics reflect their values and the problems they see in their world (and which side they've bought into), it becomes a lot harder to stigmatize the other side...or even take a side.
I don't think that experience is universal.
I'm starting to wonder if part of the problem is the way debating is taught in school. Certainly when I was in school debate was taught essentially as a sport, a thing that you could win or lose and with tactics and strategies that you could use to help you defeat your opponent. The point under debate was basically irrelevant, and should be able to 'win' no matter which side you where debating, truth be damned. If you conceded ground to your opponent or admitted that you where wrong about something you'd said, you lost.
Having a clear, rational and reasonable debate was never something that was taught or encouraged.
I don't understand how you can say that when we have this huge HN thread (and it's interesting to see who is being downvoted here) and the huge SE threads spread out across the sites.
Hang on a sec...
Wasn't monica fired for suggesting she used gender neutral pronouns generally? Because they said she should use the preferred gender specific pronoun when known?
And now "Sara Chipps" is doing exactly that?!
It's more nuanced from what I understand^. I gather that Monica expressed the desire to find an alternative to using singular they - such as universally using pronoun-free language. Mind you, this was all in discussing a future code of conduct change and its eventual enforcement.
The topic is just very delicate, and in my eyes there is no line that you can draw where both sides are univerally happy. Words spoken/written with the best intentions and utmost respect can still leave others feel hurt or insulted, simply because there are no objective answers to certain differences in perception.
^I am not privy to "insider" info, but I have followed the situation closely and consumed most of what has been said on the metas publicly (outside of chat rooms).
In the comments to the linked question, Monica Cellio says StackOverflow have not told her what parts of the CoC she was violating. I don't think it's public knowledge why she was demodded.
(Is 'fired' an appropriate word to use, when Monica wasn't an employee?)
> Asked to confirm that Cellio was the moderator in question, a company spokesperson said, "Cellio (she/her) would not use stated pronouns, which violates our current CoC …
> Cellio, for what it's worth, does not include any preferred pronouns on her Twitter account.
Yet, when they refer to her, Stack Exchange puts pronouns next to her name, clearly against her own “preferences.” It’s like they’re literally forcing onto her an ideology or worldview which they know she does not share.
What bizarre, hypocritical, vindictive behavior from Stack Exchange.
Ben Noordhuis wasn't an employee of Joyent either but that didn't stop them from symbolically firing him:
> While we would fire Ben over this, node.js is an open source project and one doesn't necessarily have the same levers.
It’s interesting that “we”, “our” and “community” in that quote all don’t mean what they seem. “We” are the farmers and “community” are the sheep, is what she means.
> that behavior
> the behavior
Some user named Tim changed it to "their".
Full history @ https://meta.stackexchange.com/posts/334248/revisions
Why would they let random people edit such a post? So weird...
That’s how SO works.
As a former operator of a (much smaller) community website, I understand the motives behind SE actions. They want to avoid discussions about gender-neutral pronouns and other contentious topics completely. There are only risks and no benefits for SE business in such discussions.They actually do not want discussions, just questions and answers. Jeff Atwood once wrote a blog post about their effort to stiffle discussion on SE sites. Notice how their comments are difficult to use and see.
Unfortunately, SE is many people with different goals, someone made the move to update the CoC, and now SE management has to tame the public outrage.
IMO, the right management decision is to silently fire or move the person behind the CoC update, remove moderator status from Monica forever and publicly define limits to SE discussions in future annoucements.
It will be the duty of the moderators to enforce the new CoC. The discussion in question arose in a mod-only forum (and later on an email conversation) and concerned what behaviors these rules sanction or disallow. It should be self-evident that moderators need to ask these questions and clarify these things in order to enforce them, and that none of this discussion is in itself to cause public outrage (because the public was not to know of any of this in the first place).
Public outrage was _only_ sparked when Monica was unceremoniously fired without any explanation to her or the public. Predictably, the context being described by those privy to it has resulted in lots of pronoun- and gender-related discussions all over the place, but this is neither the primary problem for SE (significant parts of the moderation force leaving is, as well as this being the ~6th community PR nightmare in 1-2 years) nor was it in any way avoidable or unpredictable based on the plans of SE.
Just be nice to people. For fuck's sake.
People online can be horrible asshats to a degree they wouldn't dare be in person.
These two facts tend to collide and go bad places.
(This comment is only describing the problem space, not taking sides in an argument.)
In a military report, the enemy isn’t ever referred to as “they” because that pronoun could also be understood to refer to another friendly unit or allied government force depending on ambiguous word order or mistranslation. Instead a term like OPFOR or similar is used consistently instead of a pronoun.
This is what sites like SE should use as a standard: precise and pronoun-free language for both questions and answers.
Because aggressive misgendering including by refusal to use the subject’s preferred pronouns is currently a significant form of harassment which is actively promoted by certain groups.
> Just be nice to people.
The fact that people aggressively refuse to do that is exactly what pronoun policies are responding to.
No hate towards anyone and I'll call anyone whatever they want as far as pronouns.
But why is this a top-3 culture war issue? For a bunch of combatants who are overwhelmingly not trans and shouldn't really care?
We need to think of a way to rise above without throwing anyone under the bus. It'd be better for both the trans community and society at large.
If you insist on calling a transman “she” because of his genitals at birth, then (aside from how to affects me because I have trans people I care about, which is, to be sure, the more important impact on me), it also means when you call me “he” it only coincidentally aligns with my preference rather than respecting it. Just because I only can see your disrespect when it's directed at someone whose pronouns don't conform to your preference for them doesn't mean that it's only present there, just that it is masked by circumstance elsewhere.
> I seriously feel that the most heated carriers of torches in this scenario are people who gravitate towards "power play" moments and have happily found a niche where they can be ruthless in their assault.
And I seriously feel that the people with the most intense need to distract from the issue with speculation about why other people might express concern for the issue do so because they have a sode, can't defend it, and so choose instead to distract from opposition to it with irrelevancies.
you see so many people who do this then get eaten by the same group when they inevitably screw up some rule in the future
It's not. Without suggesting these are the top 3, Abortion, gun control, and immigration are, just to pick 3 obvious ones, a far more central culture war issues than pronouns. (If you aggregated “LGBT rights” as a whole, you might get into the neighborhood of a top-3 issue.)
> For a bunch of combatants who are overwhelmingly not trans and shouldn't really care?
Unless, of course, you are a combatant on the other side, I can't imagine why you'd think that not-trans people shouldn't really care.
> We need to think of a way to rise above without throwing anyone under the bus.
How isn't having the decency to respect people's preferences in the pronouns you use to refer to them (and, though it's a separate but often concurrent issue, the gender you ascribe to them) exactly that?
And I said I'll use whatever pronouns people want, already, in one of four short grafs. Yet it didn't stop you from wondering if I'm some 'stealth enemy'.
It's funny, these culture war issues.
In the case described, it doesn't seem to have involved any actual trans people either. It was all theoretical, talking about the CoC.
I suppose my talk of 'rise above' means waiting until someone is actually a jerk before correcting them. We don't need cultural uniformity, we just need people to be nice.
Obviously, misgendering someone is not likely to be the thing that triggers such an act. But it is part of a pattern of bullying and general disregard that transgendered people face every single day.
That's why misgendering is so insidious - it's stochastic terrorism. The person doing the misgendering can claim that they never meant any violence, but they're still increasing the chance of violence.
Pronouns are not biological constructs. They don't have chromosomes, genitals, or secondary sex characteristics. They are, by definition, tied to gender.
How would life work if pronouns were determined biologically? For example, how would you figure out what pronouns to use to describe me, if we met in person?
You'd have to ask me to drop trou immediately after we met, which would generally be considered socially unacceptable, or at least a bit forward. But if I did it anyway, how would you know my genitalia hadn't been surgically altered? You could try to cross-reference my secondary sex characteristics, but even those could have been modified hormonally. Really, you'd have to ask for a DNA sample to determine which chromosomes I have, and even that might turn out not to align with the sex I was assigned at birth, much less the one I present today. And what pronouns do you choose if it turns out I have a combination other than XX or XY? It all seems like a lot of trouble and expense for pronouns anyway.
What I'm getting at is that people who make that sort of argument aren't actually saying, "the pronouns I'm using for you are based on your biology". That's just disingenuous, or at the very least shows that they haven't given it any actual thought. What they're really saying is, "the pronouns I'm using for you are what I think you look like, even if it's the opposite of what you tell me you are". I don't see how there's a well-intentioned way to interpret that.
It's so much safer (and easier!) just to take people at their word when they tell you their pronouns, just as you would when they tell you their name.
Or maybe they are thoughtful, caring people that are generally kind but have a different take than you do.
At any rate, your arguments in this thread do not settle the question, even if they were irrefutable. Point being, you just replied to "the issue isn't settled" with an impromptu attempt to finally settle things.
do you think trans people want to be passable because its just fun to do? why else would they care about passing?
I (as someone who has no horse in this race) would suggest to put basic empathy and courtesy above "refusing to concede" on some more or less immaterial question, at least where there is no other reason not to. The ideological high horse isn't very high if one knowingly goes about hurting people to stay on it.
Pronouns are no different - if you want me to refer to you as her, and I don't, then you and I will have a problem, not you, me, the mods, my boss, the government, etc.
> The ideological high horse isn't very high if one knowingly goes about hurting people to stay on it.
I have heard this time and time again. If misgendering someone is hurting them in any way, I'm suspecting the solution is for that person to disengage from society, not for society to cater to that person's needs, because they will be misgendered day in and day out for the rest of their life. If someone believes they are being gangstalked, society doesn't modify itself to ensure no one within 500 meters of them has a predictable schedule.
I thought not calling people nicknames they dislike had something to do with courtesy and empathy. (I'll also note that you picked very mild nicknames for your example)
> if you want me to refer to you as her, and I don't, then you and I will have a problem, not you, me, the mods, my boss, the government, etc.
Insisting on some level of courtesy is the moderators and the bosses job. As is enforcement if insistence isn't enough. What that level is, and what's appropriate enforcement, that's the tricky part.
That's no good reason to go out of your way to misgender someone or pretend to stalk someone who has that phobia. Yes, there will be problems interacting with society overall, I have no good answer for that. But I do know that knowingly and actively hurting people "because society does it too" when you could trivially avoid it is reprehensible.
My argument isn't "do it because society does it too", it's we already have systems in place to give people the therapeutic treatment they need to get past issues like this, which are issues, because it is unfeasible to expect society to shape itself around coddling that person's beliefs.
- You meet Gabrielle, and call her Gabbi.
- She says "I don't like that nickname, could you use Bree?"
- You say, "No, I'm going to call you Gabbi, because you should not expect society to shape itself around coddling your beliefs, GABBI."
Honestly, you probably wouldn't do that, right? I mean, maybe you would, but it'd... kind of make you a jerk. It would be a stupid, stupid hill to die on.
So why is it different with pronouns?
Names, on the other hand, are really quite arbitrary and independent of physical attributes. So yes, there's an important difference.
 I believe these kinds of correlation are what people intuitively mean when they talk of biological gender and the like, which make most of the responses against this argument miss the point...
Part of the movement to get people to use the correct pronouns to refer to someone is really just the movement against the epistemic authority of some forms of intuition.
As an aside, in Western society names are generally not independent of physical attributes, and most names are gendered as well. I know very few people with unisex names.
Yes. Exactly. That's what's being asked of them. To follow someone's request out of courtesy. Again: why is this difficult?
Let me put it another way. Person X asks person Y to take person Z's feelings into account. Sounds reasonable, right? But what if, in doing so, person X doesn't take person Y's feelings into account?
I'd say that'd make person X a hypocrite. There are different goods that need to be weighed against each other here, and person X pretends that this isn't the case.
This is what's happening here. Z = (some) transgender people, Y = (some of) the people expressing concern about pronoun enforcement, X = people taking your current position in this discussion.
In the weighing of different goods against each other, you can reasonably come to the conclusion that person Y should just suck it up because person Z's feelings are simply more important in this case. That's fine, stuff like that happens all the time in society, though you'd be wise to use more reconciliatory language when talking to an actual person Y.
You need to be honest about what you're doing. What isn't fine is to essentially "erase" Y's feelings by pretending that you aren't overriding them for Z's benefit. Because that is what you're doing. (Or maybe you aren't even aware of person Y's feelings. I'm not sure what to consider worse...)
(And yes, the hypocrisy is genuinely what I find most grating about the position you're taking here: the position is often taken by people who claim to champion diversity, inclusiveness, and the equal validity of people's subjective experiences -- but then turn around and selectively decide to not take into account others' subjective experiences when they happen to be inconvenient, and in doing so essentially exclude those others.)
(1) Bob suffers cognitive dissonance when he calls Angela, a transgender woman, "she".
(2) Angela, who has suffered the cognitive dissonance of gender dysphoria for years, has that revisited on her by Bob's insistence on calling her "he".
So, yeah. I'm privileging Angela over Bob here, because it is his mild discomfort versus her lived-in experience.
Bluntly, nobody has been driven into lifelong therapy and suicidal depression by having to refer to someone by a different set of pronouns. If you want to insist I'm a jerk for denying that these two experiences of "cognitive dissonance" are equivalent, you know, so be it.
I'd also point out that your example is rather uncharitable. I personally do think Alice is quite justified in asking Bob not to use "he" as a pronoun, but I also think it's acceptable for Bob to prefer using a gender-neutral pronoun such as singular "they". If that had been the example (which it might well have been, especially given the context of this thread overall), your point would be quite a bit weaker, and you ought to feel quite a bit less righteous indignation. After all, if somebody has a problem because of non-neutral pronouns, it'd be rather reasonable to expect them to accept it when people contribute to reducing their use overall -- especially when that also helps to reduce the discomfort of those other people.
Anyway, thank you for acknowledging that other people's feelings exist. Maybe next time you can even use that reconciliatory language I've mentioned.
this isnt a case about a specific person wanting a different pronoun. its about changing ALL language in the site to be gender neutral. that part is dumb. we dont need to worry about using she and he to talk about alice and bob because "they might be trans"
Of late I've been saying not the mole hill I'd choose to die on. Also the question what's in it for me if I'm right? If the answer is 'nothing' we're done here.
No, and I never said I would, and that example does nothing for or against my argument. So making up a scenario, saying it'd make me <some negative term nobody wants to be associated with>, and asking me "If you wouldn't do X, why would you do Y?" does not sound like it will progress this discussion whatsoever
second, yea pronouns are different. they are actual nouns in the language used to describe people by what they are. theyre exactly the opposite of names which are completely random things you can claim
third, you know most people use pronouns that match a name and looks? so if you change gender and change your name then people are probably gonna be using the right pronoun anyway
What indication do you have that a majority of the "society" in question (Stack Overflow) has a problem with addressing people in the manner they prefer?
In other words, have you considered the possibility that you are the one with an opinion or belief that runs contrary to what this "society" expects of its members?
If so, are you expecting to be coddled?
You know, it's possible to support the pronoun policy while still being against how the moderator was treated.
It seems to be an opportunistic vocal minority that is trying to make this political.
But I simply don't buy the "hurt and suffering" argument. Just because someone has a different opinion and expresses it doesn't mean the hearer is hurt and suffering to any degree that has a snowball's chance in hell of overwhelming the right to have and express a different opinion. The right to express opinions is WAY MORE IMPORTANT than the supposed right to not temporarily feel bad.
The very definition of "civil" is "courteous and polite" (Oxford).
>The right to express opinions is WAY MORE IMPORTANT than the supposed right to not temporarily feel bad
For better or worse, there is no such thing as a "right to express opinions" on a privately owned internet site.
Also, I find it odd to describe lack of empathy and courtesy as “civil discussion.” If anything, it is the opposite of civility.
Person 2: “Thanks, that means a lot. Also, I actually prefer ’she’, but you can also use ‘they‘ if that makes you more comfortable.”
Person 1: “But you are clearly a man.”
Person 2: “...”
Person 1: “Like I was saying, he did a great job on that presentation. I want the rest of you guys to follow his lead.”
if you want to make extreme choices then youre gonna have to accept that its not going to be as comfortable. nobody owes you anything
At Stack Exchange, one of the tricky things we learned about Q&A is that if your goal is to have an excellent signal to noise ratio, you must suppress discussion. Stack Exchange only supports the absolute minimum amount of discussion necessary to produce great questions and great answers. That's why answers get constantly re-ordered by votes, that's why comments have limited formatting and length and only a few display, and so forth. Almost every design decision we made was informed by our desire to push discussion down, to inhibit it in every way we could. Spare us the long-winded diatribe, just answer the damn question already.
IDK, seems like Jeff Atwood no longer has much interest in SE and presumably the site is slowly imploding.
Well, he left the site and the (SE) company in 2012 to start Discourse, so yes. But I agree with the second half of your sentence ("imploding").
From my understanding it appears that she was demoted for merely posing relevant questions.
As I don't believe SE has even made any specific claims backing up their decision, I'm curious as to why you suggest this is the correct decision to make.
Ideally start with just straight up removing half the current moderators. Pick at random.
SE has to balance between the need to expand into topics like judaism.stackexchange.com and islam.stackechange.com while remaining a q&a business, not a flamebait-generator business.
You can't have bona fide Religious SE's and the compelled use of personal pronouns co-exist.
If they think otherwise they are delusional, one will end up waging the other, and dogs only have one tail.
I don't know if the SO mod (Cellio) is in the wrong, but they did not give any explanation why Cellio was removed. I am unconvinced by this update.
(And before anyone post the usual "corporations suck" rant, the exact same principle applies to individuals. Anybody who ever watched James Duane's "Never talk to the police" video knows why. Why would it be any different for a corporation?)
It is just that they introduced a rule and still feel it is a correct one.
Even empathy usually results in admitting a liability inducing stance
You have to just do and let everyone else wonder why
There’s no upside into explaining anything
If it ever reaches discovery and testimony in a court of law, then maybe you’ll get detailed perspectives closer to the truth.
Somewhere along the way users and consumers started imagining this stuff is actually collaborative. Its not.
It appeals to our personal morals, but not the world we live in. Nobody's willing to fall on their sword.
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.
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.
To my professor's credit, he was probably 70-80 years old at the time.
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.
Not if you're a Stack Overflow moderator apparently.
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.
I think it's perfectly reasonable and expected for SO to insist that their moderators don't be dicks.
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".
Using a language normally doesn't cause problems for healthy human beings.
What english language speakers normally use when refering to a person, usually based on the perceived gender of said person.
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?
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?
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'.
What an outrageous level of hyperbole. It is not fascism to ask others to not intentionally misgender people.
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.
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.
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.
I feel like we're watching one of the pillars of modern software development crumble.
- The moderator in question still wasn't told what they were sacked for.
- There was no warning, no attempt at allowing betterment, nothing. Established procedure was not followed.
- The moderator in question was not even informed of being let go - they noticed it incidentally while performing their duties.
- They were "terminated" on a Friday, right before a major religious holiday requiring their absence online. The "apology" partially acknowledges this in an incredibly dehumanizing way ("ship on a Friday").
I know lots of people in my life who are genderfluid, or who use nonstandard pronouns. They aren’t the caricatures that some of the people in this thread are making them out to be, they’re real people who are out there doing their best and live as themselves, and it’s really difficult seeing this thing they struggle with every day be labeled a “political” issue.
Not to be uncaring, offensive, or presumptuous, but to be neutral.
In my life, in a social setting, in work etc I'm going to be much more likely to need to use names and pronouns. I'll make effort to get them right and cause minimal offence, along with keeping friendships. Yet people use the neutral form all the time in conversation as well, sometimes mixed in amongst their names and gendered pronouns.
What is so wrong with that?
These days i seek to find a gender neutral word i can get into the habit of using (it, or they, or something similar), for fear of mis-nouning someone. Though, i also have the fear that if i use something neutral, when someone requested a specific non-neutral pronoun, i may be negatively impacted.
As someone "on the spectrum" social norms are already difficult. All of this talk just makes me nervous.
It's not expected to remember someone's name if you've only met them briefly, but the more you've interacted with the person, the more embarrassing not remembering their name becomes.
Mis-naming someone intentionally, repeatedly, is rude and quickly moves into harassment territory.
But the flipside is also true, if someone demands to be called a long and complicated and unusual name, then that person is rude, and can't expect others to comply or remember.
Pronouns work exactly the same. If someone tells you they prefer a pronoun that is different from the gender they present as, it's polite to remember this and use this when talking about the person. But if you forget, it should be treated like if you forgot that persons name.
If you intentionally and repeatedly mis-gender someone, it is rude and quickly moves into harassment territory.
And, finally the flipside, if someone has an onerous or complicated preferred pronoun, that person is rude and can't expect others to comply or remember.
That's exactly the problem: pronouns are not names for a reason.
Pronouns are meant to be a finite set of words that can group an infinite set of other words, names.
In many languages gender is the criteria to form those groups. It 's a natural choice if you think of gender as a binary category.
Once you introduce the concept of gender fluidity the most logical solution is to introduce a residual pronoun that includes everybody who doesn't fit in the male/female dichotomy.
To adopt instead a inifinite set of pronouns means to poorly re-engineer a language. It's an extremely important and complex common good, we shouldn't be tinkering with it so lightheartedly.
That being said, not sure pronouns are indistinguishable from names. As a species, we evolved sexual dimorphism alongside a visual apparatus to detect the dimorphism. We are able to tell a male from a female at a glance with high accuracy, even in presence of elaborated disguises. Being asked to call someone we perceive as male "her", or someone we perceive as female "him" is often times difficult. The pronoun is not an arbitrary tag detached from perception, visual or linguistic. Picture a couple more situations:
* A 6ft bearded hulking person insisting to be referred as "she".
* A person insisting that their name is "Susan", but that we should refer to them as "he".
Plenty of people would have to make an explicit effort to comply with such requests, beyond what's required for remembering the mere name/pronoun tag.
Online, we interact with a huge number of people, possibly only for a few brief moments. Most of us simply use the name tag under our eyes, and infer the pronouns using linguistic clues. For example, most people would use "he" to refer to u/henrikschroder. For name tags with less obvious genders, most people would default to gender neutral. Taking offense at people using an inferred pronoun when no other information is readily in sight is akin taking offense at HN readers that don't read the linked article before commenting. Nobody has time to click links on the Internet.
As a culture, we'd do well to stop catastrophising and taking offense at people minding their own business and not being hyper-aware of everyone else's special circumstances.
This is a bit of a tangent, but I don't think this is really true yet. There are plenty of online forums where I see people using "he" when referring to users with ambiguous nicks. It's probably changing over time though.
To the extent that there is any controversy here, it's in this guideline. I'd just soften 'rude' to unreasonable.
1. I have not seen any code of conduct make room for this scenario. It's taken as a given that pronoun preferences are reasonable.
2. Some people think singular 'they' and 'their' falls in this bucket.
3. Some people think writing in passive voice, etc., should be considered a good faith effort to be accommodating.
Pedantically applied, most codes of conduct make room for the judges and queens to insist on "his honor" and "Her Majesty" as pronouns, at least in some contexts.
I honestly wish some people would decide that this whole thing is too complicated to legislate completely and institute some sort of jury system, at least on appeal, to decide what counts as reasonable.
Yes. There's a lot of grey area here. I personally don't think it's unreasonable to ask people to use 'he', 'she', or 'they' regardless of how someone presents themselves.
And I do think it's unreasonable to ask people to use 'xe' and 'hir' except every odd Tuesday when it's 'xim' and 'phe'.
At least recognizing that there is a grey area is better than sticking to the extremes. Rejecting the outlandish pronouns doesn't make you a transphobe bigot, you can't expect everyone to bow to your slightest whims, and accepting that some people prefer different pronouns to what they present as won't dissolve society, and it's not fascism to ask people to respect each other.
> I honestly wish some people would decide that this whole thing is too complicated to legislate completely and institute some sort of jury system, at least on appeal, to decide what counts as reasonable.
I think we're already doing pretty ok with names, without any formal system.
"I'm Sir Master Kensington Fuckbuttery Waddlesworth III Jr!"
"No, you're Kenny."
And what if someone wants to go by "The Sampsons" for personal reasons? There's not a precise analogy here, but people infer plurality from 'they' and not 'John'.
So I am absolutely compelled to call you your actual name, I'm compelled to talk in a certain way if I want to keep my job, and this isn't totalitarian or evil, it's simply having manners and treating each other with respect.
I don't understand this argument in the context of an employer / employee relationship. Employers tell employees how to respond to clients all the time.
But the person with the onerous/complicated pronoun gets to define how onerous or complicated it is, right?
However I don't imagine many people with non-standard pronouns think they're onerous nor complicated. Seems like you're setting up a straw...thing.
What, no? Every person who interacts with the person with the wonky pronouns gets to decide how onerous they think it is. If you insist on using 'xim' or 'phe', be prepared for a lot of confused looks and people dismissing you as unreasonable.
> However I don't imagine many people with non-standard pronouns think they're onerous nor complicated.
Of course not, people love their insulated little bubbles where everyone agrees, but if you want to be a part of society, you have to learn to accept that most people don't give a shit about you and your wants. You might not think that 'xer' and 'phim' are unreasonable, but if the majority of the people that interact with you think they are, then they are, and you will have to adjust your expectations.
> Seems like you're setting up a straw...thing.
We prefer strawperson in this forum. Hay rights are human rights!
I'm bad with names, too.
(As an aside I think that people might not take using "it" very well if you are referring to a person - they might see it as dehumanizing)
Gender fluidity is much more common among autistic people, so most autistic people handle it just fine.
The first discussions of this issue, from a few days ago, made it seem as if the moderator in question opposed a preferred pronoun policy. On further reading about this, the moderator claims that she doesn't oppose a preferred pronoun policy and would not misgender someone, but rather, wanted to clarify whether she could continue to use pronoun-neutral language as she does this out of custom anyway.
At least in my mind, if what the mod is saying is true (and a few other people have backed her up on her account), not only wasn't she opposing the standard preferred-pronoun policy most people are familiar with, she wasn't even opposing anything but rather asking legitimate "edge case" questions to help clarify a policy before it is decided on.
(SE hasn't really given concrete details at the moment about why she was fired, so it's entirely possible the mod did something else problematic, though again, her account seems to be backed up by other mods).
Someone has just been fired for a hypothetical future thought crime, which is insane, and you’re saying “why are we not focussed on the hypothetical people she might have microaggressed against in the future”.
As is "Using the wrong gender is enough to cause someone to commit suicide?" when it's pointed out that doing so is part of the pattern they're often harassed with.
EDIT: edited, see below
I wanted to avoid that, but I have replaced them with copy-pasted quotes to make your searching easier.
Other languages—and even other linguistic enclaves of English-speakers or English-creole speakers—don’t have this problem; either for lack of grammatical gender, or for lack of an association between grammatical gender and gender identity.
So I find it difficult referring to a non-binary person in singular or in particular. I usually just say "non-binary" or trans when it's important, typically only using their name, or not mentioning them at all for fear of misgendering them.
If, during conversation, we wanted to specify through a pronoun what gender a person was, there is no way to do it purely with pronouns anymore, since non-cisgendered people will sometimes use "they" so to distinguish between cis and non-cis you need to explicitly state it. Or even to specify the plurality of a group of non-gendered people you have to explicitly state it. Which is not typical english.
If I had two colors on a spectrum, lets say blue and yellow, we wouldn't call the middle of the spectrum "color", we'd call it "green".
> Why would a new set of pronouns be needed to categorize such a non-homogeneous group when neutrality already captures everyone between the normal binary categorizations?
I think this is the issue, it doesn't necessarily capture them directly. I think there is merit in having a pronoun, but it shouldn't be forced by law (as it is where I live). It doesn't arise naturally probably because there are many different categorizations in the middle and most people are on the poles, which I think is fine.
I'm entirely happy to use whatever pronouns people want. But here, how would I know? There aren't even images. Just names, and very often ~genderless names.
Edit: Also, upon reflection, I suspect that I don't even know the universe of gender pronouns in common use.
I don't really have a horse in that race but I don't see a way they could have come out of that without offending anyone. If we're going through a culture change that changes the way we address people so be it, but it's going to get messy once we start enforcing new social rules.
I see three possibilities:
1. Monica telling the complete truth, there is a terrible misunderstanding, but SE doesn't want to lose face by backing down
2. Monica is lying
3. Monica is terribly confused
At this point, we all have to assume it's #1. If it's #2 or #3, SE really needs to come out and say something (beyond "we stand by our decision but our process needs updating") for the good of the communities. Stack Exchange is nothing without the community, since 100% of the content on SE was directly contributed by the community.
> "repeatedly violating our existing Code of Conduct": citation needed. "CM’s repeated requests to change": citation needed. – Monica Cellio
And later she clarifies that she doesn't know the specific thing that caused it:
@Randal'Thor let's start with them telling us exactly what part of the current CoC they think I "repeated violated". There's a lot of discussion in that email including of deeply personal identity-background stuff, so I want to know what the charge is before I decide if that response would help. They didn't even tell me what they think I did. – Monica Cellio
Edit: added 2nd comment by Monica
While this issue is politically unsettled, it cannot be correct to enforce one side's view by banning people on the other side of the argument if they don't tacitly concede the argument via enforced pronoun usage.
[Personally I hold no strong opinions about transgenderism, I just hate to see society splitting apart.]
A not trivial amount of the objection is because of the singular 'they' and 'their'. I'll cop to being confused by sentences leveraging those formations. One can appeal to etymology, but even knowing the etymology didn't prevent my confusion.
"Be kind" is a good rule. And now there are also practical concerns to be sensitive to.
Point being, it's more complicated than accepting new gender models. And whatever peaceful solution is possible, I don't see any that don't involve decades of patience as folks get comfortable with new grammatical constructs: gender agnostic singular pronouns other than 'it', sentences containing 'their' not implying plurality, or something along those lines.
Keep in mind that the U.S. still uses imperial measurements.
"They said they were hungry." - Vezzini
Ambiguity: Is one person eating too much or did many people get impatient (maybe fine depending)?
It's not just a matter of becoming accustomed. It's definitely more ambiguous.
The only way to clear that pickle up is to get used to clarifying questions as appropriate. Or maybe a "they all" will emerge parallel to "you all", but that sort of thing takes time.
My point is that people asking for singular pronouns should prepare to be patient since, at best, these things take time.
It sounds pedantic, but SE sites are especially attractive to folks who close helpful questions for pedantic reasons.
I just want people to chill out and exhibit a bit of grace instead of bringing up codes of conduct and unhelpful lectures about manners.
The other side is both bigoted and factually wrong.
For example: one group believes in evolution, another believes God created the Earth out of nothing 6000 years ago. Without a time machine, neither one can categorically prove exactly what happened. But one side has mountains of evidence, and the other has dogma and ideology.
There's a lot we don't understand yet about how being trans works, just as there's plenty of gaps in the fossil record that we haven't been able to fill yet. But if you ignore all the evidence we do have in favor of cherry-picking only the isolated studies that might support your position, you're no better than the people who think that the scarcity of transitional fossils refutes evolution.
1. keep the door open for anyone who wishes to change their mind
2. wrest power from everyone else -- workplace by workplace, jurisdiction by jurisdiction, culture by culture.
The pro-trans side is true, and sometimes truth has to go to war to win.
You're allowed to believe whatever you want. Science doesn't care about your feelings. Cherry-picking only the studies that can be interpreted to support your opinion, while ignoring the balance of the research that disagrees, makes you no better than the people who insist that archaeological evidence supports young Earth creationism.
gender identity is accepted as different from sex and because males and females are different so its possible that some people may have gender dysphoria (which is literally a mental disorder like body dysmorphia). nobody disagrees with all that.
but 100 different genders and non-binary is not accepted by science. believing in that is like believing in creationism and flat earth at the same time.
Notable points: Gender nonconformity is explicitly not a disorder. Gender dysphoria is, but only in "the presence of clinically significant distress associated with the condition." Approved treatments for gender dysphoria explicitly include "transition" and "hormone therapy, related surgery."
The other major classification system, the United Nations World Health Organization's ICD, has similar language. Feel free to look it up.
evidence of banning by sensitive/offended people: https://www.christianpost.com/news/twitter-banned-psychologi...
you really think not picking a gender is not a disorder? yep thats right there next to flat earth then
As I said, you're allowed to believe whatever you want. Science doesn't care about your feelings.
I consider them (Christians) to be mentally ill what with all that christian god stuff they preach. Do you therefore think I also have no place in "workplaces, large-scale online forums and polite society in general" because I consider this "group of people -- other people that participate on the site -- mentally ill"?
I think this way leads to a Oberton window that only narrows, like a boa constrictor. I prefer broader thinking and more tolerance for a wider set of views.
Yes, a view that all Christians are mentally ill has no place in workplaces either. This does not mean that you cannot privately hold such views, but that you should not act in the workplace in ways that show you hold those views (so you should not misgender a trans person, for example).
I will not reply to anymore of your comments as you have expressed your view that I shouldn't be allowed to, and I don't want to offend you any further.
It is still inappropriate to call all Christians mentally ill. I know plenty of Christians who have no trouble treating trans people with all the respect they deserve.
Before anyone gets offended, my Granny is religious, so I'm not bigoted or anything.
__The above is ironic to hopefully get the point across succinctly and with impact. A dry explanation wouldn't work in the same way. Or maybe not with my writing skills anyway.__
Commingling under one umbrella, religion and sexual orientation, which are essentially identity-based communities , will invariably lead to a headlong collision as you say.
If you want to have a community, then treat your community like intelligent humans. And to be clear, you absolutely _depend_ on the good will of your community. This is non-optional.
Admit your mistake and fix it. And if you think that your mistake was the timing, then talk to someone who understands the situation.
I can't help but feel that the current "Director of Community" at the core of this will be moving to a different non-community position before long. It seems like a poor place to have someone who's managed to drive out a significant percentage of the volunteer moderators for the whole network.
And my preferred pronoun this week is blergl.
Have you ever met someone who changes their gender identity weekly, or asks people to use a derivation-free nonsense word to refer to them?
I haven't read the leaked TL (Teachers' Lounge?) chat transcripts and the whole thing has blown up into a massive drama such that reading all the summaries and resignations and objections and whatnot isn't realistic for me, but I suspect that questions along the lines of "Can I just do this?" were interpreted as challenging the whole new CoC and someone felt like they were being disrespected. The (apparent) summary dismissal outside all existing policies for dismissing moderators would fit with it being a knee-jerk reaction followed by a refusal to back down after a mistake.
Frankly if Monica C hadn't asked for clarification but had simply continued writing in such a way as to avoid using any pronouns this would never have blown up, but I think the question was taken as questioning authority.
Edit: As for the neutral pronoun, yes, more than 20 years ago as part of a community focused around a Usenet group that also had regular social get-togethers all over the country. IIRC, the term(s) in use were zie/zir.
Edit2: And having just done a bit of searching: No, it wasn't alt.polyamory or any related groups, though there might have been overlap in memberships.
And many state to use non-existing words as pronouns such as xhy, requiring a mental effort to remember a new word they invented and also to remember to whom that word is associated, so the satire of using blerg as pronoun is spot-on while also offensive to some.
You would think that would be a strong indicator to not do that thing in a public forum conversation, but no accounting for taste, I suppose.
Isn't that what "gender-fluid" is?
> or asks people to use a derivation-free nonsense word to refer to them?
Isn't that what pronouns like "xir" are all about?
You seem more hung up on "have you personally met someone like that?" than "do these people really exist?" The answer to the latter question is yes, they do.
I can understand the former; the latter corrodes discourse.
Fluid as in changing frequently? Maybe, I don't personally know anyone who fits that description and frankly I'd probably be unimpressed by someone with gender swinging like a weather vane.
Nonbinary? Yes, an immediate family member who is also stable in their identification and in a stable long term relationship. Also some folks I've interacted with in professional settings where it's none of my business how they identify.
Also several people from my fairly close circle in college, but it's been long enough since I graduated and everyone scattered that I don't talk much with any of that circle regardless of gender.
My snark was directed more at what sounds like a potentially troublesome change that could add a lot of headaches to what I suspect is already an often thankless volunteer position.
Yes, these people often use the label "genderfluid"
>or asks people to use a derivation-free nonsense word to refer to them?
Yes, just go to Twitter, click any trending political hashtag, and read the bios of the people posting there.
(I know nothing about the SO situation, purely talking generalities here.)