ClearingUpSomeConfusion

9:37 AM

@aparente001: With due respect - I don't think you should trouble Monica into explaining this to you right now... I'm sure she has enough on her plate without constantly explaining things to everyone. Just my 2 cents.

ColleenV

10:16 AM

@aparente001 I don't think it's going to be helpful to keep rehashing it. This drama was not the result of logical discussion - it was very emotional and people got really upset.

I don't know if there's an explanation that would be really useful to anyone that wasn't involved.

I think all of the various opinions are being hashed out on the FAQ on Meta

From my perspective, and I think Monica has said the same, there's nothing about the new CoC that would keep me from being able to follow it.

I have some quibbles about the wording of it, but it's not helpful when everything is so emotional to keep harping on that.

Be nice. Part of being nice is to respect people's wishes when they tell you how they would like to be referred to. Assume good intentions and try to correct your mistakes. That's it.

12:46 PM

@ColleenV - Well, it's just that I've been trying to keep up with your posts and comments, and her posts and comments, and I'm really confused. I thought you laid things out quite clearly at ELU Meta, and what you wrote there jived with the tiny bits and glimpses I had seen elsewhere.

12:57 PM

But the conversation between Monica and Aza gave me a completely different impression.

ColleenV

1:13 PM

@aparente001 I think we’re all interpreting it all a bit differently based on our own perspectives

It’s hard to understand if someone hasn’t been involved from the start months ago. I made the decision to not participate in the TL chat room because I thought it was a toxic environment and was likely to bring out the worst in people.

So my perspective is quite different from people who stayed engaged there

What happened from my perspective was Monica thought she was having a discussion about viewpoints and the people she was talking to felt she was attacking their identity by having those views, and there was no-one in a position of authority that took action to prevent it from exploding and hurting lots of people.

I did not go through the chat transcripts in detail though - this is about more than one exchange between more than a few people.

1:50 PM

@ColleenV - Thanks. I got interrupted with some family stuff. I'll just write a little bit more now that I got everybody out of the house. Regarding the concern about bothering Monica:

(a) I've seen Monica showing a remarkable degree of patience and willingness to work through this with people, in the interest of understanding what went wrong, and reaching a solution.

(b) If she feels my questions are a waste of time, she is free to choose not to respond. I will clarify now: No pressure from me! Monica, if you wish to respond, great, if not, I will understand.

(c) I think that resolving a conflict is much, much more difficult when the various positions aren't clear.

In a conflict, sometimes there are inherently contradictory beliefs and/or needs/desires. But there can be misunderstandings and misperceptions as well. All these things can be tangled together, making it harder to reach a resolution. I'd like to try to tease them apart.

I see the two of you as key in this process, because it seems significant that the two of you, who are such perceptive, respectful, patient moderators, seem to have such a diametrically different understanding of the conflict.

So, summing up the two versions I was getting:

ColleenV

2:08 PM

I’ve got to get to work, but I should be clear that my involvement is peripheral and I was not directly hurt by any of this conflict, so my interpretation carries much less weight than those who were directly involved.

Version A, gleaned from several sources, including Colleen (this will be simplified -- for a more fleshed out explanation, see above): Monica's personal style of writing, avoiding third person singular pronouns, may be (may have been) taken as degendering or discriminatory; the perception could be, Hey, I'm trans, it's important to me that people accept the gender I have informed people of, and therefore it means a lot to me that you call me what I am (be it he/she/something else).

Colleen, I understand, please proceed with your day!

Continuing...

Version B, gleaned from a recent extended comment dialogue between Monica and Aza (I will look for a link in a moment):

I have to make this brief.

Here's where the conversation started: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/334750/…

For decades singular "they" has been used by some as a gender-neutral substitution when referring to someone of unknown gender. I have always avoided this usage because it's bad writing (unclear) and there are plenty of other ways to solve that writing problem.

Yvette was also involved.

2:13 PM

Just let me finish, ok?

Yvette wasn't in the room. She doesn't have any better information than you do.

Oh, sure.

I was clarifying that the conversation that got me so confused actually started with a comment from Yvette.

I meant to say, Yvette was also involved in the conversation that got me confused.

So, I have a longstanding objection to singular they. Very recently -- within the last year or two -- some nonbinary people have also started using "they" as a personal pronoun. This is also singular they which I am uncomfortable with for the same writing reasaons, but it's a new usage.

It also means that "they" is no longer gender-neutral.

The discussions of the two usages have gotten conflated.

That is probably part of the problem.

I have generally used "he" and "she" as specific references when applicable, but in the recent discussion someone pointed out that doing that and not also using "they" for NB folks was discriminatory. So I said I wouldn't do that. I strive to treat everyone equally.

3

My natural writing style is to avoid gendered language unless strictly necessary. I can't remember when it was ever necessary on SE.

I can make this minor tweak to my established writing style to address the issue of potential, unintended discrimination.

I don't have much experience with Chat -- I don't know how to tell when it's my turn -- I don't want to interrupt, but I am hoping to ask some clarifying questions about some of the things you've written here.

I was about to say: I'm done. Go ahead.

I can't stay long (have a meeting in a few minutes).

Ah, good to know. I will watch for that.

We can certainly pick this up later, and as today is Friday, I appreciate that this might not occur until some time over the weekend.

At any rate, I wonder if you could explain this part: "they is no longer gender-neutral." I don't get it.

Should I say "I'm done"?

2:20 PM

Nah, it's ok -- I just had that one long block I wanted to get out. We can chat normally now.

Okay, thanks.

"They" is no longer gender-neutral because it means either "unspecified" or "non-binary". Calling me "they" is now misgendering, where it used to be merely confusing.

And who exactly is bothered by that? I'm still confused.

Or maybe you're saying that the distinction is important in your own mind?

To me, it doesn't seem to make any difference to how I communicate with people on SE.

If I don't know User M's gender, I will refer to them with they, their, them, themselves because I don't like to make unwarranted assumptions.

I am bothered by people calling me "they". And I don't want to do it to others because it is discourteous.

However, if someone prefers "they" for some other reason, my behavior would still work, I would think.

2:25 PM

And as I said, usually I don't even need to use a third-person singular pronoun. This is completely a non-issue except when people demand specific language as validation.

3

Well, I wouldn't be tempted to call you "they." I would refer to you as "her." So I don't see the problem.

Got to go, sorry. I'll check later.

Great. Please ping me. Hopefully our schedules will align. I will be completely offline between 12:30 and 2, and other times will be hit or miss. If we miss each other today, I will be on the look-out on Saturday evening, and on Sunday, as time permits. Thanks again for getting started.

9:02 PM

I was told this was an ok place to discuss this. What's up with the community management going to twitter to gloat about the terrible situation going on right now with the community?

user102937

Link?

Q: SE Inc. Director of Public Q&A retweets bad-faith, misrepresentative tweet

this was retweeted by a community manager: twitter.com/bitandbang/status/1182389562846384129

another tweet from a community manager said this: "One of my person[al] KPIs is people blocked on Twitter and this week has me way ahead for Q4."

which I think is supposed to be interpreted as bragging about the shitstorm going on here

LinkBerest

148

As we all know, SE Inc. has engaged in highly problematic and widely criticized actions against the SE community and specific moderators. Earlier today (Oct 11th), Ms. Sara Chipps, "Director of Public Q&A" at StackExchange Inc. (who has been has been personally involved in SE Inc.'s problematic...

Note the above is locked

@eski: Probably the people to talk to at this point are: 1. The CEO. 2. Board members. 3. Chairperson of the board (or should I say: chairxir of the board?) 4. Maybe Atwood. 5. Investors, if anybody knows who those are.

user102937

@eski I think that means "This is how many people on Twitter who don't agree with my world view." I don't think it has anything to do with the shenanigans at SE.

9:08 PM

@LinkBerest: Yeah, it got a bit kneecapped with a lock.

user102937

Though it doesn't bode well for any kind of compromise with SE. She's pretty much indicated by her actions on Twitter that she's completely inflexible.

@RobertHarvey: She's the "bad cop", Fullerton is the "good cop".

user102937

Sure. And then they high-five each other on Twitter.

user102937

twitter.com/df07/status/1182344579925852161

Brandon_J

I'm confused why we seem so bent on villian-izing everyone: don't use the requested personal pronouns: you're a bigoted monster! Require me to use the requested pronouns - dictatorial jerk!

Seems like it should be more along the lines of:

don't use the requested personal pronouns: a respectable religious belief. Require me to use the requested pronouns - a legitimate move by a private company for valid reasons.

9:11 PM

the more I read into this whole thing, the more disappointed I get

Sara is really going scorched earth on this thing

user102937

@Brandon_J Because that's what these folks do.

user102937

Read here:

user102937

nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/30/magazine/…

@RobertHarvey KPI specifically refers to a job-performance indicator, and I assume the numbers are up so much as a result of the attention she's getting because of this whole fiasco.

@Brandon_J IMO the most problematic part of the official FAQ they put up is Q11

uh... what's wrong with just avoiding the use of the pronouns entirely?

Brandon_J

9:15 PM

@NullUserExceptionอ_อ I think that's related to Aza's point: "You all know exactly how this will work out: you'll use pronouns unconsciously when they're appropriate, and conspicuously avoid them when they make you uncomfortable or when your attention is called to them."

I rarely ever use personal pronouns in the first place on SE... I'll either use their name, or call them the OP

is that a CoC violation?

Brandon_J

That's where I stand, as well.

And apparently, yes?

@Brandon_J: Nobody cares about the pronouns, forget about the pronouns. That's not the story.

@einpoklum They were what lit the powder keg though

it really isn't the story, I would say it's about an open and aggressive hostility towards the people that provide all the content for this site, and an assertion of dominance over them

9:23 PM

I gather that the hostility has been brewing for quite some time...

@NullUserExceptionอ_อ: I wonder if SE Inc. didn't kind of let that happen. The fuse-lighting I mean.

So that now they can get down to some "real progress"

...
Maybe Brad Burnham. He's from the money side of things. Maybe that's a guy to talk to.

they seem to be quite willing to lose users they feel don't reflect the views of the company and/or are unwilling to fall in line

it's kind of bold move because those also happen to be the biggest contributors

I don't even think it's a fight worth having, specially on this particular issue of the pronouns

A: An apology to our community, and next steps

Maybe they're actually gunning for member exodus. I mean, otherwise, it would be much harder for them to implement other cultural changes. If they can kind of shake out some of the more opinionated people with some political catnip - why not?

LinkBerest

TO me the worse part is they put up that there would be mod feedback and there was and it looked great but it apparently only applied to the CoC itself and not the FAQ which is where all the issues are.

53

This is the third time now SE has failed in gathering feedback from the moderators on this topic. The first time was when you dumped the announcement into the Teachers' Lounge. The second time when you posted the previous non-apology to TL, ignored all feedback and just posted it on meta only 6...

Its not about the pronouns for a lot of people. Its about them lying that they would allow feedback, lying about not "shipping on Friday" again, about all the other promises after mistakes which have been shown to be empty - its about the broken trust

Speaking of Friday, sunset is coming soon and I need to prepare for Shabbat. So I'm logging off and don't know if/when I will be back.