@cegfault, except way back in the mists of time when I was a moderator, the number of times I've had to use a third-party pronoun about a specific non-historical individual in the SE network is negligible. Also, I think we're doing people a disservice if we assume they're not capable of changing the way they use language, whatever their experience to date; and that others will immediately leap on mistakes as evidence of a crime 1/5

If you're 'talking' to a specific person, you usually use "you". If you're talking about a generic person, "they" isn't hard to use -- IMO this is how you should refer to generic people in a question or answer anyway, except on certain sites/questions where gender maybe significant to the matter at hand (e.g. IPS, Parenting, Workplace -- the 'soft-skills sites'). You might end up on some sites discussing named individuals (e.g. History, Genealogy, the sites focussed on specific religous beliefs) and gendered pronouns are usually unobjectionable there (as long as the right gender is used). 2/5

If you're talking about a specific person whose chosen pronoun you don't know, it's good written practice anyway to identify them specifically initially (Username, or OP) to avoid doubt and then switch to a gender-neutral pronoun, typically they. (Reintroduce the specific identifier is thongs get a bit tangled, for clarity, but stick mostly with pronouns). If they respond (or somebody else responds on their behalf) and says "Hey, I'm he!"/"Chris is a he" or some other pronoun, switch to it gracefully. If its a pronoun you're not familiar with, ask for forebearance if you get it wrong. 3/5

If your worldview is such that you cannot accept using a pronoun you disagree with, you have two choices: disengage politely without declaring your opinion to the world; or be rude either by continung to engage ignoring the chosen pronoun or explaining at great length why you can't continue the discussion. Being rude is contracy to all int incarnations of the CoC I've ever seen -- it's just the new CoC highlights a form of rudeness that other might not have recognised before. (4/5)

All this starts from an assumption of good intent -- reinforced by demonstrations of good intent by shifting to the chosen pronouns when requested, and apologising/accepting apologies for mistakes made through unfamiliarity. It's only when bad faith is demonstrated that action needs to be taken (5/5)

Agreed -- we agree. (And yes, generic you).

There have been people telling us explicitly that it is very hard for them to use a given pronoun. I am having a hard time trying to understand on what basis you feel entitled to tell them what is hard for them and what is not.

@Goyo, if it is hard for somebody to use a pronoun because it is unfamiliar, or because they find aspects of language or social interactions hard to navigate when the rules change, then we (the generic we) can help them by explaining, gently nudging... all the usual things we do with people who are encountering novelty to some sort thar doesn't immediately 'click' with them, without judging them when they make mistakes, as long as their intent is good. (1/)

Yes, I am assuming that everyone involved wants to help other people, not just punish their mistakes -- while acknowledging that there are those few whose first priority is not to be nice to everyone; those are the ones who need clear rules spelled out and underlined in thick red ink, so that there is a basis for calling them out when they deliberately set out to hurt people.(2/)

If it's hard because it doesn't fit in with somebody's perception of how the English language works (or what is 'best' English), and they cann't accept that language usage evolves and there are many styles of 'good' English that they could adopt/adapt, well, that's a tough one to deal with, but they are not compelled to engage in those circumstances. Maybe they will develop a modified style later, when they've been able to observe some alternatives and get comfortable with them; or maybe not -- they always have that choice. (3/)

Likewise, if it's hard because a chosen pronoun challenges somebody's worldview, they are not compelled to engage; the only compulsion that exists is not to be rude and that should not be hard either.(4/)

I'm not dismissing the fact that there's a learning process involved for some, and that others will never be able to adjust to the change. When I say it isn't hard, I truly believe that for many users it is a trivial change, and that for most of the other users for whom there are difficulties, it's possible to ease the adjustment.(5)

And if I've missed an explanation that somebody has given for it being 'hard', please point me to an example so I can understand.

Sure, and if it is hard for somebody being addressed in a way they don't like then we can help them by explaining and gently nudging too. But I strongly suggest you do not that. It is like telling them that they are wrong for feeling the way they feel. I certainly would not appreciate you doing it for me. Also IIUC what some CMs have stated, disengaging because of pronouns is not OK.

@Goyo, there is a difference between helping somebody learn a new use of language, and explaining to somebody that their existence is wrong. But I believe you know that already. The CoC and associated FAQ does not compel anyone to engage; my understanding is that if somebody openly stated that they are disengaging because of pronouns, that is unacceptable (rude) but if they never engage at all, or withdraw from a conversation silently (as we all do all the time when there are other demands on our time) it would only become and issue if there was a clear pattern of behaviour.

I would never tell anybody that how they feel is wrong, or that what they believe is wrong (even if I thought so) -- I would however correct an error of fact or understanding, or suggest an improvement to clarity of expression, because that is what these sites exist to do. I would also point out where somebody might be inadvertently close to breaking the CoC because of a misunderstanding (a gentle nudge, I phrased it).

Moderators do face some extra challenges, because there are circumstances in which they cannot disengage if they are to fulfill their role, and I realise we may lose some excellent moderators as a result, which is a real pity. As an ex-moderator, I always tried not to let my personal beliefs get in the way of performing the role fairly, but for some people that isn't possible and I understand that. On some sites, it might be possible for a moderator to defer to another moderator (silently) if that was acceptable to the other moderators or CMs, but I don't know if that would be acceptable.

I regret having indulged myself in being distracted by this discussion. I just wanted to call out your "isn't difficult" as dismissive and potentially hurtful.

@Goyo, and I accept that the wording could be better -- what do you suggest, without changing the meaning that most people will be able to adapt, with assistance if necessary? Is my new wording better?

Much better, thank you for this. I would say that the suggestion that this is mostly about learning, besides missing the point, is somewhat patronizing. But I think it is a very minor issue.

@Goyo, thank you for responding. I do understand that for some people, it is not about learning, because their concerns go as much to identity as the concerns of those who will benefit from this change. But a modification to the CoC that minimises unintentional hurt and actively forbids intentional hurt while allowing those who wish to conform to their own beliefs to continue to do so by not compelling them to engage may be the best we can achieve.

@Goyo, thanks for moving this to chat.

Life (as in preparing dinner) is about to get in the way but I am not ignoring you.

I'll guess I'm still not understanding which point I'm missing, but intend to work to do so.

Wow! If this is the best we can achieve we'd better find better ways of wasting our time. How about giving some consideration to the hurt caused to other people or just acknowledging it, like you did here (even in a comment and only after being hard pressed)? How about not offending people by telling them that intentionally avoiding a certain word amounts to denying someone else's identity?

I would rather a thousand times be told "You have to do this just because or else" than that. I cannot find words in my own language (universally regarded to have a lot of slur words) how insulting I find that.

The point missing in your answer is acknowledging that the objections are not only about having to do something you are not used to but because people feel attacked at their core values and their identity.

"missing the point" was not a prompt for a replay, we can just agree to disagree. But I seized the chance to vent some frustration.

As I tried to say (and obviously failed to do so clearly), I do understand that some people feel attacked at their core values and their identity, and there are such people on all sides of this issue.

However, I do believe that intentionally avoiding a certain word in some circumstances denies that word is part of somebody's identity -- as in the example I gave within my own family of people refusing to call their son 'he' because they denied his male identity. Is there any other way of understanding that specific situation?

Whether you miss that point or not is not much of an issue. OTOH the fact that it is generally missing in the whole justification given for the CoC update and the objections are dismissed as bigotry, transphobia or otherwise made in bad faith is a huge problem

I have not argued anywhere that the objections are bigotry, transphobia or made in bad faith.

Sorry, of course you didn't. I should have said "often". As I said, you are not the problem.

There is very little bad faith in all the discussions around this topic, I believe. There are people who object (understandably) to how it has been (very badly) handled; and people who do not understand what is expected of them now and are nervous that they will contravene a rule unintentionally and be punished for it, and also hurt that anyone would think they ever intended to hurt someone else.

And also people who find that the new rules conflict with their own deeply-held beliefs and -- although they would never have sought to hurt anyone -- now feel they can't interact as they used to do without being told they're wrong.

And people for whom the chances are an improvement, because they have been hurt in the past because the possibility for their hurt was not recognised. (I'm not addressing intentional hurt here -- that's always been against the CoC, even if it wasn't always possible to point to a specific act and say: that isn't 'being nice'.

And I'm not sure there's a good route through all this. If the changes are withdrawn, one set of people will feel betrayed and not valued as themselves. If the changes stand, another set of people will feel threatened and judged and accused. Neither is an outcome that I would welcome, and it will take the Wisdom of Solomon (sadly lacking in our current SE 'leadership' to find a way through.

You believe that intentionally avoiding a certain word in some circumstances denies that word is part of somebody's identity, I believe otherwise. So please don't use your beliefs as a justification of why I must do something. I would rather not address your specific example right now.

FWIW i am not much worried about unintended mistakes. That said, I can't condone the poor and confusing wording in the FAQ, that I find deeply offensive too.

Very shortly, I will have to go offline for the evening. We may have (as you said) to agree to disagree -- IMO, every society/community bases its rules on some set of beliefs rather than arbitrary prohibitions/admonishments and I would choose to understand the bases for those rules (even if I disagree) rather than blindly obey, whereas (If I understand you correctly) 'you would rather a thousand times be told "You have to do this just because or else"'.

Let me say just this: What if telling me that by avoiding the word i am denying the person's identity denies itself my own identity? How can you possibly know better than me what I deny and what I don't?

My pleasure.