@Catija You confuse lack of information with willfull ignorance and disrespect, implying the majority is by default plainly dismissive to these issues and act harmfully to the minority unless being told to behave. I don't like that implication. You can't derive lack of general empathy and respect from the fact the majority of people here have never met a transgender person or at least have never faced their issues, and then simply cross out that majority from the decision-making process because they "could never understand the reasons".

@VictorStafusa With the current state of things, it seems mods might actually care about that. But I don't see much reason to find it offensive (rather wierd or clumsy); it is simply a part of the language some people use when they don't want to deal with genders, and perhaps that's for the better. That's why I insist the discussion (and the spirit of the new rules) is about genders and not pronouns - singular "they" is simply applicable to anyone in this usage of English. Denying it would be like denying being addressed "you".

@Wildcard That's intriguing to hear. I am not a native English speaker so my "sense of language" might be kinda shifted, but that would make it quite similar to my (Slavic) language where the masculine gender is commonly used in grammar for an unspecified gender. If that was also the case in English, I now understand why someone would consider singular "they" unnecessary, perhaps a hypercorrection.

@jpmc26 In this case, it's the right to be referred to by the correct pronouns when people know them. Pretty simple and not at all authoritarian. Remember, you're not a resident in a state here, you're a guest on someone else's property who has welcomed you but subjected that welcome to certain conditions, as is the case for every such welcome.

@jpmc26 Rights necessarily must come to an end at some point when they impinge on other people. Drawing the boundary between one person's rights and someone else's is not always easy, but often it must be done. In this circumstance such a line has been drawn that requires basic respect of peoples' pronouns. If you cannot manage this, then you are not welcome.

@jpmc26 There is no moral wrong in extending a modest offer of protection and respect to people that are under constant threat just for being who they are. It's no more restricting your speech to require a particular pronoun than it is restricting your speech to require you not refer to people with racial, ethnic, or religious slurs. No one is taking away your broader right to speech the way a government would, they are outlining the bounds of the privilege you have to speak here on this platform. Don't abuse Orwell to make yourself a victim for failing to respect someone else.

@jpmc26 As has been repeated here ad nauseum, the restriction is on questioning whether it is necessary to use correct pronouns. The answer to that question is yes, it is necessary, and no, it is not negotiable. It is no more negotiable than it is negotiable whether people of different skin colors or religions are less human. We don't have those debates here and we won't have this one either. That's it.

@jpmc26 It's way less confusing than you are making it sound. When someone says "actually I go by 'she'", stop calling them "he" or "they" and use "she". Same thing for any other pronoun. If you encounter a word you think is not used in good faith, you can flag for a moderator to help you out. You can believe whatever you want religiously. You can't behave in a way that questions the validity of someone elses' gender. Just like other rights, religious rights end when they intersect with the other rights people have.

@jpmc26 Bigotry is not protected, and basic respect is not negotiable. It's rude and offensive to imply that it is. "I don't want to treat you respectfully, so can we come to an agreement where I disrespect you but only, like, a little bit?" is not an appropriate question to ask. There is no room for an alternative.

@jpmc26 I bet there are lots of words you've used before waiting some X number of years to get comfortable with. It's practically impossible to get through schooling without doing so, that's part of learning. It kind of doesn't matter if you don't "accept the idea that motivated" the creation of those words, there is no longer tolerance for that position here, nor is there tolerance for any number of other positions like the inferiority or superiority of certain races no matter what motivates those positions (religion included).

@jpmc26 That is exactly why there is this policy, because we can go around in circles arguing about language and coerced speech and tyranny and Orwell and ultimately it's all a cover for the core issue: you see a social movement that you disagree with, and that's why you're opposed. That view, however, is not allowed here and nor are numerous others. We're in SE's house, SE would like to protect some of their guests, and they have the right to do so.

@jpmc26 The problem is that for this particular issue, the people most affected end up having to answer all the time. They are constantly questioned for who they are. They are sick and tired of explaining themselves, of providing evidence, of having to coach and educate every single person they meet when all they are asking for is basic respect. Demanding that they put up with this and continue to fight this same fight is not nice, not welcoming, and now, not allowed.

@jpmc26 "Lots of people are (transphobic/sexist/racist)" does not seem to me to be a good argument in support of those positions; it's precisely an argument for why there are specific rules against behavior that supports those positions. Does it make any sense that SO would want to shove a bunch of people out? Or does it make more sense that they want to protect a segment of the population that deserves respectful treatment that they don't always receive?

@jpmc26 I don't need them to be shared with me, pretty sure I've heard them all, so has SO, and especially so has every Trans person. They also aren't particularly new arguments, and some version of many of the same arguments have been used in the past to defend racism, antisemitism, and homophobia. Denying the existence or validity of Trans people's gender and misgendering them is transphobic, I don't think there's much argument to be had there.

@jpmc26 There is no argument to be made about whether respectful treatment of other people includes using the correct pronouns, that's correct. Arguments against that have many spaces to propagate in, they don't need to propagate here when people ask to be referred to correctly.

@jpmc26 Religious arguments have long been used to justify racism, slavery, and homophobia as well, including by framing those views as somehow necessary to "save" others. You don't choose for someone else whether their gender represents a failing or weakness.

@BryanKrause The argument largely depends on what actually people mean by pronouns. If somebody tells me "I am a woman", then sure, they have the feminine gender and I can use the pronouns that English uses for it. It's the Internet after all. But if someone tells me "You have to use pronouns x/y/z or whatever made-up words to refer to me", then no, I don't have to. I can be asked not to use offensive or rude words, but I won't be forced to used nonexisting words that have no translations to other languages and that mean concepts that don't exist in my mind.

@IllidanS4supportsMonica Language is constantly evolving, and there are people who use the singular pronoun "they" and less commonly people who use some newer words. They do this because neither of the binary pronouns "he" nor "she" accurately describe them, so that both of those words are incorrect and misgendering. Neither "they" nor neopronouns are "nonexisting", they do in fact exist, and are the appropriate pronouns to use for the people that use them. Failing to use them is disrespectful, whatever the justification.

@BryanKrause Which is to say I am not going to use he/she/it specifically to annoy the person, but I am free to use "they" in any case that a) I find using a specific pronoun controversial, b) I specifically do not want to include gender specification in the sentence, or c) I don't know the gender. If someone is mad at me for using "they", they have all the rights to be mad, but it's like being mad when someone says "ain't" or "I don't know nothing" - a language peculiarity.

@BryanKrause I have nothing against singular "they". However, it seems that if someone finds that offensive, I am still not allowed to use it for some reason. Saying that "language is evolving" as an argument for forcing someone to speak a different language than they are used to is also limiting their freedom of speech. I meant "nonexisting" subjectively - those words don't exist in the language I use. They exist in the dialects of others, and I respect that, but not in mine.

@IllidanS4supportsMonica Using "they" as a generic pronoun for cases (b) or (c) is totally acceptable, and is now preferable to using "he" as a generic pronoun even if the thinking on this has shifted lately. It's my usual default, as well, and for reasons that go beyond non-binary issues (for example, I post a lot on Academia.SE and MedicalSciences.SE, and wish to avoid the long-standing implicit assumption that professors and doctors are men).

@IllidanS4supportsMonica I think it's fundamentally different to think in terms of "freedom" of speech/choice of language in general versus in the specific case of how to refer to another specific person. The use of the correct pronouns is necessary because all other incorrect alternatives can be offensive, just like slurs are. Other cases exist where we do not have freedom to address in the way we choose, like Fred not wanting to be called Freddy. This specific case may be new and different to people, including me, but isn't that complicated and for most people will be rarely encountered.

@BryanKrause I would also find using "they" totally acceptable, but the CoC does not seem to, plus I reckon that was the reason Monica was fired and defamed last year.

@IllidanS4supportsMonica You are free to use "they" when you don't know, you only need to use a neopronoun when requested (and, again, this is rare. There is a good chance you personally will never encounter it on SE especially if you use 'they' as a default). If you mean to say Monica was fired because she wanted to use "they" you are extremely mistaken.

@BryanKrause I still see this not as a matter of pronouns, but a matter of genders, on the basic level. Saying he/him is just words, but the concept is male/masculine, which comes with a whole lot of other words and not just pronouns (man, sir, son, bro etc.). I respect being told not to use a particular gender since it's incorrect and I find that polite, but it seems not referring to the gender at all could also be a violation (i.e. "you need to use a neopronoun" instead of "they"). I don't have anything against people using languages with neopronouns, but I am not in that category.

@IllidanS4supportsMonica I think for Trans and nonbinary people saying "he/him" goes a lot beyond just words. For a Transwoman, being stubbornly referred to as "he" precisely comes along with that concept of male/masculine, and for her that is very demeaning. It's not just the pronoun, of course, all those other words carry the same connotation and are just as offensive, it's just that pronouns tend to come up the most

"Sir" comes up a lot, too, especially for people who come from a more formal language, and that's also offensive and although I'm not keeping count I'm pretty confident I've seen far more people request not to be called "Sir" than any other similar request under the CoC, and that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with being Trans but more commonly with being a woman

I know it would be easier for me personally if everyone would pick "he", "she", or "they", and I don't think I've ever met someone in person who requested one besides those three, but I know some people have a good argument for why none of those three feel right to them, so given how important that is to them compared to how much it inconveniences me, I feel placing my own convenience at priority would be very disrespectful

@BryanKrause I agree, but that's the fundamental level that I think should be recognized (please pardon my pedantic nature). As far as I am aware, a transwoman wants to be treated just as a woman, so I find specifying "female" instead of "she/her" more meaningful. Making this distinction shift to pronouns instead of genders is like going from semantics to plain syntax.

@IllidanS4supportsMonica I think the reason for the highlight on pronouns in this particular policy is because people asked for clarification of rules. I agree with you that the fundamental issue is gender, not pronouns.

@BryanKrause And my point precisely was that restricting someone's syntax is limiting and beyond the line, while restricting someone's semantics is as acceptable as asking someone not to use rude words or slurs - it's about the meanings, not words.

@IllidanS4supportsMonica I think that's really all the policy asks. Forgive my lack of precision on where different language terms end, but a correct pronoun seems to me like it would be semantic.

Interestingly, until recently I had thought that singular "they" as an example of epicene syntax (without gender distiction) was quite common and not that new, while recently I've learnt that epicene "he" was (and somewhere still is) also common in English. By that notion, I'd have nothing against someone using it with that meaning, but I agree it could be confusing (it's like using "fag" in British English).

@IllidanS4supportsMonica My understanding is that singular "they" for an individual of unknown gender has been used for a very long time. The only new thing is using "they" as a singular pronoun for an individual of known non-binary gender

There have been style guides that instead recommended "he" for unknown gender (as well as masculine forms of other gendered English nouns), but this has fallen out of favor

@BryanKrause Interesting. Well what one person considers known non-binary gender, I could consider unknown, unspecified or unspecifiable binary gender, so from my point of view it's pretty much alike. Nothing against that.

@IllidanS4supportsMonica I think it would be better to try to understand the concept can be separate, but from a language perspective there isn't much difference and the CoC does not aim to police thoughtcrime, which is why I often find it disingenuous when people make an argument that there is a language problem with the policy.

@BryanKrause I would have nothing against this kind of policy; my point was only being forced to use neopronouns in places where the syntax permits "they" as a genderless pronoun. Starting to refer to this whole thing as matter of pronouns sincerely feels confusing and wrong to me, since nobody can own "I" or "you" (and I cannot force you to use "thou" instead of "you" when addressing me for example).

Hard to speak for others, but I'd go for "please do not use genders people don't want to be addressed with, and be polite when talking to them" instead of this new CoC any day.

@IllidanS4supportsMonica I think it's not in spirit any different from the way you've just phrased it.

Guess time will tell if that's the case.

Some people, though, push the boundary on that. They say "oh, well what if I do X, is that okay?" "Will I be punished for doing Y?"

But I hope you don't find my arguments disingenuous; I am really that kind of person who can argue about minor language details, and specific definitions of things.

"How will you know I'm being impolite? How will you know I'm using a wrong gender for someone?"

The policy gets more specific about pronouns to answer those questions

Maybe disingenuous is a bit of an unfair characterization. I won't refer to you that way and I'll refrain from using that argument in the future

@BryanKrause Sadly this could backfire in the other direction, when someone comes and requires to be refererred to as "attack helicopter" and claim it's a pronoun.

It's trolling nonetheless, but I'd imagine the CoC would not want this kind of behaviour anyway, based on the serious tone it has.

@IllidanS4supportsMonica People have definitely done that. I don't think it's backfired, those arguments are clearly trolling and simple to handle.

Anyway, still it's just words at this moment, and thus I also respond just with words. The specific actions that will happen is what matters.

Thank you for having this conversation politely, and I think there are a couple points I hope you'll think about. First is that this policy is meant to protect people who have been subject to active abuse here on the network. I've seen it, the site usually does a good job of cleaning it up like everything else, but there have been some failures on that. It's not meant to constrain or scare people who operate in good faith.

@BryanKrause No worries, I was not offended by that anyway.

Thank you as well, and yes, I am open to more thoughts.

By the way, it's interesting to see how the vote counts are developing for threads here. Now the announcement has -1 score while it used to have about 20, and my response had -5 and now has 14.

Second is that what for you is an important but minor language issue is a core identity issue for others, something they may struggle with every day as people refer to them in a way that characterizes them in a way that is deeply, deeply uncomfortable. I know with some of my own friends we like to get into debates about things that ultimately don't matter to us that much. Yes, winning is fun, and the debating can help everyone involved understand where they actually stand, but stakes are low

@IllidanS4supportsMonica The history on these kinds of posts has often followed that. I think that's because the initial voting happens from the people who are typically around Meta, and the late voting happens when the post gets circulated on sites where people are actively anti-Trans. Not just against new pronouns, but have actual hatred for people who are different.

And I think that's a big part of why the post talks about not having the "debate" anymore about whether pronouns are necessary.

@BryanKrause Ah I didn't mean to use that to refer to this whole argument and the CoC, just to discussions I am fond of having. I come here as a programmer and a language hobbyist, I don't think it's proper for me discuss gender issues I don't know much about from the professional point. I just go by trying to be polite while staying true to my principles.

@IllidanS4supportsMonica Yes, I didn't take it that way. Just hoping to expose the perspective that the weight of these discussions lands differently on different people.

Yeah, I do get that.

Anyway, I shall be on my way now, thanks for the discussion!

Cheers

Safe travels :-)