Return to Answer

Commonmark migration

Source Link

edited Jun 3, 2020 at 13:30

Being forced to use a certain pronoun, and being threatened with suspension, is not acceptable for a variety of reasons. Dictating a language or a certain form of speech is bound to influence the way you think. While this may be perceived as something positive in this particular case, in that it ~"could increase the acceptance e.g. of non-binary people in the broader society", the measure that is taken to achieve this goal is highly problematic. There is a crucial difference between "educating" people so that they behave "properly", and forcing people to behave in a certain way.

^{Some people refer to "Newspeak" and "thought control" at this point, but that tends to sound hyperbolic - at least compared to more differentiated views, like the Sapir-Whorf-Hypothesis}

But actually, forcing people to use a certain pronoun is not even what this issue is about. From what I have read so far, the goal is not to enforce a certain pronoun or a gender-neutral form. The goal seems to be to force people to use the pronoun that the other side demands, whatever that pronoun is.

But actually, forcing people to use a certain pronoun is not even what this issue is about. From what I have read so far, the goal is not to enforce a certain pronoun or a gender-neutral form. The goal seems to be to force people to use the pronoun that the other side demands, whatever that pronoun is.

One could argue about how relevant this issue is. And maybe people will continue reading before downvoting my answer for this sentence alone: This does not refer to "how relevant misgendering is", but "how relevant pronouns are on this site": Most interactions on the site are not about persons, but about questions and answers. It is rarely the case that people interact directly, one-to-one. And if they interact directly, the issue is even less relevant, because when interacting directly, there usually are no pronouns involved anyhow. Still, there are cases where people interact in a way where pronouns could be used, even though they still may be avoided in most cases.

^{Frankly, I cannot remember being referred to in third person at all, ever, on this site. I have received comments like "Thank you, Sir", but that's a different issue, and "Thank you"-comments should be avoided anyhow}
Most interactions of this kind are singular events. Several million users are writing several million contributions. At one point, UserX may refer to a user called "Sasha" as "he", and Sasha says: "Hey, I'm a woman!". In the course of the ongoing discussion, it would be awkward to not refer to Sasha as "she". (It would at least be awkward. One could even call it "impolite". But not necessarily "disrespectful"). Two years later, UserX and Sasha interact again. Realistically, UserX cannot even know whether it's the same "Sasha", and once more refers to her as "he". Should this be a reason to ban UserX?

There are many, many users who appear once on the site, maybe do not even speak English very well, and try hard to articulate the question that they'd like to have answered. Punishing them for not using a form of speech that they may never have heard of seems to be counterproductive (and not welcoming, for that matter...). In most cases, educating them about how to properly state a question is far more important than details of a language that they hardly speak, and that not even the native speakers can agree on...

Being forced to use a certain pronoun, and being threatened with suspension, is not acceptable for a variety of reasons. Dictating a language or a certain form of speech is bound to influence the way you think. While this may be perceived as something positive in this particular case, in that it ~"could increase the acceptance e.g. of non-binary people in the broader society", the measure that is taken to achieve this goal is highly problematic. There is a crucial difference between "educating" people so that they behave "properly", and forcing people to behave in a certain way.

^{Some people refer to "Newspeak" and "thought control" at this point, but that tends to sound hyperbolic - at least compared to more differentiated views, like the Sapir-Whorf-Hypothesis}

One could argue about how relevant this issue is. And maybe people will continue reading before downvoting my answer for this sentence alone: This does not refer to "how relevant misgendering is", but "how relevant pronouns are on this site": Most interactions on the site are not about persons, but about questions and answers. It is rarely the case that people interact directly, one-to-one. And if they interact directly, the issue is even less relevant, because when interacting directly, there usually are no pronouns involved anyhow. Still, there are cases where people interact in a way where pronouns could be used, even though they still may be avoided in most cases.

^{Frankly, I cannot remember being referred to in third person at all, ever, on this site. I have received comments like "Thank you, Sir", but that's a different issue, and "Thank you"-comments should be avoided anyhow}
Most interactions of this kind are singular events. Several million users are writing several million contributions. At one point, UserX may refer to a user called "Sasha" as "he", and Sasha says: "Hey, I'm a woman!". In the course of the ongoing discussion, it would be awkward to not refer to Sasha as "she". (It would at least be awkward. One could even call it "impolite". But not necessarily "disrespectful"). Two years later, UserX and Sasha interact again. Realistically, UserX cannot even know whether it's the same "Sasha", and once more refers to her as "he". Should this be a reason to ban UserX?

There are many, many users who appear once on the site, maybe do not even speak English very well, and try hard to articulate the question that they'd like to have answered. Punishing them for not using a form of speech that they may never have heard of seems to be counterproductive (and not welcoming, for that matter...). In most cases, educating them about how to properly state a question is far more important than details of a language that they hardly speak, and that not even the native speakers can agree on...

Being forced to use a certain pronoun, and being threatened with suspension, is not acceptable for a variety of reasons. Dictating a language or a certain form of speech is bound to influence the way you think. While this may be perceived as something positive in this particular case, in that it ~"could increase the acceptance e.g. of non-binary people in the broader society", the measure that is taken to achieve this goal is highly problematic. There is a crucial difference between "educating" people so that they behave "properly", and forcing people to behave in a certain way.

^{Some people refer to "Newspeak" and "thought control" at this point, but that tends to sound hyperbolic - at least compared to more differentiated views, like the Sapir-Whorf-Hypothesis}

But actually, forcing people to use a certain pronoun is not even what this issue is about. From what I have read so far, the goal is not to enforce a certain pronoun or a gender-neutral form. The goal seems to be to force people to use the pronoun that the other side demands, whatever that pronoun is.
One could argue about how relevant this issue is. And maybe people will continue reading before downvoting my answer for this sentence alone: This does not refer to "how relevant misgendering is", but "how relevant pronouns are on this site": Most interactions on the site are not about persons, but about questions and answers. It is rarely the case that people interact directly, one-to-one. And if they interact directly, the issue is even less relevant, because when interacting directly, there usually are no pronouns involved anyhow. Still, there are cases where people interact in a way where pronouns could be used, even though they still may be avoided in most cases.

^{Frankly, I cannot remember being referred to in third person at all, ever, on this site. I have received comments like "Thank you, Sir", but that's a different issue, and "Thank you"-comments should be avoided anyhow}
Most interactions of this kind are singular events. Several million users are writing several million contributions. At one point, UserX may refer to a user called "Sasha" as "he", and Sasha says: "Hey, I'm a woman!". In the course of the ongoing discussion, it would be awkward to not refer to Sasha as "she". (It would at least be awkward. One could even call it "impolite". But not necessarily "disrespectful"). Two years later, UserX and Sasha interact again. Realistically, UserX cannot even know whether it's the same "Sasha", and once more refers to her as "he". Should this be a reason to ban UserX?

There are many, many users who appear once on the site, maybe do not even speak English very well, and try hard to articulate the question that they'd like to have answered. Punishing them for not using a form of speech that they may never have heard of seems to be counterproductive (and not welcoming, for that matter...). In most cases, educating them about how to properly state a question is far more important than details of a language that they hardly speak, and that not even the native speakers can agree on...

Source Link

answered Oct 3, 2019 at 15:25

Marco13

3.5k
18
21

The question in the title is easy to answer: Yes, there are objections.

But ... the same would be true for any question that starts with "Are there any objections...?", so this won't help us here. Cynicism aside, there are multiple dimensions along which this issue could be analyzed. Some of these aspects have already been discussed (some of them ad nauseam), and mentioned in the comments here:

Being forced to use a certain pronoun, and being threatened with suspension, is not acceptable for a variety of reasons. Dictating a language or a certain form of speech is bound to influence the way you think. While this may be perceived as something positive in this particular case, in that it ~"could increase the acceptance e.g. of non-binary people in the broader society", the measure that is taken to achieve this goal is highly problematic. There is a crucial difference between "educating" people so that they behave "properly", and forcing people to behave in a certain way.

^{Some people refer to "Newspeak" and "thought control" at this point, but that tends to sound hyperbolic - at least compared to more differentiated views, like the Sapir-Whorf-Hypothesis}

One could argue about how relevant this issue is. And maybe people will continue reading before downvoting my answer for this sentence alone: This does not refer to "how relevant misgendering is", but "how relevant pronouns are on this site": Most interactions on the site are not about persons, but about questions and answers. It is rarely the case that people interact directly, one-to-one. And if they interact directly, the issue is even less relevant, because when interacting directly, there usually are no pronouns involved anyhow. Still, there are cases where people interact in a way where pronouns could be used, even though they still may be avoided in most cases.

^{Frankly, I cannot remember being referred to in third person at all, ever, on this site. I have received comments like "Thank you, Sir", but that's a different issue, and "Thank you"-comments should be avoided anyhow}
Most interactions of this kind are singular events. Several million users are writing several million contributions. At one point, UserX may refer to a user called "Sasha" as "he", and Sasha says: "Hey, I'm a woman!". In the course of the ongoing discussion, it would be awkward to not refer to Sasha as "she". (It would at least be awkward. One could even call it "impolite". But not necessarily "disrespectful"). Two years later, UserX and Sasha interact again. Realistically, UserX cannot even know whether it's the same "Sasha", and once more refers to her as "he". Should this be a reason to ban UserX?

There are many, many users who appear once on the site, maybe do not even speak English very well, and try hard to articulate the question that they'd like to have answered. Punishing them for not using a form of speech that they may never have heard of seems to be counterproductive (and not welcoming, for that matter...). In most cases, educating them about how to properly state a question is far more important than details of a language that they hardly speak, and that not even the native speakers can agree on...

So I think that this issue is mainly relevant for staff, community managers, moderators, and maybe a few long-time users. Or to put it that way: It is mainly relevant for people who know each other and 1. interact within a group, and 2. interact with other individuals, as a group.

And for these, one should assume that they will not intentionally "misgender" people, and if one of them does, one should assume that they are able to resolve this conflict without trying to enforce impractical rules for the community.

After all, managing and resolving conflicts may be the most important part of their job.