Timeline for How can the community assist in welcoming LGBTQ users?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
39 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 5, 2019 at 12:57 | comment | added | Erik A | I'm not talking about coddling bigotry here, or being fine with people being disrespectful. I'm talking about not being fine with people shutting down debate. I hope that's something you don't do. In my practice, losing people might be more substantial than the projects you're working on, but I'm not basing this on hypotheticals. I'm a doctor working in pediatrics, and the people I've dealt with are mostly family members/caretakers. Talking works. It requires effort, patience, and holding back judgment, but it's a way to resolve this while rarely losing people. | |
| Oct 5, 2019 at 12:40 | comment | added | Kate Gregory | I don't doubt you believe that. I've been actively working on inclusion and diversity for 2 years now, and I've learned that when you set rules that protect minorities, you attract more of them. While some bigots leave, some change - mostly from meeting those you attracted. (And the not-bigots but too lazy to care folks also learn and change.) When you coddle bigots while trying to teach them, they don't learn and the minorities stay away. This is experience from real world practice, not how you think reaching bigots might work. "Here, we use people's pronouns and don't debate that." It works. | |
| Oct 5, 2019 at 12:36 | comment | added | Erik A | @KateGregory Don't get me wrong. I don't want to allow people to deny others existence. I want people to be able to talk sensibly about it, so people can get educated and actually resolve their differences, to make people actually understand each other instead of just being forced to say certain words they don't stand behind. We should of course be welcoming to LGBTQ people. But in a way that fosters understanding and respect, instead of creating differences. Forcing someone to use words they're unfamiliar with won't magically make them take your feelings into account. Talking to them will. | |
| Oct 5, 2019 at 12:28 | comment | added | Kate Gregory | oh my, the poor majority, whatever will happen to them when they are "forced" to take other people's feelings into account instead of just doing whatever they want all the time? We totally should consider both sides all the time. And stick up for those who want to deny existence to people, because these imaginary people you're worried about have a right to be rude that is as important as the right not to be murdered or fired or evicted. Priorities, right? So that even when discussing "how to X" we still have to pause to answer "but should we X, though? Should we? Maybe not." Stop. Please. | |
| Oct 5, 2019 at 12:03 | comment | added | Erik A | The question may not explicitly be about balance, but that should be the goal. If we welcome LGBTQ people at the cost of shunning others, that magnifies the problems down the road, because those disadvantaged by this will only get their believes reinforced with no way to learn and correct them. It was not my intent to upset you, and I am sorry for that. But in light of recent events, I'm firmly against creating division or shutting down discussion, because I fear that will benefit none and only increase the problem we face for the future. | |
| Oct 5, 2019 at 11:49 | comment | added | CB Bailey | @ErikA: But this question is specifically about how to be welcoming to LGBTQ people, it is not "should we be welcoming to LGBTQ people" or "how should we balance being welcoming to LGBTQ with giving space for people who do not respect some people because of their gender". I also specifically say "the fact that people feel able to debate this is unwelcoming". If you have read my answer, do you not believe me or is the cost of upsetting me worth it for your right to debate this issue here on this specific answer? (For the record, I've found both of your comments upsetting.) | |
| Oct 5, 2019 at 11:35 | comment | added | Erik A | @CBBailey I've read the question, and your answer. Please don't insinuate I haven't. If someone from a religion that doesn't acknowledge transgender/nonbinary as an entity were to want to address your answer, or for whatever reason didn't want to address you by your preferred pronoun, you're shutting them down without tolerating debate/allowing them to explain themselves. You've answered a discussion topic, so I feel free to discuss here. Note that I personally do not have an issue with these pronouns, just the lack of acknowledgement that they may be a problem for someone else.\ | |
| Oct 5, 2019 at 10:57 | comment | added | CB Bailey | @ErikA: Please read the question and answer again; this is about being welcoming. Some things are up for debate and some things are not. My pronouns are not up for debate. I'm not forcing them on anyone but if you don't want to use them or want to "debate on the issue" then please do that somewhere else. | |
| Oct 5, 2019 at 10:11 | comment | added | Erik A | The fact that you want to impose something upon others without tolerating debate is unwelcoming as well, but to different people. While I may agree with using preferred pronouns whenever known, I don't agree with not tolerating debate. If we don't allow debate on the issue, how are we ever going to adjust people's view on it? | |
| Oct 5, 2019 at 9:17 | comment | added | Gerold Broser | @ModusTollens Re your very first comment: I second that with "four days ago": meta.stackexchange.com/questions/334248/…. | |
| Oct 2, 2019 at 20:23 | comment | added | Mark | Using a person's pronouns is not onerous. Tracking the preferred pronouns of the several thousand site users I've interacted with over the years is onerous. I'd prefer to remember the pronouns of the people I refer to on a regular basis, use neutral writing for everyone else, and put the majority of my effort into the main purpose of this site, which is asking and answering questions. | |
| Oct 2, 2019 at 17:47 | comment | added | mason | ... So finding an acceptable common ground to work with people like that, who by all accounts was an outstanding moderator and went out of her way to make people of all background feels accepted, well that should be something that we strive toward. Not this absolute "there can be no debate" mentality - things are far more nuanced and you're only going to alienate yourself with absolutism if you can't listen to others and try to find common ground to work with them. | |
| Oct 2, 2019 at 17:45 | comment | added | mason | @CBBailey I will personally call you whatever you wish to be called. However, this entire pronoun-gate has arisen because a moderator refused to address a single person with "they" because they felt "they" is confusing because many people only know it being used in a plural sense. That moderator even acknowledged the dictionary says it's okay to use "they" for singular reference. That moderator also offered to use any other pronoun (including the neo-pronouns) or to avoid pronouns completely to sidestep the issue. It wasn't about a lack of respect, though the company chose to view it that way. | |
| Oct 2, 2019 at 17:34 | comment | added | CB Bailey | @mason: If you don't even respect my name and pronouns then I'm afraid there is little common ground to be found. | |
| Oct 2, 2019 at 17:28 | comment | added | mason | @CBBailey Just because someone has proposed a way of being more welcoming doesn't mean it must be accepted without any form of debate. It's a two way conversation. You have to respect that if you want to find common ground and make progress. | |
| Oct 2, 2019 at 17:15 | comment | added | CB Bailey | @Solomonoff'sSecret: Please have a look at the question and the answer again. You are on a question asking how we can be welcoming to LGBTQ users. This answer is telling you that not debating other people's pronouns is one concrete and important way to do this. If you want to research the history of why having one's pronouns "gatekept" has a painful history, then please feel free to research this on your own time. If someone is offended by my prounouns, then perhaps they need to examine why this is. | |
| Oct 2, 2019 at 15:58 | comment | added | Reinstate Monica | @KateGregory Why should the listener alone decide what can be spoken? The speaker has agency too. If the listener is offended by X and the speaker is offended by Y, why not use Z instead? Using a different pronoun for the same gender is not misgendering, it is not factually wrong, and I have yet to see a good objective reason for it to be offensive. | |
| Oct 2, 2019 at 14:13 | comment | added | user204841 | @KateGregory "Singular they is just not a problem" - that's what I've been saying all the time in this thread! That's what I was proposing as one solution that can easily be understood by non native speakers. I don't know how that didn't come across in what I wrote. Yes - by all means, use "they"! It's the non-complex solution. | |
| Oct 2, 2019 at 14:07 | comment | added | Kate Gregory | You're wrong. It has everything to do with gender issues. We all use they for a single person all the time. In this comment thread, Monica is referred to as they several times. Nobody notices. Singular they is just not a problem. It isn't complex or nuanced -- people just claim it is while refusing to honour the reality of the people they talk about. Language changes. We used to use "the n word" and the "the r word" and now we don't. Years ago, kids called me Kathy because they said that was the only short form for Katherine. They were wrong. Refusing to call a person they is also wrong. | |
| Oct 2, 2019 at 14:00 | comment | added | mason | @KateGregory If she feels that "they" shouldn't be used to refer to a single person, then refusing to call a single person "they" has nothing to do with gender issues. It's a complex nuanced issue, and people draw the line at different places. While I may not entirely agree with Monica's stance, I don't find it offensive at all. She actually offered to use a lot of the neo-pronouns (or whatever they're called) if a person wished for them to be used. Anyways, my point is that you're arguing in bad faith if you keep mischaracterizing her position now that you know what it is. | |
| Oct 2, 2019 at 13:56 | comment | added | Kate Gregory | But that's the point! It's not up to her what someone's proper pronoun is! (People keep acting like it's hard.) Do you know how many times singular they has been used in this comment stream alone? You don't even notice it because it's so natural. Refusing to use it is not sticking up for grammar. It's hurting gender non conforming people and acting like that makes you virtuous. | |
| Oct 2, 2019 at 13:55 | comment | added | mason | ... Feel free to disagree with her, but read what she said. There is absolutely no evidence she doesn't support non-binary people, only that she wished to use what she believed the proper plurality to refer to a person vs people. @KateGregory | |
| Oct 2, 2019 at 13:53 | comment | added | mason | @KateGregory You are severely mischaracterizing Monica's stance. I hope that's not in bad faith, but I feel you should take some time to learn what she actually said rather than continue to make false statements. Check out the screenshots [Please don't link to leaked private conversations, it's rude and potentially harmful --Ed.]. Monica offered to use any pronoun that a user wants, except she didn't wish to refer to a single person as "they" because she felt it was grammatically awkward (even if not grammatically incorrect).... | |
| Oct 2, 2019 at 13:46 | comment | added | Kate Gregory | @TadeuszKopec yes I do because it's not hard. But that is not what this answer says. This answer says "stop saying it's hard." And the demodding isn't about ESL users making honest mistakes, it's about mods saying "I refuse to do what I know the person wants because I know their gender better than they do" and there's no way that's welcoming or respectful. Stop conflating "honest mistakes" with heel-digging refusals. | |
| Oct 2, 2019 at 13:42 | comment | added | Tadeusz Kopec for Ukraine | @KateGregory C'mon. This is a site people from whole world use. Many of them struggle hard to compose sentences that resemble English grammar. And you expect them to grasp subtleties of person pronouns in English? Good luck. | |
| Oct 2, 2019 at 13:18 | comment | added | Kate Gregory | oh come on. Go read the 20 or 30 resignation and on strike speeches. They all say the same thing. And that article includes a quote from Monica herself saying she will not use they. There is no universe in which she's perfectly happy to use they be SE decided to pretend she wasn't. And she doesn't find it "linguistically hard" she just doesn't believe in nonbinary people and won't call anyone they. Caleb doesn't believe in gender and if your "genetic sex" (the phrase in Caleb's resignation letter) is known, that's what Caleb will use. These positions are not ok. And pronouns are not hard. | |
| Oct 2, 2019 at 13:12 | comment | added | user204841 | @KateGregory Imagine how Monica feels should this statement by SE not be correct? It's word against word right now. No sense in trusting any side right now and speculate. A press statement by an SE employee does not automafically depict the truth. Let's stop. (And, hey, lingustically speaking that problem is hard, see all the scientific papers about it. Look up Gendersternchen, Binnen-I, Gendern nach Phettberg etc if you want to get nightmares about German language trying to implement gender neutral speach for just two genders alone.) Goodbye for now. | |
| Oct 2, 2019 at 13:04 | comment | added | Kate Gregory | @ModusTollens theregister.co.uk/2019/10/01/stack_exchange_controversy Monica announced in advance she will not refer to a person as they. Imagine how that feels for a person who has realized they are nonbinary. It cannot possibly be welcoming (again, remember the question and the answer we are commenting on.) I really like Monica (we have several sites in common) but on this issue she was wrong. (Wrong enough for what happened next, probably not. But still wrong.) And now everyone is "oh noes the poor new users they will never figure it out" but it is not that hard really. | |
| Oct 2, 2019 at 12:55 | comment | added | user204841 | @KateGregory I don't want to argue, and I have not seen any official statement yet. I don't know what's in the CoC. I was just trying to show hypothetical linguistic difficulty in implementing what users heard would be in the CoC. So I'm gonna stop now and wait for an official statement. I, for the record, have been using "they" for a long time and believe it is a good solution. And for your "in reality..." part - source? | |
| Oct 2, 2019 at 12:52 | comment | added | Kate Gregory | @ModusTollens nobody has ever said ordinary users would be punished for not checking a profile and using "difficult" pronouns (please remember you are commenting on an answer that says it would be really helpful to stop claiming using the right pronouns is hard work). In reality a moderator announced in advance they would never use certain pronouns even knowing that the person they were talking about wanted to be referred by those pronouns. That is a completely different thing, right? I agree that "they" is a handy default - in fact it is being used like this all the time naturally. | |
| Oct 2, 2019 at 0:44 | comment | added | Nat | Gender-neutral language, e.g. "they", definitely seems like a good idea. I dunno so much about any convention that requires people to look at others' profiles; that seems to invite an unnecessary level of social entanglement. | |
| Oct 2, 2019 at 0:21 | comment | added | user204841 | @GhostCat True, and not on linguistic level as well. I see users struggling with asking on topic questions because they didn't read guidelines - how do we justify punishing them for not knowing how to use pronouns they never learned about correctly? Some languages don't even distinguish between gender and sex. Don't get me wrong, I don't mean we should ignore this problem, I just don't know how we would handle the situation would we open that can of worms. I therefore believe "they" to be a good solution - neutral, inclusive and much easier to learn (if you get used to it). | |
| Oct 2, 2019 at 0:16 | comment | added | GhostCat | @ModusTollens but we aren't all equal. From the perspective that matters here. I think the only solution is to accept that this in fact a complex social problem, and that there aren't simple solutions on the technical level. | |
| Oct 2, 2019 at 0:09 | comment | added | user204841 | @GhostCat Probably it is time to drop pronouns completely and treat everybody equal? That would be way easier... | |
| Oct 2, 2019 at 0:06 | comment | added | GhostCat | @ModusTollens how are going to educate... In a lengthy, annoying, frustrating effort to give our best. "We" are probably the first generation of humans to live in a time where (basically) everybody is asked to recognize that everybody else is an individual. No more stupid classifications based on age, gender, religion,... That won't be easy, it will require effort each day. But it is worth investing that time and energy. | |
| Oct 1, 2019 at 22:56 | history | edited | This_is_NOT_a_forum | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Active reading. [<http://stackoverflow.com/legal/trademark-guidance> (the last section)].
|
| Oct 1, 2019 at 22:53 | comment | added | user204841 | And from stuff that was posted it seems like using neutral pronouns or names to avoid using specific pronouns would not be allowed under the new (unpublished) CoC. | |
| Oct 1, 2019 at 22:48 | comment | added | user204841 | I see this being pretty easy to adopt for english users, but how to deal with the worldwide community any the many users for whom english is a second language? I, for example, first encountered "they" as a neutral pronoun some years ago, it was never taught to us in school (non-native speaker). How are we going to educate people, make them aware of the problem and teach them how to deal with it? | |
| Oct 1, 2019 at 22:30 | history | answered | CB Bailey | CC BY-SA 4.0 |