Timeline for How can the community assist in welcoming LGBTQ users?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
29 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 17, 2019 at 1:45 | comment | added | Max A. | @EricDuminil And? It's fine to be appalled by the content, but that content is a part of Christianity, whihc is the subject for ChristainitySE. | |
| Oct 14, 2019 at 8:12 | comment | added | Eric Duminil | @MaxA. I don't care who contributes to ChristianitySE. I'm appalled by the content related to LGBT, though. It's not hate speech, it's "Leviticus 20:13". It's not transphobia, it's "fraternal correction". My expectations were not low enough, apparently. | |
| Oct 13, 2019 at 23:46 | comment | added | Max A. | @EricDuminil Again, you seem to be insinuating that ChristianitySE is full of Christians. It's not a site for Christians. It's a site to discuss Christianity. And even for those users who are Christian, beware the bigotry of low expectations. | |
| Oct 13, 2019 at 12:13 | comment | added | Eric Duminil | @MaxA. Sure, we have different values, different definitions of what's "better" and we both think we're right. There's not much to discuss. I don't expect any of us to change our point of view after reading some comments on meta. Just like I don't expect much support for LBGT people from Caleb or the majority of people from ChristianitySE. | |
| Oct 13, 2019 at 4:30 | comment | added | Max A. | @EricDuminil, as a Christian myself, I can answer "I really don't share the point of view of Caleb, but what would you expect from a moderator on ChristianityStackExchange talking to his "brothers"?" I expect better from fellow Christians than from atheists. Don't lower your expectations and your standards just because someone identifies as Christian. Also, ChristianitySE is not a stack for Christians; it's a stack to discuss about Christianity. Members of the site do not need special treatment. | |
| Oct 8, 2019 at 13:07 | comment | added | Konrad Rudolph | The amount of downvotes on this post is shocking, and a testament to its importance. Disappointing. | |
| Oct 7, 2019 at 1:12 | comment | added | Peilonrayz | I feel attacked by this answer. I previously identified as trans and later dated a trans person, but according to you I am transphobic. Because I can see myself upvoting a transphobic moderators leaving post that contains some transphobia. I can see myself doing this as I have upvoted all my sites moderators leaving posts out of respect for the work they've done, even if we don't always see eye to eye. I feel acceptance is more important than labels and tribe mentalities. As the person I respect most on SE disagrees with most of my beliefs. | |
| Oct 6, 2019 at 3:33 | comment | added | Nij | I'm perfectly capable of coping with different opinions and ideas; it's a major part of my jobs. But you and others have missed the entire point of a COC that requires pronouns be correct - nobody should have to "cope" with being treated as subhuman or second-class or as if merely existing is abhorrent. That you think it is possible for tolerance to go both ways, when one of the sides in question is literally the intolerance of the other side's existence, demonstrates you do not even understand what you're disputing. | |
| Oct 4, 2019 at 12:50 | comment | added | einpoklum | With due respect - it sounds like you are arguing that welcoming LGBTQ+ users requires strong totalitarian interventionism in the most fundamental aspects of the site's activity. If what you hint at - central intervention at the behest of LGBTQ+ people in skewing asking, answering and moderation to prevent slight, insult, discomfort, non-welcome etc - is realized, that would be very bad. I would rather SE be "unwelcoming" in the sense of your answer than "welcoming". | |
| Oct 3, 2019 at 10:32 | comment | added | Nij | People can quite easily discuss the more discriminatory aspects of religious faith in a respectful way without necessarily displaying that discrimination themselves. That people choose to disrespectful, and are allowed to continue acting that way, is not an excuse to keep allowing it. We can defend the right of bigots to hold their bigoted opinion; they do not have the right to use every possible platform in sharing it, and neither do we need to support giving them one. | |
| Oct 3, 2019 at 10:23 | comment | added | Eric Duminil | @Nij: So what, let's close every religious StackExchange website? You should simply accept that LGBTQ people won't get much support from monotheistic religions. You won't manage to solve this problem in comments or with a shiny new dictatorial code of conduct. I'm very much atheist and anti-cleric but I simply accept that there are religious people, and it's good that they have a platform on which they can write n̶o̶n̶s̶e̶n̶s̶e̶ their point of view. It makes it easier for me to ignore everything coming from their corresponding websites. | |
| Oct 3, 2019 at 9:52 | comment | added | Nij | There is nothing to be respected about the idea that LGBTQI+ are not truly people, do not have individual personalities, or should be deliberately misnamed and misgendered. Tolerance cannot go both ways: either you side with the oppressor or you side with the oppressed. If it is too much for someone to just use the right pronoun, there is no possible way to have respect go both ways. It's extremely ironic that you say requiring some basic decency will earn disdain, when that's exactly what misgendering and misnaming demonstrates in the first place. | |
| Oct 3, 2019 at 9:25 | comment | added | Eric Duminil | @Nij Openness, tolerance and inclusivity should go both ways. I really don't share the point of view of Caleb, but what would you expect from a moderator on ChristianityStackExchange talking to his "brothers"? What's next, will we force "Free Tibet!" banners on chinese.stackexchange.com or "Happy Hanukkah!" on islam.stackexchange.com, in the name of openness? It's not possible to make everyone happy on every stackexchange website, that's why there are multiple sites in the first place. To get respect, show some respect. If you want to impose respect, you'll get disdain. | |
| Oct 2, 2019 at 22:04 | comment | added | duplode | @Mark Still, those who upvoted that post (or praised it by noting how judicious or elucidating it was) presumably have gone through that line (and other connected passages, which occupy a good chunk of the post) and didn't find it a big deal, or at least not enough to affect their vote or remark. As rspeer notes, in a queer-friendly site that would have been a dealbreaker. (On a related note, the period from this answer quoted by J.R. in the comment above has a second sentence: "[...] or at least doesn't think it's as much of a problem as losing one of their own".) | |
| Oct 2, 2019 at 20:23 | comment | added | J.R. means 'Just Reinstate' | @Mark - I was just getting ready to make the same point. RE: When a moderator resigns and posts a long ramble that denies the validity of trans people as his parting words, and the post gets hundreds of net upvotes, it indicates that the power user community generally agrees with transphobia. That's neither an objective conclusion nor a fair characterization. The post is a long and rambling one indeed, so people may have upvoted it for any number of reasons. It's not fair to assume that everyone (or even most) who clicked the upvote button did so just to pile on some transphobia bandwagon. | |
| Oct 2, 2019 at 20:19 | comment | added | Marco13 | One point that stirs up the conversation are the accusations. When someone requests a certain use of pronouns, and someone does not comply, the person is called "transphobic" and "disrespectful", which, in turn, is (IMHO rightfully) perceived as aggressive and hostile. This has nothing to do with "phobia" or "respect". One person may simply have a different attitude towards language than another. Expecting someone to accept any form of speech that a group or authority dictates is dangerous. Leaving strong accusations like that one out would certainly help to have a civilized discussion. | |
| Oct 2, 2019 at 20:11 | comment | added | Mark | @Nij, rspeer: I don't think Caleb's post is being heavily upvoted because of the line about "mismatch for their genetic sex", I think it's being heavily upvoted for other large parts of the post, which provided the first third-party explanation of what happened. | |
| Oct 2, 2019 at 16:29 | comment | added | Flyto | +1 for the last section. I mean, the rest as well, but I can only upvote once ;-) | |
| Oct 2, 2019 at 14:53 | comment | added | OpenAI stole this from rspeer | @Nat, I am not NB, I'm relaying this secondhand, and I'm happy to edit my comment about how NB folks experience misogyny if it's out of line. | |
| Oct 2, 2019 at 14:51 | comment | added | OpenAI stole this from rspeer | @Blue, your comment about "making up imaginary situations" shows exactly where you stand. This is a thread about how to support queer folks in the community, but you don't. | |
| Oct 2, 2019 at 7:51 | comment | added | dim | @Nij. I agree to what you say. Now, clearly, in my interpretation, I assume the submitted CoC said "you must use the pronoun you have been asked to use, even where [...]", which both moderators disagreed with. That wouldn't make them transphobic, right? It seems, in your view, the submitted CoC simply said "using language that makes someone unwelcome [...]", they then interpreted it as "you must use the pronoun you have been asked to use, even where [...]" because they are biased, and chaos ensued. You may be right, but isn't that a bit far-fetched? How do you know that's what happened? | |
| Oct 2, 2019 at 7:44 | comment | added | Nij | 3/3x Finally, if User01 has chosen to disengage from constructive discussion or has ceased responding to a User02 after being informed that User02 prefers a pronoun or otherwise identifies in a way that does not match the presumptions of User01, it is impossible to distinguish between disengagement due to a lack of belief the discussion will remain productive and disengagement over refusing to work with or speak to a person with gender or sexual identity or orientation difdering from User01's presumption, on the basis of User02 having such identity or orientation. | |
| Oct 2, 2019 at 7:39 | comment | added | Nij | 2/3x ... the difference between: "using language that makes someone unwelcome on the basis of gender or sexual identity or orientation is not permitted, such as using the wrong gender after being informed of the correct preference, you must use the correct pronoun as asked and not keep using the wrong pronoun" and: "you must use the pronoun you have been asked to use, even where no pronoun would have been used at all and where you have only ever referred to people by usernames or second-person pronouns". @dim | |
| Oct 2, 2019 at 7:36 | comment | added | Nij | 1/3x That's Caleb's interpretation of a proposed COC that the general public haven't seen. I can't say with any guarantee, but based on every other experience where such a concept is introduced to TOU/COC/EULA, this is likely to be a massive exaggeration. If people can read a law saying that civil marriages will be awarded as being a requirement that religious institutions award religious marriages to the same people, despite this being obviously false and having no basis in the bill itself, I am not surprised that someone who demonstrates similar biases would at best miss the difference... | |
| Oct 2, 2019 at 7:30 | comment | added | dim | @Nij Are you sure you interpret their posts as intended? See this comment from Monica. Regarding Caleb, I re-read his post, and the focus is on "Now if I avoid pronouns altogether by sticking to proper names or disengaging from the individual, that's being considered an insult too." How can using proper name instead of a pronoun be considered insulting? How can disengaging be considered bad? | |
| Oct 2, 2019 at 6:14 | comment | added | Nij | 2/2 To expand: In several places they make it clear that they do not agree with the idea of using a pronoun preference they have been explicitly informed of, because they believe they should use the pronoun that "matches the gender" (paraphrased) of the user they refer to, as determined by Caleb themselves, and then try to justify this either as a facet of their personal beliefs that should not be interfered with, in the interests of maintaining the status quo; or because they have never received complaints about it and therefore it is not really a problem that needs being solved. | |
| Oct 2, 2019 at 6:14 | comment | added | Nij | 1/2 It isn't an obscure interpretation. It's a direct reading of what was written by Caleb in their post on Christianity Meta, here. @Blue | |
| Oct 2, 2019 at 5:11 | comment | added | anki | Could you call out some examples too, under the sections Stop celebrating transphobia. ? | |
| Oct 2, 2019 at 4:23 | history | answered | OpenAI stole this from rspeer | CC BY-SA 4.0 |