Timeline for Summing up the main issues (The Story So Far)
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
24 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 22, 2020 at 19:38 | comment | added | jpmc26 | No, what I have been saying can be summed up as, "Silencing people's opinions is harmful to our ability to discuss issues openly and honestly. Therefore, a platform dedicated to the sharing of information should reject such an approach." I have made no suggestion that anyone can or should coerce SO to do so. I've just said it's wrong for them to oust people based on any of their beliefs. Perhaps the disconnect is that unlike you, I don't believe that all my values and desires should be encoded in law, that I can accept not everything is going to be the way I hope. | |
| Jul 22, 2020 at 15:54 | comment | added | cjs | @jpmc26 You're taking a wrong, anti-free-speech approach to this whole argument. We can sum up what you're saying with, "SO must be forced to publish things they dont' agree with." (I suspect that's not an argument you would take all the way; would you say that SO must publish people who want to say, "Kill all the Jews" here?) If you think that calling someone a pronoun that they disagree with should be allowed, but it's ok to "ostracise" someone making more radical statements, then you need to argue that, but you can't argue it on the basis of "anybody should be able to say anything here." | |
| Jul 22, 2020 at 3:59 | comment | added | jpmc26 | @cjs You're talking about banning people over pronouns. Heck, Monica wasn't even demodded for not using someone's pronouns; she was ousted for talking about respecting other opinions and allowing people to find other alternatives. (It's possible this was motivated by her own beliefs. I couldn't say for certain, but at the end of the day, the discussion is valid anyway.) So yes, you're the one advocating for coercion here. | |
| Jul 21, 2020 at 20:57 | comment | added | cjs | @jpmc26 Your twisted terminology reveals your agenda here; you translate "A site won't publish my material" as "I have been forcefully removed," even though you are prefectly free to publish on your own sites using your own resources. Freedom for you to another person's resources as you see fit, rather than as they see fit, in other words. I think it's pretty clear which direction the coercion is going here. | |
| Jul 20, 2020 at 17:49 | comment | added | jpmc26 | "You choosing that word does not make it morally correct to force SE to do what you want with their site, rather than what they want." This is a blatant lie. I am engaging in dialogue to persuade people that this policy is bad. That is the total polar opposite of coercion. Such a bad faith argumentative tactic reflects poorly on you and your position. You are the one advocating for people to be forcefully (as much as online activity can be forceful) removed from the site. | |
| Jul 20, 2020 at 16:25 | comment | added | cjs | @jpmc26 Well, yes; if someone holds and expresses morally offensive beliefs, Stack Exchange should not be required to provide a forum for them. If you call this "ostracization," then sure, they are being "ostracized" in your terminology. You choosing that word does not make it morally correct to force SE to do what you want with their site, rather than what they want. You think it's ok to force SE to give you a forum for your beliefs, whatever they are, I don't. You decide who's impinging on whose freedom here. | |
| Jul 19, 2020 at 19:56 | comment | added | jpmc26 | @cjs I should make particular note that your solution is not something mild such as, "disengage from the conversation," "avoid using pronouns at all if you can't come to an agreement," or "agree to disagree about the issue" (in the event that the parties decide their disagreement is not worth acting on and would rather just continue discussion). Your solution is literally to oust someone from a site dedicated to an issue totally divorced from gender (such as programming). We can have standards for politeness and tranquility without demanding that people acquiesce to particular belief systems. | |
| Jul 19, 2020 at 17:13 | comment | added | jpmc26 | @cjs Your entire response in that comment is to agree with my point that you're trying to ostracize people for holding a different set of beliefs and acting according to them. There's nothing new in this discussion in that comment. My entire point is that's not okay, irrespective of what rights to do it the people running this site might have. Reversing the discrimination doesn't make it go away. | |
| Jul 18, 2020 at 15:29 | comment | added | cjs | @jpmc26 Misgendering a person is denying that person's deeply held beliefs. You seem to believe not only that that's ok, but that the people who put their time and money into running this site are obligated to give a forum to those who do so. The "peaceable compromise" is that people who want to do this can go start their own web site to do so. | |
| Jul 17, 2020 at 5:39 | comment | added | jpmc26 | @cjs Denying someone's deeply held beliefs is by no means a call to ostracize anyone, just as denying the claims of a Christian or an atheist or a Muslim in no way ostracizes them. It is the demand that a person be silenced, removed, or derided on that basis that ostracizes them. I advocate for people who disagree on this matter to come to a peaceable compromise, not for blanket dismissal and removal of one side of the debate. | |
| Jul 17, 2020 at 5:29 | comment | added | cjs | @jpmc26 Gendered words are not based on biology or sex; they are (as the use of a different word implies) based on gender. And your desire to refuse to acknowledge someone as a "she" because you believe she should be a "he" is just as ostracising and refusing to accept the_existence_ of others beliefs as the other way around. | |
| Jul 17, 2020 at 5:08 | comment | added | jpmc26 | "But sad as it is, I think it's better to take a hit on this than to throw some non-mainstream people under a bus yet once again." I downvoted because you're literally advocating for ostracizing people based on the beliefs you disagree with and you're insisting that you have some right to compel people to use your words. It's more important that people be able to express their thoughts (especially ones as mainstream as "gendered words are based on biology in English and have been for centuries") honestly and politely than it is for a specific group to be pleased with everyone else's beliefs. | |
| Jul 15, 2020 at 11:00 | comment | added | Reed -SE is a Fish on Dry Land | I DV because it is tl-dr and doesn’t specifically answers the issues of users wanting to know what the hell is going on. This is a peripheral answer at best. I am pretty sure other users downvoted for the same reason and NOT as a way to express their opinions. | |
| Feb 22, 2020 at 4:19 | history | edited | cjs | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 228 characters in body
|
| S Jan 6, 2020 at 14:15 | history | suggested | sourcejedi | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
a couple of minor English fixes
|
| Jan 6, 2020 at 13:40 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jan 6, 2020 at 14:15 | |||||
| Jan 6, 2020 at 5:54 | comment | added | cjs | @CharlesRoddie You are outright denying facts here: there are indeed objective grounds for socially-constructed gender differences (and I am talking about gender, not sex here). These are not a modern invention but date from ancient times. Further, even biological sex itself is clearly non-binary as shown both overtly by the existence of intersex individuals with both types of genitalia and via our modern scientific ability to identify individuals externally female or male but with an XY or XX chromosome 46, respectively. See my new footnote ¹ in the post for further discussion and links. | |
| Jan 6, 2020 at 5:52 | history | edited | cjs | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
New footnote on the facts of gender and sex differences
|
| Nov 11, 2019 at 17:28 | comment | added | Martin Bonner supports Monica | I am very happy to use an individual's preferred pronouns (well, not happy if those pronouns are artificial ones, but I can cope), and and I try to use singular "they" when talking about an unknown person. However I find the lack of due process in this situation unacceptable. | |
| Oct 29, 2019 at 19:32 | history | bounty ended | NPN328 | ||
| Oct 28, 2019 at 9:29 | comment | added | Mari-Lou A Слава Україні |
(Cont'd) 4. And what a great summary: "I refuse to see your problem, I've just erased it, and you'll have to accept that. My concerns are far more important." 5. Lack of acceptance of non-traditional genders turns out to be very widespread in SE, or at the very least there's a not insubstantial and very vocal part of the community willing to defend lack of acceptance.
|
|
| Oct 28, 2019 at 9:29 | comment | added | Mari-Lou A Слава Україні |
I awarded a bounty to this answer because I agree with 1. The idea that certain minority problems are not problems that need to be addressed is the basic problem here. 2. When someone starts calling you by the wrong pronoun it may not be relevant to the topic, but it certainly is relevant to the communication. 3. Nobody would argue that there's not a problem if I start or continue referring to a mainstream male "George" as "she" after I've been asked by him not to do that. (Cont'd)
|
|
| Oct 21, 2019 at 9:06 | history | bounty ended | Mari-Lou A Слава Україні | ||
| Oct 18, 2019 at 6:40 | history | answered | cjs | CC BY-SA 4.0 |