4 added 516 characters in body
source | link

In What does the Code of Conduct say about gender pronouns?,

3. My religion tells me that people can't change their gender. Aren't you treating me with disrespect in the name of treating others with respect?

Our users may hold any beliefs they do - be it about gender or even having strong opinions about religions themselves. But if you go out of your way to point out your disagreement about their gender, you aren't behaving in a way we want here - just as people pointing out how wrong they think your religion is aren't behaving in a way we want here. Do not be rude to other people.

This item is a bit offensive, as it mischaracterizes an issue and the people to whom it relates.

In the back and forth of discussion about the CoC and FAQ, a number of people in the trans community raised the point that trans members should not be put in a position of being asked to explain or justify themselves. That is absolutely the case. However, that same courtesy was not appliedextended to people with religious prohibitions concerning pronouns. A number of people were put in a position of needing to explain why the compelled speech issue was a violation of their beliefs. They

They explained beliefs that some other people found objectionable. A key point is that the entire context was an explanation of "why" in response to the CoC/FAQ. They were describing a "conscientious objector" issue. 

Aside from those discussions, nobody suggested that anybody thought it would be appropriate to raise religious objections to other people's gender identity, or to air those beliefs in the normal course of business.

Item 3 is a strawman that suggests that people with a religious issue against compulsory speech might use SE sites to express religious-based views that would be disrespectful to others. At the same time, it completely ignores the religious issue that was actually raised. So it is both insulting and dismissive.

Aside from that specific issue, throughoutparts of the document, are unnecessarily inflammatory. There are a number of paragraphs that provide general context and cover innocent mistakes. Those are fine. Other parts characterize any failure to use preferred pronouns is characterized as rude, insulting, and other similar terms. That Much of the "Edge Cases" portion is inflammatory languagelike this. It

It is certainly possible to be rude and insulting by purposely using pronouns contrary to what someone has requested. But many people take offense at characterizing any and all failures to use the right pronoun as being rude or insulting. It demonizes other users. The intent may be expressed in the "good parts", but that doesn't make the wording in the "bad parts" not inflammatory.

In What does the Code of Conduct say about gender pronouns?,

3. My religion tells me that people can't change their gender. Aren't you treating me with disrespect in the name of treating others with respect?

Our users may hold any beliefs they do - be it about gender or even having strong opinions about religions themselves. But if you go out of your way to point out your disagreement about their gender, you aren't behaving in a way we want here - just as people pointing out how wrong they think your religion is aren't behaving in a way we want here. Do not be rude to other people.

This item is a bit offensive, as it mischaracterizes an issue and the people to whom it relates.

In the back and forth of discussion about the CoC and FAQ, a number of people in the trans community raised the point that trans members should not be put in a position of being asked to explain or justify themselves. That is absolutely the case. However, that same courtesy was not applied to people with religious prohibitions concerning pronouns. A number of people were put in a position of needing to explain why the compelled speech issue was a violation of their beliefs. They were describing a "conscientious objector" issue.

Aside from those discussions, nobody suggested that anybody thought it would be appropriate to raise religious objections to other people's gender identity.

Item 3 is a strawman that suggests that people with a religious issue against compulsory speech might use SE sites to express religious-based views that would be disrespectful to others. At the same time, it completely ignores the religious issue that was actually raised. So it is both insulting and dismissive.

Aside from that specific issue, throughout the document, any failure to use preferred pronouns is characterized as rude, insulting, and other similar terms. That is inflammatory language. It is certainly possible to be rude and insulting by purposely using pronouns contrary to what someone has requested. But many people take offense at characterizing any and all failures to use the right pronoun as being rude or insulting. It demonizes other users.

In What does the Code of Conduct say about gender pronouns?,

3. My religion tells me that people can't change their gender. Aren't you treating me with disrespect in the name of treating others with respect?

Our users may hold any beliefs they do - be it about gender or even having strong opinions about religions themselves. But if you go out of your way to point out your disagreement about their gender, you aren't behaving in a way we want here - just as people pointing out how wrong they think your religion is aren't behaving in a way we want here. Do not be rude to other people.

This item is a bit offensive, as it mischaracterizes an issue and the people to whom it relates.

In the back and forth of discussion about the CoC and FAQ, a number of people in the trans community raised the point that trans members should not be put in a position of being asked to explain or justify themselves. That is absolutely the case. However, that same courtesy was not extended to people with religious prohibitions concerning pronouns. A number of people were put in a position of needing to explain why the compelled speech issue was a violation of their beliefs.

They explained beliefs that some other people found objectionable. A key point is that the entire context was an explanation of "why" in response to the CoC/FAQ. They were describing a "conscientious objector" issue. 

Aside from those discussions, nobody suggested that anybody thought it would be appropriate to raise religious objections to other people's gender identity, or to air those beliefs in the normal course of business.

Item 3 is a strawman that suggests that people with a religious issue against compulsory speech might use SE sites to express religious-based views that would be disrespectful to others. At the same time, it completely ignores the religious issue that was actually raised. So it is both insulting and dismissive.

Aside from that specific issue, parts of the document are unnecessarily inflammatory. There are a number of paragraphs that provide general context and cover innocent mistakes. Those are fine. Other parts characterize any failure to use preferred pronouns as rude, insulting, and other similar terms. Much of the "Edge Cases" portion is like this.

It is certainly possible to be rude and insulting by purposely using pronouns contrary to what someone has requested. But many people take offense at characterizing any and all failures to use the right pronoun as being rude or insulting. It demonizes other users. The intent may be expressed in the "good parts", but that doesn't make the wording in the "bad parts" not inflammatory.

3 added 390 characters in body
source | link

In What does the Code of Conduct say about gender pronouns?,

  1. My religion tells me that people can't change their gender. Aren't you treating me with disrespect in the name of treating others with respect?

3. My religion tells me that people can't change their gender. Aren't you treating me with disrespect in the name of treating others with respect?

Our users may hold any beliefs they do - be it about gender or even having strong opinions about religions themselves. But if you go out of your way to point out your disagreement about their gender, you aren't behaving in a way we want here - just as people pointing out how wrong they think your religion is aren't behaving in a way we want here. Do not be rude to other people.

This item is a bit offensive, as it mischaracterizes an issue and the people to whom it relates.

In the back and forth of discussion about the CoC and FAQ, a number of people in the trans community raised the point that trans members should not be put in a position of being asked to explain or justify themselves. That is absolutely the case. However, that same courtesy was not applied to people with religious prohibitions concerning pronouns. A number of people were put in a position of needing to explain why the compelled speech issue was a violation of their beliefs. They were describing a "conscientious objector" issue.

Aside from those discussions, nobody suggested that anybody thought it would be appropriate to raise religious objections to other people's gender identity.

Item 3 is a strawman that suggests that people with a religious issue against compulsory speech might use SE sites to express religious-based views that would be disrespectful to others. At the same time, it completely ignores the religious issue that was actually raised. So it is both insulting and dismissive.

Aside from that specific issue, throughout the document, any failure to use preferred pronouns is characterized as rude, insulting, and other similar terms. That is inflammatory language. It is certainly possible to be rude and insulting by purposely using pronouns contrary to what someone has requested. But many people take offense at characterizing any and all failures to use the right pronoun as being rude or insulting. It demonizes other users.

In What does the Code of Conduct say about gender pronouns?,

  1. My religion tells me that people can't change their gender. Aren't you treating me with disrespect in the name of treating others with respect?

This item is a bit offensive, as it mischaracterizes an issue and the people to whom it relates.

In the back and forth of discussion about the CoC and FAQ, a number of people in the trans community raised the point that trans members should not be put in a position of being asked to explain or justify themselves. That is absolutely the case. However, that same courtesy was not applied to people with religious prohibitions concerning pronouns. A number of people were put in a position of needing to explain why the compelled speech issue was a violation of their beliefs. They were describing a "conscientious objector" issue.

Aside from those discussions, nobody suggested that anybody thought it would be appropriate to raise religious objections to other people's gender identity.

Item 3 is a strawman that suggests that people with a religious issue against compulsory speech might use SE sites to express religious-based views that would be disrespectful to others. At the same time, it completely ignores the religious issue that was actually raised. So it is both insulting and dismissive.

Aside from that specific issue, throughout the document, any failure to use preferred pronouns is characterized as rude, insulting, and other similar terms. That is inflammatory language. It is certainly possible to be rude and insulting by purposely using pronouns contrary to what someone has requested. But many people take offense at characterizing any and all failures to use the right pronoun as being rude or insulting. It demonizes other users.

In What does the Code of Conduct say about gender pronouns?,

3. My religion tells me that people can't change their gender. Aren't you treating me with disrespect in the name of treating others with respect?

Our users may hold any beliefs they do - be it about gender or even having strong opinions about religions themselves. But if you go out of your way to point out your disagreement about their gender, you aren't behaving in a way we want here - just as people pointing out how wrong they think your religion is aren't behaving in a way we want here. Do not be rude to other people.

This item is a bit offensive, as it mischaracterizes an issue and the people to whom it relates.

In the back and forth of discussion about the CoC and FAQ, a number of people in the trans community raised the point that trans members should not be put in a position of being asked to explain or justify themselves. That is absolutely the case. However, that same courtesy was not applied to people with religious prohibitions concerning pronouns. A number of people were put in a position of needing to explain why the compelled speech issue was a violation of their beliefs. They were describing a "conscientious objector" issue.

Aside from those discussions, nobody suggested that anybody thought it would be appropriate to raise religious objections to other people's gender identity.

Item 3 is a strawman that suggests that people with a religious issue against compulsory speech might use SE sites to express religious-based views that would be disrespectful to others. At the same time, it completely ignores the religious issue that was actually raised. So it is both insulting and dismissive.

Aside from that specific issue, throughout the document, any failure to use preferred pronouns is characterized as rude, insulting, and other similar terms. That is inflammatory language. It is certainly possible to be rude and insulting by purposely using pronouns contrary to what someone has requested. But many people take offense at characterizing any and all failures to use the right pronoun as being rude or insulting. It demonizes other users.

2 added 137 characters in body
source | link

In What does the Code of Conduct say about gender pronouns?,

  1. My religion tells me that people can't change their gender. Aren't you treating me with disrespect in the name of treating others with respect?

This item 3, concerning religion, is a bit offensive, as it mischaracterizes an issue and the people to whom it relates.

In the back and forth of discussion about the CoC and FAQ, a number of people in the trans community raised the point that trans members should not be put in a position of being asked to explain or justify themselves. That is absolutely the case. However, that same courtesy was not applied to people with religious prohibitions concerning pronouns. A number of people were put in a position of needing to explain why the compelled speech issue was a violation of their beliefs. They were describing a "conscientious objector" issue.

Aside from those discussions, nobody suggested that anybody thought it would be appropriate to raise religious objections to other people's gender identity.

Item 3 is a strawman that suggests that people with a religious issue against compulsory speech might use SE sites to express religious-based views that would be disrespectful to others. At the same time, it completely ignores the religious issue that was actually raised. So it is both insulting and dismissive.

Aside from that specific issue, throughout the document, any failure to use preferred pronouns is characterized as rude, insulting, and other similar terms. That is inflammatory language. It is certainly possible to be rude and insulting by purposely using pronouns contrary to what someone has requested. But many people take offense at characterizing any and all failures to use the right pronoun as being rude or insulting. It demonizes other users.

In What does the Code of Conduct say about gender pronouns?, item 3, concerning religion, is a bit offensive, as it mischaracterizes an issue and the people to whom it relates.

In the back and forth of discussion about the CoC and FAQ, a number of people in the trans community raised the point that trans members should not be put in a position of being asked to explain or justify themselves. That is absolutely the case. However, that same courtesy was not applied to people with religious prohibitions concerning pronouns. A number of people were put in a position of needing to explain why the compelled speech issue was a violation of their beliefs. They were describing a "conscientious objector" issue.

Aside from those discussions, nobody suggested that anybody thought it would be appropriate to raise religious objections to other people's gender identity.

Item 3 is a strawman that suggests that people with a religious issue against compulsory speech might use SE sites to express religious-based views that would be disrespectful to others. At the same time, it completely ignores the religious issue that was actually raised. So it is both insulting and dismissive.

Aside from that specific issue, throughout the document, any failure to use preferred pronouns is characterized as rude, insulting, and other similar terms. That is inflammatory language. It is certainly possible to be rude and insulting by purposely using pronouns contrary to what someone has requested. But many people take offense at characterizing any and all failures to use the right pronoun as being rude or insulting. It demonizes other users.

In What does the Code of Conduct say about gender pronouns?,

  1. My religion tells me that people can't change their gender. Aren't you treating me with disrespect in the name of treating others with respect?

This item is a bit offensive, as it mischaracterizes an issue and the people to whom it relates.

In the back and forth of discussion about the CoC and FAQ, a number of people in the trans community raised the point that trans members should not be put in a position of being asked to explain or justify themselves. That is absolutely the case. However, that same courtesy was not applied to people with religious prohibitions concerning pronouns. A number of people were put in a position of needing to explain why the compelled speech issue was a violation of their beliefs. They were describing a "conscientious objector" issue.

Aside from those discussions, nobody suggested that anybody thought it would be appropriate to raise religious objections to other people's gender identity.

Item 3 is a strawman that suggests that people with a religious issue against compulsory speech might use SE sites to express religious-based views that would be disrespectful to others. At the same time, it completely ignores the religious issue that was actually raised. So it is both insulting and dismissive.

Aside from that specific issue, throughout the document, any failure to use preferred pronouns is characterized as rude, insulting, and other similar terms. That is inflammatory language. It is certainly possible to be rude and insulting by purposely using pronouns contrary to what someone has requested. But many people take offense at characterizing any and all failures to use the right pronoun as being rude or insulting. It demonizes other users.

1
source | link