Post for clarifications on the updated pronouns FAQ

Question

Over the past week we've been busy reviewing our previous FAQ to directly address concerns over pronoun usage. We tried to anticipate likely questions, but… missed the mark a bit. Inspired by the Community's excellent curated one, we created a new combined FAQ and, after running it by the moderator team, we're happy to officially release it. Check it out in its new question: What does the Code of Conduct say about pronouns?

We know some of you may still have questions or additional clarification on some points. We're happy to further improve the wording of either questions or answers or add answers to new questions. This post here is the place to talk through that. For ease of voting and responding, please limit each answer to one specific concern.

However, note that debating the core of the new rule ("please use stated pronouns") or the validity of people's identities or gender expressions is off-topic for this post, and we won't be entertaining those debates at this point and posts that aren't questions or requests for clarification may be deleted.

Please also note that the FAQ is very long as it is but the questions in it represent a broad spectrum of questions we've seen repeatedly over the last weeks. It doesn't cover many edge cases as an FAQ is not meant to cover/address every edge case that may come up - trying to preemptively legislate for everything hypothetically is a bad practice. Some of the bridges we will have to cross when we get to them, and the Community Management team will work with Moderators to deal with those as they come.

So, with all that said... Here's the place to post your requests for clarification/new questions.

Answer 1

The FAQ says:

Many trans people have told us that they feel uncomfortable, unwelcome, or even unsafe here. That isn't what we want

They're not the only ones who are uncomfortable. Other users may feel uncomfortable too, unless they follow the FAQ's advice and change their writing style, which in itself could be uncomfortable for them:

4. I find it really distressing to use pronouns in a way I think is wrong. Is there really no alternative?

Mods might also feel uncomfortable, but unlike users, they don't have a recourse:

M2. I'm a moderator. I often have to refer to other users, I can't choose which ones I have to refer to, and often it isn't feasible to avoid pronouns. So do I really have to use pronouns I find uncomfortable?

It seems to me that this FAQ is okay with making certain people distressed and uncomfortable, and considers this an acceptable trade-off. Is that true?

I can imagine several groups of people:

1. Users who want others to use their neopronouns
2. Users who find using neopronouns "really distressing"
3. Mods who find it "uncomfortable" to use certain pronouns (probably neopronouns).
4. Users who find it "really distressing" to use pronouns in a way they think is wrong (other than neopronouns)
5. Users who don't want to be misgendered, but don't have neopronouns.

Some of these groups contain people with autism.
Some of these groups contain religious objectors.
Some of these groups contain trans people.

Whose comfort is priority here? By answering that, the question of 'whose comfort is given the least consideration' will also be answered. I'd like that clarified.

---

Answer:

We believe that all participants on Stack Exchange’s websites have the right to participate using the gender pronouns that reflect their identity. You cannot knowingly misgender people. This is what the CoC update is about at its core. Our intention is not to tell you what to think or force you to act in a way that makes you uncomfortable. Interacting with people online is often confusing and distressing. We want to minimize this for everyone. When users are in a situation that makes them uncomfortable, they can always step away or ask for help (raise a flag).

Following the CoC doesn’t require someone to go out of their way to use pronouns. If someone prefers to omit pronouns entirely, they’re welcome to do so, as long as it’s not used in an obviously unnatural way. For example, you can change "The OP wrote in his question" to "the OP wrote in the question" this is a non-obvious rephrasing. If you're writing "The OP wrote in the OP's question" for a user who asked you to refer to them with a neopronoun, that is more clearly discriminatory unless this is your default way of writing. No matter the case, no one can knowingly misgender people, so if/when you use third-person pronouns for someone, use their stated pronouns. – Cesar M♦

Answer 2

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.

Answer 3

Since all answers to the previous FAQ have been deleted and this concern isn't addressed in the new FAQ I guess I'll ask again:

How do you think this is going to work for regular (Stack Overflow) users?

Regular users don't read Codes of Conduct, FAQs or other guidelines. We know this because thousands of garbage questions come in every day.

And for 99% of the users, 99% percent of the time, on 99% percent of posts gender pronouns are completely irrelevant. So you can't rely on users stumbling upon them via normal interaction with the site.

This means the first interaction regular users are going to have with neopronouns will probably be an unpleasant one. You might say that doesn't matter since 99% of the time this won't come up. But keep in mind that 0.01% of first time Stack Overflow users is still a lot of people. Every day.

Also keep in mind that in most parts of the world (like mine) gender (neo-)pronouns are not a thing. We don't learn about them in English class, we don't encounter them when consuming media, we don't hear them in every-day life. This means for most of your users, the Code of Conduct holds surprises.

If your Code of Conduct includes surprises for at least half of your users, you are going to have a bad time.

To me it seems in your quest for inclusiveness, you just forgot about everybody who doesn't speak English natively.

Do you have any plans to make this easier for non-native speakers, other than canned reassurances (like U3)?

Answer 4

From here:

U2. I'm worried that I may get banned. Should I be?

Not if you're acting in good faith. If you go out of your way to talk to, or refer to, people in ways you know they will find upsetting, then you are likely to get the same sort of escalating warnings and suspensions as you would for wilfully upsetting people in other ways.

What you did to Monica, before this policy was in effect, for asking questions about its implementation, combined with the fact that Monica's de-modding has not been reversed even provisionally pending actual process, mean the correct answer to this FAQ point is yes.

The FAQ should be updated to reflect that reality. In the alternative, the reality should be updated to reflect that FAQ by reinstating Monica immediately* and providing stronger assurances, perhaps in the Terms of Use, that processes will be followed and users should not have to fear bans from good-faith interactions.

*: and probably also reinstating Robert Harvey for supporting her (and/or defending the CEO's silence).

---

Update: A link to this discussion from under the referenced post keeps getting deleted, and a suggested edit to simply remove U2 and its incorrect answer was very quickly rolled back. While discussion on possible corrections should be here instead of there, and the comment clearly indicates that, the in-context pointer comment should not be censored out to help prevent people reading that part of the FAQ from being misled by its content into thinking something that is inaccurate under present Stack Exchange enforcement practices. This seems to be just another example of how the company is trying to cover up silencing of dissent from their views and hope that anyone who finds this problematic just goes away.

Update 2: I have received an official response from the entire Meta.SE mod team, that I should NOT be pointing out this inaccuracy in the FAQ. That is because the bans/demodding/suspensions others received were "in the past" and "We can not change the past." [sic] even though the conditions continue into the present (and per update 3, the future). I pointed out that the FAQ should apply to the present, and that they could change the present state if they wanted to, but they don't actually want to. The official response to that so far is silence, hoping that anyone observing this disconnect with present reality will just go away.

Update 3: As some readers may have discerned from my 1 rep, I was suspended specifically for calling out this issue (and could not edit this update in until after the conclusion of that first suspension week), without any substantive response from the mods to direct messages reinforcing that I do actually still think this is an issue that exists in the present. By issuing the suspension, it is clear they know about the disconnect but don't care and will continue suppressing voices of dissent who would dare to call out their actions against the community.

Please be sure to spread the word further once I get banned/suspended again for a good-faith effort to get more accuracy in an FAQ answer incorrectly claiming people shouldn't worry about getting banned for something like that. You are also welcome to respectfully call attention to this issue in context yourself, if you don't mind also getting ironically suspended/banned for pointing out the risk.

Answer 5

4. I find it really distressing to use pronouns in a way I think is wrong. Is there really no alternative?

You can often avoid using pronouns altogether. It's actually pretty rare to need third-person pronouns at all on most Stack Exchange sites. But conspicuously avoiding using pronouns for one group of people while using them normally for others is a way of refusing to recognize their identity, and that is discriminatory. Please don’t do that.

Does this mean that completely avoiding pronouns as a style of writing is now considered acceptable, presuming it is done consistently?

---

Answer from Catija:

As Cesar and Aza said in the comments, if you want to stop using third person pronouns entirely, that is fine. What you can not do is stop using pronouns only when referring to people who have specific pronouns - whilst using them normally for other people. But, be warned, if you're doing this in a way that is particularly obvious it may be quite confusing to some. Aza words this well:

For example, consistently wording sentences in extremely clumsy (avoidable) ways to avoid pronouns could leave someone feeling othered, even if you are consistent about it. And advocating vocally against using pronouns because those people would also be... not great.

The FAQ also links to a guide for how to write in a natural gender neutral way.

Answer 6

4. I find it really distressing to use pronouns in a way I think is wrong. Is there really no alternative?

You can often avoid using pronouns altogether. It's actually pretty rare to need third-person pronouns at all on most Stack Exchange sites. But conspicuously avoiding using pronouns for one group of people while using them normally for others is a way of refusing to recognize their identity, and that is discriminatory. Please don’t do that.

What is conspicuously avoiding and how are you going to determine that?

I am not a native English speaker and my writing style is all over the place. It is not consistent. Sometimes I will use pronouns, sometimes I will use OP, sometimes I will use username. Sometimes I will repeat OP or username several times in a sentence if it is hard for me to write it at given moment.

I also use pronouns for people I know, and I avoid them for people I don't know. Even when someone states their pronouns, I will most likely avoid them unless I get to know (or encounter) that person often enough to be sure I will not make a mistake.

Under current rules, my writing can certainly be interpreted like avoiding pronouns for certain group of people.

I have no problem in doing my best to honor people's pronouns, but having potential suspension hanging over my head because how I might express myself makes me extremely uncomfortable in participating here.

---

This FAQ is not much of improvement over the old one.

As long as one can be punished for writing in certain way and as long as normal unoffensive sentence can become offensive depending on to whom you are talking there is a whole a lot of room for power abuse.

Answer 7

If an answer is written, and uses a particular pronoun, let's say "he", and a user suggests an edit to this answer to change it to "they", and no other changes are required in the answer (i.e. it's otherwise perfect), do I accept this edit? What if I reject it instead? Assume the edit reason is "being more inclusive" and the suggester doesn't clarify that OP has specified (e.g. if they say link to OP's bio which says they prefer "they" then the edit is acceptable), and it's not visible anywhere on the QA itself.

An example might be either of these edits I made (although mine were not suggested).

What if a user mass suggests edits changing "he" to "they".

---

From Catija:

There's two separate cases, which is, I think, where the struggle here lies. In all cases, mass edits are bad. Please don't seek out edits to make.

1. A post speaks of a hypothetical or generic person. In this case, unless the gender somehow matters to the post, being gender neutral is beneficial.
   • Be very careful that the edits don't harm the post or make it confusing. This is particularly the case in code.
   • Be aware that suggesting pronoun-only edits should be acceptable but do be certain to correct more than just the pronouns. If there are spelling, punctuation or grammatical errors, fix those, too.
2. A post speaks of an actual person. In this case, unless you know the pronouns are incorrect AND you know that the person is generally known on Stack Exchange to have identified their pronouns, do not make the gender neutral.
   • It's possible the poster actually knows the correct pronouns.
   • If you know their pronouns from elsewhere, disclosing them yourself can "out" them to a community where they wished to be anonymous.

Answer 8

status-declined

FAQ contains language likely to offend or alienate people based on religion

The FAQ in its current state contains language likely to offend or alienate people by stating that things they deeply believe are objectively, factually false. If you don't believe that, imagine that the shoe is on the other foot, and some of the community members who believes that calling someone by a pronoun other than their biological sex is a personal insult to God¹ wrote an FAQ with answers like the following:

---

Hypothetical disrespectful FAQ answers

1. What's this business about "pronouns"?

God gave each person a pronoun at birth. It would be offensive to Him for someone to refer to a man that He created as "she" or a woman as "he". Some people are rebellious. For instance, a woman might be erroneously convinced that she is neither a man nor a woman and ask to be referred to as "they". Even if someone indicates what pronouns should be used to refer to them, please use the pronouns that God gave them as you would for others.

4. What was that about being neither men nor women?

Some people erroneously claim they are neither men nor women. The usual term for such people is "non-binary" and they’re often included in the term “transgender”. Just as you would want to be corrected if you were driving the wrong way down a one-way street, you should correct someone who wants to be referred to with a pronoun that doesn't fit them.

3. My gender identity tells me that some people have fluid gender or are nonbinary. 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 religion or even having strong opinions about gender themselves. But if you go out of your way to point out your disagreement about the pronouns God gave you, you aren't behaving in a way we want here - just as people pointing out how wrong they think your gender identity is aren't behaving in a way we want here. Do not be rude to other people.

4. I find it really distressing to use pronouns in a way I think is wrong. Is there really no alternative?

You can often avoid using pronouns altogether. It's actually pretty rare to need third-person pronouns at all on most Stack Exchange sites. But conspicuously avoiding using pronouns for one group of people while using them normally for others is a way of refusing to recognize God's sovereignty, and that is discriminatory against His true followers. Please don’t do that.

6. Are you saying that it's blasphemy to use the pronouns someone asks for?

We’re not labeling people. Everybody makes mistakes. It’s important to note that for people who love God the impact of a refusal to use His pronouns is often the same whether the refuser is a ‘blasphemer’ or not. It is invalidating and hurtful. Through policies like this, we aim to help all Stack Exchange users avoid offending others.

M2. I'm a moderator for a site on gender identity. I often have to refer to other users, I can't choose which ones I have to refer to, and often it isn't feasible to avoid pronouns. I would be more comfortable using the pronouns my users have asked me to use. So do I really have to use pronouns I find uncomfortable?

Yes. As a moderator, you're held to a higher standard and are expected to set a positive example for your community. Using incorrect pronouns or conspicuously avoiding using pronouns is disrespectful. Telling them you refuse to use God's pronouns is harmful. If you think you will find using pronouns as God has stated difficult, please try. Most moderators won’t have to address this frequently. If you need help or have questions, contact the CM team for guidance. After that, if you cannot in good conscience follow it, reach out so we can find a replacement for you.

---

Of course there isn't an exact parallel for every word and phrase used in the FAQ, so some liberties were taken. That isn't the point. It should be clear that by declaring so many things as fact that trans, intersex, and nonbinary people disagree with and implying that even quiet disagreement is a negative example that only meets a lower standard, the hypothetical FAQ is likely to offend and alienate them, and the claim in question 3 that they are being treated with respect rings hollow.

It doesn't have to be that way. Often the best way for people who disagree on an issue they feel strongly about to show respect for each other is to meet halfway. There is no need for the FAQ to state things so strongly in order to achieve its goals, and is more likely to not fall on deaf ears if it respects people with different beliefs.

---

Example non-disrespectful answers

Here are some more respectful answers², this time to the questions in the actual FAQ:

1. What's this business about "pronouns"?

It would be rude to refer to a man as "she" or a woman as "he". Some people are neither don't consider themselves either men or women and might, for instance, ask to be referred to as "they". When someone indicates what pronouns should be used to refer to them, please use the pronouns they state as you would others.

4. What was that about being neither men nor women?

Some people are neither consider themselves not to be either men or women. The usual term for such people is "non-binary" and they’re often included in the term “transgender”. Just as you wouldn't want to be referred to with a pronoun that doesn't fit you don't like, neither do they.

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. You are welcome to believe anything you like about people's gender, just as they are welcome to believe anything they like about your religion. 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.

4. I find it really distressing to use pronouns in a way I think is wrong. Is there really no alternative?

You can often avoid using pronouns altogether. It's actually pretty rare to need third-person pronouns at all on most Stack Exchange sites. But conspicuously avoiding using pronouns for one group of people while using them normally for others is a way of refusing to recognize their identity, and that is discriminatory will likely make them feel rejected and excluded. Please don’t do that.

6. Are you saying that it's bigotry not to use the pronouns someone asks for?

No. We’re not labeling people. Everybody makes mistakes. Sometimes bigots deliberately use pronouns other than one ones people ask for, which is why it's mentioned in the "No bigotry" section of the Code of Conduct, but not everyone who is uncomfortable about some people's pronouns is a bigot. It’s important to note that for trans people the impact of a refusal to use their pronouns is often the same whether the refuser is a ‘bigot’ or not. It is invalidating and hurtful. Through policies like this, we aim to help all Stack Exchange users avoid offending others.

M2. I'm a moderator. I often have to refer to other users, I can't choose which ones I have to refer to, and often it isn't feasible to avoid pronouns. So do I really have to use pronouns I find uncomfortable?

Yes. As a moderator, you're held to a higher standard and are expected to set a positive example for your community. Using incorrect pronouns or conspicuously avoiding using pronouns is disrespectful. Telling them you refuse to use their pronouns is rude. That means you are expected to follow the same rules as everyone else. If you think you will find using pronouns as stated that difficult, please try. Most moderators won’t have to address this frequently. If you need help or have questions, contact the CM team for guidance. After that, if you cannot in good conscience follow it, reach out so we can find a replacement for you.

---

1: Yes, such people exist, and post on meta.
2: These should sound familiar.

Answer 9

7. Am I obligated to find opportunities to use pronouns?

Not at all! If you don’t need to use pronouns to say something, that’s fine. We ask that you use pronouns as you would naturally. If you’d use them in a sentence, use them; if not, don’t. Problems arise when a person or group feels singled out by having pronouns used for other people but not for them. If you're writing normally and naturally and it comes out pronoun-less, then that's fine.

This is based on a false premise. My native language is Polish. There is nothing natural in my usage of pronouns in English sentences. Natural for me is to omit almost all pronouns as the verb clearly indicates (in Polish) which pronoun is meant. The same applies to Spanish speakers.

It can go even deeper - OK, I try to learn the rules of English and apply them and after some time some way of writing in English becomes more natural than other. But as writing in a foreign language is an effort for me, my natural way is to avoid more difficult situations. So if I know "she - her", I use it freely. But if I don't know "xe - what?" I will try to avoid using "xe". But it is against:

But conspicuously avoiding using pronouns for one group of people while using them normally for others is a way of refusing to recognize their identity, and that is discriminatory. Please don’t do that.

Answer 10

Am I obligated to find opportunities to use pronouns?

Not at all! If you don’t need to use pronouns to say something, that’s fine. We ask that you use pronouns as you would naturally. If you’d use them in a sentence, use them; if not, don’t. Problems arise when a person or group feels singled out by having pronouns used for other people but not for them. If you're writing normally and naturally and it comes out pronoun-less, then that's fine.

This needs clarity. Say, I regularly use 'he'/'she' and even singular 'they' (in the all-encompassing sense) to a certain extent. I have personal reservations against using neo-pronouns ('xe', 'xir', etc.) and that has absolutely nothing to do with not respecting the individual or their identity (of course, the individual could argue that that choice is disrespectful in itself; at the same time I could argue that not granting me that choice is disrespectful to me and my beliefs).

If someone explicitly says that their neo-pronouns are 'xe'/'xir' and I consistently use gender-neutral language for that person in order to avoid misgendering them while at the same time not violating my personal reservations, would that be acceptable per the updated CoC or not? Note that that is exactly how I use pronouns as I would naturally. If someone complains that I'm not using 'xe'/'xir' for them (and am consistently using gender-neutral language instead), I hope you wouldn't analyze my entire posting history (or say last 30 days) to determine whether I use 'he'/'she' for other people and suspend me if yes? Or would you?

Answer 11

I don't like using 'they' for singular and try to recast to avoid it wherever possible. If unavoidable, can we use 'one' instead?

I'm aware the two pronouns are not directly interchangeable & that 'they' has perfectly unambiguous meaning when used appropriately, for example, from comments:

User123 has a problem. They ought to ask about it on Meta.

However, 'they' as a singular pronoun has a lot of room for misinterpretation. It can be clumsy and often sounds inaccurate.

Asfgl decided they were going shopping. Bertim didn't want to go with them. They bought shoes.

Who did what? How many people went shopping? Who bought shoes?
Yes, I'm aware this is a tortured and not particularly elegant construction.

It would be far better recast to avoid pronouns entirely:

Asfgl decided to go shopping. Bertim didn't want to go along. Asfgl bought shoes.

Similarly artificial construction, pronouns avoided. Done.

But if there was no need to refer to any specific individual, then one ought to be free to use one's common sense in avoiding potentially confusing pronouns.

… as opposed to the truly horrible:

But if there was no need to refer to any specific individual, then they ought to be free to use their common sense in avoiding potentially confusing pronouns.

Answer 12

In But what about...? The edge cases, emphasis mine:

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.

Can this be reworded to be more general? There are also non religious people that say that people can't change their gender. Also religious people with stance not based on their religion.

How about this:

My religion or world view tells me that people can't change their gender. ...

Answer 13

But conspicuously avoiding using pronouns for one group of people while using them normally for others is a way of refusing to recognize their identity, and that is discriminatory. Please don’t do that.

Is one afforded a guarantee, going forward with the new Code of Conduct, that by changing one's writing style to be pronoun free it will be compliant with the new Code of Conduct?

More concretely, if the style of writing under the old CoC used pronouns for a group of people, and then the writing style under the new CoC avoids the use of pronouns, is it possible for this to be interpreted as conspicuously refusing to recognize someone's identity, and thus a violation of the new CoC?

As Aza stated, this is very much one of the specific edge cases that need to be actually looked at when it happens. In essence, I would say if you stop using pronouns for everyone altogether and consistently do not, that's fine. Even if you did before. It'll become a new pattern in time, and that's okay. However, as it is a very specific case, it may vary from case to case, the above is the general thought on it. - Cesar M♦

Answer 14

This actually sounds suspiciously like what Monica was asking to be allowed to do. That being said, would Monica have been de-modded under this version of the Code of Conduct? If so, which part of this did she violate? If not, are there plans to reinstate her?

Answer 15

8. Isn't all this causing lots of inconvenience to everyone for the sake of a minority?

No. One thing is required of you: that when someone states their pronouns you take notice and respect their request. We also recommend that you don't make assumptions about people's gender and that you prefer gender-neutral language when unsure. Using gender-neutral language instead of default masculine makes the content here inclusive of everyone, including both female and trans users.

Many non-English speakers have learned that he is a gender neutral pronoun. Many have similar rules in their native languages.

Old habits die hard. (For instance, I still use WordStar shortcuts while coding.)

This requirement to avoid he as a gender neutral pronoun, if assume good intent is not applied, can cause a lot of trouble for such people.

---

Point 3. in What's this all about? - Implementation seems to allow (or at least it is not considered a violation) using he as a gender neutral term, as long as you use stated pronouns once they’re made known.

Answer 16

The FAQ is punctuated inconsistently.  There are many sentences like

It would be rude to refer to a man as "she" or a woman as "he".

where words that are referenced are quoted. But then there are also a few like

May I use they/them by default?

where words that should be quoted are not.

^{I suggested an edit to fix this, but it was rejected.}

Answer 17

Thank you for adding more clarification to the new FAQ and CoC. I'm posting this with as much good faith and respect as I can muster, and as you read it, please keep an open mind. I do not hate people. Anybody. I welcome you with open arms!

I am very concerned that this still contains text based on "We are setting the social standards here, so if you have religious, or non-aggressive disagreements then SO is not for you.

This would be fine, if we stuck to simply Q&A but SO has grown beyond this.

In most contexts, your opinions about gender are off-topic.

I don't like how this is written, with the context of the answers after it pertaining to free speech, it comes off as compelled speech (if you disagree, whatever, basically). I can look past this, because in an ideal world you're right, this won't be an issue because being nice is just that.

please be aware that many things you might want to say may be extremely distressing to some readers, and try to minimize that distress.

This needs to be worded better. My opposing point of view cannot be silenced on the grounds of it being distressing if it's not threatening, promoting hate or violence etc. As somebody who has opinions, I can't be expected to quell them (except to type them up politely, and as eloquently as I can)

These are small potatoes to my main point here:

What do we do about "gendered" statements that are incredibly common?

Yes, I am talking about "dude" (when not pointed directly at somebody). Yes, I am talking about "man" and "boy". What should I expect to hear back when I comment "Oh man, I didn't think about using X" or "Boy, this is going to cause an entire ..."

Am I expected to change the way I speak or get flagged?

As I stated in my answer on the now deleted old FAQ question: my right to not participate in your life is not harming you. My right to disagree with you does not mean I hate you, or disrespect you. Calling me a bigot, or a transphobe because I am not in direct alignment with you is not ok.

I know that might sound harsh, or come off as non-support, but you need to know that I love all of you equally, despite me sometimes opposing your views. We can all be heard in a productive manner.

The expectation on how to answer a question and what is/isn't in scope on our sites is not changing, on our sites Q&A you have always had to state how things are viewed on a field backed up by references, not your personal thoughts. As using genderized words, @divibisan said it, you can continue to do so, albeit not recommended. Adjust if someone states differently for you. - Cesar M♦

Answer 18

status-completed

From the answer But what about...? The edge cases, question 1:

Some of our sites may have topics where gender is part of the subject of the site and may be a valid question for those experts. When answering these questions, it is important that answers are not conveying the author's opinions but reporting an objective answer to the question. Since these objective answers are at odds with the Code of Conduct, please take special care and frame them respectfully and politely [...]

This is a bit unclear. I think this is what it's trying to say (bold for insertions, italics for re-arranged phrases):

Some of our sites may have topics where gender is part of the subject of the site and may be a valid question for those the experts on that site. When answering these questions, it is important that answers report an objective evidence-based answer to the question and avoid conveying the author's opinions on the subject. Since these objective evidence-based answers are may be at odds with the Code of Conduct, please take special care and frame them respectfully and politely [...]

Answer 19

Edit: This has already been answered here

One question that I've seen a fair bit recently is:

If a user gets this wrong, will the company publicly slander them to news organisations?

To me that's the most terrifying part of this mess.

Answer 20

Implementation details are still uncomfortably vague, especially for moderators. The FAQ says (emphasis added):

6. What if someone wants some nonstandard pronouns that I don't even know how to use?

Then just do your best. Again, honest mistakes are fine. If you are directly corrected, adjust moving forward. If you're not sure how to form that pronoun, you may find guidance here. If you're struggling, that's common. It can take a little effort but it's appreciated.

8. What if someone wants to be referred to as "the Great and Mighty One" or by an obscenity or something?

If something is obviously unreasonable and seems to be requested unkindly, please feel free to flag for moderator attention. Pronouns are a fairly well defined thing in language and styles/nouns/titles (Your Majesty) are generally poor substitutes for them. Note that "it sounds silly to me" is not sufficient grounds to think something is obviously unreasonable. If you and they can't agree, ask a moderator (or, if a moderator is one of the parties to the dispute, the Community Team) as you would in other cases of dispute. The Community Team is also available to help guide moderators upon request. Offensive/trolling “pronouns” (e.g.“attack helicopter”) should be flagged.

12. There are still edge cases that aren't clear to me.

There always will be. Use your common sense, be nice, presume good faith but be prepared to revise that assumption in the face of the evidence, and you are unlikely to go too far wrong.

The FAQ is basically telling us to use our judgment and common sense, and that mistakes are okay. That would be fine under the old "be nice" policy and when the community had good rapport with the company, but the problem is that you have created a climate of fear: a respected moderator was summarily removed and her name was publicly dragged through the mud for holding the same position that she posted in the moderator Team back in January and which no SE employee said was against the CoC at the time. It was only later when the company's interpretation of the CoC changed that she was accused of "repeatedly violating our existing Code of Conduct". This climate of fear is evident from all the FAQ questions about "I'm worried I may get banned", "Am I going to get in trouble...?", etc.

In this climate of fear the CoC/FAQ needs clear, objective criteria rather than vague assurances to just "do your best".

The FAQ claims that "[p]ronouns are a fairly well defined thing in language", but while the purpose of pronouns is well defined the criteria for what constitutes a reasonable request for a pronoun is not. Without such well defined criteria you have created hell for well meaning users (especially moderators) and heaven for trolls who want to test the limits of reasonable/unreasonable.

The FAQ also tells us to "use your common sense". Now, my common sense tells me that I should be fine if I followed the guidance of the highest voted answer in the moderator Team of the discussion on the use of pronouns (which says not to use incorrect pronouns but that we don't need to use a specific pronoun) and which no SE employee said was a violation of the CoC. Apparently, however, the common sense of the majority of the moderators who voted on that discussion does not have much in common with SE the company since a respected moderator was removed for following that guidance.

I'm not sure what the solution to this problem is. Perhaps we could have a pre-defined list of recognized pronouns which are deemed always "reasonable", and SE can guarantee that users (and especially moderators) are free to use their judgment to decide if any pronoun not in that list is reasonable without fear of any punishment by SE. Users who want to use pronouns not in that list can petition to have their pronouns added to it. That would make it much easier to objectively determine the reasonableness of the pronoun request. However, I suspect this may not be acceptable to SE since users whose pronouns are not on the list would argue that they're still excluded and marginalized.

With this vague guidance and climate of fear I'm uncomfortable using my judgment in acting as a moderator for any but the most obviously reasonable or obviously unreasonable pronoun requests, lest I be summarily removed and publicly smeared for making the wrong call(s). For example, which of the below words are reasonable pronouns and which constitute unreasonable trolling? (I've actually seen some of these in the wild since the new CoC was released.):

• from (conflicts with an actual, non-pronoun word)
• let (also conflicts with an actual, non-pronoun word)
• supercalifragilisticexpialidocious (is this excessively long? when -- if ever -- is a word too long to be a pronoun?)
• grimble
• vlkivczq (very difficult to spell and pronounce)

Can we get some more specific guidance on what constitutes a reasonable pronoun? Unless we can get more specific guidance I see no option but to forward all but the most obvious pronoun flags to the CMs so that I don't make the wrong call.

Answer 21

I am new to this topic in general (about genders and pronouns) and it's all very confusing.

1. Can I write to any person using "you"? For example, will the comment: "You have XY problem, do this instead" be appropriate to anyone? The Code of Conduct and the FAQ repeatedly simply says "pronouns", but it seems to mean only "third-person pronouns" (he/she/it and neopronouns instead of those pronouns).

2. Is it OK to refer person as "OP" (original poster) or use @nickname? For example, "OP didn't mean that, but this."?

I am asking, because if the above works then I don't need to change anything, all my previous and future posts will be appropriate.

But will those work in all cases? What are the exceptions? What am I missing​?

Both these options are okay. - CesarM♦

Answer 22

Question: May a moderator openly disagree with the policy even while enforcing it fully?

The FAQ says: "As a moderator, you're held to a higher standard and are expected to set a positive example for your community." Clearly there are users of SE who disagree with various parts of this policy and have respectfully voiced their opinions here on Meta. They have not been sanctioned as far as I can tell. Is a moderator held to a higher standard in this regard? Assume the moderator has agreed to fully enforce the Code of Conduct despite the disagreements.

For example, can a moderator publicly disagree with the policy, calling it silly, coercive, grammatically prescriptive, intolerant, etc. (to mention some critiques I've seen thrown around)? Can a moderator tell an offending user that while that moderator doesn't personally think a particular violation was rude in any way, it is still not allowed per site rules? Can a moderator openly announce that only user-flagged offenses will be dealt with and that nothing will be actively sought out by the mod team?

(I suspect, yes, that's all fine so long as the moderator has agreed to fully enforce the CoC despite the disagreements. But I want SE to officially say so, lest some moderator, even a very respected moderator, get in trouble accidentally by unknowingly stepping over some internal SE line of allowed opinions.)

Answer 23

6. What if someone wants some nonstandard pronouns that I don't even know how to use?

Then just do your best. Again, honest mistakes are fine. If you are directly corrected, adjust moving forward. If you're not sure how to form that pronoun, you may find guidance here. If you're struggling, that's common. It can take a little effort but it's appreciated.

What exactly is required from me by "do your best"?

Let's take the sentence "as was stated by OP in his question" for example, this is what I would normally write for an OP of an unknown gender.

If it's made known to me that OP's pronouns are "ey/em" am I required to look here, find out that "eir" or "eirs" should be used instead of "his" and then ask a question on ELL about which one should I use(I don't know what is the difference between Pronominal possessive and Predicative possessive, "his" would work in both examples given for "eir" and "eirs")?

That would be me doing my best.

Answer 24

I note that M2 states:

M2. I'm a moderator. I often have to refer to other users, I can't choose which ones I have to refer to, and often it isn't feasible to avoid pronouns. So do I really have to use pronouns I find uncomfortable?

Yes. As a moderator, you're held to a higher standard and are expected to set a positive example for your community. Using incorrect pronouns or conspicuously avoiding using pronouns is disrespectful. Telling them you refuse to use their pronouns is rude. If you think you will find using pronouns as stated difficult, please try. Most moderators won’t have to address this frequently. If you need help or have questions, contact the CM team for guidance. After that, if you cannot in good conscience follow it, reach out so we can find a replacement for you.

I know about the "you're held to a higher standard" part. That's been in A Theory of Moderation for approximately forever (or at least since May 2009).

Why not have an intermediary step of, say, "talk to your fellow moderators and see if someone else on the team is willing to handle the situation"? In other words, trying to resolve the situation amicably within the existing moderator team rather than resigning.

As pointed out in the comments, this is in line with long-established standard practice on issues where a moderator has a potential conflict of interest.

After all, the very answer to that question says that for most moderators it won't be a frequent occurence. (It certainly hasn't been for me.) And even if it were a frequent occurence, very few moderation situations need to be handled by one specific moderator.

Part of the reason why there are multiple moderators on each site is that no one moderator should have to handle everything, and to have someone to discuss details with before taking action. Sometimes, this means having a discussion among moderators hashing out the phrasing of a message before sending that message to the user, whether privately (mod message) or publicly (comment, meta answer, ...).

Answer 25

status-completed

U4. If someone puts their pronouns into a question they're asking, should we leave that in or edit it out as noise?
Add a comment noting what they said and suggesting that they could add it to their profile and comment on the question/answer next time.

(Emphasis mine)

May this be a left-over from what used to be in the answer to "10. I want to let people know what my pronouns are..."? The original FAQ said that you can put your pronouns in your profile to let people know of them, and that wording is removed now.

Answer 26

Why is so much of the FAQ phrased like this?

---

8. Isn't all this causing lots of inconvenience to everyone for the sake of a minority?

No. One thing is required of you...

.

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?

4. I find it really distressing to use pronouns in a way I think is wrong. Is there really no alternative?

Our users may hold any beliefs they do... But conspicuously avoiding using pronouns for one group of people while using them normally for others is a way of refusing to recognize their identity, and that is discriminatory. Please don’t do that.

.

5. If someone is non-binary, does it really matter whether I call them "ey" or "they" or "xe" or some other gender-neutral pronoun? Do I have to handle dozens of different pronouns?

Many non-binary people will be OK with whatever non-binary pronoun you use for them - however, if they have stated one, use the one they have stated.

.

7. Am I obligated to find opportunities to use pronouns?

Not at all! If you don’t need to use pronouns to say something, that’s fine. We ask that you use pronouns as you would naturally. If you’d use them in a sentence, use them; if not, don’t. Problems arise when a person or group feels singled out by having pronouns used for other people but not for them. If you're writing normally and naturally and it comes out pronoun-less, then that's fine.

.

8. What if someone wants to be referred to as "the Great and Mighty One" or by an obscenity or something?

If something is obviously unreasonable and seems to be requested unkindly, please feel free to flag for moderator attention... Note that "it sounds silly to me" is not sufficient grounds to think something is obviously unreasonable

---

In each of these answers, the FAQ immediately contradicts itself. It first gives the answer that will be acceptable to the community, then makes a blanket exception that completely undoes the first answer. Is it any wonder there's just as much confusion over the policy as before? Why not just be direct about what the policy really is:

---

8. Isn't all this causing lots of inconvenience to everyone for the sake of a minority?

Yes. Sometimes the majority must accommodate a minority...

.

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?

4. I find it really distressing to use pronouns in a way I think is wrong. Is there really no alternative?

If your beliefs do not recognize the self-identity of trans and nonbinary people, they are not welcome here.

.

5. If someone is non-binary, does it really matter whether I call them "ey" or "they" or "xe" or some other gender-neutral pronoun? Do I have to handle dozens of different pronouns?

Yes. You must handle any pronouns that a person asks you to. You can start with this non-exhaustive list.

.

7. Am I obligated to find opportunities to use pronouns?

Yes. If we think you're trying to avoid using someone's preferred pronouns, you may be sanctioned for it.

.

8. What if someone wants to be referred to as "the Great and Mighty One" or by an obscenity or something?

We have no actual guidance to give you here because this policy is based on ideology rather than any sensible attempt to create inclusion. You're totally on your own, and if you guess wrong, there will be consequences.

(OK, that last one isn't very charitable, but the original version is totally incomprehensible, and given how many revisions this has gone through, I can only assume intentionally so.)

---

If you don't want to discuss the actual policy, as you have made clear in the original post, then so be it. But at least be honest about what it is, instead of dancing around it in the hopes the users don't figure it out.

Answer 27

Q: Am I expected to remember every time someone corrects me on a pronoun in case I have to interact with them again later?

Like I commented in the (now deleted) previous FAQ: I don't care to remember every interaction I've had on this site in case I run into them again. I don't care about the person behind the post, I only care that there is a good answer to the question posted.

As part of that I don't even look at the name of a poster unless I need to @ them, let alone try and recall whether they expressed a pronoun preference to me before.

Answer 28

Reword to follow Wikipedia NPOV style guide

This FAQ currently violates the CoC, which states:

We don’t tolerate any language likely to offend or alienate people based on ... religion

This problem can be fixed by following the Wikipedia NPOV policies, particularly their style guide. Wikipedia's style guide is designed to treat controversial topics neutrally, with respect to all parties, and without implying that the underlying issues are matters of opinion.

Suggested changes

These suggested changes are the minimal changes required to make the FAQ follow the Wikipedia guidelines, and use actual phraseology from Wikipedia when possible.

1. What's this business about "pronouns"?

It would be rude to refer to a man as "she" or a woman as "he". Some people identify as are neither men nor women and might, for instance, ask to be referred to as "they". When someone indicates what pronouns should be used to refer to them, please use the pronouns they state as you would others.

4. What was that about being neither men nor women?

Some people identify as are neither men or women. The usual term for such people is "non-binary" and they’re often included in the term “transgender”. Just as you wouldn't want to be referred to with a pronoun that doesn't fit you don't identify with, neither do they.

M2. I'm a moderator. I often have to refer to other users, I can't choose which ones I have to refer to, and often it isn't feasible to avoid pronouns. So do I really have to use pronouns I find uncomfortable?

Yes. As a moderator, you're held to a higher standard and are expected to set a positive example for your community. Using incorrect other pronouns or, conspicuously avoiding using pronouns is disrespectful. T or telling them you refuse to use their pronouns is rude can be hurtful. If you think you will find using pronouns as stated difficult, please try. Most moderators won’t have to address this frequently. If you need help or have questions, contact the CM team for guidance. After that, if you cannot in good conscience follow it, reach out so we can find a replacement for you.

4. I find it really distressing to use pronouns in a way I think is wrong. Is there really no alternative?

You can often avoid using pronouns altogether. It's actually pretty rare to need third-person pronouns at all on most Stack Exchange sites. But conspicuously avoiding using pronouns for one group of people while using them normally for others is a way of refusing to recognize their identity, and that is discriminatory and can be hurtful. Please don’t do that.

Answer 29

However, note that debating the core of the new rule ("please use stated pronouns") or the validity of people's identities or gender expressions is off-topic for this post, and we won't be entertaining those debates at this point.

• Can the users express their disagreement with the core of the new rule in any way?
• Can they use their profiles for that?
• If they do, will that be used against them if they disengage when asked to use neo-pronouns?
• How about answers and upvotes that reflect this opinion?
• In general, will users be banned for not using certain pronouns if they have at some point, expressed their disagreement with this rule?

Answer 30

It would be rude to refer to a man as "she" or a woman as "he". Some people are neither men nor women and might, for instance, ask to be referred to as "they".

.. It could be rude, transvestites may still identify as a man but when in character be preferred to be addressed as 'she'.

I still feel like you're missing the point and a bit hypocritical because "trying to preemptively legislate for everything hypothetically" is exactly what you're doing.