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

Probably too minor to really warrant a proper answer, but I can't find a good place to add this as a comment ... From Edge cases:

2. But the free choice of language is important to me. This rule impairs my freedom of speech.

By participating here you're agreeing to treat others with politeness. That includes not insulting people (even if you sincerely think ill of them, and even if you're right). It also includes not intentionally misgendering them.

I'm wondering if this section is necessary at all. If it is, perhaps it should be more explicit about how any argument about freedom of speech is a straw man. In most jurisdictions, we are already legally constrained by various well-known and common-sense restrictions about yelling "fire" in a crowded theater etc ad naus.

Answer 2

The edge cases may seem to specify in a less restrictive way how one should act and seem to take away a lot of the previously existing compelled speech and conflicts. You might even think that compelled speech is gone.

But, it is mostly confusing language that is used in answers to FAQ 3 and FAQ 4.

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.

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.

For instance it even seems to suggest that one can avoid using pronouns. But then... later it says that one can not conspicuously avoid using pronouns? This is very contradictory. I read the answer to Q4 as "you can avoid using pronouns that way, but don't do it".

And how are people that do not like to use particular pronouns, for whatever reasons, being treated with respect? I read the answer to Q3 "we respect it when your religion only treats male/female gender, but here you are obliged to use non-binary gender pronouns"

The question 3 isn't really answered just like the question 4 is not answered. There is some text below it but it seems to avoid an answer.

---

Written by StackExchangeStrike

Answer 3

status-completed

Is the new CoC and FAQ about gender pronouns or about pronouns in general?

Reading What does the Code of Conduct say about gender pronouns? it is focused on gender:

The Code of Conduct has two direct references to gender pronouns: “Use stated pronouns (when known).” “Prefer gender-neutral language when uncertain.”

But CoC is not implying that pronouns must be directly related to gender:

We don’t tolerate any language likely to offend or alienate people based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or religion — and those are just a few examples. Use stated pronouns (when known). When in doubt, don't use language that might offend or alienate.

As far as I know there can be pronouns that are not related to gender but in general to individuals identity https://what-the-heck-gender-am-i.tumblr.com/pronouns

Answer 4

“Implementation” Question 4 is under-punctuated.  It says,

Can I use he or she based on a user name/avatar and correct if they tell me I was wrong?

It should be,

Can I use “he or she” based on a user name/avatar and correct if they tell me I was wrong?

or

Can I use “he” or “she” based on a user name/avatar and correct if they tell me I was wrong?

I guess it’s the second.

---

Also, it should probably say “May I”?

Answer 5

May I use they/them by default?

Counter question, that I would like to see answered in the FAQ:

May I never use pronouns? But each and every time, address a specific user by using his profile name? Or user X for example?

Pronouns are in the end, used to avoid redundancy. "Nancy became the new CEO, and then she ruined everything". It can be turned into "Nancy became the new CEO, and then Nancy ruined everything". And you can do that each and every time when you are talking about Nancy. Or Bob.

Is that a valid option for people who want to avoid the whole mess, on cost of writing in a style that most people will not find pleasing?

Answer 6

Only two remarks this time.

U4 -

Add a comment noting what they said and suggesting that they could comment on the question/answer next time. Edit it out of the question as you would with "Hi" and "Thanks". Because you've made their request less visible, keep an eye out for mistakes in answers and comments and consider making polite corrections.

This still seems noisy in the face of technical sites, since a comment like that could be rife for quick and speedy cleanup. For technical sites only, I still struggle to see how this information would be pertinent to a question or answer; maybe in comments would this come up during conversation, which would still be a signal to me that the comments are too chatty.

However, being able to edit it out as noise addresses my original complaint (10k only), so I'll largely acquiesce. It'd be nice if the FAQ had more explicit guidance for technical Exchange sites.

M2 -

[...] 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.

This reads like a bit of a chilling effect; non-moderators aren't necessarily forced to do this, but moderators must comply or be replaced. This makes moderators slightly more vulnerable since I could anticipate some bad faith actors plying on this angle to try and get a moderator removed from their position.

I see why this needs to be done, but it makes the unenviable position of being a diamond moderator even less enviable. On the sites where this can quickly become a flash point, I'm not sure you could find others who would willingly fill that void.

Answer 7

In U1 you write:

Avoid volunteering pronouns for third parties who have not indicated them on Stack Exchange (e.g. you know them in person) unless they are general knowledge.

I am not sure I understand the phrase volunteering pronouns for third parties correctly (I do not speak English natively). Am I right to assume that you mean a person I know does not want their real pronoun to be known in public so I should not use it too? (This sounds reasonable)

Or in other words: does volunteer in this context mean something like reaveal a secret?

If this is the case, I guess they/them would be the fallback pronouns, right?

Answer 8

It still feels very dictatorial. Quoting a Python design principle, we are all consenting adults. According to the current CoC, the following would be a conversation where Person B doesn't want to use the pronouns used by person A.

Person A: Thanks for your answer. I have a few more question, are you happy to discuss this in a chat room? My pronouns are they/them

Person B: .....tumble weed (Person B notices the use of he and she in their previous SE communications, but does not want to use the pronouns stipulated by Person A and decides to disengage.

Person A: Hello??

Using the "be nice" and "we are all consenting adults", the conversation could flow as follows:

Person A: Thanks for your answer. I have a few more question, are you happy to discuss this in a chat room? My pronouns are they/them

Person B: Regarding your pronouns, based on my personal beliefs, I feel uncomfortable using these. Are you happy to proceed if I avoid using pronouns altogether?

This gives Person A an option:

Person A: I respectfully disagree with you, but I am happy to proceed.

or

Person A: The use of these pronouns is really important for me, let's respectfully agree to end this conversation.

The last scenario empowers Person A to make a choice and if Person A decides to end the conversation, at least it is clear the discussion with Person B has come to an end. However, this is not allowed under the current CoC. Even if Person A and Person B are happy with this conversation, someone can visit the post months or even years later and flag it for moderation. This introduces the risk for Person B to get banned if the moderation flag gets picked up by an overzealous moderator.

Is disengaging really better than a respectful conversation?

Why can Person A not decide what is acceptable for them?

-----------UPDATE------------

Given the comment below on my post, I would like to clarify that for some people using certain gender pronoun is absolutely nothing minor. For example, a devout Catholic could fear eternal damnation given the recent Vaticans statement on this issue.

In reality there will only be a handful of cases where the Person A/Person B scenario occurs. The majority of the users, including me, will have no problem with the pronouns specified by the SE user. However, if StackExchange wants to be an inclusive community, they should respect different viewpoints on this issue.

Answer 9

Q: How can I state my pronouns in my profile and at the same time indictate in a binding way that I do not consider them being ignored to fall under the CoC?

My pronouns are se and sim but I don't care if anybody uses them or not. Do as you please. Not using my pronouns does not violate the CoC.

How can I forbid mods and staff to act against and punish anybody how ignores my pronouns?

Answer 10

But what about the edge cases? Pt. 1:

1. Am I forbidden to express my opinion about this?

Some of our sites may have topics where gender is part of the subject and may be a valid question for the experts on that site. When answering these questions, it is important that answers report an objective answer to the question and avoid conveying the author's opinions on the subject. Since these objective answers may be at odds with the Code of Conduct, please take special care and frame them respectfully and politely — please be aware that many things you might want to say may be extremely distressing to some readers, and try to minimize that distress.

Several points about this:

1. You are implying that the Code of Conduct is at odds with objective facts, and that these facts could come from someone who is an expert on gender.
2. This implication does the exact opposite of what you want it to do. It highlights for those who do not believe in gender-fluidity that there are objective facts that disagree with your policy.
3. It also alienates the group of people whom you are trying to make feel welcome.
4. It also implies that you, Stack Overflow Inc., do not believe that gender-fluidity is compatible with objectivity.

---

This is not a statement of whether I believe in gender-fluidity or not. It is also not an admission of desire to follow, or not follow the new CoC. It is simply an observation of the effects it most likely would have in the mind of those reading it.

Answer 11

This is an answer praising the newly updated FAQ.

I believe that leaving positive feedback is also needed. It is all too easy to criticise and find faults and ignore the positive changes. You cannot please everybody but in this instance, the team has found a good compromise. We therefore begin mending bridges, and that means acknowledging positive progress has been achieved.

It doesn't matter one jot that the pronominal proposal earned nearly 300 upvotes or the team showed great humility and honesty in radically changing the now-defunct FAQ, and gave deserved credit to the author, Gareth McCaughan, if the community continues to downvote and nit-pick.

The continuing sniping, fighting and swiping at gender-neutral pronouns seems to be the reigning atmosphere. Instead of celebrating this progress, some users continue to feel upset, suspicious about gender-neutral pronouns and afraid of them, unnecessarily so IMO.

R.E.S.P.E.C.T

Respect should not be based on someone's username, avatar, low-quality posts, rep, profession, nationality, English language skills or gender. If someone says they're Corsican, you don't call them French a third time because you have never heard of Corsica and you're uncomfortable with the term “Corsican”.

Instead, say:

Course I can learn how to use that word.

 

---

No.5

5. "Gender-neutral"? Does that mean like "he/she"? Not quite. While “he/she” and similar compound pronouns are better than a default masculine “he” alone, gender-neutral writing works to avoid gendered terms entirely when gender is unknown, either through rephrasing statements to avoid pronouns or through the usage of singular (or plural) “they”. For examples and other methods, see Kate Gregory’s answer to a related question - Define "gender-neutral language"? (CoC FAQ)

Perhaps the above could be worded in simpler terms, for users whose first or second language is not English, but these are not simple issues and this FAQ does not pretend to be Simple English Wikipedia. Kate Gregory's answer is well written, better than I could ever dream of writing, and provides great examples.

The singular they

The snippets below are taken from answers I posted on English Language & Usage. In one, the acronym "OP" is used, and in the other, the person's username. Not knowing the gender of the user, I used the singular and gender-neutral they and their

• 
• 

This is just an example, but I can assure non-native speakers they have seen the singular they in hundreds of instances, they just weren't aware of it before. So, as the British are wont to say

Keep Calm and Carry On

Answer 12

Avoidance of pronouns vs. gender-neutral language

There seems to be a self-contradiction here, and I'm concerned that it may trap well-meaning users into bans and other backlash.

Prefer gender-neutral language when uncertain.

Code of Conduct

Ok, this seems fine by itself. Except...

...conspicuously avoiding using pronouns is disrespectful.

What does the Code of Conduct say about pronouns?, question M2

So I should avoid pronouns, but only inconspicuously? What counts as "conspicuous"? I know the principle is "assume good intent", but as the recent days and weeks have shown, this is an emotionally-charged subject where people sometimes take knee-jerk reactions.

What measures are in place to ensure that users who default to pronoun-free phrasing are not unfairly punished for the exact kind of disrespect they were attempting to avoid?

Answer 13

One clarification given in comments on the old FAQ that I don't see explicitly addressed in the new FAQ is whether disengaging is permitted. I don't have the rep to see deleted questions, but if I remember the content of this comment correctly, Catija wrote that silently disengaging is not inherently a CoC violation.

I think this might be a good thing to address to either the "implementation" or "edge cases" section. I don't actually know what the official policy, if any, would be, but here's some possible verbiage that I think matches the spirit of existing Q&A's:

Q. Can I disengage from a thread if another participant's stated pronouns make me uncomfortable?

A. You are never required to continue participating in any public conversation on the Stack Exchange network for any reason. Therefore, silently discontinuing posting in a thread is always an option. However, stating that your reason for disengaging is that you will not use another user's pronouns would be inappropriate, and may be considered a CoC violation.

I can also imagine that a user might develop a pattern of "ghosting" threads as soon as a request for a non-binary or unusual pronoun is made. I don't know if SE would automatically consider this a violation or not, or whether it would be worth addressing in the FAQ as an edge case.

It's certainly not advisable or welcoming, and people shouldn't be campaigning/advocating for it. But, It is an option you have, and if you do so silently, that's unlikely to cause any trouble and be actionable for moderators. Cesar M♦

Answer 14

QUESTION: FAITH and POLICY

PERSON 1 - identifies as non-binary. They insist that I refer to them using non-binary pronouns. Special rules have been set up to protect PERSON 1.

PERSON 2 (me) - believes the Bible as being God's word and that God made Man and Woman [Gen 5:2]. Instead of pushing that on other people I keep that standard for myself and let everyone else decide how they want to live their life.

QUESTION: Why does PERSON 1 get to make me use specific language that goes against my belief?

CONTEMPLATION: I believe all [including me] have sinned and need Christ. So I don't judge others for their sin because I have plenty in my own life and am trying to overcome it. BUT I should not be pushed to use alternative pronouns which is contrary to the Bible.

Question 2: In a post conversation, if I were to reference Sally as "She" and Sally said, I am not a "She" but a [non binary reference] my conscience would be free with only using her name in future posts, but would not be free to use their [non binary reference]. Is that OK per SE/SO policy?

---

Answer from JNat:

This is answered by questions 3, 4, and 5 in the But what about...? section of the FAQ. In particular, the answer to question 3 has the most pertinent answer:

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.

Answer 15

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

I read this as "compelled speech" for moderators -- i.e., "yes, moderators really do have to use pronouns even if they did find that uncomfortable".

Speech isn't so compelled for users -- who, per the "Is there really no alternative?" question, might be allowed to avoid talking about 3rd parties altogether, and/or avoid using pronouns.

Unless you take a "don't ask, don't tell policy" with moderators (i.e. so moderators don't have to declare whether they're willing to) -- which, I'd guess you will -- I read this as saying that moderators are now officially required (by SE) to be willing to use pronouns and neopronouns and that their not being willing to would be contrary to the CoC.

---

People have contradicted this "bright line" and equivocated on this subject before, posting comments to say that moderators aren't compelled -- with other people posting other comments to contradict that -- which I found to be obfuscation and therefore slightly annoying and a waste of time.

The lack of clarity on that specific subject seemed deceptive, wishy-washy or incompetent -- how could you not be clear?

Still it seems to be clear now.

Unless you change that "Yes" there to a "No" -- which you haven't -- I don't see another way to read it.

Answer 16

I suggest clarifying the answer to Implementation, Q2 as follows:

2. May I use they/them by default?

Yes.

Note that if someone subsequently requests that you use other pronouns, then "default" no longer applies, and you should adjust as requested. If you continue to use they/them for that person, we may point it out to you.

Original text for comparison:

Yes, but be prepared to make adjustments if so requested. If someone requests that you use other pronouns and you immediately continue to use they/them for that person, we may point it out to you.

Rationale:

"Yes, but" sends a confusing/mixed message. The original answer was trying to both answer the question as stated, and pre-emptively answer the unstated question of whether it's ok to keep using they/them after someone asks you to do otherwise. The proposed rewording directly answers the question that was actually asked; and frames the pre-emptive answer to the unstated question as a non-default case.

Answer 17

Why not stick to simply dictating behavior ("don't be disrespectful to each other or intentionally misgender anyone")?

I think that this policy is overly complicated for what it's trying to accomplish. Why not just have something like the following alternate version instead?

We're trying to make the site welcoming and inclusive to everyone. Sometimes, transgender members have been made to feel unsafe and/or unwelcome. To help everyone be able to participate in the community equally, please ensure that you either use people's preferred pronouns or write in a gender-neutral way for everyone.

If uncertain of the individual's gender, please prefer gender-neutral language rather than assuming a particular gender.

Controversies regarding gender identity are, in general, out of scope for the site. Please refrain from arguing or debating with other users related to this topic.

Rude or discriminatory behavior based on gender identity will not be tolerated. If you see someone engage in this type of behavior, please flag the comment(s) in question as "Harassment, Bigotry, or Abuse." Violations of this policy will result in a warning from moderators, and continued violations after that will result in suspension.

Answer 18

I think these two entries would be easier to understand if examples of sites within SE network where these adjustments are relevant are provided.

1. Am I forbidden to express my opinion about this?

In most contexts, your opinions about gender are off-topic. Some of our sites may have topics where gender is part of the subject and may be a valid question for the experts on that site. When answering these questions, it is important that answers report an objective answer to the question and avoid conveying the author's opinions on the subject. Since these objective answers may be at odds with the Code of Conduct, please take special care and frame them respectfully and politely — please be aware that many things you might want to say may be extremely distressing to some readers, and try to minimize that distress.

and

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 comment on the question/answer next time. Edit it out of the question as you would with "Hi" and "Thanks". Because you've made their request less visible, keep an eye out for mistakes in answers and comments and consider making polite corrections. Note: on some sites stating one’s pronouns may be vital information for the question being asked, so don’t remove them in those cases.

Currently I have to guess where the adjustments apply and where they don't.

Answer 19

7. This seems like a small thing to make a fuss over.

   While on its surface it may seem like a small thing, we should keep in mind that for some people it's important and significant as it speaks to how they are respected and viewed. It can convey far more than a mere linguistic choice.

Equally, for some people it is important and significant in that they cannot morally accept gender-fluidity or refer to people using pronouns they perceive to be invalid.

I accept that in most cases the issue can be avoided, but I did see it written somewhere - I apologise, I cannot see where, maybe someone can aid me - that if a user specifically asks you to refer to them by a specific pronoun, you may not avoid this. I have never understood how your pronoun is relevant to your question but that aside, if this is the rule then you are clearly prioritising one group over another.

Thanks.

Answer 20

A few tweaks, and this CoC change could be beneficial to numerous minority groups across SE

It's stated:

1. Am I forbidden to express my opinion about this?

... please take special care and frame [objective answers] respectfully and politely — please be aware that many things you might want to say may be extremely distressing to some readers, and try to minimize that distress.

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...

M1. I'm a moderator. What should I do if I see these rules being broken?

If someone makes an honest mistake, you could point it out gently...

But if someone knows and is refusing to [make an adjustment], treat this as you would any other case where someone is deliberately breaking the CoC.

2. But the free choice of language is important to me. This rule impairs my freedom of speech.

By participating here you're agreeing to treat others with politeness...

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

Not if you're acting in good faith...

---

This CoC change could be boiled down to locating bad actors, and dealing with them appropriately, while also asking our users to be polite and respectful when utilising this platform.

There was an anecdote I saw the other day about a uniform policy, whereby there were pages of banned items. A review happened and it was cut down to two words: "Dress appropriately".

The employees were free to manage their own dress code, felt less restricted, and it allowed the community to self-regulate - often bringing about the same result as when they were under the pages of rules.

I'd suggest that we increase the scope of this CoC change, opening up the community to be able to voice reasonable suggestions to other users to allow any user to feel welcome here.

---

My suggested amendments can be summed up to two points, and the points could be treated as complimentary to the FAQ (which is, in effect, a terser ruleset on how these points are enforced)

1. Presume Good Intent

Make the assumption that someone is meaning well, because the majority of users are attempting to respond to your queries and feedback politely. Correct them with that in mind (if you feel something needs to be said) and then move back on topic.

However, if you believe there is enough evidence to suggest that someone may be a bad actor (even in the first instance), flag the comment/post/question that concerns you most and a moderator will review your feedback and take appropriate action

2. Be Polite

Keep in mind that our users come from all over the globe and have many different life experiences - not all of them good.

We'd like users to feel welcome here and as such, if a user requests for a reasonable adjustment to be made to allow them to feel more welcome, we ask that you try your best to accommodate the requested change.

If you aren't comfortable with making that change, try your best to continue responding to that users points (keeping on topic) and take appropriate steps if you feel like you can't do so in a respectful and considerate manner (stop responding to that user and/or flag if there is good reason to)

---

This will improve upon the original "assume good intent" that had previously been abused, and how the suggestion is worded, it could help the entire community, including lavender community, who (having been singled out by the changes) have been made targets by the last round of proposed changes.

It will be able to be used by people who are requesting that people be patient with their English, to those with autism who experience compulsive and repetitive behaviours that may be the reason they take a while to respond, and other minority groups who are not already catered for by the proposed changes, as well as being a sort of summary of the proposed changes.

It leaves enough open to interpretation to be useful to more than just one subsection of the community, restricts the abilities of bad actors to abuse the new rules, reiterates that individuals always have the right to remove themselves from a situation they no longer want to be part of or request aid from a moderator - reinforcing the idea that the community is trusted to make self-regulatory decisions in a fair way, and covers the communities that aren't already covered by this new CoC change.

Answer 21

This is much better.

I would prefer it if it had a reminder that somebody who goes overboard correcting someone on these issues is still subject to "be nice", and if there were some language saying that users who see an existing comment train on the issues should probably do nothing other than flagging, as the behavior is already dealt with.

As I've said before, my biggest concerns are workflow issues, and the new FAQ removes this concern, and "third person in the fight" issues. New FAQ is better in that regard, as I thought the original FAQ came close to actively encouraging people to jump in, but I'd prefer active discouragement.

Answer 22

TL;DR: Is secretly modifying a user's profile, exposing personal information on anonymous profiles, a just and proportionate punishment for (alleged) CoC violation?

---

To quote, emphasis mine:

M1. I'm a moderator. What should I do if I see these rules being broken?

If someone makes an honest mistake, you could point it out gently. (Or let the person in question do it. If it seems likely that they would prefer that.) But if someone knows and is refusing to comply, treat this as you would any other case where someone is deliberately breaking the CoC.

A user's profile page had been modified by a Stack Exchange staff member to remove mentions of said user's pronouns, and in doing so, the user's personal information has been exposed on profiles which were originally anonymous. See My profile's about me randomly changed across all sites.

Under my interpretation of the FAQ(*), the reason behind this is that the staff member had decided that the said pronouns are a violation of point 8 of section "What's this all about? - Implementation". (Whether the decision is correct is not the scope of this post.)

This means at least one of the following conclusions must be true:

1. M1 applies to moderators only and not to Stack Exchange staff members. Stack Exchange staff members are allowed to be as ungentle as they want to be.

2. Stack Exchange considers the act of modifying a user's profile page, without the consent of the user (not even the knowledge of the user), a gentle act. And that they have "pointed it out" by not informing the user.

3. Stack Exchange thinks that the user knows the rules are being broken by using some unusual pronouns. Without informing or discussing with the user, Stack Exchange thinks that the user is omniscient enough to just know that.

4. The official FAQ is not defined to be part of "these rules", "these rules" is defined to be the CoC only. Thus, violations of other rules, such as rules listed in the FAQ but not in the CoC itself, can be dealt with in whatever way Stack Exchange wants to.

So, I would like Stack Exchange to clarify: which of my conclusion(s) is/are true?

---

Note: For completeness, logically there is one more option: that my assumption in (*) is wrong. In which case would Stack Exchange please explain why the user's pronouns were removed from the profile page?

Answer 23

(I hope this is still the right place to ask what the right course of action would be.)

---

EDIT: Well, seems like it is not? This is a genuine question, and it's been almost two months since I asked it, and I've yet to receive an answer.

Could any mod or CM please look into it? Thanks.

---

I've been using "singular they" in English-speaking sites, like Reddit and StackOverflow, for ages now — well before any pronoun controversy arose here. I use they, their and them; and I used themselves too... until I learned that themself is just as valid and more clearly conveys that I am referring to one singular person (it's called "singular they" for something, right?) and not some other plural group that may also be included in the sentence. So nowadays what I use by default is they, their, them and themself.

However, let's say there's one user whose pronouns, as specified in their profile, are: they, them, their,themselves.
So question 1, general case:

1. Would it be a CoC violation to use themself instead of themselves when talking about users who specifically mention themselves as their self-pronoun?

Now, I've known and interacted with a user like this for some years now. They told me long ago, in private, that they'd rather be addressed as they instead of he or she, and that's what I've been doing. They didn't want to be public about it, but recently they found the courage (way to go! 💪) to specify their pronouns in their profile for everybody to see.
The thing is... We've actually discussed this "themself vs. themselves" issue before, and they told me that they use themselves because they believe themself to be grammatically incorrect.
So, question 2, specific case:

2. Would it be a CoC violation if I used themself instead of themselves when talking about users who I know (for a fact, because they told me so) that their reasons to state themselves as their self-pronoun are grammar-related instead of gender-related?
   In other words: if a user asked me to use themselves instead of themself when talking about them, not because they feel misgendered but because they think it's not grammatically correct, would I be breaking the CoC if I kept using themself?

---

Mind you, I don't really have a problem with using themselves instead of themself with this or that particular user if they ask me to. It's all about being nice, after all. But it'd bother me if they tried to force me to do so for reasons that were not what the CoC is there to protect.

If the CoC could be used to force me to employ a standard pronoun because of some user saying the one I'm using is not grammatical, that'd be... mind-blowingly ironic.

Answer 24

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.

As I used to be active mostly on SO, I would rather focus on question one asks, not on searching for rules of some pronoun usage. If I decide to still contribute, my options are either try to avoid the difficult pronoun or give up answering to persons requiring such pronouns.
The first option is clearly against:

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.

So do you accept the second option? Do you consider it improvement?

Answer 25

The point I made in an answer to the unofficial FAQ proposal still stands: if you want to communicate clearly, you should avoid or define neologisms. In particular, in "Edge cases",

2. But the free choice of language is important to me. This rule impairs my freedom of speech.

By participating here you're agreeing to treat others with politeness. That includes not insulting people (even if you sincerely think ill of them, and even if you're right). It also includes not intentionally misgendering them.

the word "misgendering" will be new to many native speakers, not to mention non-native speakers. It shouldn't be necessary to guess its meaning from context. The code of conduct and its FAQ should be clearly understood by everyone with a working grasp of English (say, Cambridge First Certificate), not just a subset of native speakers.

Answer 26

Here's the place to post your requests for clarification/new questions.

Q: What happens when someone is genuinely against using non-binary pronouns?

Are their rights revoked in favour of the CoC "enforcing" the usage of someone's preferred pronoun?

Answer 27

Thank you for this vast improvement of the FAQ. I found your first attempt at the FAQ to be very confused and self-contradictory. This is much less so.

There is an answer in implementation that is still too vague. I hope you can remove the ambiguity.

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.

I'm not sure what this answer is telling me. Is it "Why don't you start by using singular they? A lot of people will be OK with that."? I think the sentence up to and including the "however" just adds confusion. My personal phrasing in answer to that question would be: "If someone has asserted that their pronouns are 'xe' or 'ey', it must truly matter to that person. Please be respectful, and accommodate that assertion."

Answer 28

May I use they/them by default?

Yes, but be prepared to make adjustments if so requested. If someone requests that you use other pronouns and you immediately continue to use they/them for that person, we may point it out to you.

This is silly. The whole point of using a genderless pronoun like 'they' is to avoid misgendering and the discussion about it. It's like using UGT when you enter a chatroom. To demand that users change commonly accepted genderless pronouns to something else isn't really helping anyone, is it? It only adds noise.

If it becomes so important to use that right pronoun that the genderless version won't do anymore, you might as well demand someone who managed to construct a sentence without pronouns to rewrite it to contain your specific pronouns.

Answer 29

• I would like to get clarification about what SO, the company, is doing to prevent external targeting of users revealing their pronouns, especially if they belong to a minority. Is there any plan to work to together with local authorities and hand over collected evidences? Are users actively informed about the risks? Is there some kind of process in place how to deal with such cases or only reasonable suspicion of such cases?

(I'm aware that the means are rather limited, but it's probably better to think about it before and not after the fact. A quick but temporary hide/change/anonymization of user contributions might be some idea, for example.)

• While the expectation is clearly not to check the user profile of every interaction partner before starting a communication, doing so would surely increase the success rate of used pronouns. However, it would also be impractical. Please consider a better UI process that provides the required information more readily. Similar matter is that probably not many people will read the commentary to the CoC unless you notify them about it. Maybe it should become a notification similar to the recent podcast notifications.

• Maybe and despite of the public interest, the new FAQ could further be shortened a bit. The more text there is the less likely it is that somebody reads it all. At the very least, some summary of the FAQ (a few bullet points with the gist of it) might be good.

Answer 30

What does "stated pronoun (if known)" mean, and does "general knowledge" from U1 apply?

There are many cases where someone's pronouns could be argued as "publicly known" / "general knowledge", but grepping the string on the FAQ, as it is currently written, only gives U1: "I'm not a moderator. What should I do if I see these rules being broken?" Can I apply public / general knowledge when creating new content, or does the principle of public / general knowledge only apply if one sees the rules being broken?

If not, then, what does "if known" mean? Do the pronouns need to be explicitly stated by the person, or can it be inferred from existing official documents? I.e., are the pronouns only known when the person state "please refer to me with the pronoun $pronoun", or is it OK to refer to the current Queen of England as "she" because I know she owns a ship called Her Majesty's Ship Belfast (and because I'm inferring from her title as the Queen)?

Looking forward, if I were to discuss certain government departments in the future, where the British monarch may have been changed, and I do not know the gender of this future monarch, can I still use, say, HM Passport Office, with the HM assumed to mean "His/Her"? Or do I have to start calling it "TM Passport Office" for "Their Majesty's", which at present is not the actual name of this department?