How should Stack Exchange humanities sites discuss anti-LGBTQ topics without infringing on the CoC?

Question

I've recently been browsing three sites on this network dedicated to major religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. And I found it jarring to see answers like the below, some of which are highly upvoted:

• Grouping in homosexuality/bisexuality with pedophilia, claiming they're "fetishes" [+42]
  (Image)

• Generally anti-transition: Islam SE [+1], Christianity SE [+15]
  (Image)

• Claiming that a transgender person is "a man that want [sic] to be confused with a women [sic]" [+2]
  (Image)

• Recommending sexual orientation conversion therapy [-1]
  (Image)

• Comparing homosexuality to necrophilia, claiming it would be "plain hypocrisy" to allow the former but not the latter [-1]
  (Image)

• Recommending a user goes to a gay wedding to protest (non-aggressively) and bring up HIV [+2]
  (Image)

• Claiming that it's "rational wisdom" that same-sex relations are "immoral" [+4]
  (Image)

• Giving "logical reasons" why homosexuality is bad, such as "It's just abnormal" [-1]
  (Image)

• Claiming lesbians and gays "and those other things" are against the laws of nature [+1]
  (Image)

• Claiming that homosexuality "leads to death", "is contagious" and "needs a community in which to destroy life" [-2] (edit: now deleted, archive link)
  (Image)

I believe that, on certain sites, it is important to allow discussion of potentially offensive/alienating content related to religious stances or old literature, but not to state the content as fact, endorse it, or go off on personal rants. E.G:

Bad:

"It's just logic that homosexuality is immoral. Homosexuals should try conversion therapy"

Ok:

"Saint So-and-So considered homosexuality "immoral"[1] and recommended conversion therapy[2]"

Ideal:

"Saint So-and-So considered homosexuality "immoral"[1] and recommended conversion therapy[2] which was common at the time, but modern medical institutions widely consider conversion therapy practices ineffective and potentially harmful[3][4]"

I believe these answers violate the code of conduct. I tried to resolve this through the individual sites by suggesting edits that removed this content from the answers, but didn't get too far so I'm bringing up here to discuss the topic and hopefully prod some change into action on enforcement policy.

Addendum: what I've done since starting this discussion

Following the initial response here, I have contacted SE, flagged the content (once I got enough reputation), discussed it in chats, suggested deletion of the content, and made this meta post. I'm now aware that using the edit-suggest feature to suggest post deletion is not how the site intends it to be used (I could have instead gained enough reputation on those subsites to vote-delete), but I'd prefer the discussion stayed on topic rather than just on my actions/missteps.

Answer 1

This is an important conversation, and we’re likely to see these issues pop up again, so we thought an official answer here would help and decided to share our thoughts.

First, the standards the OP posted (the “bad, ok, and ideal section”) are pretty much in line with our policy. Discuss these things in a scholarly way, quoting views and citing sources, but avoid your opinions on the matter. This policy may evolve over time, but right now, it’s current guidance.

The content pointed out here is largely old (and in some cases already dealt with by the site mods after this was posted). We will work with the site moderators of the individual sites on the remainder of the content to clean it up and bring it to current standards as some of it does fall outside of what we’d expect and/or be okay with regarding the CoC. We would also like, and will provide suggestions to mods - on their own sites and with the support of their communities - to identify more content that infringes on the CoC.

It’s also worth noting that, while this is largely historical content, some things we simply won’t allow: for instance, posting in favor of techniques that are scientifically discredited and harmful (i.e. so-called conversion therapy), as it is fundamentally dangerous to those subjected to it.

And lastly, we wanted to reiterate what moderators already said: that this type of content can be reported through flagging or using the contact us link. We review reports submitted there and discuss them with site mods as needed. If you have the domain knowledge to make or suggest edits and adjust things in a way that’s not destructive and solves the issue, you can go that route too.

Thanks for bringing the discussion to our attention and to the mods who already started cleaning this up.

Answer 2

You "didn't get too far" because you were attempting to completely delete problematic posts by using suggested edits: In other words, you were using exactly the wrong tool for the job. Regular users have a number of useful tools for handling problematic posts, but it is important that the correct one be used for the correct purpose:

• Edit: Great for removing problematic parts from a post, or for modifying a problematic post so that it is no longer problematic, but you are still expected to respect the author's original intent of the post itself.
• Vote to Delete: A downvoted answer can be deleted by the community if enough users vote to delete it. You obviously haven't earned this privilege on the sites in question, and I presume you are not interested in involving yourself therein to gain enough reputation, so that's out of the question.
• Flag for Moderator Attention: This notifies the site moderators about potential problems so they can investigate and, at their own discretion, take immediate action on the problematic post themselves. If you lack the reputation to flag the problematic post, you can always flag one of your own with an explanation and a link to the actual issue.
• Post on Site-specific Meta: This lets you discuss potentially problematic issues with the community at large, as well as propose potential solutions.
• Contact Community Team: If you lack the reputation to perform any of the above actions, then immediate concerns can be brought directly to the community team's attention by using the "Contact" link at the bottom of the page.

If a post needs immediate action that you lack the privileges to handle yourself, it is essential that it be brought to moderator attention, ideally by flagging and/or bringing it up on the site meta where users who do have the appropriate privileges can act. The more details you can provide, the better. Otherwise, problems are just going to go unnoticed.

As a moderator of Islam.SE, I'll note that absolutely none of the problematic posts you attempted to take action on were flagged for moderator attention: As such, the site moderators were not informed of any potential problems and didn't get involved until significantly later. Suggested edits aren't something we normally deal with, and the only reason I investigated any of the posts was because a moderator from another site noticed the same behaviour on their site and informed me as a courtesy.

That's also the only reason I'm noticing your question here, since you also made no attempt to discuss the issue on our per-site meta so the community could have the opportunity to recognize and deal with the issue themselves.

Answer 3

Here's how I'd approach this issue as a moderator of Christianity.SE. The other religious sites may not keep to exactly the same principles, but they're probably very similar.

A neutral, academic, impersonal tone

Our site aims for a neutral, academic tone. We don't entertain personal opinions, instead we want to describe and analyse the teachings and practices of Christianity, even when those are unpleasant (and wrong according to most modern Christians.) We don't censor topics, nor do we try to hide the abhorrent things that some Christians have said in the past. But we also keep an impersonal tone. Just as we don't provide pastoral advice to community members, we also don't allow judgements of them. Answers shouldn't be speaking directly to question askers, but should instead describe how a denomination speaks to an issue, whether or not the question asker is personally affected or not.

Expect to be challenged, not necessarily validated

Christianity is an offensive religion. The foundation of the Gospel is seen as extremely offensive by a lot of people: you are evil, you are God's enemy, and you have no power to change this. Of course this abstract message doesn't have the sting of being told that living out your specific identity is wrong.

A site like Christianity.SE cannot be run under strictly secular principles. One central claim of Christianity is that humans were made by a God who makes demands on their lives, who expects them to live under his (good) rule, and that therefore the natural human inclination of autonomy is sinful. No matter who you are, even "good" Christians, if you come to Christianity.SE you should expect your life to be challenged, to feel uncomfortable, to have light shone on the parts of your life you hide from yourself, to be forced to confront truths about yourself you have been hiding from. This is what we believe happens when you read the scriptures, and even though it's uncomfortable, it's part of the benefits that I am looking for in our site. I wrote this before on our site Meta:

Many Christians would say that one of the central messages of Christianity is that there are aspects of all of our identities that are corrupt and harmful, and that the solution is to give up both our family and community given identities as well as our self-identities, and instead find the new identities given to us by Jesus. I know that this could sound very confronting or even offensive to anyone who is queer and/or who has had to stand against the identities that others have tried to force onto them. I believe that it is healthy for all of us, queer or not, to be able to own our identities and to feel free to express ourselves in ways that are consistent with our identities. But I also believe that the hope of the Gospel gives us freedom: from the tyrannies of identities forced onto us, from the anxieties of self-determination, and from the guilt and shame of not living up to our identities (where external or internal).

I believe that people who visit our site need to be prepared to have their identities challenged. It's part of the "contract" of our site - participation may have eternal consequences. It's therefore only appropriate that this be voluntary, and so now I'm thinking of the Hot Network Questions list. Questions on these controversial and potentially offensive topics shouldn't be in the HNQ list. Now that mods can remove questions from the HNQ list I've been trying to be pretty responsive and to remove the questions that could be potentially triggering to users of other sites, to people who aren't deliberately going to a site where they know their identities will be challenged. If you ever see a question in the HNQ list that you think shouldn't be there, please feel free to write a flag asking for it to be removed.

(This expectation of having your beliefs challenged isn't exclusive to the religious sites. Consider a site like Parenting and its questions on corporal punishment. Both proponents and opponents of smacking should be prepared to read challenging arguments from the other side, even if one side does predominate. If all you want is simple validation and affirmation, then you should seek it somewhere other than these sites.)

We don't relish in hate

Offensive things can be said out of a genuine sense of care for others, or out of hate. This doesn't change that both can still be very hurtful and cause harm. Christians have incited hatred through racism, sexism, transphobia, and more in the past. While we can't censor that fact, and we need to be able to discuss the disgusting parts of Church History, we also don't need to promote it. While we usually love quotes of original sources, when someone was inciting hate we would want a tactful summary instead of a quote. And depending on what was said, we'll also want to avoid some quotes of well-meaning but dreadfully spoken things. Links can be given to the original texts if someone really wants to read them.

Cleaning up our site's dregs

We've already taken care of most of the hateful things written on our site, but there will be some old posts that were missed. If you see something, consider which of the moderation options goldPseudo described would be most appropriate, and if you're able to, implement it. If you're not able to, or if you're unsuccessful, please start a discussion on the site-specific Meta, one discussion for each problematic post. Then the whole community can evaluate the post and decide which option would be best. But you also need to be prepared for the possibility that you won't get an outcome you like. (For example, we'll never censor the text of the Bible.) I really do hope that this won't be true for many people, but it may be the case that the teachings of Christians are just too offensive for some people's full participation on the site.

Answer 4

Bit of a frame challenge - while I'm not active on many of these religious sites, for things to change there needs to be engagement in these sites.

One finds religious sites have several issues. One is the source material(s) are from a very different era, and often bits of it might be obsolete (I once got asked my opinion on a bit of Hindu scripture and my mom went "uh... who follows that these days?" when I asked her about it. Folks sometimes also cherry pick for certain viewpoints.

The other is that religious questions are often about interpretation of deeply technical/specialist texts often written in older or less common languages, that often have been translated, interpreted or folks write explanations of them, and these often have the biases of the writer.

The third is religious texts often broadly reflect the views of either the time they were written, or the time they were read, and some of these views may be alien to modern day folks or folks of a different persuasion.

But I fundamentally disagree that I should have to participate in those sites (or more in others) before "unlocking" the basic ability to report blatantly bigoted content - this isn't something that should be gamified.

Participation in these sites isn't about gamification - but rather spending the time to get the context and culture of the site, and working out the best ways to deal with the problem

To borrow from GoldPseudo's post

You "didn't get too far" because you were attempting to completely delete problematic posts by using suggested edits

That wasn't the right solution, and we might have done better to educate new users on that. I do believe the COC page would cover the contacting the community team option, which may have been a more graceful way to do this.

Engagement and getting to know the community means the ability to use site meta, and work with the community to better figure out ways to deal with posts that may not reflect contemporary community standards here.

You don't need a lot of reputation to do it - I have a grand total of 2 reputation earned on Hinduism. Where the opportunity arose (or where I was requested to help), I picked up on situations where I could help on their meta - including a question on problematic beliefs of the past. I do have a working/casual knowledge of the religion and one of its cultures in question which helps.

That's to say, as much as poking in and trying to find problems, if one cares about the content in a community, one needs to be part of building a better community. Bring these up on their meta. Try to find acceptable solutions when there aren't at the moment for scholarly discussion of difficult topics. Flag for mod attention if necessary (cause mods are not omnipresent) especially if it doesn't meet network standards.

These work better if you're working with the community in the long run.

Answer 5

I'll open my answer with a bit of clarification:

• I'm not a member of any of the listed sites
• I'm not a mod on any site in the network
• I'm not a really high-rep user on any site (one site over 5 K)
• I'm not a CM or other employee, and cannot speak for, or to, corporate policy
• I'm not a practitioner, or believer, of any of the religions represented in the question

---

The question itself, as posed, seems to be an attack on something. Either the sites, the moderators of the sites, the religions represented by the sites, of some other target which I cannot deduce. As I understand the Network's CoC, an attack on someone is a violation, even if it's claiming a violation of the CoC. CoC violations are to be addressed with flags and the "Contact" form, not with open accusations.

The "question" within the question seems a bit vague. Well, actually I don't see a "question" to actually answer. Rather I see accusations spanning multiple sites, users and issues. I also see linked images which are cuts from screen shots, and linking content from multiple posts to appear as a single source. The images seem to be an attempt to de-context content and repurpose it for a targeted objective.

The linked content has, and will remain, unread by me for the most part. I read one from top to bottom and scanned a second in search of the "quote" from your image. This seems sufficient to demonstrate to me that the objective is not change, per se. Rather, an attack of some sort as already explained.

The solution, if you are actively seeking some kind of resolution, is to address each site individually, and therein address each post, or if it is found to be a string of post by a single author, each author, on a single basis. Secondly, if the content is offensive to you, the flagging system should be used. Publicly naming someone a bigot is no less a violation of the CoC than naming them transphobic, or any other term. If a pattern of acceptance of offensive behavior on a single site is a problem you wish to address, then that site's meta is the place to do so, not here.

It would do me no harm to see your issues addressed. It also would do me no harm to see them addressed as "not an issue." From the one I did read, I think the post was a valid answer to the question, with proper source citations and references. On a religious site what is considered offensive should be taken from the point of view of the site and its users, not from the point of view of an outsider (which includes me, incidentally.)

Context is important when dealing with "offensive" behavior, and your images have completely removed any context. My personal view is that this post should be removed, and I will be flagging is as a CoC violation after this is posted. I don't need the rep points for the answer (they don't hurt either), and even if it's deleted, you'll still be able to view it, and my answer.

Answer 6

Don't fight fire with fire - instead, fireproof

I agree with you, that sort of offensive bigotry should and hopefully never will be tolerated.

And look, this conversation is extremely controversial and divided. It is a touchy topic that hits too close to home for many.

How do we do this in a way that works for everyone?

Well, for starters, don't:

• suggest edits that delete huge parts (a word or phrase is generally okay, but anything that clearly conflicts with the author's intent is not) of material out (this is vandalism, even with good intentions, and is overall a bad idea);
• leave a comment asking for it to be removed (easy way to put yourself in a heated debate that will quickly escalate);
• bring it up in chat (easy ways to put yourself in a heated debate that will quickly escalate);
• and similar...

Here's what you can do:

• custom flag on the offending post or flag one of your own and link to the offending post with context;
• contact the Community Team through the "Contact" link at the bottom of every page.

And while these actions are helpful, to completely solve this issue:

There should be official Stack Exchange policy on this

There needs to be clear policy added to the Moderator Agreement for dealing with bigotry, on all sites - but especially religious sites and similar.

Every moderator should be fully prepared for bigotry and how to combat it.

This isn't an issue that can be solved by flagging when found and then leaving moderators to deal, there should be explicit policy that explains everything that a moderator or regular user would need to know.

For example, if you live in an apartment building high risk to fire, you fireproof it. You talk to the firefighters and make sure they have appropriate supplies, methods, and tools. There should be a clear way to escape the building and there should be clear policy on what should be done in case of fire.

You don't just leave it be, not communicate or give tools to the firefighters and cross your fingers that the building doesn't light.

Compare the situation to my metaphor, you need to communicate with moderators, give them appropriate tools, show the regular users how to avoid escalation and how to react, and prepare for the worst.

For example, there is a difference between referencing bigotry said in history and saying it yourself. The difference is a fine line, and the moderators need to know when it's been crossed.

What shouldn't be done:

We can't dismiss these examples as "random occurrences".

Anyone should be able to view our content, regardless of race, sex, religion, ethnicity, age, etc... This was a fundamental part of Stack Exchange's goal.

And I understand that people's identities are supposed to be challenged on the religious sites. But the examples shown are not meant "to challenge identities". They are simply to get a point across. A bigoted, homophobic point. A cold harsh reminder of humanity. There's a fine line and they leaped over it.

We can't do nothing. We can't discriminate. We can't tell people to leave if they are offended. We can't. That is wrong. If nothing is done, things will become hateful - that is the whole world, not just Stack Exchange.

So, you need to step up. We need to step up.

We need to put out the fire.