[henrikschroder]

Think of special pronouns as names. All the etiquette we have surrounding names apply equally to pronouns.

It's not expected to remember someone's name if you've only met them briefly, but the more you've interacted with the person, the more embarrassing not remembering their name becomes.

Mis-naming someone intentionally, repeatedly, is rude and quickly moves into harassment territory.

But the flipside is also true, if someone demands to be called a long and complicated and unusual name, then that person is rude, and can't expect others to comply or remember.

Pronouns work exactly the same. If someone tells you they prefer a pronoun that is different from the gender they present as, it's polite to remember this and use this when talking about the person. But if you forget, it should be treated like if you forgot that persons name.

If you intentionally and repeatedly mis-gender someone, it is rude and quickly moves into harassment territory.

And, finally the flipside, if someone has an onerous or complicated preferred pronoun, that person is rude and can't expect others to comply or remember.

[simo7]

> Think of special pronouns as names.

That's exactly the problem: pronouns are not names for a reason.

Pronouns are meant to be a finite set of words that can group an infinite set of other words, names.

In many languages gender is the criteria to form those groups. It 's a natural choice if you think of gender as a binary category.

Once you introduce the concept of gender fluidity the most logical solution is to introduce a residual pronoun that includes everybody who doesn't fit in the male/female dichotomy.

To adopt instead a inifinite set of pronouns means to poorly re-engineer a language. It's an extremely important and complex common good, we shouldn't be tinkering with it so lightheartedly.

[qqwwqqww]

The use of hurtful nicknames in the workplace can indeed be considered harassment in the eyes of the law and/or polite society.

That being said, not sure pronouns are indistinguishable from names. As a species, we evolved sexual dimorphism alongside a visual apparatus to detect the dimorphism. We are able to tell a male from a female at a glance with high accuracy, even in presence of elaborated disguises. Being asked to call someone we perceive as male "her", or someone we perceive as female "him" is often times difficult. The pronoun is not an arbitrary tag detached from perception, visual or linguistic. Picture a couple more situations:

* A 6ft bearded hulking person insisting to be referred as "she".

* A person insisting that their name is "Susan", but that we should refer to them as "he".

Plenty of people would have to make an explicit effort to comply with such requests, beyond what's required for remembering the mere name/pronoun tag.

Online, we interact with a huge number of people, possibly only for a few brief moments. Most of us simply use the name tag under our eyes, and infer the pronouns using linguistic clues. For example, most people would use "he" to refer to u/henrikschroder. For name tags with less obvious genders, most people would default to gender neutral. Taking offense at people using an inferred pronoun when no other information is readily in sight is akin taking offense at HN readers that don't read the linked article before commenting. Nobody has time to click links on the Internet.

As a culture, we'd do well to stop catastrophising and taking offense at people minding their own business and not being hyper-aware of everyone else's special circumstances.

[atq2119]

> For name tags with less obvious genders, most people would default to gender neutral.

This is a bit of a tangent, but I don't think this is really true yet. There are plenty of online forums where I see people using "he" when referring to users with ambiguous nicks. It's probably changing over time though.

[humanrebar]

> ...if someone has an onerous or complicated preferred pronoun, that person is rude and can't expect others to comply or remember.

To the extent that there is any controversy here, it's in this guideline. I'd just soften 'rude' to unreasonable.

1. I have not seen any code of conduct make room for this scenario. It's taken as a given that pronoun preferences are reasonable.

2. Some people think singular 'they' and 'their' falls in this bucket.

3. Some people think writing in passive voice, etc., should be considered a good faith effort to be accommodating.

Pedantically applied, most codes of conduct make room for the judges and queens to insist on "his honor" and "Her Majesty" as pronouns, at least in some contexts.

I honestly wish some people would decide that this whole thing is too complicated to legislate completely and institute some sort of jury system, at least on appeal, to decide what counts as reasonable.

[henrikschroder]

> To the extent that there is any controversy here, it's in this guideline. I'd just soften 'rude' to unreasonable.

Yes. There's a lot of grey area here. I personally don't think it's unreasonable to ask people to use 'he', 'she', or 'they' regardless of how someone presents themselves.

And I do think it's unreasonable to ask people to use 'xe' and 'hir' except every odd Tuesday when it's 'xim' and 'phe'.

At least recognizing that there is a grey area is better than sticking to the extremes. Rejecting the outlandish pronouns doesn't make you a transphobe bigot, you can't expect everyone to bow to your slightest whims, and accepting that some people prefer different pronouns to what they present as won't dissolve society, and it's not fascism to ask people to respect each other.

> I honestly wish some people would decide that this whole thing is too complicated to legislate completely and institute some sort of jury system, at least on appeal, to decide what counts as reasonable.

I think we're already doing pretty ok with names, without any formal system.

"I'm John!"

"Ok, John."

"I'm Sir Master Kensington Fuckbuttery Waddlesworth III Jr!"

"No, you're Kenny."

[humanrebar]

Who says, "No, you're Kenny." in the context of an online community: moderated conduct, etc.?

And what if someone wants to go by "The Sampsons" for personal reasons? There's not a precise analogy here, but people infer plurality from 'they' and not 'John'.

[baggy_trough]

You cannot compel people to talk in a certain way. To do so is totalitarian and evil.

[henrikschroder]

If we work in the same place and if I consistently and intentionally call you a different name than your actual name, I'm harassing you, I'm bullying you, and if the place we work at has decent HR policies, I will get fired.

So I am absolutely compelled to call you your actual name, I'm compelled to talk in a certain way if I want to keep my job, and this isn't totalitarian or evil, it's simply having manners and treating each other with respect.

[sverhagen]

Agreed entirely with this. But it's also just an evolving social norm that these HR rules are based on. (As a few generations back, I assume, males got away with maybe calling their female colleagues "missy".) So, with that, I'm just curious where the average HR stands on pronouns.

[adrianN]

This is clearly wrong as we already compel people to be reasonably respectful to each other even in lawful neutral countries.

[DanBC]

> You cannot compel people to talk in a certain way. To do so is totalitarian and evil.

I don't understand this argument in the context of an employer / employee relationship. Employers tell employees how to respond to clients all the time.

[overgard]

“Harassment” is a really overly dramatic way of phrasing this considering the definition of the word. Not every slight is “harassment”, calling mild insults by that word comes across as shrill.

[switch007]

> And, finally the flipside, if someone has an onerous or complicated preferred pronoun, that person is rude and can't expect others to comply or remember.

But the person with the onerous/complicated pronoun gets to define how onerous or complicated it is, right?

However I don't imagine many people with non-standard pronouns think they're onerous nor complicated. Seems like you're setting up a straw...thing.

[henrikschroder]

> But the person with the onerous/complicated pronoun gets to define how onerous or complicated it is, right?

What, no? Every person who interacts with the person with the wonky pronouns gets to decide how onerous they think it is. If you insist on using 'xim' or 'phe', be prepared for a lot of confused looks and people dismissing you as unreasonable.

> However I don't imagine many people with non-standard pronouns think they're onerous nor complicated.

Of course not, people love their insulated little bubbles where everyone agrees, but if you want to be a part of society, you have to learn to accept that most people don't give a shit about you and your wants. You might not think that 'xer' and 'phim' are unreasonable, but if the majority of the people that interact with you think they are, then they are, and you will have to adjust your expectations.

> Seems like you're setting up a straw...thing.

We prefer strawperson in this forum. Hay rights are human rights!

[asdjlkadsjklads]

> Think of special pronouns as names. All the etiquette we have surrounding names apply equally to pronouns.

I'm bad with names, too.