[miopa]

This is getting quite ridiculous.

I don't want to know your gender. I don't care. It's your thing. It's non of my business, and it makes no difference to me whatsoever.

If I do want to know your gender, then things between us are starting to become intimate.

To sum things up: I would say it's rude if someone shares his gender identity with me without being asked. On the same level as if someone shares his/her dick size without being asked.

[spectramax]

I agree, "They" is perfect. If you're offended then so be it. I don't really care if you're a man, woman, transgender, gay, lesbian, whatever.

We are in a society that demands special treatment and we've become so afraid of offending people.

To the offended - Don't be, assume the best of everyone and things will be fine. The problem starts when people are offended and they require special treatment. Malice, racism, segregation and other forms of abuse is not part of this clause. Those are universally inexcusable.

[mintplant]

You, and most of the commenters in this thread, seem to have somehow missed that the author specifically objects to using the singular "they". Perhaps people are skipping to the comments and/or jumping to stock reactions to the topic of gendered pronouns instead of reading and responding to the content of the linked post. Otherwise, I've no idea why so much debate is ragimg around, for example, "custom pronouns" (ze/xir/etc), when the original author doesn't mention them at all.

[TeMPOraL]

There are two ways of avoiding dealing with gender in written communication in English. You can use singular "they", or you can write in such a way gendered pronouns or singular they are not necessary. The author seems to prefer the second one as a stylistic choice, expressed that preference, and apparently this was what got said author fired.

The way this decision and surrounding information about the new CoC can be read, is that it's no longer about avoiding misgendering people. It's about having to pay fealty. Writing around gendered pronouns means weaseling out of having to make a stand on the issue, which labels you as the enemy.

[tsukikage]

Many discussion threads here seem to be losing sight of the fact that these are internet forums. 99% of the time one doesn't have a clue what gender, race, species etc one's interlocutor is.

There is a perfectly good third person pronoun for this situation. Some might decry it as a neologism, but I suggest it has been around long enough and has firmly entered the language:

"OP".

[TeMPOraL]

The worry is though, that under SE's new CoC, this would be found a violation of "no twisting language to work around the gender pronouns" rule.

[spectramax]

I read the entire article and just because people are in accord with the author does not prevent them to comment further about the author's stance.

[saagarjha]

Would you be offended if someone shared their name without being asked? The issue here is that names and pronouns come up in ordinary conversation quite frequently.

[miopa]

I don't get offended when someone is rude, it just makes that person an asshole in my mind.

But of-course I don't think sharing the name is rude, it's a basic personal reference. It would be rude if it's followed by "I'm straight" or "I'm a woman". As for pronouns, in most languages, you can know the [grammatically] correct gender automatically from the name. And if you don't, most grammars have middle or neutral gender, so that can be used. The issue here is that we shouldn't bother other people with our gender identity.

[traderjane]

What if you ask what somebody does and she explains she’s a mom? You don’t obtusely ask, “But I didn’t ask if you were a mom. I didn’t even ask about your gender.” Life is gendered. It’s okay to reveal gender. And in the workplace, or even church or social gatherings, people are definitely thinking of sex and sexuality all the time — who is surprised when coworkers start dating?

It’s no more rude than having baby pictures or a wedding ring or a cross around your neck. These are all examples of intimate disclosure which have little or nothing to do with some idealized cold professional relations. People wear their identity in many ways and the rest of society is perfectly okay with it.

[lostmsu]

This kind of chat is not on SO though.

[saagarjha]

> As for pronouns, in most languages, you can know the [grammatically] correct gender automatically from the name.

But what if you can’t? Or there aren’t enough context clues to determine this? For example, my username contains my name in it; do you have any idea what my gender is? Or what I’d I had a “gendered” name but actually had a different identity personally?

But really the problem is that gender comes up in conversation a lot more than orientation. You can get a lot further in a conversation without the latter than the former, so some people see it fit to frontload that information.

[miopa]

Well, since I generally don't care about your gender identity, I would be quite satisfied if I use the grammatical gender that corresponds with your gendered name. BTW in my native language all nouns are gendered, even the surnames, and it would be grammatically incorrect to refer to a feminine or masculine name with pronouns from different gender.

I disagree that personal gender is often relevant in that kind of discussions (SO, or similar general topic forums), and when it is, then it's perfectly normal to share it. The same goes for dick size. But why to mention it if not necessary?

[rmc]

But to address you, to talk to and about you, I need to know your name. And often, your pronouns.

[miopa]

We managed since usenet times to quite successfully communicate with knowing only the handles of the other persons involved in the discussion.