[guardiangod]

My cynical self noticed that there are a lot of "apologize" and "sorry" in this update, yet I believe this is a first good step.

However, the update accumulated to the 'fix' being SO will release an updated CoC on Oct 7/10/11 with inputs from all mods, and an updated mod firing process. These are absolutely essential, no doubt, but incomplete.

What is missing, in my opinion, is the update still did not address how the original conflict came to the firing of a respected member. The most sincere way to apologize would be to use this failure of process as an example, to showcase how SO erred and how SO intends to change. Finally, a separate, public apology to the fired mod, with specific example of how SO mishandled each step, is crucial in regaining the trust.

EDIT: After giving some thoughts, I realize that SO is apologizing, not for wrongful termination, but for not privately firing the mod with due process. In SO's management eyes, the firing is still justified. Fine. Explain to us, with examples, how the firing is justified, and how pronoun usage would re-conciliate with moderators with religion restrictions.

[marcinzm]

>Explain to us, with examples, how the firing is justified, and how pronoun usage would re-conciliate with moderators with religion restrictions.

It's clear they have no desire to explain and would very much prefer nothing further is made public:

>We’ll keep those discussions completely private unless we both agree to share any of it with the community.

[mirimir]

> how pronoun usage would re-conciliate with moderators with religion restrictions

It seems clear that, in their updated CoC, the requirement to be respectful trumps religious restrictions. And that's pretty much the standard here, isn't it? I can't imagine rudeness being OK here, even if it's required religiously.

[reitanqild]

You are writing as if there is a conflict here.

Rudeness never was OK.

Problem is she wasn't rude. She was communicating exemplary and no examples have been given of anything else. What is happening is she's been tried for thought crime in a secret court and it seems her professional[0] writing style can be construed using the necessary mental gymnastics as her not wanting to please the wishes of certain people.

[0]: again, not only professional but also exemplary based on all we've heard.

[mirimir]

I'm not saying that Monica was rude. I'm not even talking specifically about her, here.

I'm postulating the existence of a religious person who would (for example) refuse to use "he" for a biologically female person who identifies as male. But would instead use singular "they", or passive voice, to evade the issue. I'm not saying that they would insist on using "she". Just that they wouldn't use "he".

That might be her position, based on two meta threads.[0,1] But she doesn't actually say that. Others sort of say that, and she doesn't correct them. And certainly I may have missed her clear statement. But as I've said, I'm not claiming that to be her position.

So anyway, if someone actually did refuse to use declared gender, that would arguably be rude. Or at least, it would be perceived as rudeness, which is arguably what matters in communities.

0) https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/333965/firing-mods-...

1) https://judaism.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5193/stack-...

[dr_dshiv]

I don't know why religion gets involved. Requiring every else in the world to treat them with gloved hands at risk of public shaming seems rude to me. Bullying, even.

Is there a thread I can follow so I can "woke" myself on pronouns? I definitely fear LGBT+ now in a practical way. I'm naturally anti authority and I don't like this authoritarianism -- but I don't want tar and feather.

[mirimir]

Religion only gets involved when people cite it to justify their behavior.

As much as I intellectually and emotionally support people's right to self-determination, it is a little frightening how fast things are changing. It's even more frightening how polarized things are getting. My best bet is listening carefully, being polite, and avoiding offense. Not that I'm always successful.

[amanaplanacanal]

This isn't really hard. Use the pronouns people prefer. If you accidentally mis-gender somebody, it's not that big of a deal. Hell I do it with people I know and love. It happens. If you intentionally mis-gender people, then you are just an asshole.

[peferron]

On one of your links she writes the following:

> In my email I said clearly that I'm on board with "use preferred pronouns when using pronouns"

I think this rules out using singular "they" if the person would rather be referred to by "he" or "she" for example. At least I hope so.

[mirimir]

OK, good point. That does rule out using singular "they" after someone expresses a preference. For her, that is. But not for my hypothetical religious person. Who, it's hard to deny, wouldn't be all that unusual.

However, she doesn't flatly say "use preferred pronouns". And she also talks about not using pronouns at all.

So, as an alternative hypothetical, even avoiding pronouns completely when someone says "I declare as female" could be perceived as rude.

[isoskeles]

> even avoiding pronouns completely when someone says "I declare as female" could be perceived as rude.

Would it be rude if I simply ignored the comment and disengaged from the conversation? Hypothetically, I am doing it with the motivation of avoiding pronouns completely.

[MauranKilom]

The contentious point in the TL discussions that led to all this appears to have been Monica's refusal to use singular "they" in particular. But there is certainly more context to that than I could hope to fit into a comment here, even if I knew all of it.

[reitanqild]

> I'm postulating the existence of a religious person who would (for example)

Postulating the existence of a person with the traits you want to attack is a nice trick and is often referred to as a strawman.

It is not hard either, I could also want to postulate about the existence of certain people with unfavorable traits (no no, not pointing at anyone, just postulating), and then go on to paint large targets on them etc but I think we are better off without going further down that street.

[mirimir]

Here are a couple real ones, ex-moderators Caleb[0] and Nathaniel[1].

Edit: Also, for context, an eight year old post from Caleb.[2]

0) https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6718/b...

1) https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6717/r...

2) https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/193/br...

[reitanqild]

You wrote:

> I'm postulating the existence of a religious person who would (for example) refuse to use "he" for a biologically female person who identifies as male.

Here's what the first of those you accuse has to say (in between a lot other):

> For the record, I personally don't usually have a problem using peoples' preferred pronouns online. I don't go around trying to figure out if the way individuals are representing themselves online is consistent with my beliefs about the nature of the universe.

Something else entirely, isn't it?

[mirimir]

It was dumb of me to invent a hypothetical when I could just have quoted ex-moderators Caleb and Nathaniel. And broadened to issue from pronouns to being forced to actively support issues that violate religious beliefs.

[tsukikage]

> for a biologically female person who identifies as male

"biologically female" is a much more loose concept than one might think. Hermaphroditism, sex chromosome aneuploidy, androgen insensitivity etc etc etc... when it matters, doctors ask and run tests. Don't just assume you can guess what someone "biologically" is any more than you can guess what they identify as.

[mirimir]

Yes, I know that it's a continuum.

But this isn't about me. It's about my hypothetical religious person. Who might say, "she looks female to me". I'm not arguing that it would be a valid assessment.

[GoblinSlayer]

It' thinkable that silent disagreement is a thought crime sort of rudeness :)

[mirimir]

It's no longer exactly thought crime when someone realizes that you're doing it.

[throwaway82737]

That's a pretty large canyon you're leaping across to conflate someone's personal preference to how they get addressed and rudeness being "required religiously". Oops, I just used "they" without asking the hypothetical "someone" how they'd like to be addressed.

I assume youd also say someone believing a man cannot be a woman is someone who should be wiped from the public discourse of the internet as well. Can you be offended by it? Absolutely, but there is nothing inherently "rude" about such a statement.

I prefer to be addressed "Sir Knight of the Round Table". Failure to do so will constitute breaking HN and SE CoC. It doesn't take far down the rabbit hole for the shoe to land on the other side.

[mirimir]

Well, Sir Knight of the Round Table, I don't have any problem with that. It's a little on the long side, but whatever makes you happy.

Seriously, though, that just simplifies to male.

I'm just an old anonymous coward who doesn't get out much. But I did ask a younger friend about this, and got that people who care advertise their declared status in their sig and/or username. As does, for example, "Zoe the transgirl".

[reitanqild]

> Seriously, though, that just simplifies to male.

Seriously, I'm tired of this. In what company that HNers want to work in does being a male give you any advantage?

Or in what school? (I'm aware of certain nurse and chemistry studies prioritizing men, but that's it.)

If you cannot come up with any I kindly suggest stop insulting men. You don't need to do that to support others.

- Someone who has gone out of his way to help women and immigrants

[mirimir]

Sorry. I have no agenda against men. I am one. Isn't it obvious? But some of my personas are female, I admit.

I was just pointing out that "sir" implies male gender. And given that we're talking about gender pronouns, not titles, the rest of it is irrelevant.

[emmelaich]

I can't really understand this sentence of yours

> My cynical self noticed that there are a lot of "apologize" and "sorry" in this update, yet I believe this is a first good step.

in particular with the "yet". Would it be a better first step without apologies?

[magicalhippo]

It reads like a clinical PR piece. Mostly it reads as they're sorry it blew up in their face, and it doesn't really feel like they're sorry about what they did except harm themselves.

Then again, I might just be a bit jaded like GP.