[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.

[mirimir]

Not at all.

But if you were the moderator of a forum, or her supervisor, that probably wouldn't work. Maybe if you were very clever at it, I suppose.

[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]

Right above that, he wrote:

> If person A comes along and demands that I refer to them by their "preferred pronoun" (even if it is a mismatch for their genetic sex or the grammar of the language being spoken) and I refuse, that's considered an insult. Now, SE staff's enforced interpretation is that if I deliberately avoid pronouns altogether, whether by carefully avoiding sentences that even need pronouns at all or by sticking to proper names or by disengaging from the individual — those are all being considered insults too if the other party says they are insulted.

And yes, he does say that gender issues about pronouns aren't an issue for him. But then he goes on to say:

> Unfortunately the new CoC (as interpreted by staff) specifically enshrines the rare and awkward scenario where those issues in particular are brought up and the other party demands affirmation of their specific world-view, and the staff interpretation makes no accommodation for agreeing to disagree or politely disengaging.

So no, I don't agree that it's another issue entirely. But a broader issue, yes.

Edit: Cut misquote.

Also:

> Ironically in the specific the issue at hand called out (using people's preferred pronouns) [Monica] is on record as being much more accommodating than I would be.

[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.