[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.