[prepend]

They explicitly call out ways to respect and accommodate all pronouns. This footnote describes methods of using pronouns so that they don’t conflict in situations where a pronoun may not be known or understood.

The previous item says that gender identity should be respected and so purposely using the wrong pronoun would be in conflict here.

Interpreting this footnote that seems to provide more detail on how to work with diverse pronouned people as a transphobic issue is not a good piece of evidence to label RMS as a transphobe.

Especially since it seems to be pro trans and pro inclusivity.

[orra]

> Interpreting this footnote [...]

No, the footnote itself is very clear that it's OK to call a trans man "they" and never "he", if you reject his identity and would prefer to call him "she".

We cannot excuse the footnote just because the main text is better.

> Especially since it seems to be pro trans and pro inclusivity.

Moreover, the context is this document used to reject calling non-binary they people "they".

So the context is this document used to be outright transphobic. Thus skepticism is warranted. Has the document improved? Substantially. Is it still problematic? Very much so.

[prepend]

I interpreted that differently as there’s a separate point about respecting people’s gender identity and purposely misusing pronouns would conflict with the guidance.

I read this to mean that there are ways to use they or per your address people when pronouns are uncertain. In that it I don’t know a pronoun then a good way to handle this is to use singular they.

I do this when gender is uncertain, as typical with the Internet and mailing lists and projects and what not.

I did not read this as allowing rude and inappropriate behavior to bypass people’s preferred pronouns.