Policing gender expressions and pronouns

To quote iDubbbzTV:

Either all of it is okay, or none of it is okay.

It's the only actively enforcable policy. Either we allow all kinds of neo-pronouns, simply based on the fact that a user requested those pronouns to be used, or we don't allow any neo-pronouns.

Any in-between solution will inevitably result in false-positives (legitimate neo-pronoun user is flagged as troll) or false-negatives (troll is considered legitimate), put unnecessary stress on the moderation team (which seems to grow thinner by the days) and requires them to deal with topics that they likely have not yet encountered in any way that impacts their position as moderators.

A proposal

• Stop asking people who are new to this to police gender expression

• Have at least one staff member go through some quality diversity training. If gender must be policed, let that staff member do it.

• Follow this excellent advice. Consider the risk of being nice to a hypothetical troll who performs a non binary gender expression, as if there is nothing at all odd about it. In fact, allowing skeptical people who are unfamiliar with nonnormative expression to try it out is an extremely useful exercise. Hypothetical trolls may feel free to walk a mile in my shoes.

• Generally, dial the troll detector way back when it comes to user profiles and pronouns. If it's not explicitly offensive, leave it be.

• Counsel moderators to not, ever, call someone's pronouns made up. If they were flagged and someone with diversity training believes them to be offensive, say something like a user found your pronouns offensive. The phrase "made up" does not read as "something you developed on your own to express your individual identity". It contains within it the idea that the individual's identity is concocted; falsely fabricated or invented. Even, e.g., a sexually explicit pronoun may be valid. It is just crosses the line for this site. Don't put yourself in a position to guess at someone's intentions. State the facts, without judgement.

I think that if it’s acceptable for people to choose not to use pronouns and ask people to use their name instead, users here should be permitted to ask people to use their account name to refer to them and to use their profile to educate people on how to do that properly.

The changes to the Code of Conduct (CoC) were framed in terms of pronouns and with a too specific idea of resulting behavior in mind, which is why this is all unnecessarily complicated. The goal should have simply been for everyone to be kind to each other and to educate users that it’s polite to respect someone’s wishes if they ask you to use certain words to refer to them.

If the CoC and subsequent FAQ had just stated that we must not refer to people using words they’ve asked us not to, none of this would be an issue. The only reason this is so complicated is because the FAQ that accompanied the change tries to strong-arm people into normalizing things that some people think should not be normalized.

I think neopronouns are a terrible solution for gender expression, and the situation that led to this question being asked is part of the reason why. I don’t think allowing only some people to choose certain non-standard pronouns judged to be serious or acceptable by some arbitrary group helps anyone and it sets up a conflict that hurts people. I think expecting everyone to invent or choose a pronoun that they feel expresses their gender is simply not a feasible way to communicate, even if there weren’t people choosing pronouns in bad faith to try to make it harder.

That said, I don’t have a negative view of people who disagree with my opinion about it. I understand that every solution to a problem has pros and cons and good, thoughtful people can weigh those pros and cons differently.

In my opinion, you can believe whatever you want to, so long as you don’t act in a way that makes people feel unwelcome. Moderators don’t need diversity training to handle the vast majority of instances where someone is interacting in ways that make others feel unwelcome. If moderators get a complaint they don’t feel comfortable handling, they should escalate it to the CM team. If a community member feels that moderators aren’t taking complaints seriously, they should escalate it to the CM team. Any other expectation is not reasonable when you’re dealing with volunteers.

I think it’s a bad idea to try to proactively identify “problematic” profiles or posts. If no-one has complained about it, why buy trouble? If everyone who has interacted with that person didn’t see anything rude or unwelcoming in their behavior, is there actually a problem that needs solving?

It’s far more important to make sure that the community feels safe complaining about content that makes them feel excluded or unwelcome so that those things get reported when someone notices them. We do that by making sure that we take people’s concerns seriously and treat all of our users respectfully, even when they’re in the wrong. Treating people disrespectfully when they’ve done something wrong causes two problems. It makes it less likely that person will want to correct that behavior and be an upstanding community member, and it makes good people less likely to report borderline bad behavior because they don’t want to be the cause of someone who made a mistake getting treated poorly.

The Pronoun Police Concept: progress or a step backwards?

Is this what our community needs? Does it make our participation feel like "community" or does it make us feel as though we have to look over our shoulder each time we enter into any kind of engagement that goes beyond a sterile "the code does this" discourse?

I honestly don't know. I suspect that we'll each adapt to the new environment in our own ways depending on how much we value participation on this network.

It may be that here in Meta we make a tempest in a teapot, or, it may mean that a whole lot of flares are being fired from the Titanic signalling an emergency condition.

An anecdote to illustrate confusion

I was taken aback some days ago about the "attack helicopter" name/meme/thing that arose in a META.SE post. I spent some years in the military, which is a context wherein an attack helicopter is a very real, and a very lethal thing. (And a very expensive one to operate). Suddenly, or so it seems to me, a word with a real meaning has been hijacked and slapped with a surreal connotation. That is but one example of the disorientation I feel with how this conversation, this collective conversation, has gone on for some weeks. I feel a lot of empathy for Monica - what is going on with this language I grew up speaking? How do non-native speakers feel about this?

I come back to, again and again, how broad, vague, and even useful the core Be Nice policy was. It allowed a contextual interaction that an ever-lengthening list, a CODE, of behaviors does NOT.

But what did I expect to see from this culture? It is built by and for Code Writing People. A computer or a script or an app can parse code. It can't handle context.

We have met the enemy and he is us. ~ Walt Kelly

I'm not going to forsake "Be Nice" - it may be imperfect but it is a generally useful guiding principle. I am not always nice, sure, but that appeal - to Be Nice - is a good first step in bridging a gap between two users whose only contact with each other is via keyboard and screen.

My recommendation:

1. Talk to people, not at them
2. If someone alerts you to an offense you didn't intend, listen, and see if you can figure out how to reach common ground, common understanding.
3. And of course, don't be deliberately offensive. The Be Nice idea is grounded in reminding all of us that, as a guiding principle, we can each take the effort to try and do that. It's worth taking that little extra effort.

I wasn't planning to post an answer here. I think De Novo's proposal is the best answer we can come up with.

But then someone suggests that there might be no middle ground. That:

Either all of it is okay, or none of it is okay.

They also seem to suggest that, to protect everyone from the trolls, banning neopronouns altogether might be okay.

I'm non-binary and I disagree.

I hate trolls. I wish there wouldn't exist and that I could ban them out of my existence. However, what I hate even more is making someone feels like their identity isn't valid.

Being transgender, especially non-binary, is being out of the social norms. And inventing pronouns for yourself can be part of it.

I use they/them. If neo-pronouns where to be banned, it wouldn't affect me personally. But it would affect other people in the non-binary community. People that have to struggle every day to make their identity recognised as valid.

I know how it feels. In my native language (French), it's impossible to talk about someone without gendering them. It doesn't prevent us from trying. From making our own rules so that speaking in a neutral way becomes possible.

It's hard. It really is. It makes you feel like you don't belong in this world. Like you are some sort of monster that shouldn't be here. From time to time, people will say that my way of using "inclusive writing" is awful and shouldn't be allowed or exist in the first place. Hearing this is really not nice. It makes me feel all kinds of negative feelings.

I don't want anyone else to feel like that.

That is why, if the choice is between allowing all neo-pronouns or neither, I choose all.

Even if it means accepting the "helicopter attack" thing.

Sure, it's never nice to be made fun of by someone using the "helicopter attack" meme. But it's even worse to feel invalidated because someone judges that your pronouns weren't acceptable. That they sounded too fake or "silly" to be real.

I'm non-binary, I'll do everything to protect my community. In this case, if we have to choose between "all neo-pronouns or none", then I choose all. Because I feel that this is the best way to protect my community. To protect me.

I really wish we could found a middle ground. I really wish that De Novo's proposal will be accepted. But if a middle ground isn't possible, if we have to choose between "all or nothing", then I choose all.

Let's start with this question:

1. How can we avoid the problems policing gender expression religion has brought up?

On religious sites, people post answers purportedly from their sect. Moderators (and diamond moderators) determine whether or not their sect is genuine (keep the answer), or whether it's just same random user on the internet with their own personal religion (delete the answer).

This is proof of concept that moderators already make decisions about boundary problems that relate to "I identify as" issues. In essence they act on their opinion: Is that a real religious sect? The risks of false positives and false negatives exist here too.

I understand the standard for determining if a sect is real is: there exists a webpage written about that sect that is not by the poster. It's very much in favor of giving the benefit of the doubt, but without totally switching off one's brain.

2. How do medical professionals determine if someone is genuinely transgender?

The usual way of determine if someone is genuinely transgender (as opposed to it being a whim, some kind of fetish, or being a manifestation of a mental illness) is:

1. Consistent. It's not a new thing.
2. Insistent. It's not a minor thing.
3. Persistent. It remains over time.

Indeed, transgender people get grumpy at medical professionals for "gatekeeping", but this is the standard approach.

3. How can we avoid the problems policing gender expression has brought up?

1. Don't switch your brain off.
2. If there exists a website describing this gender expression written by someone other than the poster, take it seriously.
3. If it appears consistent, insistent, and persistent, take it seriously.
4. If someone's using some unique neopronouns with no indication that it's a sincere belief (have they ever even used the pronouns themselves?), it's probably a troll.
5. If someone is misidentified as a troll, apologize and make corrections. They should understand because they will be negatively affected by trolling more than anyone.
6. If someone is genuinely misgendered, it's hurtful and embarrassing, so the last thing they would want is to draw attention to it. If they're making a big stink on meta.SE, it's probably a troll: trolls want the audience. If they want it discreetly settled and to quickly move on, it's probably genuine.

In my view, the correct policy is

If a user requests that you not refer to them with male-gendered or female gendered words (or requests you use neither), you must not continue to do so. Using gender-neutral language is always acceptable, and is encouraged.

Simple, objective, easy to enforce, and covers all the most common cases of misgendering. It does mean users cannot be required to use specific pronouns or to use gendered language instead of gender-neutral language, but that seems like a small downside compared to the great improvement in clarity.

Personally, this is the first time I've seen someone request their name be used in lieu of pronouns. Given they were using their online alias, I'm not surprised someone, who had the same ignorance about that preference as I did, assumed it was trolling.

I think Stack Exchange should suggest a default pronoun to use, when in doubt. "They" is the default that I see used the most often when pronoun preferences are unclear, and given that general consensus, SE should probably just have that be the suggested default.

I get that, in this case, this particular user said 'they' isn't acceptable, but this preference is currently an outlier, and I don't think it's reasonable to expect every user to click on someone's profile everytime they respond to a poster, to see if they have an issue with 'they'.