The code of conduct has been changed

Question

The SE Code of Conduct has been changed in regards to the use of pronouns when referring to users.

There is a fair amount of discussion at MSE What does the Code of Conduct say about pronouns? and on the blog https://stackoverflow.blog/2019/10/10/iterating-on-inclusion/.

The changes can be summed up as "Prefer gender-neutral language when uncertain" and "Use stated pronouns (when known)".

In addition to the public discussion, there are also private discussion about how to enforce these changes. Based on these discussions it seems SE's take on the situation is that if you are trying to avoid a user's pronouns, then you are on thin ice regardless of if your objection is on religious, grammatical, or thought police grounds, or any other argument.

Answer 1

Thank you for this update!

I know it's a touchy subject at the moment, but just taken at face value I am actually rather happy about this new CoC and the thought behind it. Especially:

Based on these discussions it seems SE's take on the situation is that if you are trying to avoid a user's pronouns, then you are on thin ice regardless of if your objection is on religious, grammatical, or thought police grounds, or any other argument.

I have to say that I support this line of thinking. If we want Stack Exchange to be a truly inclusive community, avoiding the use of a preferred pronoun because you don't agree with them isn't good enough.

That said, it seems almost like a theoretical issue on this Stack Exchange. From the top of my head I can't think of a single question / discussion here that did not fall into either "person clearly identifies as male -> use him", "person clearly identifies as female -> use her", or "no identifiable gender -> use them". It's my understanding that this is still completely ok with the new CoC.

Answer 2

I only became aware of this policy and the controversy surrounding it yesterday. I wholeheartedly agree that the intent of the policy is admirable -- StackExchange should be inclusive of all gender identities. However, I am astounded by how poorly this has been implemented.

I think there are three issues that are causing uproar across the SE network:

1. Under the new Code of Conduct, gender-neutral language (e.g., using name only instead of pronouns) is not acceptable in certain circumstances.
2. Details of those circumstances are unclear. Where is the line drawn with respect to bad-faith pronouns? How do you decide if the intent of gender-neutral language is to avoid preferred pronouns?
3. StackExchange's management of the issue has not been reasonable. One moderator was summarily "fired" for unclear reasons (allegedly for repeatedly violating the CoC, but this is disputed). Several other moderators have "resigned" or suspended moderation in protest, including one moderator here.

I really appreciate what SE offers and I am saddened to see this issue becoming so acrimonious. (We hardly even use pronouns.) So I hope that these issues are resolved amicably soon.

Answer 3

Speaking from the "other side", I would like to commend you on your thoroughly professional summary of the acrimony:

"In addition to the public discussion, there are also private discussion about how to enforce these changes. Based on these discussions it seems SE's take on the situation is that if you are trying to avoid a user's pronouns, then you are on thin ice regardless of if your objection is on religious, grammatical, or thought police grounds, or any other argument."

I'll finish with my point of view, but in maintenance of this high tone, allow me point out additional logs on this fire:

• Coerced speech (debatable, but hardly dismissable out of hand)
• The predictable and often demonstrated use of policies like this to exclude those who feel that words do not harm people, and who would like to go on using the English language
• Political and corporate standards of "truth" frequently differ from those verifiable through science, and hard sciences vs soft science display the same disparity

I bring up that last not to litigate the issue, but to point out that it still exists.

This new CoC shuts down conversation, even on the topic of sex/gender/culture issues, by making abominable any discussion which strays from a corporate-friendly approach.

Orwell's point was that if the language is controlled, then that which may be said is thereby controlled.

My most neutral analysis, which I think should be agreeable to a majority of SE users, is that this is an example of the corporate side of SE stepping across a line of propriety in what should be a community-managed matter. I understand and sympathize with the corporate motivation to ensure a squeaky clean, unassailably politically correct platform. I feel they have gone too far in providing this level of comfort to themselves.

My strictly personal position is this -- I am not about to use a bunch of made-up pronouns. Pronouns in English are a closed set. English of course lacks a dedicated second person plural (as distinct from the singular "you"), which is why it has evolved "y'all". No code of conduct anywhere states that I must use the term "y'all" in order not to offend pluralities. It's not the business of the organization which runs a website to police at that level. "Y'all" is debated on a continuing basis between those who like it and those who don't. Likewise, if I don;t like the neologisms "xe" and "tey", I should remain free to point out, without being abusive, that I do not recognize these arbitrary additions to the language. I would of course expect some flak for that.

I would not expect to be counseled by a corporate droid, or kicked off of a site dedicated to the sharing of knowledge through the medium of language.