A Pronominal Proposal

My thoughts on this post are highly positive and I sincerely commend the work you put into this. I have some critiques towards subtlety that I think could be helpful in narrowing down the issue further. But I appreciate what you've done with the FAQ, here, for a lot of reasons.

The reasons I appreciate this mostly boil down to:

• Clearer assertions about what behavior is requested and required;
• Clearer explanations of why that behavior is requested/required;
• The same for the negative case;
• It gets the whole issue... pretty much spot-on correct.

So my comments more so aim at subtleties, things that I wouldn't want to see swept under the rug, but aren't necessarily bad for the most part.

I wonder whether any policies on this contentious issue would be more broadly acceptable to the community while still addressing the issues the revised CoC and the FAQ were intended to address.

I wonder this, too. The form of contention we are seeing leaves me wondering whether people sincerely just don't believe they should have to use trans people's pronouns at all, and are seeking a framework that will allow them to deny that onus. If that's the case, then efforts to reword the CoC with them in mind are doomed to fail. We would be better rewording the CoC to be effective for those who are more liable to hear.

I hope your positive guess is correct. I suspect at minimum some people will need to be empathetically exited no matter the outcome.

[Trans people] want to have their often particularly difficult circumstances understood sympathetically.

This is... complicated. This would be nice, but it's not required. Truthfully, it's unlikely your typical cis person is really going to understand what it's like to be trans, and that's not a reasonable thing to ask of most people. Really, I think most of us just want to be believed. I want to be able to say "I am a woman" without receiving challenge for it. I want people to just... trust me, when I pass them my pronouns. Above all else, I would like to be trusted.

That way, whether someone treats me with respect isn't gatekept on whether they have sufficiently understood what it means to be trans; whether I have explained sufficiently what it means to be trans.

Cynically minded people have attributed a number of other, less respectable-sounding, goals to various groups of participants here. I have largely ignored these.

It's appreciated.

Actually, I think the CoC itself is fine as is; it's the elaboration in the FAQ to which some people object.

I worry that may miss the point of the objections. A number of the objections, questions, "concerns," "both sides"-es... are essential misreadings of the provided FAQ, or rules-lawyering expansions on them. That tells me people aren't actually reading it with an accepting mind to begin with. Yes, it's not perfectly clear, and better copy to make it clearer is probably warranted (and welcome!), but the fundamental problem may not be as much one of wording as you might think.

Some people don't consider themselves either male or female

Should be: "Some people are neither male nor female..." Positively assert the existence of many genders; don't leave it open for interpretation. Leaving it as a matter of opinion is a factual inaccuracy. It will anger some people who do not believe there are many genders to word it this way, but I'd rather not introduce inaccuracies for their sake.

Q. This seems like a very marginal thing to make a fuss over.
A. That isn't a question. Regardless, while it may seem marginal to you, it can be a big deal for people who have spent much of their lives being thought of, and treated, as something that feels completely wrong to them.

This may elide the point a bit. In reality, whether or not someone chooses to use another person's pronouns communicates a lot more than a linguistic decision. It communicates attitude, tone, etc. about who I am and what someone makes of my humanity. The real answer here is, "While it is on its surface a marginal thing, for the people for whom this is significant, it communicates more than you may expect."

I'm not sure how to word this to fit an FAQ format, though. It's kind of a subtle point.

(You might sincerely think that someone is an idiot...

I worry about this one a bit, because it scans like the hat tip to "mentally ill t[slur]" stereotype. A different example would probably be better suited here.

Q. Are you saying that it's bigotry not to use the pronouns someone asks for?

There is a subtle issue with the framing of this question. Bigotry is not a thing one either Has or Does Not Have; it is not either Present or Not Present in speech. It is always there, we all have it within us. It is managed.

So when your answer replies, "that's a thing bigots do," that gives someone the freedom to go, "well, I'm not a bigot, so this is okay." In reality, no comment will ever be free of bigotry, in the same way that no social structure built atop an indigenous people will ever be free of imperialism. It's something we live with and manage.

That being said, this is a pretty subtle concept to include or summarize in an FAQ.

Q. But free choice of language is important to me. This rule impairs my freedom of speech.
A. That isn't a question. Regardless, by participating here you're agreeing to treat others with politeness. That includes not complaining that they're idiots (even if you sincerely think they are, and even if you're right). It also includes not misgendering them, however sincerely.

Suffers the above problems. The phrasing here implicitly cedes the point that it is acceptable to think of trans people as analogous "idiots." That's not a good middle ground to seek. Instead, an FAQ should positively assert that the stance is incorrect, but if you're able to can it and keep it to yourself, that's all right, or at minimum non-justiciable.

Not sure what "sincerely" misgendering someone is, outside of one-off mistakes.

I would reword this answer: "By participating here, you are agreeing to treat others with kindness. That includes not complaining about what respect for them involves, even if you disagree. It also includes not misgendering other users."

You are welcome to believe anything you like about people's gender, just as they are welcome to believe anything they like about your religion. But if you go out of your way to point out your disagreement about your gender, you aren't behaving in a way we want here -- just as people who make a fuss about how wrong they think your religion is aren't behaving in a way we want here.

Critical and good. Thanks for writing this.

Q. Am I forbidden to express my opinion about this?

This question is... complicated. It's more complicated than you might think, and if you look only at edge cases it may confuse people further. The real answer here is: "If your post essentially denies the truth in trans people, then you can't express that here, except under some extremely select circumstances. Even under those circumstances, care needs to be taken not to harm people."

But if you conspicuously avoid using pronouns for one group of people while using them normally for others, you will likely make them feel rejected and excluded. Don't do that.

Good.

Q. I'm a moderator. I often have to refer to other users, I can't really choose which ones I have to refer to, and often it isn't feasible to avoid pronouns. So do I really have to use pronouns I find uncomfortable?
A. Yes, sorry. As a moderator you're a representative of Stack Exchange as well as of the community, and we at Stack Exchange have decided that using inappropriate pronouns for someone, or conspicuously avoiding using pronouns for them at all, is disrespectful. If you find that difficult, we hope you can grit your teeth and be nice to them just the same -- as you would do if dealing with a user you find annoying in other ways. If you honestly can't do that, then being a moderator here isn't for you.

• No "sorry" here. Just yes. Don't apologize for asking people to be kind.
• "We... have decided that using inappropriate pronouns... is disrespectful." I would quibble and say it is disrespectful (Stack didn't just up an decide this on a whim), it's just never been explicitly addressed to date. But this is a minor point.
• Sincerely appreciate the closing line. This ultimately becomes a compliance/HR issue.

The rest of your FAQ is good and appreciated, by me. I might spot something later and come back to edit, but it passes at first test.

Onto the "what's different" section.

back off a bit on the "compulsion"

For the most part, this is not actually encoded anywhere in the FAQ -- at least no more than it is in your post. People are going to scream "compelled speech" until the pigs fly home (or something), or at least until they're asked to leave. It's probably a good word to avoid, though.

The bigots want to call you "he" if you were assigned male at birth and now identity as female[...]

Small tip: "The bigots want to call you 'he' if you are a woman who was assigned male at birth" does more to positively assert that trans people are the gender we say we are.

It may not be useful to phrase it as "the bigots," though, for the above reason on bigotry.

I would like Stack Exchange sites to be places where everyone, including people whose views I find horrifying, can coexist peacefully when discussing things that don't pertain to their mutually-horrifying views.

This is always worth thinking carefully about. I'm not going to tell you you're wrong to do this, but rather, that it can be hard to see all of the effects of keeping people like this around. We struggle hard to be heard whenever a new form of it pops up. Unless you're trans, it's highly plausible people like this are doing harm without you even realizing.

That makes this position... trickier than it would seem, just based on what you've written here. Not wrong, per se. But this won't help people stay safe on its own.

I like these changes. I don't think they substantively alter any of the implementation or function of the CoC/FAQ, but there are some good suggestions in here worth keeping.

I hope this answer is useful to you.

It's long & wordy, but maybe that's necessary. The tone is certainly a huge improvement. I'd like to highlight this part:

Q. I find it really distressing to use pronouns in a way I think is wrong. Is there really no alternative?
A. You can often avoid using pronouns altogether. It's actually pretty rare to need third-person pronouns at all on most Stack Exchange sites. But if you conspicuously avoid using pronouns for one group of people while using them normally for others, you will likely make them feel rejected and excluded. Don't do that.

Q. So do I have to use pronouns where I normally wouldn't, just to make it clear that I'm using the ones someone has asked me to?
A. If you're writing something that naturally doesn't need pronouns, it's unlikely that anyone will be bothered by their absence. Problems only arise when a person or group feels singled out by having pronouns used for other people but not for them. If you're writing normally and naturally and it comes out pronoun-less, then that's fine.

I think the implied flexibility—as long as both parties are interacting in good faith—is crucial. This should allow people to find solutions that work for them so that we don't always have the north-going Zax and the south-going Zax butting heads obstinately and making the site blow up. Many people disagree about many things, and yet we make it work. That happens in life, and it has happened on SE sites. It can happen in this case. Trans people are not unreasonable, they want basic respect, not special treatment. People who are unfamiliar with these issues, or uncomfortable with one or another option, aren't unreasonable either; they often just want to find a way that works for them and won't leave someone else feeling insulted. Allowing the two parties to find a solution is the right way forward here. (I would have thought that's common sense.)

I do want to note that draft versions of the new code of conduct were circulated amongst moderators for comment. I, and other mods, made suggestions along these lines and the phrasing was softened. I actually don't think the wording of the new CoC is problematic. However, I was then blindsided by the coercive and authoritarian FAQ that came with it. This corrects that and brings it back to the spirit that I thought many mods had been going for.

People concerned by the "compelled speech" aspects of the CoC and its associated FAQ: is this sufficiently non-constraining?

To me, the "compelled speech" angle comes from a previously unknown (to most), brand new way in which we're all suddenly expected to use language. This way of using language, frankly, does not make a lot of sense to some.

Consider this hypothetical:

What if people simply did not have names. What if the concept of a name was simply unknown? If you wanted to refer to someone you would use their physical description, perhaps where they worked, where they lived, etc. You might be "The 5'9, pregnant, stenographer who drives a Honda Civic", and everyone would know you by that description

And then, suddenly, The Government declared that you must call people by these things called "names" if they want you to. These names are, as far as you can tell, completely arbitrary and meaningless.

You've been used to the old way, and now you have to come to terms with this new concept and learn how to use them. Even worse, you're told that doing it the old way can be disrespectful, even offensive. If you resist, you will suffer consequences.

You might understand this hypothetical person's feelings. This person might end up feeling like the disrespected one.

That's how it might feel to suddenly be compelled to refer to someone as "ze".

Now, how does this proposed FAQ lessen the blow:

We're asking that when someone indicates what pronouns should be used to refer to them, you do as they say.

"Do as they say" has a "compelled speech" smell to it. We're still being compelled to use language in a way the vast majority of us are not used to doing. If someone wants to be called "ze", we must comply. That's compelled.

There are some situations in which you can make certain demands of other people, however. To asked to be called "she" instead of "he" is one of those acceptable demands. This is also "compelled speech", but people are okay with it, because it's part of the invisible social contract.

The difference is that "ze" is not widely accepted yet. The concept of arbitrary pronouns is new and strange to most.

It's a tautology: something must first be widely acceptable before it becomes an acceptable demand. Otherwise people might think you are the one acting in bad faith when you demand to be called 'faeself'

The good news is that social contracts change over time, and maybe 50 years from now, this will just be "the new normal". Heck, maybe I'm the dinosaur already.

Anyway, forcing people to integrate neopronouns into their speech, which may be new and unfamiliar, will cause them to feel "compelled" and disrespected.

I don't think any sort of re-wording will help this. This is a fundamental, unchangeable part of the new CoC, unless SE decides to roll it back.

This is not an argument that we shouldn't use one's stated pronouns. I'm just explaining the "compelled speech" argument.

I really appreciate the effort. This seems to be going in the right direction — and the process of discussion itself goes in the right direction.

Unfortunately, this FAQ is extremely long — even longer than the official one. To be usable, we'd have to come up with something that's short enough to be actually readable.

I think it would help to separate gender and language as concerns. Collapsing the two under “pronouns” muddies waters. Yes, I know that in English gender is mostly expressed through pronouns. But not using someone's preferred pronouns is not the same thing as misgendering someone. Not using someone's preferred pronoun includes not using pronouns at all, or using a gender-neutral pronoun, either of which can be either good or bad depending on whether this is the way you always write (good for you) or you're targeting someone in particular because you refuse to acknowledge their gender (which is bad).

There is one important question that you've punted:

Q. I was taught that English has three third-person singular pronouns: he, she, it. All the books that I've read and all the movies that I've watched used these three pronouns consistently with what I was taught. What the hell are all these other words in this picture?

and even more?

Q. Does this mean that I will be in trouble if I ever get someone's pronouns wrong?

A. No. It's fine not to know what they want. It's fine to make an honest mistake. But once you know what someone wants, please act accordingly.

Q. What if someone wants some nonstandard pronoun that I don't even know how to use?

A. Then everyone will be especially understanding if you get it wrong. Just do your best.

...

Q. There are still edge-cases that aren't clear to me.

A. There always will be. Use your common sense, be nice, assume good faith but be prepared to revise that assumption in the face of the evidence, and you are unlikely to go too far wrong.

I think you fixed it

First, I commend you on the attempt, and for the obvious work that went into this. You've done a good job of making the CoC seem more reasonable, and you better explained the reasoning. It generally does a much better job of framing things. A suggestion and a concern:

1. My first reading gave me the impression that your proposal characterizes people who have a different perspective as "bigots". That seemed to dismiss any basis for a differing view. Rereading the proposal, I see what you describe in the comments, that you're just describing bigotry.

   It's a very fine and delicate line to navigate. People can easily misinterpret it, as I did without the context of the comment. Misinterpretation will lead to a much less positive perception. Suggestion: include context to orient the reader, and don't dwell on it more than necessary. Keep the focus on the goal of encouraging positive behavior.

2. There is a fundamental issue that was introduced several weeks ago (note, your draft is the first document which frames things in a different way): that all users must use the stated pronoun or be subject to penalty.

   With your proposal, there's the potential that this problem might go away, but the issue is a major impediment to acceptance. It's worth at least getting people on the same page so there can be discussion of whether the issue has been addressed.

   The policy has been framed as a simple act of respect to make people feel better about themselves. For many users that's all there is to it, and it's hard for them to fathom how there could be a real issue for anyone. If that were the actual extent of the policy, there would be no issue. But the policy creates an issue by unnecessarily taking things a step further, adding no incremental benefit for trans users and causing harm and offense to other users.

   There are real and serious concerns for many users, and they seem to keep being misunderstood or dismissed in cavalier fashion by some. "Compelled speech" is only part of it; the concerns aren't that simple. Let me try to describe some (but not all) of the concerns. Since the only standing document is the official one, my use of CoC will refer to the official FAQ, which is what is driving the concerns.

   • Some users have sincere religious beliefs with which this requirement is in conflict. The concept of not being required to violate one's religious beliefs is generally considered a fundamental freedom. The CoC requires these users to choose between violating their faith and participating here, with the justification that the goal of the CoC is to insure that no one else is offended. Respectful use of a pronoun other than the preferred one, in an otherwise respectful interaction, may not be optimal, but I don't think a reasonable person will be harmed by that, or should take offense. Thus, the requirement appears to be without foundation, and appears to reflect a callous disregard for the needs of such users.
   • Closely related, there's a concept in law of fairness, that when you balance the interests of two parties, you impose no more burden than necessary. The CoC contains no sense of compromise, to provide adequate protection for the trans community while not being excessively burdensome on others. By any reasonable standard, trans members can be treated with respect without imposing an absolute requirement that others violate their religious beliefs.
   • Some users are uncomfortable using certain pronouns. Houseman's answer may be a good explanation that's applicable to many or most of these people.
   • Everyone agrees that trans members should be treated with respect, and that using a preferred pronoun is respectful. When people do this, that's great and supportive. What is concerning is when the failure to use the preferred pronoun is framed as being disrespectful. There are many reasons why someone might not use the preferred pronoun, none of which is a matter of disrespect. This demonizes some users, and creates a situation where failure to use the right pronoun is a thing, with the starting assumption that the person who did it is in the wrong.

After careful rereading of this proposal, it looks like it is a good finessing of the issue. Wording along these lines may actually solve the problem. If this had been the original wording, there would likely have been easy acceptance. However...

Given SE's position and official pronouncements to date, people are looking for explicit assurance that preferred pronouns are not compulsory. That is the context in which you are proposing this change. By gracefully dancing around the issue, this proposal doesn't address that. The concern remains, that if SE were to adopt essentially this proposed wording, the current official version may reflect Stack Overflow Inc.'s true intent, and this wording would be used to put a pretty face on it and mask the issue. If there's a way for SE to provide explicit reassurance, perhaps in some separate document or discussion, that would put the issue to bed.

I typically prefer not to disclose my IRL gender/sex, but, since the post specifically calls for trans and nonbinary persons to chime in: I am a nonbinary-ID'd person taking cross-sex hormones, making me both trans and nonbinary.

(Btw, if anyone's curious, I am actually not a fan of the current popular ideology of gender identity, how it works, its relation to sex, and so on-- however, taking cross-sex hormones gives someone mixed physical sex characteristics, and this is what leads me, someone who does not give a flip about queer theory and so on, to ID this way.)

That said...

I find both the original code of conduct's FAQ and the proposed change overly lengthy, and not getting to the real heart of the matter. We should ask ourselves what the true thing we want to avoid is. I would say it's people going off-topic by harassing others about their gender or sex (I've never seen such a thing, but I'm on the math and programming side of things where such topics would not arise in the course of a normal Q&A). And ~why~ do we want to avoid it? Because it's extremely annoying for someone to derail a thread with rude and irrelevant content. I hope we can all agree that, for our own respective definitions of harassment, harassing behavior is undesirable.

All of the proposed FAQs that I have seen so far have taken a position on what constitutes harassment then tried to address all the predictable cases of its manifestation. I am inclined to think that harassment is like Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart's description of "obscenity" in Jacobellis v. Ohio: "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description, and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it[.]"

My personal primary objection to the official FAQ and proposed alternatives is the threat of an increased noise to signal ratio for content. Frankly, I don't want to see people asking others' pronouns, volunteering their pronouns, squabbling over the use of pronouns, etc. Any addition to the site that attempts to automatedly inform answerers of questioners' pronouns will be just that to me: noise. Any in-line inquiry or disclosure will certainly be noise as well. And the elaborate dances that I anticipate as users overcompensate or stumble while trying to avoid specific prohibited behaviors or engage in specific proscribed behaviors may be the worst of all.

Thus, I think the most effective method of addressing harassment is to simply prohibit harassment itself and allow moderators to identify it as it arises on the basis of it being off-topic rather than on the basis of any particular ideology or specification. If someone finds out that OP uses "they" pronouns, and writes "OP asks what a dog is. My answer to HIM would be that HE can use HIS dictionary to see for HIMself what a dog is, or simply look at HIS dog." While this may not use any more characters than an appropriate answer, the capitalization and insertion of an implicit ideological comment about the answerer's opinions on gender identity is off-topic content, despite not being on a separate line from the answer. Anyone abnormally inserting excessive pronouns or giving a roundabout and unusual explanation to make a point should be quickly identifiable by native speakers as the answer will seem bizarre. In stackexchanges with questions that specifically involve or are contingent upon the poster's gender identity or sex, an answer that regards a different gender identity or sex would again be off-topic as it would address a question not asked.

In my opinion simply failing to affirmatively acknowledge someone's pronouns or identity in a thread unrelated to social or personal matters does not constitute harassment (unless it's a repeated pattern of conduct where the person runs around answering all questions by that asker just to make a point of botching their pronouns over and over, which would again fall under active rather than passive behavior).

And to address the most likely case: suppose someone says "Well, I would advise OP to look under her bed and observe blah blah blah" and OP responds "I'm a guy :p" in a comment. Okay, technically a bit who-cares but this sort of thing is not over the line for chit-chat in comments. But once the answer responds back "Oh no you're not, I don't believe in guys!" that is taking it into another realm; it is starting a spin-off discussion. Either don't respond (if you don't care or don't believe in men), or some cursory acknowledgement if you feel personally compelled to reply.

Thoughts?

P.S.-- the vast majority of trans people, in my estimation, do not want to be made a spectacle of like this and have everybody hate us because a few people decided to plop "our" "needs" onto the dinner plate of the whole world like an unwanted serving of fish. We have no more vested interest in strangers in a Q&A forum knowing our gender than anyone else (nor do we need the most protection online or whatever the wording was in the CoC release... it's online for heaven's sake, the whole thing is that no one can "see" your arbitrary physical characteristics). Do you see cis people running around making sure everyone knows they're a man or a woman before anyone can answer? No! This whole thing is so embarrassing. I'm curious whether there was an actual trans person anywhere behind the original proposal.

This is a considerable improvement.

But it still raises a barrier for people who deny that genders beyond the binary ones actually exist.

This is a barrier which won't hinder me since I am favourable to neopronouns. But I have to oppose raising it. Not just because it opens the way to other barriers which may eventually bar my way. But because I try to respect everyone when possible, even those with ideas I oppose. Respect only has merit when aimed at those you disagree with. If a middle ground can be found, like gender-neutral speech which neither affirms not denies identity, then I'd rather meet them there than not at all. More so when what we are discussing is how to split std::string.

Consider the following exchange between Odeen (who states xe as preferred pronoun in xyr profile), and Tritt (who denies genders beyond the binary ones but has never stated so in SE). Both have read each others' profiles and are aware of preferences.

Odeen: How can I split a std::string?
Tritt: Use this algorithm which uses strstr
Odeen: Your answer would work for a C-String but I am asking about std::string
Tritt: You may still apply it by using c_str

"You" and "Your" have been used, which means that neither person has acknowledged, accepted or rejected the gender identity of the other person. Preferred pronouns have not been used, such issue was just not relevant to the discussion.

As far as I understand them, the previous exchange is fine both in the official and the improved FAQs and nobody is going to be suspended. People are allowed in Stack Exchange to talk with each other without acknowledging gender identity as long as they use the 2nd person. But such possibility does not exist for 3rd person singular.

Consider this exchange where Dua also participates.

Odeen: How can I split a std::string?
Tritt: Use this algorithm which uses strstr
Dua: @Tritt Your answer would work for a C-String but Odden is using a std::string so strstr would not work for xem.
Tritt: @Dua They may still apply it by using c_str

Tritt here is running afoul of A1 and A18 of this improved FAQ. Which means suspension when he clarifies that it is intentional and not a mistake after being contacted by a moderator acting on a flag.

Using xe would imply acknowledging xyr gender identity, which he does not and thus would be a lie. Using he, she or he/she would be impolite, which he also does not want. Using other phrasing would mean wording things in ways he would not usually do in order to avoid acknowledging xyr gender identity, which the FAQ disallows. Despite his own opinions Tritt does not want to go out of his way to deny xyr gender identity. Neither does he want to go out of his way to affirm xyr gender identity.

He wishes to always speak gender-neutral in SE, just as he does in 2nd person. He will also use they when referring to people like himself who prefer he as a pronoun.

But neither the official FAQ nor this improved FAQ allow remaining gender-neutral in the presence of stated pronoun preferences when using the 3rd person singular.

A. By participating here you're agreeing to treat others with politeness. That includes not complaining that they're idiots (even if you sincerely think they are, and even if you're right). It also includes not misgendering them, however sincerely.

In the interests of intelligibility, I would consider it a great improvement to reword this so as to avoid the neologism misgendering. Two weeks ago I had never encountered this word. I've had to try to figure out what it means from context, and I'm not convinced that it's been used consistently by everyone in the recent meta discussions. The code of conduct and its FAQ should be clearly understood by everyone with a working grasp of English (say, Cambridge First Certificate), not just a subset of native speakers.

Thank you for your work. I'll reply as a member of the following group:

People concerned by the "compelled speech" aspects of the CoC and its associated FAQ: is this sufficiently non-constraining?

My answer to that is no.

You're further saying:

So of course I wonder whether any policies on this contentious issue would be more broadly acceptable to the community while still addressing the issues the revised CoC and the FAQ were intended to address.

My answer to that is "most likely no".

The issues I have with the CoC aren't that it's badly worded and needs a better tone (which you have managed to achieve for the FAQ). It's that the FAQ gives us a mandatory interpretation of the CoC that basically means that people who disagree with SE, Inc's opinion on "harming people" and their thoughts on how to be more welcoming and more inclusive are no longer welcome to participate without warping their identity.

I've thought a great deal about this (so much that I've considered asking a very extensive question about it). The only way you could salvage the current CoC would be to throw away the official FAQ and write a less authoritorian one that doesn't make blanket statements about what is harmful to any specific group of people while staying silent about everyone else. In fact, it shouldn't make blanket statements about what is hurtful at all.

Another option would be to ditch the FAQ and let people come to their own conclusions about how to interpret the CoC, which by itself I wouldn't consider to be a problem if people's actions were continually assumed to be in good faith. The community could then work out a modus vivendi over time. Of course, this would require a much better handling of CoC violations than how Monica's alleged violation was treated. With Monicas case still unresolved, the new CoC is frankly meaningless for me.

This is a very good start, but Q14 categorically excludes Caleb, a moderator with religious beliefs, from moderating a site he founded about his religion, because of those very religious beliefs. That is the opposite of inclusive. SE shouldn't have second class citizens.

To be clear, he's not asking to be allowed to call people what they don't want to be called. He's just asking for being allowed to disengage or find middle ground if he needs to.

I've posted a proposal that attempts to address this concern and also addresses bigotry based on gender identity more broadly than the current CoC.

(Edited to add which question excludes Caleb and that's he's not asking to call people by pronouns they don't like.)

Overall, I think this is well written and a good summary of the spirit of the changes! The only issue I have with it is this section:

Q. If someone is non-binary, does it really matter whether I call them "ey" or "they" or "xe" or some other gender-neutral pronoun? Do I really have to handle dozens of different pronouns?
A. Many non-binary people will be OK with whatever non-binary pronoun you prefer for them -- if in doubt, ask.

This could be interpreted to say it's okay for User1 to say "Actually, I go by xe/xem pronouns", and User2 to respond "I don't like those, can I call you they/them instead?" (which I believe would be considered rude, as it's (an attempt to) reject User1's pronouns).

So I'd suggest rewording to make that more clear, maybe something like:

Q. If someone is non-binary, does it really matter whether I call them "ey" or "they" or "xe" or some other gender-neutral pronoun? Do I really have to handle dozens of different pronouns?
A. Many non-binary people will be OK with whatever non-binary or gender-neutral pronoun you prefer -- but if they request a specific pronoun, use that for them going forward. If in doubt, ask.

I want to reiterate the sentiment from my comment: this post is great. Instead of feeling like I'm being attacked for not having the same groupthink as Stack Overflow, I feel like there is space for me to disagree and not be banned.

Here are my remaining issues with this proposal:

1. We need to be clear if neutral third-party pronouns are available to use if someone explicitly mentions a pronoun. Previously several official comments made it seem like this was a violation that will get you banned.

   Q11: If I’m uncomfortable with a particular pronoun, can I just avoid using it?

   We are asking everyone to use all stated pronouns as you would naturally write. Explicitly avoiding using someone’s pronouns because you are uncomfortable is a way of refusing to recognize their identity and is a violation of the Code of Conduct.

   Q16: May I use they/them by default?

   Yes, but be prepared to make adjustments if so requested.

   From @Catija (staff) If you use they/them by default, that's fine. If someone requests that you use other pronouns and you immediately continue to use they/them for that person, we may point it out to you. "Penalized" in most cases is generally going to be as minor as a comment being removed or adjusted to meet the request of the person being spoken about. Only in extreme cases of repeated requests to change, will it lead to a mod message or suspension.

   This one of the main places where my speech compulsion fears spread out of. We need to make sure the new FAQ is clear if this stance will be maintained.

2. As others have mentioned, a lot of these ideas and terminologies are new and unfamiliar to many. It's important to have lots of links out to definitions.

3. For Q17

   If something is obviously unreasonable -- e.g., if they are demanding to be worshipped or asking you to use obscenities when referring to them -- then you are welcome to act accordingly.

   We need to be more explicit here. What does act accordingly mean? Can I ignore it? My big fear here is that I don't know the boundary between real and unreasonable. This is the same thing I spelled out in my post on the original FAQ.

   Note that even though the chances of any individual user running across this scenario is low, we should still be explicit about what the rules are here. We're trying to define the CoC here - the foundations upon which we build the rest of our community. If we don't get things right here, it only goes downhill.

4. Q29. There are still edge-cases that aren't clear to me.

   A. There always will be. Use your common sense, be nice, assume good faith but be prepared to revise that assumption in the face of the evidence, and you are unlikely to go too far wrong.

   This one feels so nice, and I want to agree with it so much, but it unfortunately has problems that I think are indicative of community divide here. For starters, common sense is a loaded phrase nowadays. Your common sense and mine will have variations. Likely tiny, but across a large, international population it will be wider.

   Then there is assume good faith. There is a whole post here that delves into it much more, but it seems like Stack Exchange now has a problem with this phrase. We can't have it in the FAQ but not in the CoC, it's too confusing. I'd love to have it in both, and personally think it makes marked improvements in user interactions, but this "common sense" measure is now controversial.

Overall I want to again reiterate: this is amazing work, thank you

feature-request

This is something I'd been wondering but it didn't feel important enough to post, and now it does with this effort to rewrite the FAQ:

We're asking that when someone indicates what pronouns should be used to refer to them, you do as they say.

What constitutes the italicized part seems ambiguous, both in the original FAQ and this proposal: whether it's when the other person's profile states pronouns or when there is a direct communication about pronouns.

Assuming it's the latter and you don't need to look up user profiles proactively, as stated by a CM elsewhere, I'd clarify some wording in the proposal as:

Q. I want to let people know what my pronouns are. What should I do?
A. Put them in the "About me" section of your profile for those who want to proactively look up your pronouns. Do not assume others to have done so, however. When someone uses a pronoun you're uncomfortable with, let them know about your pronouns directly.

(Italicized parts are my additions.)

And add a new question:

Q. Am I expected to check somebody's profile before I refer to them using a pronoun?
A. No.

or if this isn't exactly what's desirable, at least with the same level of unambiguity.

This clarification might sound like common sense that doesn't need to be stated, but having very unambiguous and clear descriptions of the expected behavior helps assuage anxiety when you don't have context on social expectations. Related: How should I deal with the new CoC as non-native English speaker?

This'll need to be rewritten again if SE adds pronouns to user cards or some such though.

The problem with the CoC change is not that the company "didn't explain it well enough". Therefore no amount of FAQ is going to fix the issue. They could post 20, or 40, or even 100 FAQ, the problem would remain the same: an attempt to force compelled speech on people (most of which aren't even native speakers) that

• is completely contrary to the way SE sites have worked before (focus on the question/answer, not the person), and
• will be weaponized in the future.

Besides, at the point where an FAQ for a single additional sentence in the CoC reached double digits, any reasonable person would have realized that there is something fundamentally wrong with the change.

If I may be so bold to cite one of my answers from a few years back when RPG SE had an issue:

All pronouns are neutral and should be enforced as such.

I personally think that nobody should be harassed, or be in the red for guessing wrong on how someone wants to be called, and this should extend to RPG.SE. no pronoun should have a negative connotation, whether being misused or otherwise.

Unless otherwise stated, all questions are gender agnostic.

This means that 'he/him', 'they/their', and 'she/her' pronouns are correct, and none of them are incorrect. Good answers simply maintain continuity, and don't switch to refer to the same people. The answer may decide to change pronouns if the answerer wishes, but there is no correct gender. An answer should never be wrong because the gender is 'incorrect', because no gender option is incorrect. If the OP puts in the post that this is a gender-issue, then correct pronouns should be used.

In short, unless it's a gender issue, pronouns are not relevant

You proposed:

Q. What if someone wants to be referred to as "the Great and Mighty One" or by an obscenity or something? A. If something is obviously unreasonable -- e.g., if they are demanding to be worshipped or asking you to use obscenities when referring to them -- then you are welcome to act accordingly....

I would propose that we be a little more clear as to when a request is "unreasonable" or in bad faith. We could express it somewhat like this:

Generally, all other things being equal, a person's stated pronouns are presumed unreasonable or in bad faith when such terms fall into any of the following categories:

• Names, such as "Sue", "Bob", or "Godzilla"
• Titles, such as "King", "President", "Airman Second Class", "Skipper", "High Priestess", "Bachelor of Arts", or "Professor"
• Forms of address, such as "sir", "Your Grace", "Her Imperial Majesty", or "holy and exalted one"
• Descriptors of personal, professional, ethnic, or social roles, such as "gamer", "Chinaman", "quarterback", "Irish taxi driver" or "1337 Appalachian warez haxor d00d"
• Unpronounceable or random gibberish, such as "asdpofasm34534" or "5u034spgsdfg"
• Mottos, slogans, taglines, advertisements, or similar messages, such as "Jesus saves", "Eat at Joe's", "Vote Cthulhu 2020", or "Bite me Skinner"
• Common, known troll terminology, such as Apache attack helicopter designations or obscene words

We aren't trying to say that you can't have the pronoun you consider your own. We are saying that it needs to be a pronoun. If your pronoun already exists in the language in some other role, we need to understand the background behind it and why it is the correct pronoun for you.

If you have made up your own new pronoun, it is important to keep in mind why that is. Pronouns, in English as well as many other languages, are intended as generic substitutes for a name in cases where disclosing or repeating the name is not feasible or desirable. If your pronoun is intended to refer solely to you, then it is probably a name and not a pronoun. You are free to change your username to reflect this name, or post it in your profile as a nickname or an alternative or preferred name.

In response to comments, no, I don't actually expect to see actual pronoun-background stories offered in defense to accusations of pronoun trolling, but I want to leave the door open in case there is a situation/gender/identity that I didn't consider or am not aware of. I expect 99%+ of cases of "Hi, my pronoun is Hail Our Lord and Master Jon Skeet the Exalted Fifth-Gender Attack Helicopter Let Us Serially Upvote! His Holy Posts-sfgsdfg-em" to be treated as obvious trolling and dealt with as such. I have dealt with way too many such trolls. This system does not apply to things like, "Well, this person doesn't look like a she, so it's trolling". That's where assumption of good faith prevails, and one would be expected to use those pronouns.

I would suggest changes to this also.

Q10. Am I forbidden to express my opinion about this? A. In most contexts your opinions about gender, whatever they are, are off topic. In contexts where those opinions are actually relevant -- as they might be in, say, a discussion on Philosophy.SE -- you are welcome to express those opinions so long as you do so respectfully and politely. But please be aware that many things you might want to say may be extremely distressing to some readers, and you should try to minimize that distress.

Everything can be extremely distressing to some readers. I, nor you, can never hope to control or predict the distressedness of others. Furthermore, there can be no debate without dissent, and this dissent can be distressing in and by itself. The laws protecting free speech are not useful for protecting speech that everyone agrees to. They have to exist to protect the speech that is not agreed to, and that is held most usually, by the minority.

Now, SE is not obliged to follow free speech rules, that is not my claim, but I would say that it would be a worthy objective to have - to allow dissent and to protect minority opinions - if they otherwise are in accord with the Be Nice policy (as it were)

I would rather see a sentence providing for this.

Please be aware that dissent and disagreement has the propensity for causing distress - on this topic in particular - both when visiting such sites and voicing your views and opinions.

For the sake of completeness and understanding, and this doesn't necessarily need to go into an FAQ, but Q6 and Q9 fail to cover a deeper objection.

If you sincerely and without malice believe in objective physical gender, or put another way you don't believe that gender does or should exist outside of congenital sex, there can be two further concerns:

1. Affirming a trans/non-binary identity can harm the subject, and society in general.
2. Being a known representative of e.g. a religious group that does (1) can mislead other members of the group as to the group's teachings.

One question the FAQ ought to address directly:

Q. Can I disengage from an interaction to avoid using a stated pronoun?

Given my present understanding of the intent, a suitable answer might be:

A. You are always welcome to disengage to avoid conflict, but be sure not to do harm when you disengage. A user who conspicuously disengages from conversations simply to avoid using stated pronouns could be subject to correction or sanction.

Moderators might be held to a still higher standard here than regular users, but it would still be useful to have specific advice in the FAQ.

Background

This issue was addressed by a Community Manager in a comment (emphasis added):

I think there's some misunderstanding! You're always welcome to silently disengage if that's what feels correct for you. We actually often find disengaging is the best answer when you're in a situation that makes you uncomfortable. Just be certain you don't do harm when you disengage by making a statement that you can not or will not comply with their request. – Catija♦ Oct 10 at 16:21

and the Code of Conduct says:

If a situation makes it hard to be friendly, stop participating and move on.

I am not aware of official clarification on the subject of discriminatory disengagement.

After reading the earlier CoC, I wasn't understanding what was this fuss about. But this thread here is very useful and clear for a non-native English speaker like me. Also the tone and clarity of the wordings used is easily understandable like mentioned by others. This is good move in my opinion.

My name is Squeamish Ossifrage, and I go by ‘they’. I tend to agree with everything in Aza's assessment: that my reaction is generally positive, and that there is room for improvement like Aza suggested. Some additional thoughts:

A number of people have asked: Why don't we just get rid of gendered pronouns altogether and use ‘they’ for everyone?

This is obviously tempting, but gender is a big part of human life. True, some of us don't like society's prescription of gender roles at all (hi!). But some of us don't like certain parts of society's gender roles, like treating programming as an un-feminine thing to be done only by masculine rock star ninjas.

While there are women who justifiably prefer to conceal their gender on the internet, there are also women who vocally object—with feminine names, pronouns, and voices—to this perspective of programming as masculine and solitary, and who make themselves role models for onlookers. (Obligatory xkcd: https://www.xkcd.com/322/) Both approaches to attacking gender barriers are legitimate!

It is also legitimate to just be yourself, here to talk about programming or cryptography or parenting or board games or gardening or psychology, without aiming to make a point about gender or to hide from it. And it can be instructive to observe the relative prevalence of masculine, feminine, conscientious-objector, and other personas on the site.

So while gender is fraught with social complications and multidimensional privilege differentials, and while I appreciate that anyone is welcome to choose their own name or conceal their own gender on the site—and encourage anyone who wants to, to do so!—simply erasing it by policy for everyone is no more a solution to gender issues than feigning colorblindness is a solution to racism no matter how many naive white moderates think it is.

I think you're misunderstanding:

1. who "we" are; and
2. what "we" are trying to achieve.

You wrote:

I take it that Stack Exchange Inc. wants (at least) the following things:

• To have a welcoming environment where no one feels as if they're fair game for rude and marginalizing language.
• Not to do things that result in a large fraction of the community, or of particular parts of the community (e.g., moderators), feeling alienated.

It's actually the opposite. "We" are StackExchange Inc. And what "we" are doing is creating an unwelcome environment for moderators and users who keep an open mind and a critical attitude regarding the company's behavior and policies, and it seems (and is even hinted) that the intent is making such people leave.

The whole gendered-pronoun business is being used as a Red Herring for that purpose. Statistically, it seems to barely ever come up (other than in the "don't assume my gender" variety). So really, don't sweat it, the matter is covered well enough by a general "be nice" principle. No need for a CoC for that.

I think this suggestion still makes the same main mistake that the original CoC change did. It doesn't take into account that pronouns are part of languages, not aspects of people. Gender is an aspect of a person. The association between pronouns and genders is a part of language too.

So it doesn't make sense for a person to state their supposed pronouns. A person can say what their gender is, and it's up to people to use the pronouns that, in their languages, would be correct when referring to someone of that stated gender.

Freedom of speech has been mentioned a lot during the discussions of this issue, so I think it is important to add the following emphasis in bold:

Q8. But free choice of language is important to me. This rule impairs my freedom of speech.
A. Only the government is prohibited from restricting your freedom of speech. As a privately-owned website, Stack Exchange is allowed to set its own rules, including rules restricting certain language. By participating here you're agreeing to Stack Exchange's rules to treat others with politeness. That includes not complaining that they're idiots (even if you sincerely think they are, and even if you're right). It also includes not misgendering them, however sincerely.

Source