A storm in a teacup, please calm down [duplicate]

Most of the reasons why people won't calm down are:

1. Some people think that SE seems to not care anymore about the community. As if we are an obsolete product that they need to get rid of or as if our whole role now is to just click the ads that they push to us.

2. Many people see SE as an entity that keeps telling lies to the users.

3. Many people think that SE are simply ignoring any input or feedback from people on meta. This would mean that the meta simply would lose most of its purpose of even existing.

4. Many people think that the new CoC is a minefield. There are a lot of gray areas and uncertainties.

5. People are afraid. Nobody would like to get suspended or banned in a witch-hunt just for asking for some clarification, for committing some silly mistake or even for not saying something.

6. People tend to value free speech more than self-determination. Even because there can't be true self-determination if there is no free speech. However, the new CoC seems to compel people to tell things even if they don't believe in it, so there is no free speech anymore. Of course that free speech is not an excuse to be rude or to say horrible things, but it is definitely subverted if people are forced to voice something even if they really don't believe nor agree on it. No honest person likes to be forced to tell a lie.

7. Most people think that the way that SE fired Monica was definitely unethical and unfair at best. And most users don't think that SE sincerely care anything about that.

8. Some people think that SE presents its community as a place full of bigots and fascists that should be expelled and purified by force. Definitely, that is not how the community is.

9. Some people argue that the new CoC is a hell for moderators and a heaven for trolls. It opens the doors for trolls use gender and LGBTQI+ self-identity stuff to induce other people to do things that they otherwise would not do or else force them get into trouble.

10. There are hundreds of questions in meta about the CoC, but it is very rare to see any feedback from SE staff or CMs other than deleting stuff and suspending people. It is very hard to build trust in that way and this tends to just produces even more frustration, fear, anger and mistrust.

11. For years, people were complaining about SE's lack of transparency. Most people thought that this was due to laziness, negligence or lack of organization. Now, many people are thinking that they are consciously choosing to not be transparent and that they are hiding something really nasty.

12. Many people wonder why SE is in such a hurry to put on that new CoC with so little input from the community. Normally, they are very slow into implementing new stuff. Why is this so urgent?

13. Moderators are people that work hard to SE for free and without them everything would fail. So, people expect that at least, SE treats moderators in a friendly way. However, many people see that SE is acting in a very hostile manner to at least part of their moderators.

14. Some comments and answers have been deleted on some places. If that was limited to rude, offensive and trolling stuff, there would be no problem. But at least in a few cases, it was not limited to that. Some dissenting honest and reasonable answers and comments (at least in my opinion) were simply silently deleted. Almost nobody likes censorship (which should not be confused with removing nasty stuff) and that further erodes free speak.

15. Some people think that this is either a smokescreen that SE made up to pretend that they actually care about LGBTQI+ people or that perhaps they really care, but in an insane and unrealistic manner. Either way, they actually hurt those people and thrown them against the rest of the community for no good reason.

99% of posts being completely unaffected

This network lost a huge chunk of good and very active moderators, who have either resigned or ceased activity. The Workplace went without any moderators at all. To say that this does not affect the network is a stretch.

Monica was fired over the suspicion that she may commit a "thought-crime" in the future. That means the same can happen to anyone else. A precedent has been set, and just because that precedent hasn't been acted upon on a wide scale yet, does not mean that "nothing changed".

An apology was issued. It flopped. A (hypothetical) alternate apology was drafted; it received resounding support.

An "official" FAQ was issued. It flopped. An alternate FAQ was drafted; it received strong support.

However, these alternate versions were drafted by rank-and-file members, not community moderators. As such, they remain unadopted wishful dreams.

I believe this whole "tempest in a teapot" could die down in an instant with two simple steps:

1. Admit that Monica's firing was a bad move, and reinstate her moderator status. (If SE still feels like she is still not qualified to moderate, fine – just proceed with the already-established process.)

2. Concede that the so-called Official FAQ on gender pronouns and Code of Conduct changes is still a work in progress, and announce that they will continue to release future versions until they come up with something that receives much broader support.

I have seen a few comments here and there, claiming that SE appreciates our feedback, and that getting this right is "super important". Thus far, however, I've seen little evidence that these are anything more than empty assurances. As the days turn into weeks, I've seen no indication that SE is planning to implement any meaningful changes: they are neither willing to budge on Monica's unjust firing nor interested in softening the language of the "official" FAQ.

Perhaps I'm wrong; maybe they are working overtime to fix this mess in a way that will show they indeed value the feedback we have given. If so, I'll be more than willing to let it go and move back into my quiet little corners of the Stack Exchange.

As I wait for that day to arrive, though, all I sense is obstinance, so I'll continue working on the draft of my resignation letter.

despite 99% of posts being completely unaffected

You could argue that 99% of people were totally unaffected using normal English language pronouns before the CoC change. The point of this discussion, either way, is not the 99%.

I suspect that one of the reasons this question has been downvoted is the attitude that appears to belittle the concerns raised in the recent FAQ. ("Storm in a teacup" implies overreaction, i.e., that those who are legitimately upset about the FAQ are going overboard.) I would strongly recommend that the question be reworded to avoid belittling those with concerns.

I am someone who has been active on SE for many years (and has contributed many, many hours of my time), but I knew nothing about this situation until I clicked on a link to the new FAQ when it came out and was profoundly disturbed. I knew nothing of Monica at the time, but the more I read, the more disturbing things became. I joined the Meta community for the first time because I wanted to give feedback on this issue.

To be clear, I am a very strong advocate in real life for acceptance of everyone. I never knowingly or deliberately refer to people by pronouns they do not prefer. However, there are still serious concerns raised by the FAQ's wording, as well as the fact that (if Monica's and other mods' account are to be believed) merely asking questions and trying to obtain some clarification about it resulted in the summary dismissal of a moderator.

There have been some recent edits to the FAQ question that appear to clarify some items based on what staff has said in comments, but the general attitude seems to be to push through a set of guidelines will little community input on the details. I am heartened by some of the clarifications that have been made in recent hours, but many of the fundamental wording problems remain. I suspect that they remain partly because to remove or reword those statements in the FAQ would undermine SE's position in firing Monica.

The trans community has been treated poorly in the past by some people on SE. It is therefore incumbent on the management of SE to get things right in setting appropriate guidelines on inclusive language and pronoun use. Instead, they have created a debacle that has alienated many users and inflamed tensions that likely have made SE a less welcoming space for trans folks and others in the short run. This is NOT a small matter. It most certainly is NOT a "storm in a teacup," and I think many people who have these concerns could be insulted by such a characterization.

The fact that we still have a few dozen moderators who have resigned and/or are taking actions like temporarily reducing activity is also not a small matter. I have no doubt that some mods have reasons beyond the release of the FAQ for their actions, but that doesn't mean that the continued existence of poor wording in the FAQ is irrelevant or merely a minor concern. I myself have refrained from downvoting the FAQ, hoping that the community's concerns will be appropriately addressed and the problematic language changed. I grow less hopeful about that with each passing day, and if things have not changed by the end of the week, I shall have to seriously consider leaving SE.

We (at least non-moderators) are not privy to all the facts. But what I do know is that a moderator of this site claims to have been apparently fired and defamed in the press for merely questioning some of the wording in the FAQ. How am I to know that I, as a user of SE, will not be similarly defamed if I unintentionally run afoul of the new guidelines? I tend to avoid all pronoun use in responding to most questions, simply because I realized years ago that it's impossible to tell gender for most users here, and I prefer to reword things just to use "OP" or the name of the user. I don't have objection to singular "they," but at times it can create confusion about a singular vs. plural grammatical structure, where again I would tend to reword a sentence simply to avoid pronouns.

So far, some of the mods in the threads on the FAQ have implied that such behavior is not against the CoC, but I need to hear that from SE, very clearly. I need to see that the FAQ is reworded to avoid clauses that could lead to my defamation in the press and revocation of privileges simply for behaving in a manner that Monica claims she was asking about.

There have been some users that have suggested that Monica's account is incomplete or has some misunderstandings; I need SE to address that publicly and release details if they want to justify what may in fact be libel again a moderator. I also need to have confidence that SE is serious about dealing with discrimination and addressing issues in a way that doesn't actually inflame tensions and then ignores them hoping they will just go away. Without such actions and explanations, as I said, I will seriously need to reevaluate my continued presence on this site.

despite 99% of posts being completely unaffected

So, since it doesn't affect me I shouldn't care?

I remember a short poem about that, I would include it in the answer but apparently it's too offensive.

Whether this is coerced speech or not and whether this is good or bad, let's not make a storm in a teacup out of this update.

If it is coerced speech, then the storm is not big enough. To defend the concept of coerced speech (not limited, that's different) is incredibly intolerant and totalitarian, and they are doing so while preaching inclusiveness, tolerance and respect.

Maybe you don't care because as long as you agree with them, it won't affect you. But as soon as you dissent from their opinion you will find out how important this issue is.