36

The question entitled "Post for clarifications on the updated pronouns FAQ" has become a protected post so that I cannot reply to it. I do not have a reputation greater than 10 without the association bonus, so I decided to post my question here. If this is unacceptable, please close it or do whatever you have to do. (Edit: The question has since been un-protected, but since I already posted this question, I will leave it here.)

I have been noticing over the last few days a trend of moderating where any attempt to question the new preferred pronoun policy is removed.

This is a genuine question and not an attempt to be provocative. I am genuinely curious if this moderating is going to be applied to the entire site, or if this was just selective moderating due to concerns of relevance for certain, particular questions. Does the new CoC prevent us from engaging in discussion about whether the policy on preferred pronouns is a good idea? I suppose if a moderator deletes or closes this question, I will have my answer.

The new FAQ does discuss whether discussion about pronouns is permitted, but the language it uses raises more questions than it answers. For completeness sake I include it here:

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

In most contexts, your opinions about gender are off-topic. Some of our sites may have topics where gender is part of the subject and may be a valid question for the experts on that site. When answering these questions, it is important that answers report an objective answer to the question and avoid conveying the author's opinions on the subject. Since these objective answers may be at odds with the Code of Conduct, please take special care and frame them respectfully and politely — please be aware that many things you might want to say may be extremely distressing to some readers, and try to minimize that distress.

I am not sure if my opinion about the policy itself is relevant to the question, but for completeness sake, I include it here: I support the enforced use of preferred pronouns, but think people who disagree with this policy should be allowed to say that they disagree and why. I will not elaborate here further.

Improve this question
0

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
13

Right, so...

Protecting posts is a common thing to do with posts which are highly contentious or highly voted, or are drawing a lot of traffic from low-reputation users who only seek to disrupt the actual conversation as opposed to participate.

You only need to gain 10 reputation on this site in order to participate, and you've passed that barrier now.

This is not censorship.
This is preempting the trolls who just want to troll.

If you want to participate in the discussion, feel encouraged to.

Improve this answer
6
  • If he doesn't have enough reputation to post or comment, how does he participate in the discussion?
    – eyeballfrog
    Commented Oct 24, 2019 at 2:59
  • 2
    @eyeballfrog: They do now, so I'm not seeing an issue...
    – Makoto
    Commented Oct 24, 2019 at 2:59
  • 1
    A question being highly contentious on a meta website shouldn't be protected. If users are disrupting the conversation then issue a suspension and/or warning for the behavior
    – Ramhound
    Commented Oct 24, 2019 at 3:00
  • 1
    @Makoto That generalizes rather poorly. What about the next guy who wants to participate but can't? Should they all post questions about it like him?
    – eyeballfrog
    Commented Oct 24, 2019 at 3:00
  • 6
    @Ramhound: That's actually the right time to protect a question. You can at least stop the low-hanging fruit of users who only want to troll or flame or participate in manners so unconstructive I cannot string words together to describe them.
    – Makoto
    Commented Oct 24, 2019 at 3:01
  • 8
    @eyeballfrog: It's really not that hard to get 10 reputation on any Meta site. One upvote on an answer and you're good. If you can't answer that question, go find another one; there's a lot. Or, edit 5 questions. Or, ask a question which gets two upvotes. There is no one path to this.
    – Makoto
    Commented Oct 24, 2019 at 3:01
11

Meta SE is a site that "may have topics where gender is part of the subject and may be a valid question" insofar as gender relates to SE policy, as it does in the case of the new CoC.

Obviously

Since these objective answers may be at odds with the Code of Conduct, please take special care and frame them respectfully and politely — please be aware that many things you might want to say may be extremely distressing to some readers, and try to minimize that distress.

still applies.

It has been suggested that

However, note that debating the core of the new rule ("please use stated pronouns") ... is off-topic, and we won't be entertaining those debates at this point"

means SE will prohibit discussion of the topic, but my reading is that that quote is meant apply to the FAQ post and not MSE as a whole.

This is tangential to the question as asked, but my impression is that there is broad support for the broad strokes of the new CoC, and it really isn't a good time if you want to "try to minimize that distress". So I would respectfully suggest that you choose a different time to debate the core of the preferred pronoun policy, but I of course have no power to compel that.

Improve this answer
6
  • 2
    The new FAQ is the same as the old one. Rewording the same policy doesn't make it different.
    – Scott Hannen
    Commented Oct 24, 2019 at 5:12
  • 7
    I don't believe I expressed a position on that matter.
    – Solveit
    Commented Oct 24, 2019 at 5:13
  • 2
    The answer seems to say that now isn't a good time to discuss it because the discussion has died down. I understand what you mean. But if people still want to discuss it then it hasn't died down. What I meant in my comment (and failed to say in any meaningful way) is that if people wanted to talk about it before, it makes sense that they'd still want to talk about it. That's because it still says exactly the same thing. It's like a jedi mind trick and some are falling for it. *We have heard you. This restatement of what we said before is completely different. You like it now. *
    – Scott Hannen
    Commented Oct 24, 2019 at 5:24
  • 1
    That is not the sentiment I intended to express. What I meant to say is that I think the policy has enough support that there is little chance that the core will be overturned (SE would probably proceed regardless of MSE's opinion, but MSE largely supports the core, so the point is moot). So it makes little difference whether the preferred pronouns policy is discussed now or in two months. Given the current state of MSE, I suggest it would be better to revisit the discussion when things have cooled down.
    – Solveit
    Commented Oct 24, 2019 at 6:16
  • 3
    "...my impression is that there is broad support for the broad strokes of the new CoC...." Odd; I have an entirely different impression, although I suppose you could argue that isn't about the "broad strokes" but the devilish details.
    – Wildcard
    Commented Oct 24, 2019 at 7:15
  • 2
    @Wildcard I believe that most people are willing to use gender-neutral language and chosen traditional pronouns when it is not a hassle, and that most people believe it is good to do so. This is the broad strokes I refer to and covers 99% of all cases. The disagreement lies in everything else, the devilish details, as you say.
    – Solveit
    Commented Oct 24, 2019 at 7:42

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .