[arglebarnacle]

That's not true--the moderator said she refused to acknowledge non-binary people by their pronouns if they use a singular "they" because of an ideological objection to their gender identity.

I am non-binary and use they/them pronouns, and while I'm not bothered when people avoid my pronouns e.g. by using my name instead, it's another thing entirely to assert that someone who doesn't consider non-binary identity valid "believes in helping the LGBTQ+ community but differed in how to do so."

Simply avoiding being rude (by deliberately using the wrong pronouns) is the baseline for respect, literally the least you can do. To "help" implies to support--if you support our community please use our correct pronouns and correct other cis people who misgender trans folks in your presence, don't merely humor us.

[allovernow]

Why does your personal conviction supersede that of those who do not agree with the non-binary classification of gender? Is it not valid to be offended over being forced to conform to minority views which are deeply rooted in politics and justified with a potentially exaggerated narrative of victimhood?

These modern ideas are far from confirmed scientific fact. Yes, there some sort of a spectrum, but just as the entire concept of "gender" is a social construct, the real argument is over the definition of the construct, and one could argue that truly "non-binary" or transgender individuals form a tiny cluster of outliers near the plane separating conventional male and female grouping. If that is the case, I personally find it offensive to afford such a tiny minority such a disproportionate amount of power by allowing it to shape thought through language policing.

The idea of intersectionality is mathematically equivalent to reducing an extremely high dimensional space, that of human physiology and behavior, to a simplified subset with fuzzy clusters separated by an arbitrary number of hyperplanes (gay, black, trans, etc). The particular modern formulation is one of an infinite number of possibilities, and it isn't fair to pick a handful of tiny minority clusters from this particular basis by those with vested interests, claim that those in particular are oppressed, and then afford them what are actually special priveledges under the guise of equality. Particularly when this mindset bleeds into politics and industry, it just comes off as a blatant powergrab for people who have defined their own social construct in a manner that benefits themselves.

This is why identity politics drives populations apart. The space of human nature is sufficiently high dimensional that it is impossible to divide it into priveledged clusters without picking what amount to arbitrary favorites.

[damnyou]

To be clear, we are talking about professional settings here. No one is taking away your right to misgender someone at a bar (even though you'd be a giant asshole for doing so). A professional setting like Stack Exchange or a workplace is very different from a bar, though.

[wizzwizz4]

She said nothing of the sort.

Monica has a purely grammatical objection to the use of singular they. I believe that objection to be unjustified (for etymology pedantry reasons), but it's not born out of malice or the rejection of people's identities. I don't agree with Monica on this point, but she has never used her position as a moderator to hurt people in this way. She wouldn't be the sort of person to use neopronouns if she were inclined to do this.

And, to my knowledge, she has never knowingly used the wrong pronouns for a user of the site, which is more than can be said for most people.

Please don't selectively apply standards. You should be equally outraged at the other >30% of the population who fail this test – if you're not, stop slandering Monica.

[arglebarnacle]

It would have been better to say that she has an ideological objection to using they/them pronouns (rather than non-binary identity), so I'll concede that point.

But the thrust of my post is that it's wrong to describe her as someone who is helping the LGBTQ+ community, just in a different way, and I stand by that. She said in her statement that she "write[s] in a gender-neutral way specifically to avoid gender landmines".

I'm sure this is a relatable sentiment to cisgender people who's main engagement with the trans community is anxiety about making mistakes. But this can't be compared to the marginalization trans people face. One way that non-binary people are denied space in our culture is by being erased. It's not a high crime to go out of your way to avoid our pronouns like this, but by doing so Monica is someone who is doing the bare minimum of avoiding offense--she is not helping or supporting non-binary people or fostering their inclusion.

Despite the implication of your reply I am actually not outraged that she could continue to be a Stack Exchange moderator, that seems fine. But I am intransigently against the vision of LGBTQ+ allyship laid out in the GGP, where being a supporting helper just means not being hostile.

Trans people are fighting for our lives in society right now, it would really help if people could find it in themselves to pick the right side, use our pronouns in public, and build the cultural space for us to exist in normalcy, instead of only think about this issue when twitter "activists" have "gone too far" by criticizing someone they like.

[errantspark]

Can you cite that first sentence? I have never seen that PoV from Monica. IIRC the issue was that she preferred to use a gender-less style of writing even when someone preferred a specific pronoun. More to the point she didn't refuse to do anything, she was asking clarification questions in a private chat room.

[andybak]

> the moderator said she refused to acknowledge non-binary people by their pronouns if they use a singular "they" because of an ideological objection to their gender identity.

Where does it say this?