[discussion] pronoun silliness

[Soldati Senza Confini]

As a transgender poster who has posted on here for a couple of years, to a certain extent, I agree that a lot of transgender posters overreact to being misgendered and that all they do in the process is give certain people more incentive to misgender them for a reaction. But, that aside, it is basic courtesy to refer to people as the gender they identify with. If it produces such a strong emotional reaction, there is no need to do it.

Wait, a poster who has a moderate point of view?!

What have you done to the actual poster of this account?

[Imperial Union of America]

You're not the only one. Contrary to popular belief, we're not a hivemind, and there are a few people on the team (myself included) who dislike the "misgendering" ruling. I find it stupid that we allow people to argue that you're the gender of your birth - a widespread view - yet punish people when they use the pronouns appropriate to that belief. I think we've given an unnecessary protection to a vocal group of players, some of whom are too easily offended and need to grow a thicker skin. Anyhow, while I've tried to get this changed on a few occasions, I'm very much in a minority within the team; the majority think the rule is a good thing and should stay in place. I'm afraid you're unlikely to see any movement on this.

As a transgender poster who has posted on here for a couple of years, to a certain extent, I agree that a lot of transgender posters overreact to being misgendered and that all they do in the process is give certain people more incentive to misgender them for a reaction. But, that aside, it is basic courtesy to refer to people as the gender they identify with. If it produces such a strong emotional reaction, there is no need to do it.

Maybe i should start demanding female pronouns for teh lulz

but that would probably get me whacked for trolling

Go ahead, I asked to be referred to with female pronouns before I found out I was transgender.

I have no problem using preferred pronouns for people, but i agree i think some forum users seem to get too upset over it. Perhaps if i start finding things to get offended by, we can ban it under the rules since it would be trolling me to disagree.

[NERVUN]

*SNIP*

Exactly how many times must it be stated by various Moderators that we're not going to ding you for accidental misgendering?

Now I, personally, find it telling that you start off with an argument about poor forum goers who don't know and accidentally use the wrong gender and end up with an argument closer to "But if they don't believe in transsexualism..."

True beliefs have never been an acceptable defense here.

[NERVUN]

Ostro actually doesn't get offended by that, or he didn't last time someone tried it. He told them it was OK.

This is the gist of why I dislike the spirit of this rule: it depends on an offended party. Every other rule is handled from the view of the average player (what would the average poster think) except this one. Which means, unless you report misgendering, it's probably going to go unnoticed.

Just as an aside, Luna, the nickname rule does the same trick... and was what I based the misgendering rule off of in the first place.

[Wulfenia]

As a transgender poster who has posted on here for a couple of years, to a certain extent, I agree that a lot of transgender posters overreact to being misgendered and that all they do in the process is give certain people more incentive to misgender them for a reaction. But, that aside, it is basic courtesy to refer to people as the gender they identify with. If it produces such a strong emotional reaction, there is no need to do it.

Go ahead, I asked to be referred to with female pronouns before I found out I was transgender.

I have no problem using preferred pronouns for people, but i agree i think some forum users seem to get too upset over it. Perhaps if i start finding things to get offended by, we can ban it under the rules since it would be trolling me to disagree.

You can disagree with transgender rights, plenty of prominent forum posters have. You just can't misgender them, it's that simple. If you had no problem referring to people with the proper pronouns, you wouldn't have needed to make this thread.

[Imperial Union of America]

*SNIP*

Exactly how many times must it be stated by various Moderators that we're not going to ding you for accidental misgendering?

Now I, personally, find it telling that you start off with an argument about poor forum goers who don't know and accidentally use the wrong gender and end up with an argument closer to "But if they don't believe in transsexualism..."

True beliefs have never been an acceptable defense here.

I never suggested they were.

I'm saying that trolling and flame baiting cover what's necessary, and that people who disagree with transsexualism should be able to express their disagreement. If you come out and say 'I'm MtF transgender!' you can't expect people will agree with that and then force pronouns on them via the rules. If pronouns are that important, why not just say 'i'm a woman' instead of making it a trans issue?

I've already said i have no problem using preferred pronouns, because i'm not a douchebag. I just think it's a silly rule to require it.

I believe you're trying to connect me with a group of people that are generally disagreed with here as an attempt at delegitimizing my argument. Argumentum ad Populum and Ergo decedo.

I have no problem using preferred pronouns for people, but i agree i think some forum users seem to get too upset over it. Perhaps if i start finding things to get offended by, we can ban it under the rules since it would be trolling me to disagree.

You can disagree with transgender rights, plenty of prominent forum posters have. You just can't misgender them, it's that simple. If you had no problem referring to people with the proper pronouns, you wouldn't have needed to make this thread.

Again, Ergo decedo. Have i ever referred to anyone but their preferred pronouns? No. I just think it's silly to expect it. You're right that i have a problem with it, but only because i think it's silly, not because i object to it in principle.

The rule simply does not need to exist -- trolling, flamebaiting and the ignore button are here for a reason. You can ignore people you don't like, but i don't think it's inherently trolling to misgender someone as long as it's purpose is not to provoke. I don't think the rules should protect feelings of particular groups.

I also don't believe that "ah ha! You oppose transsexuality! that is telling and your opinion is therefore irrelevant!" is a sufficient defense for the rules existence.

[NERVUN]

Exactly how many times must it be stated by various Moderators that we're not going to ding you for accidental misgendering?

Now I, personally, find it telling that you start off with an argument about poor forum goers who don't know and accidentally use the wrong gender and end up with an argument closer to "But if they don't believe in transsexualism..."

True beliefs have never been an acceptable defense here.

I never suggested they were.

I'm saying that trolling and flame baiting cover what's necessary, and that people who disagree with transsexualism should be able to express their disagreement. If you come out and say 'I'm MtF transgender!' you can't expect people will agree with that and then force pronouns on them via the rules. If pronouns are that important, why not just say 'i'm a woman' instead of making it a trans issue?

I've already said i have no problem using preferred pronouns, because i'm not a douchebag. I just think it's a silly rule to require it.

I believe you're trying to connect me with a group of people that are generally disagreed with here as an attempt at delegitimizing my argument. Argumentum ad Populum and Ergo decedo.

No, I'm stating that your are arguing in circles, that have been addressed.

Let's look at this:
Accidental misgendering triggers ban happy Mods! -No, we've stated this repeatedly.

"I'm saying that trolling and flame baiting cover what's necessary" - And 'Don't be a Dick' should cover everything, sadly, it doesn't. We've noticed a tendency for everyone to scream "BUT IT DIDN'T SAY THAT SPECIFICALLY!" thus while this is spelled out. Could it be rolled under trolling the way trollnaming and nicknaming were? Sure could! It's a flavor of, but the rule would still be there.

"people who disagree with transsexualism should be able to express their disagreement" -Didn't say they couldn't. We have hosts of of threads doing just that.

"If you come out and say 'I'm MtF transgender!' you can't expect people will agree with that and then force pronouns on them via the rules" - See the bit about honest belief. You can believe that Black people are monkeys and I will happily ding you for saying that here.

"If pronouns are that important, why not just say 'i'm a woman' instead of making it a trans issue?" -Not a Moderation issue.

"I've already said i have no problem using preferred pronouns, because i'm not a douchebag." -Oh good. Then we're done as you have no complaint, right?

[Imperial Union of America]

I never suggested they were.

I'm saying that trolling and flame baiting cover what's necessary, and that people who disagree with transsexualism should be able to express their disagreement. If you come out and say 'I'm MtF transgender!' you can't expect people will agree with that and then force pronouns on them via the rules. If pronouns are that important, why not just say 'i'm a woman' instead of making it a trans issue?

I've already said i have no problem using preferred pronouns, because i'm not a douchebag. I just think it's a silly rule to require it.

I believe you're trying to connect me with a group of people that are generally disagreed with here as an attempt at delegitimizing my argument. Argumentum ad Populum and Ergo decedo.

No, I'm stating that your are arguing in circles, that have been addressed.

Let's look at this:
Accidental misgendering triggers ban happy Mods! -No, we've stated this repeatedly.

"I'm saying that trolling and flame baiting cover what's necessary" - And 'Don't be a Dick' should cover everything, sadly, it doesn't. We've noticed a tendency for everyone to scream "BUT IT DIDN'T SAY THAT SPECIFICALLY!" thus while this is spelled out. Could it be rolled under trolling the way trollnaming and nicknaming were? Sure could! It's a flavor of, but the rule would still be there.

"people who disagree with transsexualism should be able to express their disagreement" -Didn't say they couldn't. We have hosts of of threads doing just that.

"If you come out and say 'I'm MtF transgender!' you can't expect people will agree with that and then force pronouns on them via the rules" - See the bit about honest belief. You can believe that Black people are monkeys and I will happily ding you for saying that here.

"If pronouns are that important, why not just say 'i'm a woman' instead of making it a trans issue?" -Not a Moderation issue.

"I've already said i have no problem using preferred pronouns, because i'm not a douchebag." -Oh good. Then we're done as you have no complaint, right?

I still believe it is a redundant and unnecessary rule. I think there is a false equivilancy there. There is a difference between saying blacks are monkeys and i don't agree with transgenderism, so therefore i don't believe you are xyz gender. Still, the ignore button, trolling and flamebaiting are sufficient. I believe you can misgender without trolling or flamebaiting. I still think it's silly to enforce pronouns on people.

[The first Galactic Republic]

No, I'm stating that your are arguing in circles, that have been addressed.

Let's look at this:
Accidental misgendering triggers ban happy Mods! -No, we've stated this repeatedly.

"I'm saying that trolling and flame baiting cover what's necessary" - And 'Don't be a Dick' should cover everything, sadly, it doesn't. We've noticed a tendency for everyone to scream "BUT IT DIDN'T SAY THAT SPECIFICALLY!" thus while this is spelled out. Could it be rolled under trolling the way trollnaming and nicknaming were? Sure could! It's a flavor of, but the rule would still be there.

"people who disagree with transsexualism should be able to express their disagreement" -Didn't say they couldn't. We have hosts of of threads doing just that.

"If you come out and say 'I'm MtF transgender!' you can't expect people will agree with that and then force pronouns on them via the rules" - See the bit about honest belief. You can believe that Black people are monkeys and I will happily ding you for saying that here.

"If pronouns are that important, why not just say 'i'm a woman' instead of making it a trans issue?" -Not a Moderation issue.

"I've already said i have no problem using preferred pronouns, because i'm not a douchebag." -Oh good. Then we're done as you have no complaint, right?

I still believe it is a redundant and unnecessary rule. I think there is a false equivilancy there. There is a difference between saying blacks are monkeys and i don't agree with transgenderism, so therefore i don't believe you are xyz gender. Still, the ignore button, trolling and flamebaiting are sufficient. I believe you can misgender without trolling or flamebaiting. I still think it's silly to enforce pronouns on people.

What is your issue with this rule? Are you afraid of accidentally breaking it? This has got to be one of the rarer and more specific rules and there's no way you can just accidentally be warned for it.

Otherwise there's no reason to get rid of a rule just because you don't like it.

[Imperial Union of America]

I still believe it is a redundant and unnecessary rule. I think there is a false equivilancy there. There is a difference between saying blacks are monkeys and i don't agree with transgenderism, so therefore i don't believe you are xyz gender. Still, the ignore button, trolling and flamebaiting are sufficient. I believe you can misgender without trolling or flamebaiting. I still think it's silly to enforce pronouns on people.

What is your issue with this rule? Are you afraid of accidentally breaking it? This has got to be one of the rarer and more specific rules and there's no way you can just accidentally be warned for it.

Otherwise there's no reason to get rid of a rule just because you don't like it.

Well, you're seeing it from the point of view of "why get rid of it?" In seeing it as, "why have it?" I mean, why don't we just ban other things we find objectionable?

The real question is.. what does this rule provide the community as a whole? Are we creating pointless and needless restrictions?

[Shazbotdom]

What is your issue with this rule? Are you afraid of accidentally breaking it? This has got to be one of the rarer and more specific rules and there's no way you can just accidentally be warned for it.

Otherwise there's no reason to get rid of a rule just because you don't like it.

Well, you're seeing it from the point of view of "why get rid of it?" In seeing it as, "why have it?" I mean, why don't we just ban other things we find objectionable?

The real question is.. what does this rule provide the community as a whole? Are we creating pointless aND needless restrictions?

Would you be saying the same thing about a specific rule that called Fascists a name they didn't want to be called? Or, what if someone kept calling you Male if you are Female, or Female if you are Male? And, this would be AFTER you tell them to call you the correct one?

That is what this rule is,
Person A calls Person B "She/Her/etc". Person B tells Person A that they are Male. Person A continues to call Person B previously mentioned female pronouns.

This is where this rule comes into play. Getting rid of it will just open up NSG to people doing it without fail.

[The first Galactic Republic]

What is your issue with this rule? Are you afraid of accidentally breaking it? This has got to be one of the rarer and more specific rules and there's no way you can just accidentally be warned for it.

Otherwise there's no reason to get rid of a rule just because you don't like it.

Well, you're seeing it from the point of view of "why get rid of it?" In seeing it as, "why have it?" I mean, why don't we just ban other things we find objectionable?

The real question is.. what does this rule provide the community as a whole? Are we creating pointless and needless restrictions?

It's been explained why they have it, rather objectively.

[Imperial Union of America]

Well, you're seeing it from the point of view of "why get rid of it?" In seeing it as, "why have it?" I mean, why don't we just ban other things we find objectionable?

The real question is.. what does this rule provide the community as a whole? Are we creating pointless and needless restrictions?

It's been explained why they have it, rather objectively.

and i gave my objective reasons why i am opposed to it.

1. Flamebait and trolling are already rules.

2. there is an ignore button.

3. You can argue that transsexualism is wrong/nonexistent, but you are forcing people to accept the premise that it is true.

4. Average person doesn't even know anything about this whole trans thing, anyway.

5. You are openly declaring you are trans before requiring people to use your preferred pronoun.(see #3)
why not just say you are a woman, instead of making it a trans issue?

5. I just want to be able to use my generic pronouns without having to spend however long i am privileged on this forum remembering all these freaking pronouns.

I just think it's silly, really.

[Shazbotdom]

1. Flamebait and trolling are already rules.

And this is a specific rule that is loosely associated with both of them.

2. there is an ignore button.

When someone Quotes it, what is the person supposed to do?

3. You can argue that transsexualism is wrong/nonexistent, but you are forcing people to accept the premise that it is true.

No one is forcing you to accept that something is right. They are REQUIRING you to call them what they wish to be called. There's a difference.

4. Average person doesn't even know anything about this whole trans thing, anyway.

With how much press it gets, how big of a topic it is online, etc. No one can claim they don't know anything about it. Claiming otherwise is a load of bull.

5. You are openly declaring you are trans before requiring people to use your preferred pronoun.(see #3) Why not just say you are a woman, instead of making it a trans issue?

Maybe because they don't want to be forced to do that? If they identify as a M to F or F to M Trans, then that is what they identify as.

5. I just want to be able to use my generic pronouns without having to spend however long i am privileged on this forum remembering all these freaking pronouns.

So, calling someone be He or She when that's what they prefer to be called is that big of a problem for you?

[Imperial Union of America]

1. Flamebait and trolling are already rules.

And this is a specific rule that is loosely associated with both of them.

2. there is an ignore button.

When someone Quotes it, what is the person supposed to do?

3. You can argue that transsexualism is wrong/nonexistent, but you are forcing people to accept the premise that it is true.

No one is forcing you to accept that something is right. They are REQUIRING you to call them what they wish to be called. There's a difference.

4. Average person doesn't even know anything about this whole trans thing, anyway.

With how much press it gets, how big of a topic it is online, etc. No one can claim they don't know anything about it. Claiming otherwise is a load of bull.

5. You are openly declaring you are trans before requiring people to use your preferred pronoun.(see #3) Why not just say you are a woman, instead of making it a trans issue?

Maybe because they don't want to be forced to do that? If they identify as a M to F or F to M Trans, then that is what they identify as.

5. I just want to be able to use my generic pronouns without having to spend however long i am privileged on this forum remembering all these freaking pronouns.

So, calling someone be He or She when that's what they prefer to be called is that big of a problem for you?

They can identify however they want, but i don't think it should be required of them to use whatever pronouns people prefer. it should be a matter of courtesy, not a bannable offense.

Believe it or not, i don't think most people give a fuck about the 0.3% of the population that is actually trans and 99.9% of planet earth believe that there are only two genders. Only someone vaguely interested, perhaps millenials, would care.

I don't think MtF people would be 'forced' not to identify as trans. I guess its preferable just to 'force' other people to accept the premise by using their preferred pronouns. That may be acceptable to you, that's fine.

It's not that it's a big problem, it's just silly.

as far as the 'ignore', thing. that's just what the mods suggest we do in many cases.

[USS Monitor]

Believe it or not, i don't think most people give a fuck about the 0.3% of the population that is actually trans and 99.9% of planet earth believe that there are only two genders. Only someone vaguely interested, perhaps millenials, would care.

You think 2/3 of trans people believe there are only 2 genders?

[Imperial Union of America]

Believe it or not, i don't think most people give a fuck about the 0.3% of the population that is actually trans and 99.9% of planet earth believe that there are only two genders. Only someone vaguely interested, perhaps millenials, would care.

You think 2/3 of trans people believe there are only 2 genders?

If they live in the middle east, maybe.

in any case, i wasn't being literal in my figures.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

It's not that it's a big problem, it's just silly.

So can we assume that the discussion isn't worth pursuing further?

[Nature-Spirits]

IUA, what are you actually trying to argue for, here? The rule has been explained to you several times, and apparently, you don't have any problems with how it works in practice. Yet you continue to rally against it being an official rule. Why?

You've said that it could fall under trolling or flamebaiting. And this is true; but we have many other rules, too, that could fall under those, yet are nevertheless made explicitly clear by moderation. Having explicit rules for somewhat specific cases makes it clear to everyone what is or is not allowed. This is a good thing, because otherwise people would argue that the rules were unclear, and they might try to make a case for moderator bias or subjectivity. Having a misgendering rule allows us to avoid that whole mess altogether.

[Imperial Union of America]

It's not that it's a big problem, it's just silly.

So can we assume that the discussion isn't worth pursuing further?

I think it's run it's course, anyway. I think many people have made their views clear on this subject and i don't expect the overall view of the moderation team to change, even if there may be a handful of people on the team that disagree with the rule.

I thought it was worth discussing simply because i thought it was a silly rule and i personally think it's unnecessary.

I want to make clear that i have nothing against trans people and i didn't mean anything by these two statements;

Believe it or not, i don't think most people give a fuck about the 0.3% of the population that is actually trans and 99.9% of planet earth believe that there are only two genders. Only someone vaguely interested, perhaps millenials, would care.

What i meant is that people are generally ignorant about transexuality, not that no one 'gives a fuck' about trans people, in that sense.

and when i said this;

If they live in the middle east, maybe.

in any case, i wasn't being literal in my figures.

I was not referring to the violence or intimidation of transexuals in that region but to the culture that may influence transsexual individuals to deny it, regardless of how they feel about the situation.

[Imperial Union of America]

IUA, what are you actually trying to argue for, here? The rule has been explained to you several times, and apparently, you don't have any problems with how it works in practice. Yet you continue to rally against it being an official rule. Why?

You've said that it could fall under trolling or flamebaiting. And this is true; but we have many other rules, too, that could fall under those, yet are nevertheless made explicitly clear by moderation. Having explicit rules for somewhat specific cases makes it clear to everyone what is or is not allowed. This is a good thing, because otherwise people would argue that the rules were unclear, and they might try to make a case for moderator bias or subjectivity. Having a misgendering rule allows us to avoid that whole mess altogether.

I think misgendering if you disagree with transsexuality shouldn't necessarily be against the rules as long as it's primary purpose is not to provoke.

I also don't think someone should get in trouble if they use generic terms to describe trans people and don't bother to use a different one.

[Wulfenia]

You think 2/3 of trans people believe there are only 2 genders?

If they live in the middle east, maybe.

in any case, i wasn't being literal in my figures.

The concept of a "third gender" is still very prevalent in the 'Middle East and Asia.

[Philjia]

You're supposed to attack the idea, not the person, so...

[Imperial Union of America]

You're supposed to attack the idea, not the person, so...

If you attack the idea, you're basically doing the same thing anyway.

I don't think when you deny someones status as a real 'xyz' you're necessarily attacking the individual.

If i think the moon landings are fake and therefore i don't believe you are an astronaut, even if you identify strongly as an astronaut, i don't think it should be bannable.

You don't attack people with pronouns, you attack people with adjectives.

[Linux and the X]

1. Flamebait and trolling are already rules.

Would you have a problem if trolling were codified so as to explicitly comprise misgendering?

Incidentally, no one's impressed by your Latin.