« first day    last day (52 days later) » 

Nat
Nat
01:52
@PaulSiegel I think the issue with pronoun objectivity, vs. names, is that many take them to imply physical information. For example, what if instead of "Misha", your friend wanted to be called "Dr. Misha, MD"; would you start referring to them as a medical doctor because they prefer it? Either way, I think that's what people mean when they speak of objectivity.
Part of the divide here seems to be more about perceptions of reality than social mannerisms. This is, I suspect that people who think in more social-realist terms are more likely to see gender-pronouns as representing the truth, while those who think in more physical-realist terms would be more likely to see sex-pronouns as representing the truth. I doubt either side really wants to offend anyone; they're both just trying to be honest.
Terry Lewis
Terry Lewis
02:29
@Nat, while I might object a bit to some of the semantics you use, I think you have described the problem well. To use your less-inflammatory example, I don't have a problem with you referring to yourself as a "Dr.", and in casual usage, I would happily address you as "Dr. Nat"; I have a problem when someone insists that I must believe you and affirm you as a "Dr." when you are, in fact, not a Dr. That infringes on my own autonomy and my own freedom.
Nat
Nat
@TerryLewis (The funny part being that I do happen to actually be a "Dr.". =P)
Heh, but, yes, I appreciate your point. Personally, I think people should be allowed to think freely, and express their thoughts honestly.
It may be a tad off-topic, but I think the social-reality perspective's kinda neat. I mean, I think some people see the world in terms of social consensus, where reality is defined by what they feel others believe. I think part of the insistence on gender-pronouns is that, for social-realists, the denial of others agreeing with them undoes their perception of reality, denying them their own personal freedom.
I mean, for a physical-realist, the truth is the truth, regardless of if others agree. But for social-realists, if others disagree, it's not the truth; so, it's important for others to agree on aspects of personal identity, or else society denies them their personal identity. ...or something like that? That's sort of my working perspective.
Paul Siegel
Paul Siegel
03:19
@TerryLewis Thank you for your response. I think I understand your argument: you are generally quite happy to respect others' rights to self-identify, but you are understandably resent attempts to compel you to compromise your own integrity.

If I may pry a bit further: can you elaborate on the specific directives imposed by SE representatives which would have coerced you into compromising your integrity? I presume that the "objective truth" that you are referring to might involve scientific assertions about a person's body, such as their chromosomal structure or genitalia. But normally …
Paul Siegel
Paul Siegel
03:42
@Nat That is an interesting thought, but I'm not sure I'm convinced that the distinction between social and physical realism is fundamental here.

1. There is some evidence that gender expression is determined at the genetic level, independently of genetic sex (well, not independently in the probabilistic sense - the two are highly correlated).

2. Wouldn't a physical realist feel even more compelled to use gender-neutral language absent a medical exam or genetic test, particularly on the internet?
Also, would anyone happen to know why a few of our messages above were removed? If my questions / comments are not appropriate here, I will comply.
Peter Turner
Peter Turner
03:59
@PaulSiegel If it disappeared then it was probably flagged and deleted.
Not by a C.SE Mod, FWIW
Nat
Nat
@PaulSiegel Yeah, probably flagged, but not sure why. I don't recall exactly what those removed messages said, but I don't recall them containing content that I'd find offensive.
@PaulSiegel If you don't mind me asking, would you associate yourself more closely with the social-realist side then, over physical-realism? Your questions seem to reflect a poor understanding of that perspective, which I can empathize with in the other direction, as I'm mostly guessing about how social-realists feel about this. Actually kinda proud of myself for having figured out as much as I have about their perspective, heh.
The physical-realist perspective would be more that reality is determined by nature itself, regardless of what others think/believe. Still, though other people aren't authorities who can decide what's true, other people can be excellent sources of information that reflect what's true.
I guess a good example would be to say that, when I was growing up, our ID cards used to give information about the card-carrier, including their age, sex, address, height, weight, eye color, etc.. If someone were to claim that the information were otherwise, then we'd say that they're "lying" about their information -- for example, a biological male who claimed to be female would be "lying" about that.
In the last 10 years or so, the ID cards have changed in one respect: instead of "sex", they now have a field for "gender". And correspondingly, it's often considered appropriate to accept that people can select their gender without being forced to stick with what was assigned to them at birth; that it's a mutable quality.
Still, people often identify as being a different age, height, or weight than what's listed on their ID card; but, if someone makes such a claim, we'd still say that they're "lying", even if they have a deep emotional connection to the alternative identification.
Terry Lewis
Terry Lewis
04:31
@PaulSiegel, I think you are working with a misconception; I am not, nor have I ever been, an SE moderator. My comments are based on the recent resignations and the reasons for said resignations, of several SE moderators.

I have not yet read the new guidelines firsthand, but a) I know how the culture is moving, and b) I know how these were described. I don't think for a moment that SE will require this of their moderators, and not enforce the same standards on the rank and file users.

IMHO, SE is already quite sensitive about the topic. I, too, have had messages removed, apparently becaus…
I just noticed that another of my posts has been deleted. It's really difficult to respectfully defend a point of view when the posts are removed, and authors aren't even told why.

If what I say is not true, then correct it. If it is true and it's offensive, the problem isn't with me. It's with reality. Removing our posts doesn't make any truth contained in them less true. What is SE's reason for existing now? Is it to help us find true answers, or to help us find comfort?

If it's the latter, then it's useless to me. I come here trying to learn, trying to improve myself, technically, pers…
I don't think I've insulted or spoken harshly with anyone. My beliefs may be unpopular with some groups of people; however, their beliefs are unpopular with me and other like-minded individuals. I was asked about the responsibilities of a moderator... I would think that both sides of an issue should be able to express their own point of view so long as they did not insult or personally attack another individual.
@mbrig, my last response was deleted, so let me try to rephrase my answer:

You said, "You can continue to think whatever you want, but stackoverflow isn't the place to challenge someone on their self-identification."

Yet, SE is challenging my identity as an objectivist (not in the Ayn Rand sense.. see @Nat's comments on physical-realists). Why is this permissible? I'm not allowed to express truth as I see it, yet I'm told to "be honest". When I am, my posts are deleted.

I find it more disrespectful and offensive to be lied to than disagreed with. I would think that other members would wa…
Paul Siegel
Paul Siegel
05:02
@Nat My presumed definition of physical realism was something like "the belief that the physical world exists independently of the mind", whereas social realism means something like "the belief that reality is a social construct". Please correct me if I misunderstood!

With that framework, my arguments could be summarized (in order) as saying 1. gender identity may be a physical phenomenon; 2. most people treat gender as a social rather than physical construct when it comes to language (particularly on the internet), regardless of their ontological views; 3. your previous example about pro…
Nat
Nat
05:15
@PaulSiegel Regarding the practice of reducing an apparently social dispute to a difference in theories of reality, I'd see it as resolution through exchanging ideas to come to a common understanding. I like it when people think things out rather than resort to other modes of conflict resolution. ...that, plus I find figuring out how people think to be fascinating! Thank you for your comments. =)
 
1 hour later…
Paul Siegel
Paul Siegel
06:15
@TerryLewis First, I am just as confused by the deletion of your messages as the deletion of mine - I struggle to imagine a more respectful version of this conversation. Maybe someone feels that this is not the appropriate forum for this dialog? I don't know, but I do wish they would speak up - I don't think either of us will bite!

In any event, I did indeed mistakenly assume that you were a moderator - oops! Having cleared that up, I am still interested in your remarks about SE communities and their moderation. Specifically, what sort of guidelines did you have in mind when you wrote …
Caleb
Caleb
06:44
@PaulSiegel I'm sorry folks, but the deletions are not be this site's moderators or any other volunteer. Cooperate SE folks are deleting stuff and I have no clear idea why in many cases. In some cases (like attempts to organize mass rebellion) it's pretty clear and understandable why they would shut it down. In other cases people that would try to work with the system are being shut down just trying to discuss it.
If it's any consolation they aren't really engaging us (moderators current or otherwise) any more than they are you, just airdropping orders. Our challenges about the problems we'll face with those orders in different contexts has been met with pretty much "'em are the rules". Context doesn't seem to matter any more. Hence mine and others resignations.
Caleb
Caleb
07:25
@Aza Hey Aza can I ask you to expand a little bit on why the use of the poem is upsetting to you? Private room if you like, or contact me directly (ping me if you email or I might miss it, my inbox is not a safe space). I wasn't trying to paint myself as a suffering martyr in this situation.
The point of using the poem is was to remind Christians (the author was a Lutheran pastor by the way) that even if the one issue doesn't seem to directly affect us at the time (and plenty of Christians don't have issues with pronouns), the erosion of a core freedom in the end affects everybody eventually.
SE has never been a free speech zone, and I've never treated it as such. But changing the restriction from "you can't say X" to "you must say X" is a change in category, not in degree. Forced speech of any type is a bad idea that will eventually come back to bite everybody — even the side whose ideals were being catered to in the original manifestations.
2
All that to say that while I'm fully aware that I do hold some personal convictions that by other peoples' definitions are exclusionary (and they consider that offensive). From my viewpoint of course I am not meaning to cause offense and have gone out of my way to try to make my post on this site not about transgender or other sexuality issues.
My convictions are that even people I think are wrong are still creatures made in the image of God with the same corrupted nature I inherited. I'm not trying to hide my own views, but I'm also actively trying not to be offensive. To that end I would like to understand why the use of that poem was seen as inappropriate.
user61230
07:51
Hi, Caleb. I'm a little sad to see my comment purged; I think it's a fairly important note. In essence, the poem is not about freedom of speech, and I believe your reading of the poem is somewhat flawed for this reason. It's about a communal responsibility to maintain resolve for your peers in the face of injurious societal oppression.
5
user61230
On the whole, and almost certainly in the cultures you and I are from, Christians are not a group suffering from ongoing societal injustice that causes harm. I hope this is not a controversial statement.
user61230
The author was Lutheran, yes, but the poem is about a deep societal regret for not stepping into defense of peers that were being slaughtered by the Nazis.
2
user61230
Freedom of speech is a liberty, but the absence of it was not an oppression consummate with the severity the poem recalls.
user61230
In some part, I think the ambiguity of "First they came..." is at the root of this (extremely common) misunderstanding. When Niemoller writes, "first they came for the socialists," what they mean to say is: socialists were one of the first victims of Nazi oppression, because they represented a direct threat to structures of societal power.
Caleb
Caleb
@Aza Thanks for responding. And for the record, I'm not the one purging comments, I would have let yours stand. I can understand wanting to keep debate about the broader topic in chat rather than on our meta and keep the CSE meta about C, but I'm not opposed to hearing your criticism or having it left standing under my post.
user61230
07:56
Totally understandable, I didn't think you were the one to remove it -- that would seem a little far, even in the current climate.
Caleb
Caleb
@Aza Just as a by the by, I'm an active Christian pastor in a 99% majority Muslim country. Just throwing that out there.
user61230
@Caleb Then truthfully, your personal situation is likely not one I have direct experience with from any angle, and I defer to your assessment here.
user61230
I think our situations might differ in that I live in a Christian-majority country, and because of actions taken in the name of Christianity against people like me, my relationship with the faith (no fault of your own personally) is extremely tenuous. I do my best to keep an open mind, but I also want to be honest about how my lived experience affects our conversation.
Caleb
Caleb
Okay with the stage set a little bit, I'll note that the ability to be outspoken about my convictions is important to me, but I'm also not enemies with any of my neighbors because I'm not trying to force them into saying, doing, or being implicated in anything they don't agree with. Being able to talk about and articulate where we differ using our own chosen words (chosen to say, not prefer to hear) is important though.
@Aza I'm legitimately sorry about that. Most Christian majority countries are so only in a cultural heritage sense, and I fully believe much of what they do in the name of Christianity is harmful to the cause of Christ.
Whether I'd agree about the type of harm cause or what caused it I don't know, but I am sorry "my people" (or people that claim a cause) often don't represent it well, or even at all.
user61230
@Caleb I have respect for this, I think. The implementation, what it means in practice when people like you and I share a space, can be tricky -- but I certainly agree on principle.
Caleb
Caleb
08:07
Very tricky, yes.
user61230
@Caleb I can imagine the situation isn't fun to hear about from the outside, especially when it leaves people wary and uncertain. I understand, though, and appreciate the dynamic.
Caleb
Caleb
@Aza I'm with you on the first part of this, absolute freedom of speech is not a human right, nor is it's restriction in certain contexts necessarily oppression (it can be, but context matters). But I believe forced expression is a different kettle of fish.
user61230
Forced expression is... a creative way of putting it, and I think it misrepresents what's actually happening. I can see how it would look that way if you skip steps, and I'm not surprised it does especially when it comes out of the blue.
user61230
I don't think the misrepresentation is deliberate or your fault, I just don't think the steps to arrive at the conclusion have been elucidated clearly anywhere.
user61230
I think there's a groundwork question. When I was born, my parents thought I was a boy. They were wrong; I am a woman. I am also trans. Very bluntly... do you believe me when I say I am a woman? That all parts of me are woman -- body, mind, soul?
user61230
08:16
I'm not trying to set a trap or anything -- a part of this is my own curiosity. For a variety of reasons, I've never really had the chance to talk this through with someone who is Christian and has sincerely thought through their faith.
Caleb
Caleb
@Aza I can understand why you (and quite a few people around SE/SO!) think I'm skipping steps and jumping to conclusions. But I've been down this road before in other contexts, and I'm pretty sure the slipper slope starts even a little bit earlier than where the CoC is going. It's harder to see that when you're on the approving end of the particular topic where it crosses the line.
user61230
@Caleb I'm not sure I understand, then, what slippery slope you mean. Could I ask you to elaborate a bit?
Caleb
Caleb
Yes, sorry this is going to go slow because I'm half engaged elsewhere. Sorry if I drop out a bit now and then.
user61230
No worries, and no rush.
Caleb
Caleb
@Aza I wish we had a little more repport to work from before answering that, but in all honestly, no. I believe you that you think that, and that it has become pretty fundamental to the way you see yourself. And I do not believe you are something heinous or less a valuable human than any other for thinking that. But I do not believe that it is as fundamental to the way God sees you as you see yourself, nor do I think human identiy is defined the way you are defining it.
@Aza I don't want to over dramatize the situation, but sometimes it is helpful to define extremes and then work backwards from them to find where the shift happens. Lets skip way past the issue of gender pronouns. What comes to your mind when I say "forced expression", what would be an example of that you you think that phrase would actually be an example of (hypothetical is fine)?
user61230
08:37
Okay. Then we have to proceed into this conversation with a mutual understanding that a 'no' answer alone has caused serious, lasting harm to many people like me. We can continue to talk, but the way forward is more tenuous. That said...
user61230
@Caleb Why do your beliefs permit you to say you know the contents of my person better than I do?
5
user61230
@Caleb An example of "forced expression" would be when my friend was stabbed for walking out her door in women's clothes. If only she had not worn women's clothes -- and there is the forced expression, buried in a societal ultimatum.
Caleb
Caleb
@Aza Good question. I would say that it's because I'm basing my view (not just of you, but of myself) on a revealed divine perception, not on my own feeling/reason/logic/instincts/whatever.
@Aza Okay right off the bat, getting stabbed for that was wrong. That shouldn't happen.
Give me a second to consider if that's analogous to what I was thinking about though. I'm having a hard time separating side of that that is criminal hard on other grounds from the expression side of things.
user61230
@Caleb That is a first-level 'why.' I would like to go deeper -- much deeper than that. What about your beliefs gives you the authority to apply them to me? And, what beliefs are you specifically applying?
user61230
@Caleb Take your time.
Caleb
Caleb
08:50
@Aza I don't have anything deeper to appeal to than the divine being who made the very matter of which I am made of and breathed life into it, himself taking on human flesh, telling me that my perception of myself is wrong, dying, and subsequently resurrecting himself as proof that he had authority to tell me I was wrong and to set my wrongs right.
I don't think I'm applying anything to you that I'm don't first apply to myself.
And of course by "apply to you" I mean "think about you", not "impose you to conform".
user61230
@Caleb If that's really as far as the discussion goes... then please understand that while I respect your beliefs as deep and sincere, the consequences of those beliefs -- even when handled as well as possible -- continue to cause active and ongoing harm to people like me. Unfortunately, all I can say is that you will eventually have to square with that fact.
user61230
I can't tell you how; I am not a spiritual advisor, and I wouldn't want to suppose I have much useful to add.
user61230
But the belief that I am not a woman, separated from all other context, by itself leads to harm.
Caleb
Caleb
@Aza Please don't separate that from all other context though. It's only true in the context I was trying to convey, it would not be true recast into somebody else's framework.
user61230
09:06
@Caleb I'm not sure I understand what you mean. The belief that I am not a woman negates my personhood. If you, or anyone else, hold any beliefs surrounding that, they in practice serve only to justify that negation. What else can I say but "you are hurting me; please stop"? And what can you say but, "this is the will of God, manifest"?
user61230
These are essentially irreconcilable. It cannot be true either that a sincere divine belief should necessarily cause harm to another person, nor that accepting a negation of my personhood is tolerable.
user61230
"Should the whole frame of Nature round him break, / In ruin and confusion hurled, / He, unconcerned, would hear the mighty crack, / And stand secure amidst a falling world."
user61230
Between us there is a grave error in understanding. I can only ask that you hold it in your heart that you may be mistaken, even while divinity begets certainty. And I can only ask that, when you understand your faith to give rise to harm in another person, you hold understanding for why that may be turned away.
user61230
I hope this helps you understand why I am upset by your resignation letter's potential effect on your peers. I doubt I have much more to say, but I'll be here for a while longer.
Caleb
Caleb
09:22
I don't believe your (or my) person-hood is linked that closely to our gender. And importantly I affirm your person hood and value as such. My Muslim neighbors believe than I am an infidel, and while many of them don't, some in fact do believe that makes me less of a person. <redacted> so this isn't abstract to me.
I can and do campaign to change public rhetoric because it is physically dangerous, but I do think that my Muslim friends have a right to believe and call me an infidel, knowing that to some to some of them in their minds that makes me less of a person.
I don't think others' perceptions about me, however gravely unjustified, define my person-hood. Not trying to put words in your mouth, but many in shoes like yours want to set the rules of social engagement such that the receivers' perception as opposed to expresed intent define the boundaries of civility.
user61230
@Caleb If you believe this is about perception, you are painfully mistaken. The rules of social engagement, guidelines for civility... these are consequences, not precepts.
2
user61230
@Caleb You assert belief in a different personhood than the personhood I have found through deep exploration of my being. Your version of my personhood is not mine.
Caleb
Caleb
Correct, we are working under different understandings of person-hood.
2
user61230
I need to sleep. Thank you for the discussion.
Caleb
Caleb
Sleep well. Thanks for the honest discussion.
@Caleb ...which is one of the reasons I've had to resign. SE has decided their corporate platform will to take a side between those two world views and laid down the law: one of our viewpoints is acceptable to express and the other not in all contexts on their network. That doesn't leave room for the site I moderate to even exist in an honest way. Rather than letting disagreeing wordviews engage within boundaries, they have said I must take action affirming a position I do not hold to.
 
4 hours later…
Terry Lewis
Terry Lewis
13:54
@Caleb, thank you for presenting the Christian position clearly and with grace. These are deep issues, and deep issues are painful to discuss. May our Father keep you.

@Aza, may I ask you to clarify one of your statements: " It cannot be true... that a sincere divine belief should necessarily cause harm to another person...."? I'm not certain that I understand what you mean by "divine belief" in this context.
Terry Lewis
Terry Lewis
14:14
@PaulSiegel, I have been a moderator on other sites... just not here, so I'm not completely without experience in that area.

You asked, "Specifically, what sort of guidelines did you have in mind when you wrote "SE is challenging my identity as an objectivist" (in the sense of physical realism)?"

This was in response to the statement that SE was not an appropriate place to challenge another's identity. @Caleb and @Aza went through a difficult but very respectful discussion over this above. Other than location, Caleb's views closely match my own, so I won't rehash them here.
Caleb
Caleb
Just a note, the two posts of mine and Aza's that are deleted above were self deletions on our part.
Terry Lewis
Terry Lewis
@Caleb, thanks for the clarification... the site doesn't make that clear.
Caleb
Caleb
Ya I figured with the SE team actually going around deleting things I should point out that one wasn't on them. So far I don't think they've done anything to the text posted by actual moderators resigning (which would have added 'nother layer to this mess).
 
3 hours later…
TRiG
TRiG
17:44
@TerryLewis A Christian position; not the Christian position.
It's a pity that this mess has been caused by people refusing to fully respect trans people. It adds a layer of complication and unnecessarily conflates two issues.
 
1 hour later…
Nat
Nat
18:51
@TRiG I don't think it's an issue of respect. For example, I'm not a Christian and don't believe in Christian stuff; in fact, I honestly think Christianity's just a mythological system. Still, does my complete lack of agreement constitute disrespect for Christians themselves? Because, honestly, I don't hate Christians at all; I merely just don't see the world the same way. Which itself hasn't even been absolute, as I was once a devout Catholic.
That said, transphobia is very real, and some people want to terrorize and physically hurt transgendered people. Likewise, Christian-phobia is very real, and we've seen some rather gruesome religious-based terrorism too. Still, it seems like tying a lack of intellectual agreement to hatred for something to be dishonest; people can have different worldviews without hating someone.
Point being, I'd encourage people to separate a difference of perspectives from hatred. They're very different things, and we shouldn't get them mixed up.
Paul Siegel
Paul Siegel
@TerryLewis @Caleb I find some aspects of the perspectives that you have expressed here and in the OP to be extremely compelling, and a number of the behaviors exhibited by SE (firing moderators for hypothetical CoC violations, random deletions in this very thread, poor communication) to be rude at best and disturbing at worst.

While I do not have a direct stake in this (I am not a Christian or a member of christianity.stackexchange.com), I am sympathetic to the argument that bad corporate administration will have far-reaching consequences for everyone on the site, and regardless of whethe…
 
5 hours later…
Terry Lewis
Terry Lewis
23:34
@TRIG, point taken. While I do feel that this is the position of historical Christianity, I also recognize that not all who call themselves Christian would agree.
Terry Lewis
Terry Lewis
23:48
@PaulSiegel, consider the exact opposite to the new directive:

To follow from your list above...

4. Every pronoun reference on this site shall reflect the gender matching the antecedent's chromosomal gender.

Ignore for the moment that the directive is almost impossible to enforce. What would be the response to such a directive?

I would consider this just as egregious as the actual proposed directive. I see both as an attempt to reduce/remove conflict during discussions, but it does so at the cost of having honest conversations that **need to be had** in this country.
This is simply a matter of common sense. Freedom to express your ideas honestly is meaningless unless those who disagree have the same freedom.
@PaulSiegel said, "And it does not require anyone to make any factually incorrect assertions that I can think of - outside of narrow medical or biological contexts, gendered language is almost never a reference to the outcome of a genetic test or other physical trait. (Especially on the internet, where physical information is almost always unavailable.) "

In day-to-day conversation, I agree with you. But if a question comes up on Christianity.SE about homosexuality, transgenderism, etc., will I be allowed to express what I believe as a Christian, or will that be banned?

« first day    last day (52 days later) »