Here There Be Dragons

12:46 PM

@Alaya I apologise for missing your earlier comment - I understand your position - and we're not condoning discrimination. We're recognizing that we're a global platform and it's a ton to ask to force everyone on the platform to conform to a concept that may not exist in their native language and that many people don't understand or haven't learned. We can encourage change but we're not educators when it comes to equality or equity. So, instead, we recommend gender neutral wording - including editing to make content inclusive and discourage people from rejecting those edits when made. — Catija ♦ Apr 10, 2021 at 4:52

In short, I think if the only edits somebody makes are to gender neutralise pronouns and it's don't clumsily then that's bad. But if you are fixing up other issues and change a he to a they consistently I see that as an absolute win

For instance, elsewhere I changed he → its because I didn't see why a chess piece needed to be gendered, and it worked (had it not been a chess piece I would have used they).

Thomas Markov

@AncientSwordRage When this was happening, very occasionally we would see a suggested edit that improved the post in other ways and those were approved without objection.

AncientSwordRage

1:08 PM

@ThomasMarkov that's great

The impression I got was because of some bad eggs we through out the whole poultry farm, and blocked/banned any pronoun edits

Someone_Evil

There's been a number of different issues conflating around this, though all of that (that I'm aware of) has centered around 3rd person pronouns. And I think that might be confusing things here. It isn't a question about pronouns in the same way it usually is when we say that, so it might be better to phrase it as passive/active voice

Actually, I think I'll suggest that on the Q

AncientSwordRage

1:24 PM

@Someone_Evil yup, this is completely separate from the meta question though, which is why I wanted to bring it here

Someone_Evil

As I understand it, SE policy is regarding the pronouns used by people which I don't think our policy or practice has ever disagreed with

BESW

[goes rummaging for practical thoughts on me/you in answers that he wrote in meta years ago]

Someone_Evil

As I recall, one of things which generated ire was edits changing the pronouns of example characters and the like.

From my impression, there's very little of the pronoun usage (in posts and outside social questions) to which the policy is concerned because there's rarely reason for those posts to be referring to actual people

BESW

Regarding "you" in answers, particularly, here is some learning I shared a long time ago the general principles of which I still (mostly) stand by:

3

> - Avoid "you" unless I really mean it. If I'm talking about a generic/theoretical individual who my audience may similar to, I'll re-write it to talk about "users" or "querents" or whatever that group actually is. This makes the comment feel less accusatory, whatever the subject actually is.
- Avoid "we" unless I really mean it. If I'm talking about a group of people of whom both I and my audience are a part, I'll re-write it to talk about "citizens" or "answerers" or whatever that group actually is. "We" is sometimes presumptuous, or --more often-- sounds like "we the people who are talk…

(This style of writing is hard for me, it's not a habit and I usually have to go back and re-write to these principles instead of being able to do it on the first pass. So the more hurried I am, the less my writing benefits from this learning.)

Nordine Lotfi

1:42 PM

@BESW what about when using expression like "it depends on what you mean by that" which doesn't necessarily mean it apply to whoever you're saying this to (eg: if I were to talk generally about X subject, saying this wouldn't be said to a specific person, etc)

just wondering if it's OK or not since I only ever use "you" in this context/phasing I think (otherwise I use "they" or use the preferred pronoun of whoever I'm talking to when possible)

BESW

I don't have generic templates for this, it's the sort of thing that takes understanding the specific context in order to effectively apply the general principles.

Nordine Lotfi

I see, make sense :)

BESW

The general-audience "you" is not something I'd want to completely remove from my vocabulary, but I'd want to only use it when that's really what I mean and I'm confident that meaning is clear.

And that's because I've got a lot of experience with it being taken as personal or accusative. Online text written for large audiences or people I'm not familiar with, gets misunderstood very easily. If I have the time and energy to avoid traps I know about, I will re-phrase my sentences to do so.

Thomas Markov

@BESW This is some good stuff, I'm going to try to be more conscious of this.

Nordine Lotfi

@BESW yeah, that's understandable. Thanks for your input about this

BESW

1:47 PM

Also: very often, by thinking about who I really mean by "you" or "we," I realize that I'm being sloppy in my thinking and that helps me tighten everything else up too.

(One of the pitfalls of the Stack's "answers by experts" attitude is that it enables condescending or paternalistic attitudes. If I center sharing my experience, rather than telling someone else what to do, that MIGHT help me avoid falling into patterns that invoke unjustified authority.)

Nordine Lotfi

@BESW yeah, I noticed that too. I like to just think 1. Someone probably know it better than I do, 2. "it depends" works for every situation, then I just unroll my thinking from there...3. "everything is possible (put specific field here to not sound too general)". This goes hand in hand with 2. because, you know, "it depend on how it's done" and what not.

obviously I don't actually say 3. but it's just something I like to think, especially coupled with 2.

BESW

The comments and answers by ASR and Markov about academic journals are probably spot-on about the motive of the original edits. There's a (increasingly discredited but not extinguished) mode of thought in academic spaces that removing any trace of the scholar's identity from the work is a form of erasing bias.

3

Because of this there are generations of high school and college students who were taught that admitting an essay is written by an individual, or is being read by actual people, is "informal" or "not rigorous" or "unprofessional" or "fluffy" or whatever.

And that was usually expressed in the specific formulaic template of "never use personal pronouns."

AncientSwordRage

2:16 PM

Going back to the point I was (re-)raising, if I came across a post that had heavy use of the 'he' and I edited would that likely be rolled back/frowned upon?

Bear in mind Catja's comment I linked above:

> .... . So, instead, we recommend gender neutral wording - including editing to make content inclusive and discourage people from rejecting those edits when made.

BESW

From what I've seen edits for syntax have been capriciously vetted on rpg.se since long before pronouns became a visible issue in editing policies here.

it's never been possible for me to predict how a given syntax edit will be received here.

I doubt pronoun edits are any different.

AncientSwordRage

That's good insight

BESW

I've seen advocation for dramatic overhaul of syntax that may significantly change the post, and also for refusing all edits except the most direly necessary for basic understanding unless the original author explicitly approves them.

It tends to not be about the kind of edit, so much as about the reviewer's ideas on the degree to which a post "belongs" to the original author or to the Stack Exchange.

AncientSwordRage

2:32 PM

I think the reason behind edits isn't ignorable either. I've rolled back edits that removed bad words that felt like they were covering up the issue rather than addressing it for instance

Catija

I hear my name being spoken... Can I help?

AncientSwordRage

@BESW that's the constant struggle

@AncientSwordRage @Catija I started here

Cat of doom2

i live

AncientSwordRage

the conversation that initiated it is elsewhere and sort of tangential

BESW

@AncientSwordRage Aye, there's a lot of fast-and-easy template-style editing advice that people get taught, which involves lists of specific words and structures to use or avoid; rather than teaching principles to apply according to context.

AncientSwordRage

2:34 PM

@Catofdoom2 🙌

@BESW I'd rather comment, teach and wait. Only to act when the issue isn't fixed or becomes more visible.

Catija

@AncientSwordRage It might be worth noting that in general I feel like even pronoun-only edits can be helpful provided it's not someone not just seeking out pronouns to edit everywhere on the site (and doing so in bulk)... I don't want y'all to feel like my comment there means that "the only way to make pronoun edits is to edit something else in the post that needs fixing".

If the only issue in a post is gendered language and someone comes across it naturally and opts to make it more inclusive, I'd be OK with that.

AncientSwordRage

@Catija The context is somebody was doing that (and things like Fireman -> Fireperson, not Firefighter) and everybody soured to any pronoun edits

BESW

Mhm. We've had a few users try 'test to destruction' approaches to policies they don't like and rpg.se has never quite gotten the hang of proportionate response to that.

Catija

@AncientSwordRage Fireperson instead of firefighter is, indeed odd. I understand that things like that can cause frustration and that's why I specifically discourage bulk pronoun edits.

BESW

We get bulk edits of various kinds semi-regularly. Was it last year we had something like 600 tag edits by one person in a relatively small time frame?

Thomas Markov

2:46 PM

@BESW Youre thinking of the mass unprotection event, methinks.

BESW

Ah, maybe.

Thomas Markov

This one.

@BESW We had a user create a new tag and add to around 40 questions one morning a few weeks ago.

Catija

That was much more than a year ago. :P

Thomas Markov

@Catija Yeah, I dont remember any other events on that scale in the last two years.

BESW

I'll just mumble something about being here for almost ten years and it feeling like even longer.

Catija

2:56 PM

You must be ancient! ;)

BESW

I'm 73 in Q&A years. Chat is my retirement condo.

3

Thomas Markov

@BESW What's the conversion rate there?

BESW

@ThomasMarkov Closed as opinion-based.

(Or I suppose if I really want to date myself, too localized.)

Anyway I've figured out why Affinity Publisher wouldn't let me pin objects to text flow on just one page out of a 24-page document, so I think that's all my brain's gonna do today.

AncientSwordRage

3:13 PM

@Catija my ears are burning

@Catija I don't think these are bulk, but they were 3-4 at a time?

Catija

3:25 PM

@AncientSwordRage It's really complicated... to be fair. I think that these sorts of changes (assuming the wording is correct) can be really valuable to help some people feel less excluded. I feel this but I also recognize that I don't know how much of an impact it can have. I personally don't feel excluded by "fireman" - but I also use "actor" for everyone (rather than actor/actress)... Or performer. But I also don't like the disruption that these sorts of edits can cause...

2

The thing is, not all community members are on board with the concept of making language more neutral and that can cause discomfort... but also, the edits are really visible and can obscure the new content on the page.

Transcript for

Here There Be Dragons