Skip to main content
Meta Stack Exchange

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

7
  • 2
    Somehow people thought that wording it in a less direct way would be less aggresive and negative. But they forgot that programmers/coders and mathematicians - the main public here - are dealing a bit differently with this. I guess that a lot of people at StackExchange/Overflow are currently annoyed by "us", but this is how we think/process. Commented Oct 24, 2019 at 7:44
  • 5
    I'm a mathematician and hobbyist programmer/coder. I don't find this a difficult thing to deal with, and how I think/process has been an advantage in this situation, not a drawback or hindrance or creating a circumstance requiring alternative structure. You don't speak for me as a mathematician or as a programmer, and I reject the views that your comments (yes, plural, almost all of them you've posted on this page) try to represent me with. @SextusEmpiricus Commented Oct 24, 2019 at 9:40
  • 2
    @Nij you could have read a bit more in-between the lines and be less rigorous about my comment; don't take it personal. ----- My association with the ugly and messy discussions that are unfolding here is that it relates to how the group (not the individuals) of programmers/coders and mathematicians is in general dealing with these sort of things. StackExchange is the place where you get much more nitpicking comments than elsewhere (like responses to a particular comment about mathematicians/coders is not relating to an individual). Commented Oct 24, 2019 at 9:50
  • These long-winded discussions about gender and the related Code of Conduct and FAQ takes me back to a meeting among scientist related to computation and modeling. The entire afternoon program got hijacked by discussions that were only about how to define the 'model', and we still had not resolved the issue at the end of the day. What is currently happening here on StackExchange, the nitpicking, is one big deja-vu-explosion putting all my memories of the stereotypical behaviour of mathematicians and coders into one big melting pot inside an exploding volcano. Commented Oct 24, 2019 at 9:53
  • I think you're completely misrepresenting the answers here. They are not contradictory. In the first example, the one thing you have to do is hardly an inconvenience, given its rarity, let alone "lots of inconvenience." For the second one, it's just telling you, that as usual, you should keep your personal religious beliefs to yourself unless they are explicitly on topic. I confess I am puzzled why this bothers anyone, since it's the default in (US) society, where I'm from. You might as well tell me your religion compels you to treat women as property... Commented Nov 5, 2019 at 18:51
  • and therefore asking you to treat women as people is compelling you to speech against your religion. I have no sympathy for this position. I don't see why religious sanctioned bigotry becomes more acceptable if the target is trans/NB people. The third answer doesn't start off saying no, and doesn't contradict itself. I think you just misread the first sentence of the answer. The fourth answer is clear and again not contradictory. The policy is asking you to use stated pronouns if (a) you ordinarily would, and (b) they have been stated. Nothing in answer four seems to be saying anything else... Commented Nov 5, 2019 at 18:56
  • Finally for answer 5, "it seems silly to me" is clearly a different reason than "the person is requesting pronouns in bad faith or as an attack on trans/NB people." Commented Nov 5, 2019 at 18:57