Pronouns and future changes to the code of conduct

• We want all users to feel respected.
• We had users asking us for clarity around misgendering.
• We want to be as understanding as possible.
• We need all users to cooperate with the spirit of our policies.

Regarding this, one more thing that I need should have been brought to the company's attention is the moderators' attitude towards company criticism. When the disastrously badly-received Pronoun FAQ was fist published, many people (myself included) have been critical, reacting negatively but politely to it. The majority of critics were, and still are, driven by sincere and rational reasons, not prejudice or intolerance.

My own post was well-received and made it to the crowded front page, when it was suddenly deleted without explanation. I spoke with the moderator responsible and the only reason he gave was that his definition of the word "gender" differed from mine - as if adopting the established meaning of gender as a synonym for sex somehow makes me a bad person, or is ground for deletion. After asking how I could convey my message in a manner they approved, he accused me of bad faith before abruptly leaving the chat.

I re-worded my answer taking into account the flimsy feedback I got and re-submitted it. I was then straight up called names in a suspension notification signed by 3 moderators. Further feedback was, of course, ignored.

To say that the entire experience was unwelcoming would be an understatement - it seems that a significant number of the moderation team is hell-bent in its commitment to impose compelled speech, and values the subjective feeling of being offended as grounds for removing content that is not, itself, inherently offensive. The impression I get is that the decision of whose feelings to protect is very much arbitrary, and its purely ideological roots are out for everyone to see. This dogmatic attitude is no doubt a key component of the "purity spiral" that has led to such a rift with the community recently, and one that the company keeps refusing to acknowledge.

Finally, just as I noted in the original thread, it needs to be pointed out that the term "misgendering" is inherently ambiguous as it depends on someone's definition of the term 'gender'; I believe it should have no place in official statements.

Pronouns and future changes to the code of conduct

• We want all users to feel respected.
• We had users asking us for clarity around misgendering.
• We want to be as understanding as possible.
• We need all users to cooperate with the spirit of our policies.

Regarding this, one more thing that I need should have been brought to the company's attention is the moderators' attitude towards company criticism. When the disastrously badly-received Pronoun FAQ was first published, many people have been critical of it, but the majority of critics - myself included - were and still are driven by sincere and rational reasons, not prejudice or intolerance.

My own post was well-received and made it to the crowded front page, when it was suddenly deleted without explanation. I spoke with the moderator responsible and the only reason he gave was that his definition of the word "gender" differed from mine - as if adopting the established meaning of gender as a synonym for sex somehow makes me a bad person, or is ground for deletion. After asking how I could convey my message in a manner they approved, he accused me of bad faith before abruptly leaving the chat.

I re-worded my answer taking into account the flimsy feedback I got and re-submitted it. I was then straight up called names in a suspension notification signed by 3 moderators. Further feedback was, of course, ignored.

To say that the entire experience was unwelcoming would be an understatement - it seems that a significant number of the moderation team is hell-bent in its commitment to impose compelled speech, and values the subjective feeling of being offended as grounds for removing content that is not, itself, inherently offensive. The impression I get is that the decision of whose feelings to protect is very much arbitrary, and its purely ideological roots are out for everyone to see. This dogmatic attitude is no doubt a key component of the "purity spiral" that has led to such a rift with the community recently, and one that the company keeps refusing to acknowledge.

Finally, just as I noted in the original thread, it needs to be pointed out that the term "misgendering" is inherently ambiguous as it depends on someone's definition of the term 'gender'; I believe it should have no place in official statements.