I disagree, it's all very much overblown.
I find it really disturbing that so many people willingly accept that it's ok to mix legitimate criticism (assuming it is) with what is basically lies. "Might as well call him a few other bad names while we're at it for maximum impact"?. Why?
Calling a he/him person a "they" is a way of saying that you don't think they're a real man. It's really not much better than calling a trans man "her".
Finally, the previous version of the said guidelines used to reject singular they. Singular they is a great way to refer to somebody whose pronouns you don't know. Moreover, it's the preferred pronoun for many non-binary people.
The previous item says that gender identity should be respected and so purposely using the wrong pronoun would be in conflict here.
Interpreting this footnote that seems to provide more detail on how to work with diverse pronouned people as a transphobic issue is not a good piece of evidence to label RMS as a transphobe.
Especially since it seems to be pro trans and pro inclusivity.
> Honoring people's preferences about gender identity includes not referring to them in ways that conflict with that identity. For instance, not to use pronouns for them that conflict with it.
This one of example here is why I think RMS debacle is a bit overblown. This really just stretching it to make his statement seems offensive. It even put him in a stance in which he never had.
I cannot in my best intention to read "Honoring people's preferences about gender identity includes not referring to them in ways that conflict with that identity." as endorsing misgendering.
Are we really at a point where a pronoun is persecuting people...?
This sort of attitude is seriously disrespectful to people who are actually being harmed, offended, and physically chased away from real spaces.
> Honoring people's preferences about gender identity includes not referring to them in ways that conflict with that identity. For instance, not to use pronouns for them that conflict with it.
> There are several ways to avoid that; one way is to use gender-neutral pronouns, since they don't conflict with any possible gender identity.
> One choice is singular use of “they,” “them” and “their.”
> Another choice uses the gender-neutral singular pronouns, “person,” “per” and “pers,” which are used in Information for Maintainers of GNU Software.
> Other gender-neutral pronouns have also been used in English.
I'm genuinely trying to understand this. That does not spell a strong opposition to the supposedly preferred use of "they". But even then, does that really warrant the label "transphobe"?
Is that all it takes to qualify as a transphobe person, despite all the other points?
(I’m still going by “they” because a bad standard beats an incompatible hodgepodge of non-standards)
But now the footnote of the policy would allow you to call a trans woman "they" and never "her". That's not something transphobes (or anybody else) would ever do to a cis woman.
