18
votes

One of the community members has approached the moderators with a concern about gendered pronoun usage amongst our Academia members. Specifically, this individual felt that calling out gender in discussion—e.g., "he said…" or "as she commented…"—risks introducing bias and may affect the quality of the discussion.

As such, I wanted to ask the community on behalf of this member... should we, as a community, discourage the use of gendered pronouns in discussion?

locked by StrongBad Oct 2 at 5:06

This question exists because it has historical significance, but it is not considered a good, on-topic question for this site so please do not use it as evidence that you can ask similar questions here. This question and its answers are frozen and cannot be changed. See the help center for guidance on writing a good question.

Read more about locked posts here.

  • 5
    Note recent conversation on this topic: meta.academia.stackexchange.com/questions/3280/… – eykanal Sep 29 '16 at 15:43
  • 1
    I am not certain what is to be discussed. Is it the usage in case one assumes to know what would be correct like saying "eykanal in his post said[...]" or something else? – quid Sep 29 '16 at 16:49
  • @quid Not sure I followed your comment, but yeah, its asking if we should ask folks to say "...as quid said..." as opposed to "...as he said..." – eykanal Sep 29 '16 at 17:25
  • 2
    Thanks for the clarification. This is what I wanted to know. That is, if the scope is restricted to referring to a specific user or if it is more general. Tangentially but perhaps not completely irrelevant for this discussion, I would note though that the situations of our two examples are not exactly comparable as I feel there less information in my case than in yours that "he" should be correct. – quid Sep 29 '16 at 17:31
  • 1
    @quid No! You should not try and predict the "correct" pronoun based on how someone looks. The only way to know what is correct is to be told. – StrongBad Sep 29 '16 at 17:54
  • 1
    @StrongBad yes, I understood that concern, which I tried to convey with the formulation "in case one assumes to know what would be correct." I still think the difference I high-lighted is relevant to a non-negligible proportion of users in this discussion (even if you think it should not). – quid Sep 29 '16 at 18:09
  • @StrongBad are you serious with this also in the real world off-line? Now you made me have a closer look at eykanal's profile but I can't help agreeing with quid ;-) – Dilaton Oct 3 '16 at 23:00
  • 1
    @Dilaton I try not to say things that make people feel uncomfortable. I tend to side with people who have gender identity issues over those with grammar issues. – StrongBad Oct 3 '16 at 23:20
  • @StrongBad ok serious gender identity issues are probably painful and not fun. But I guess that in such cases language issues might be one of the minor things. Personally, I rather feel uncomfortable or put off by the inreasing number of for my feelings out of place "they", "them", etc or even worse things. In particular if somebody refers to me personally by such pronouns, I feel almost offended and and at least politely object to it ... – Dilaton Oct 3 '16 at 23:47
  • @Dilaton that is my point. If someone says what pronoun to use, I use it. If I do not know, I would rather offend someone who adamantly opposes the use of the singular they than risk mildly upsetting someone by using a gendered pronoun. – StrongBad Oct 3 '16 at 23:51
  • 1
    @StrongBad but what if the upset would be not because of grammar but because of the perceived implication that you felt unable to determine their gender from their appearance? Possibly this is especially a concern to some "people who have gender identity issues." – quid Oct 4 '16 at 13:48
  • @quid lets take this to Academia Chat. – StrongBad Oct 4 '16 at 13:57
  • 1
    @StrongBad also, referring to a single individual as "them", "they" etc might be taken as offending as it can be interpretted as insinuating that that individual suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Or for an SE user that that account is used by more than one real-world person and so on ... – Dilaton Oct 4 '16 at 21:53
  • 2
    @quid - I'm barely able to follow all the conversation this post generated, but I did see your mention of my name. I really wasn't kidding; this isn't my question, it was asked to me by someone else who wishes to remain anonymous. I'm simply doing a favor by posting it. For what it's worth, my personal (i.e., non-mod) opinion is virtually identical to ff524's. – eykanal Oct 5 '16 at 3:40
  • 1
    @quid - *facepalm* that should have been to Dilaton. My bad. – eykanal Oct 5 '16 at 12:36
45
votes

I'll repeat what I said in the other thread, which seemed to be supported by the community (as indicated by their votes):

I am in favor of encouraging clarity above all else, and leaving other matters of language and style up to the author of the post.

As long as the language of the post is clear and it is consistent with the be nice policy, we should let authors express themselves as they prefer. If you don't like gender-specific terms or pronouns, don't use them in your own posts, but don't insist that others refrain from using them.

In response to StrongBad's suggestion that

if users list preferred pronouns in their profiles, then they can flag posts for moderator attention to "fix" references that use a non-preferred pronoun

I disagree completely. Moderators editing comments does not leave any edit trail, so the user appears to say whatever the moderator wrote. It is used with extreme care in exceptional cases involving comments that can't be deleted (e.g. because they are an integral part of some exchange), but have offensive content that violates the Be Nice policy. (Gendered pronouns are not offensive content with respect to the Be Nice policy that all Stack Exchange users are required to follow.)

  • 1
    Plus, from a linguistic perspective, having both "he"s and "she"s can disambiguate a sentence. "He gave me his work," could be person 1 or a third person, "He gave me her work," is obviously three people. As much as I support singular "they," it would obviously get confusing to use only "they" and "them" when discussing three+ people – Azor Ahai Sep 29 '16 at 21:55
  • 11
    If we're being precise, "Gendered pronouns are not offensive content" should be "may not be offensive content". One could see a user frequently misgendering another as offensive. – Fomite Sep 30 '16 at 5:26
  • 5
    @Fomite If you flag a series of comments as "rude or offensive" because they refer to you using the wrong pronoun, those flags will be declined. "Offensive" here means "violates the Be Nice policy". – ff524 Sep 30 '16 at 5:30
  • 1
    @ff524 Given flags have no capability to have context put to them, it seems like it would be extremely difficult to tell. Beyond that, "ff524 would decline a flag" = / = something is offensive content. – Fomite Sep 30 '16 at 5:33
  • 3
    @Fomite If the only thing offensive about a comment is wrong pronouns, it's not offensive by Be Nice standards. Those are the standards that Stack Exchange moderators are asked to use in judging what is "offensive" for purposes of moderation. – ff524 Sep 30 '16 at 5:35
  • 16
    Consistent misgendering - the example I used, would fail under both the "Bigotry of any kind" and "Harassment and bullying" standards of Be Nice. – Fomite Sep 30 '16 at 5:36
  • 7
    @Fomite I'd be more likely to attribute it to poor language skills, unless there was other stuff going on to suggest it was intentional harassment. – ff524 Sep 30 '16 at 5:38
  • 2
    @ff524 I don't disagree. I'm just stating that, in a meta question about the precision of language, in a post made by a mod, "is not" is possibly more absolute than is purely desirable. – Fomite Sep 30 '16 at 5:41
  • @Fomite OK... I clarified that "offensive" means "with respect to the Be Nice policy". – ff524 Sep 30 '16 at 5:43
  • Bueno :) I also have issues with the policy itself, but that's beyond the scope of this question. – Fomite Sep 30 '16 at 5:44
  • 5
    @Fomite quite literally everything is potentially offensive if one follows your approach. If user A comments under each and every contribution of a particular user B. "This is very insightful and interesting" while having been told that they should not as it is noise and it seems they do it in bad faith, then this behavior becomes "rude or abusive" while the content of the comment is not in itself offensive or rude (though possibly "too chatty" but that's a separate concern). Additionally, using an "other" flag it is possible to add context to a (comment) flag. – quid Sep 30 '16 at 7:57
  • 4
    @quid We don't disagree - hence my opposition to absolute statements on moderation. Though I would suggest misgendering is particular hurtful to certain segments of our userbase. – Fomite Sep 30 '16 at 8:12
  • @Fomite It seems that the original concern is not about misgendering but about gender bias. – Massimo Ortolano Sep 30 '16 at 8:56
  • 2
    @MassimoOrtolano The two are not necessarily distinct. – Fomite Sep 30 '16 at 8:59
  • 2
    @Fomite honestly given that your are happy with the new version I really do not get what your point is/was. To me it is as much an absolute statement on moderation as the original was. But if you are more happy now than you were initially I guess that's fine. – quid Sep 30 '16 at 17:29
18
votes

It seems to me there are two different issues here:

  1. The original question by eykanal asks whether we should "as a community, discourage the use of gendered pronouns in discussion" because this "risks introducing bias and may affect the quality of the discussion".

  2. StrongBad raises an entirely different issue, claiming that it is difficult or impossible to write correctly using pronouns, arguing that "as very few of us list our preferred pronoun in our profiles, we generally have no way of knowing what the correct pronoun is" and "the only way to know what is correct is to be told."

These are really very different points, and it muddles the discussion to confuse them with each other. For example, the second issue would be obviated in a situation where all participants had specified their preferred choice of pronouns, while the first question would remain equally relevant.


In any case, I do not think it matters much: neither issue is within the bailiwick of the community/moderators/meta readers.

As with any SE network, contributors have the right to write their questions/posts in the form they desire, and neither the community nor the moderators should attempt to externally impose a particular style or preference. This seems close in spirit to edits to change e.g. British spellings to American, which has always been an invalid reason to edit someone's post.

If someone wants to try to convince contributors that a particular style would be better, that's fine; one can always try to convince people to agree with oneself -- although doing it in comments might be off-topic, since comments are not for extended discussion. But I would be especially wary of such efforts from moderators, since they might give the false impression that they represent a collective norm of the community, rather than one person's opinion. (If moderators can post without the mod diamond, that would remove this problem.)

  • 2
    "If moderators can post without the mod diamond, that would remove this problem." No, a moderator cannot do this. But, a moderator could add that a particular opinion expressed is this mod's personal opinion and not site's policy. This is sometimes done. – quid Sep 29 '16 at 19:43
5
votes

I think that, for all the reasons noted elsewhere, it is valuable to encourage the use of gender-neutral pronouns where peoples' preferred pronouns are not known, or when talking about a generic person rather than an individual.

It should be mentioned somewhere in help or on meta that this is the preferred behaviour, and some people will hopefully make a point of commenting and pointing to that policy where applicable. My reasoning here is that it avoids potential offense, and avoids potential bias of the "I assumed that all researchers in $field are $gender" type, and (as far as I can see) has no downsides[1].

I am far less clear, however, on whether (or to what degree) this policy should be actively enforced. Are people politely asked to edit their posts? Do community members edit others' posts just for this reason? Is it something for moderators? (I would probably argue not the latter, except in cases of clear and deliberate misgendering where a complaint has been made - in which case it should fall under anti-harassment policies anyway)

[1] yes, sometimes gendered pronouns can remove ambiguity in a sentence, but so can rewording the sentence to not be ambiguous

  • 5
    What about user names that will be interpreted by many as quite strongly suggesting a gender? What about profile pictures? Both are quite common. Will they be discouraged, too? You might want to start the movement at your user name (that I speculate many many will read as being your male given name plus an initial; whether this is correct or if they should read it like this is irrelevant if it is about avoiding introducing bias). – quid Sep 30 '16 at 17:48
  • 2
    @quid Whether or not a user has a clearly gendered name/picture is somewhat orthogonal to whether you choose to use "He", "She" or "They" when writing. – Fomite Sep 30 '16 at 19:56
  • 4
    @Fomite first of all, how a particular user in practice is usually addressed will depend on this a lot. Second, and this is my main point, if somebody wants to avoid bias of the claimed form I think they better include this aspect in their analysis. A proposed solution is to use the user names rather than pronouns. So no "he" anymore but instead (to take some users with many points as example) Pete, Peter, Bill, Dave, Paul, Dan, Nate etc for then no gender becomes apparent. This just makes no sense in my opinion. [To be clear, I do not propose to do anything about user names.] – quid Sep 30 '16 at 20:48
  • 1
    It is by no means the case, that everybody embraces or agrees with the crazy PC nonsense infecting more and more aspects of live in particular in the US now even to the extent of messing up with prefectly clear and correct language. It is NOT the "preferred behaviour" and should therefore not be mentioned in the help-center as such nor should it ever become an official policy. – Dilaton Oct 3 '16 at 10:19
  • 3
    Regarding the previous comment: FWIW, it is by no means the case that everybody embraces or agrees with the description of avoiding gendered pronoun usage as "crazy PC nonsense". Some of us are reasonably content to change the inflections of our written or spoken English depending on the professional or social contexts. – Yemon Choi Oct 5 '16 at 17:56
3
votes

Should we, as a community, discourage the use of gendered pronouns in discussion?

Do you mean

  1. Should we discourage users from using gendered pronouns in general? or

  2. Should we avoid assuming a particular gender, when one hasn't been indicated in the question, username, profile, avatar or discussion?

For #1: No, that would be absurd; #2: yes, we should avoid making unsubstantiated gender assumptions.

I will share two reasons for my answer to #2:

When musicians audition for orchestra jobs, they play behind a screen, and their names are not provided to the committee. This practice was developed in order to remove gender bias. Compare youtube videos of historical vs. modern orchestra concerts. The contrast is striking. The gender make-up of the big orchestras has changed dramatically, thanks in part to this gender-free audition process.

When I was a child, anti-Semitic neighbors made assumptions and nasty remarks to me, based on my surname. Well, my surname came from my father, who had been raised Catholic (but who, except from his name and some books sent on random birthdays, was entirely absent from the scene). Jewish law and custom says you are Jewish if your mother is Jewish. Mine was (although not through religious practice). Where did that leave me? Uncomfortable with unwarranted assumptions.

Perhaps a new, more clearly posed question would be helpful for the site.

(I would not suggest an edit to the question, given that a lot of very confusing discussion has taken place based on the question in its original form.)

  • 5
    You should probably specify what you mean by "avoid assuming a particular gender". For example, for many people, use of "he" for a general, gender-neutral third person is still quite common in many contexts, and doesn't imply that the author assumes that the person they are writing about is male. Similarly, use of "she" for a person of unknown gender also does not imply an assumption that the person is female. This is especially true on an international site like this one. – ff524 Oct 5 '16 at 16:02
  • 5
    On the other hand, saying something like "I downvoted this answer because you don't know what's it's like to be a male student in a program where men are a gender minority" would be an unsubstantiated and inappropriate gender assumption. (In addition to being a generally unproductive comment...) – ff524 Oct 5 '16 at 16:10
  • 1
    @ff524 - Dr. Spock's book, Baby and Child Care, was the first book I saw that used "she" for a person of unknown gender. He explained what he was doing, though, at the beginning of the book. (He alternated between chapters.) I don't think this has become common practice yet. In general, wouldn't it be safer to say something truly neutral, e.g. s/he, him/her, his/her, they, use of the noun instead of a pronoun, etc.? – aparente001 Oct 5 '16 at 16:22
  • 4
    You are of course free to do so in your own content. My comment was about drawing inferences from other users' content. I think it is incorrect to infer from use of "he" or "she" that the author is assuming one gender or another. – ff524 Oct 5 '16 at 16:25
  • 2
    @ff524: for use of he/she talking about a generic hypothetical person, sure. But if a commenter writes e.g. “Note the OP said he’s a grad student”, then this certainly does strongly suggest the assumption that OP is male. – PLL Oct 9 '16 at 14:56
  • 2
    @PLL the way many people use it, it really doesn't. – ff524 Oct 9 '16 at 17:07
0
votes

I think it's more important to try to avoid bias based on gender, rather than using gender pronouns to hide the reason for bias.

The first (which I agree is more complicated) is the actual issue we deal with. The latter is only covering up the problem, but lets it proliferate.

So, if someone is or feels clearly male or female (name, photo, information) then let's use gender pronouns and let those that have problems with the specific gender reveal themselves and be stigmatized.

In the case that the question refers to the gender that a generic student or post doc should have, I don't see it as a big problem either. We can write he/she, or the student, or they...

  • 3
    This contradicts research on unconscious bias. – user18072 Oct 8 '16 at 4:35
  • @djechlin it might help to be more explicit regarding what you mean specifically. What I can think of does not really apply to the content of this post. Note that it seems the post only proposes to use gendered pronouns in cases where the account "feels clearly" gendered. – quid Oct 8 '16 at 9:56
-2
votes

Having thought about this a bit more, and reflecting on comments, I thought I'd add a second answer rather than heavy editing on my old one.

I think there are three slightly different matters that are being talked about here.

1. Referring to a user whose name or icon suggests a gender

In an ideal world we would not make assumptions based on these things, but in reality, at least for now, this is going to happen, and the number of people for whom it will be wrong, as a proportion of the population, is very small. Except in the case where somebody is being deliberately misgendered (which would come under anti-harassment rules), I think this is something to leave alone.

2. Referring to a user whose gender is not suggested by name or icon

Here, users should make every effort to refer to that user by gender-neutral pronouns. It must be pretty offputting for a woman to post here under a neutral name (for whatever reason) and be assumed to be a man - or, probably less common, vice versa. It is not appropriate to make assumptions, which may tend to reinforce stereotypes.

I believe that this should be noted in the help, and people should make an effort to remind askers and answers of this policy in comments.

3. Referring to a generic person

I mean here when somebody is not talking about a specific SE user, but is referring to, for example, "a student" or "a postdoc". Here I think that it is really important to remain gender-neutral, lest we reinforce the idea that all researchers in $field are $gender.

I think this is by far the most important of the three items here. I think that correcting gender-specific terms used in this sense should, in itself, be grounds for editing a post. If there is argument over this on a specific post, then preferring gender-neutrality in generic people should be the guidance for moderators.

  • Would anybody like to explain the downvotes? (I realise that they mean something different on meta, but a blind "NO" doesn't help discussion much...) – Flyto Oct 3 '16 at 7:49
  • 1
    No, dont mess up with gramatically correct language and pronouns to make them not even wrong for nonsensical PC reasons! – Dilaton Oct 3 '16 at 10:20
  • @Dilaton I have explained the reasons above. Would you care to elaborate on how they are nonsensical? – Flyto Oct 3 '16 at 10:22
  • 1
    I mean it is enough to just estimate and treat others based on their knowledge, skills, qualifications, and personality, instead of being prejudiced based on things related to the physical appearance such as body height, gender, body weight, race, age, hair color or length etc. This is what most academics do among themself anyway, so there is no need (on an academic site) to embrace for example the messing up with perfectly correct gendered language advocated by PC advocates and busybodies. I am personally appaled by how far this crazy PC movement has gone in particular in the US ... – Dilaton Oct 3 '16 at 11:00
  • 4
    @Dilaton Hah! I recommend that you have a skim of blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2016/03/08/…. You might be surprised about what "most academics" do. But, you have indeed explained why you disagree with encouraging gender neutrality - because if you don't think there is any problem, then it does make sense that asking people to change their language is an unwarrented imposition. Thank you for that. – Flyto Oct 3 '16 at 11:16
  • 1
    @Dilaton What is this definition/measurement of "most academics", given that academia exists outside North America and most importantly outside STEM? – Yemon Choi Oct 4 '16 at 1:33
  • +1 to Simon W, btw – Yemon Choi Oct 4 '16 at 1:35
  • Down voted because the issue of guessing users gender by their username or profile picture is not the issue here. Often the people referred to in a question are not the OP but advisors, TA, students, etc. – Cape Code Oct 4 '16 at 7:12
  • 1
    @Dilaton it's perfectly possible to write in proper English, respecting all the rules of grammar, and formulate things in a way that does not mention people's gender. – Cape Code Oct 4 '16 at 7:14
  • @cape code that was one point out of three, and it was one on which I recommended no action. The point that you raise is exactly my point 3. Care to reconsider your down vote? – Flyto Oct 4 '16 at 7:22
  • I like your other answer better. – Cape Code Oct 4 '16 at 7:24
  • 1
    @CapeCode Of course addressing specific users of this site is the issue. Please read the comments on OP where I specifically asked for clarification on this point. – quid Oct 4 '16 at 13:33
  • @quid you seem to be the only one worried about that. The general issue is the use of gendered pronouns to describe generic people, like someone's adviser. It's very rare that we refer to other users in a way that would require pronouns. – Cape Code Oct 4 '16 at 13:44
  • 1
    @CapeCode rare or not (I don't think it's that rare by the way) this is what the question was about. If you find it irrelevant tell the asker about it. – quid Oct 4 '16 at 13:50
  • 2
    +1 just to offset one of the downvotes you get from the people who obsess about PC-ness. – user18072 Oct 8 '16 at 4:36
-3
votes

I strongly object this would-be "politically correct" thought police, which is only done to hide real problems. A person so unstable it get's offended by a mere wrong pronoun needs help, by a therapist, not a thousand "friends" who really just find it unsettling to see a guy breaking to pieces over a trivial misconception.

I add this much: If I have not hint as to what pronoun could be right, I also use "they" to refer to an individual person. It's a bit crude, but the other has solicited for it, and it is embarrassing for both having to correct me. Otherwise "he" implies "she" unless otherwise mentioned. If I need a lawyer, it does not matter to me if he's a man, woman, transsomething, or this very clever aarvark my second cousin refered me to.

  • 9
    -1. You are free to object to the proposal, but there's no need to resort to insults (and ad hominem arguments certainly don't make your position stronger). Also see the Be Nice policy. – ff524 Oct 2 '16 at 5:18
  • 4
    I am sorry if it offends anyone, but i find it dangerous, to the individual and to the freedom of out academic community, to suppress problems by policing the language. "Ad hominem"? Yes. – Karl Oct 2 '16 at 10:44
  • 5
    So write an answer about the danger to the individual and freedom of our academic community (you haven't mentioned anything about that in this post). That would be a much more convincing argument than one that just attacks those who disagree with you. – ff524 Oct 2 '16 at 10:46
  • 4
    I thought an academic audience might not need en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_Police explained, be self-critical enough to question their motives, and see how it doesn't help to save a person from slight discomfort by essentially well-meaning colleagues, when there is a harsh outside world he has to cope with. Not to mention that it insults everybody who has not yet convertet to newspeak. But perhaps i should append to my post. And I am sorry if this here again offends anyone. ;-) – Karl Oct 2 '16 at 11:15
  • 4
    Since I have talked to academics with actual experience of totalitarian regimes, I find the glib use of "Thought Police" needlessly offensive. And if your reply is that people should have thicker skins; it works both ways – Yemon Choi Oct 2 '16 at 15:09
  • 1
    @YemonChoi I am offended by your implied derision of totalitarian regimes. Does this statement alone automatically make me right and you a bad person who doesn't care about the feelings of others? – user3209815 Oct 4 '16 at 9:05
  • "He" implies "male." This really is self-evident. – user18072 Oct 8 '16 at 4:37
  • @user3209815 can you make your point without confusing self-reference? – user18072 Oct 8 '16 at 4:56
-11
votes

I think we should discourage the use of gendered pronouns in discussion (as well as in questions and answers). The use of gendered terms generally does not add clarity and has the potential to be offensive/upsetting when the wrong term is used. As very few of us list our preferred pronoun in our profiles, we generally have no way of knowing what the correct pronoun is.

The issue is, how do we want to discourage the use of gendered pronouns. I do not think policing usage is the way to go. In other words, we should not systematically remove all usage of gendered pronouns. Instead, I think we should bring up in chat and meta that we strive to use gender neutral language when possible.

I also think if users list preferred pronouns in their profiles, then they can flag posts for moderator attention to "fix" references that use a non-preferred pronoun. I am not exactly sure how to handle edits for individuals who are gender fluid or who's preferred pronouns change with time.

  • 7
    Concerning "we generally have no way of knowing what the correct pronoun is": You seem to think that we usually can't infer a person's gender from a name or picture. I think such inferences are usually correct. If my gender were inferred incorrectly from my first name (which sometimes happens when people ignore the "s" at the end) and if I were offended by such errors (which I am not), then I would make my preference known (in my profile, or perhaps by signing my name as Herr Prof. Dr. Andreas Blass). – Andreas Blass Sep 29 '16 at 23:48
  • 4
    A person that is offended by a mere wrong pronoun needs a therapist. What would you say if i told you i was offended by you trying to neutralise me? Stupid, eh? That it is. – Karl Oct 1 '16 at 9:51
  • 1
    There is absolutely nothing wrong with the gendered pronouns as they have been used since centuries: -1 – Dilaton Oct 3 '16 at 10:23
  • 5
    @Dilaton Whether gendered pronouns are good or not does not follow from the fact they have been used for centuries. Traditions can be good or bad; the fact that a tradition exists does not say anything about whether it is a good one. – gerrit Oct 3 '16 at 12:06
  • 1
    @gerrit playing devil's advocate it is possible "as they have been used" could be intended as "in the way they have been used" and not as "because they have been used." – quid Oct 3 '16 at 20:24
  • 1
    @quid yes this is what I wanted to say, thanks! – Dilaton Oct 3 '16 at 22:50
  • 1
    People don't check profiles, and its unreasonable to make people do so. If people don't know what pronoun to use based on a user name and avatar, and the impacted user takes offense, I can see that as problematic, but don't see a community-friendly resolution – Scott Seidman Oct 5 '16 at 10:57

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .