-1

Please vote for reopening my answer to: What is a nice phrase to use instead of "ladies and gentlemen" to be more inclusive?

My answer claims that the traditional term "ladies and gentlemen" is inclusive and non-offensive, and should not be eradicated from the public sphere. It garnered 27 up votes (with a total score of 14 votes when deleted).

The OP agrees that the term is non-offensive. They also express their fondness of the "Ladies and Gentlemen" phrase, only that they are concerned it is not-inclusive enough. My answer simply expresses the common belief of many, that this phrase is inclusive enough, and thus provides a legitimate solution to the problem faced by the OP. Indeed, since it is accepted now that "ladies and gentlemen" is a non-offending and not to be eradicated from the public sphere term, the provided solution is certainly a legitimate answer in this sense.

Overall, deleting such answers cause acute harm to the neutrality of the website and to its reputation as providing diversity of viewpoint. It also alienates large portions of the public who support free respectful discussion.

3
  • 1
    You seem to be complaining that a moderator deleted your answer even though you voted to close the question.
    – Anonymous Physicist
    Commented Jan 8, 2022 at 1:38
  • 1
    Yes, definitely. By the written guidelines my brief answer was completely legit and to the point, given that the question is out of scope. See here: academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4976/…
    – Dilworth
    Commented Jan 8, 2022 at 16:53
  • Specifically: ""For example, you can write in response to the above assertion [appearing in an off-topic question]: It does not matter for this question, but as I understand it, you misassess the impact of your method. I strongly suggest that you ask on Cryptography SE about this. I think there is a crucial flaw in the your cryptographic reasoning. I would like to discuss it with you in this chatroom.""
    – Dilworth
    Commented Jan 8, 2022 at 16:55

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
3

OP asked for a more inclusive address than "ladies and gentleman".

"Ladies and gentleman" is not a more inclusive version of "ladies and gentleman"; it is the same exact phrase so it is exactly as inclusive as "ladies and gentleman". Therefore, it is not an answer to the question asked.

It is not necessary for OP or anyone else to establish that "ladies and gentleman" is offensive to ask for something more inclusive. Asking for a more inclusive version of the phrase does not suggest that it should be "eradicated from the public sphere", as your answer implied. We've recently established a policy governing "frame challenge" answers here: How to deal with a question that contains a false premise? How do I make a frame challenge?

When considering the voting, please recognize that the question has been on the "Hot Network Questions" (HNQ) list. That means it has high visibility across the network. The privilege for voting up is far easier to access than the privilege to vote down; everyone on the network with enough rep for the 100 rep bonus can up vote, which includes many people who have no other activity on Academia.SE. Only people with substantial additional reputation here, a minority of people viewing the question, can downvote.

Other answers have upvotes per 1 downvote as of writing this post equaling: 21.5, 9, 16.5, 4.6, 6. Yours had only 2.1 upvotes per downvote.

22
  • 2
    Thank you for your opinion. Let me explain why I believe you are mistaken. The OP himself/herself, claimed that he/she likes the "ladies and gentlemen" phrase, only that he/she deems it as not inclusive enough, or at least they feel or think it is not inclusive enough. My answer explains that in my opinion it is inclusive of everyone to a sufficient degree. This is not a re-framing of the question. It goes right at the heart of the question: I provide a solution to the problem at hand.
    – Dilworth
    Commented Dec 21, 2021 at 16:38
  • 2
    My answer also claims explicitly that "ladies and gentlemen" IS inclusive enough. So your mention that it is not sufficient to establish that it is non-offensive, is inaccuate in this case.
    – Dilworth
    Commented Dec 21, 2021 at 16:39
  • 2
    Also, when considering deletion of answers, please recognize that this is a question of a clear political and social implication, that is part of a much larger contemporary debate about "inclusivity", "equity", and "diversity" in society and academia. It is evident that deleting solid answers like the one I provided would be perceived as a politically-motivated action by many (whether justified or not), and may harm the perceived neutrality of this website as a whole.
    – Dilworth
    Commented Dec 21, 2021 at 16:43
  • 1
    @Dilworth I think it's important to see the context in which the frame challenge policy was enacted, which is that people with a certain form of question are constantly questioned and asked to defend the existence of their problem by both answers and comments. It's...not very friendly, and it's a really old, exhausting pattern. OP didn't ask to participate in a debate about inclusivity and equity, they asked for a solution to a problem. It's not your place to decide if their problem is a "real problem" or not.
    – Bryan Krause Mod
    Commented Dec 21, 2021 at 16:57
  • 2
    I think you are underestimating the OP in this specific case. They said explicitly that they like the original phrase, and I provided re-assurance to them that they can still use it. I also think that you are ignoring the problem that people can use this "frame challenge policy" to establish any normative statement they wish to, while other users being unable to even challenge it. In the case of a highly debated political subject such as EDI this is quite dangerous and harm the neutrality of this website.
    – Dilworth
    Commented Dec 21, 2021 at 17:04
  • 1
    See for instance a clear frame-challenge here, which is much more relevant to academia. This frame-challenge seems to be accepted at the moment. Should we close this answer base on the policy for "frame-challenge"? academia.stackexchange.com/questions/180379/… It explicitly challenge the premise of the question.
    – Dilworth
    Commented Dec 21, 2021 at 17:09
  • @Dilworth I encourage you to read the policy, as you'll find it does not bar all frame challenges.
    – Bryan Krause Mod
    Commented Dec 21, 2021 at 17:11
  • 2
    @Dilworth "They said explicitly that they like the original phrase, and I provided re-assurance to them that they can still use it": The OP didn't want to be reassured that they can still use it, they want an alternative which your answer didn't provide. And as a challenge of the premise of the question, your answer was too weak to be considered a valid frame challenge.
    – Massimo Ortolano
    Commented Dec 21, 2021 at 17:15
  • @Bryan, thanks. I have now read it quickly, and it seems I was in the acceptable zone of answers (note that the question was closed): "For example, you can write in response to the above assertion: In does not matter for this question, but as I understand it, you misassess the impact of your method. I strongly suggest that you ask on Cryptography SE about this. I think there is a crucial flaw in the your cryptographic reasoning. I would like to discuss it with you in this chatroom."
    – Dilworth
    Commented Dec 21, 2021 at 17:16
  • 1
    @Massimo, I don't deem my frame-challenge as "too weak". E.g., it is a mainstream challenge, and should be respected as a legitimate alternative I believe if we wish to maintain neutrality on political and social contemporary debates.
    – Dilworth
    Commented Dec 21, 2021 at 17:20
  • 2
    @Dilworth "Are you confident that the asker did not already consider your frame challenge?" "Does your frame challenge actually help the asker?" To me, that OP says they like the phrase yet want to find another makes it clear that they have already considered this alternative, and your assertion that they need not find another does not actually help them and does not answer the question they asked. Again, OP is not asking to participate in a "political and social contemporary debate" - they've asked for a more inclusive replacement for a phrase they use.
    – Bryan Krause Mod
    Commented Dec 21, 2021 at 17:22
  • @MassimoOrtolano, "The OP didn't want to be reassured that they can still use it, they want an alternative which your answer didn't provide." --- Since the question was closed as irrelevant to this website, my frame-challenge is acceptable per the policy I believe. I am not in need to provide answers to the closed question.
    – Dilworth
    Commented Dec 21, 2021 at 17:24
  • 1
    Your current line of argument about the question being closed somehow making your answer valid is...well, it's convincing me very quickly that your intent here is primarily to cause trouble and while I've done my best to see your side it is rapidly tiring me of that effort.
    – Bryan Krause Mod
    Commented Dec 21, 2021 at 17:34
  • 1
    @Dilworth The question was closed because it was considered a question about language, and the closure has nothing to do with the premise. And your answer is totally irrelevant for keeping it open or closed.
    – Massimo Ortolano
    Commented Dec 21, 2021 at 17:37
  • 1
    @Dilworth I do not see a place in the policy where "questions deemed not suitable" somehow become acceptable targets for frame-challenge answers. Rather, "questions deemed not suitable" are not to be answered at all. Typically, if you think a question is not suitable, you should vote to close it rather than answer, though there is no ban on doing both.
    – Bryan Krause Mod
    Commented Dec 21, 2021 at 17:41
3

I wasn't involved in moderating this question, but looking at it now, I would emphasize two points.

deleting such answers cause acute harm to the neutrality of the website and to its reputation as providing diversity of viewpoint

You raise a valid concern here. On balance, we try to delete answers only for procedural reasons (most often, "not an answer") rather than substantive reasons. But in some cases, we do have to make difficult calls, as we are bound to enforce the CoC.

they are concerned it is not-inclusive enough. My answer simply expresses ...that this phrase is inclusive enough, and thus provides a legitimate solution

Yes, this is a frame challenge. However, this is a frame challenge about "a (possible) misconception about an off-topic aspect." Our policy therefore states:

Whether such statements are correct is off-topic here. If such an off-topic aspect is central to a question, the question should likely be closed or migrated...If you want to discuss this off-topic material, do it in chat; discussion in the comments or answers will likely be deleted.

So, it seems like our policy was correctly applied.

But beyond the legalism, what are we trying to accomplish with such policies? Mostly, we want to avoid a facile and useless debate. If there is an academic question that launches controversy, then that's great, we are the experts and can handle that controversy, even if many contradictory answers are generated. But if there is a question about language/culture (or any other subject) that launches controversy, then we must have the humility to recognize that (1) such subjects are more complicated than they appear at first glance, and (2) our expertise in certain domains does not make us experts in other domains (see here), and so a debate based on our opinions or first impressions is unlikely to be fruitful.

3
  • Thanks for the thoughtful answer. However, the examples given in the policy clause you mentioned explicitly allow to briefly reframe the question, precisely as I did. Here: "For example, you can write in response to the above assertion: In does not matter for this question, but as I understand it, you misassess the impact of your method. I strongly suggest that you ask on Cryptography SE about this. I think there is a crucial flaw in the your cryptographic reasoning. I would like to discuss it with you in this chatroom."
    – Dilworth
    Commented Dec 22, 2021 at 1:03
  • 3
    The very next sentence in the policy you quote states: "please do not write why you think that the asker’s statement is wrong as this will start a discussion." The second sentence in your answer does exactly this, and indeed started a 24-comment-long discussion. In any case, I think we've both made our positions clear; I don't have much more to add to this discussion.
    – cag51 Mod
    Commented Dec 22, 2021 at 2:02
  • 1
    the examples cited show precisely the opposite though; hence the policy seems to contain contradictory guidance. In any case, I don't have anything else to add myself at the moment.
    – Dilworth
    Commented Dec 22, 2021 at 3:10

You must log in to answer this question.

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