More like it might discourage participation from people who very much resent the fact that they can't exert control over the speech or thoughts of others. And also people who like to make mountains of molehills.

Presumably this refers to his peculiar set of neologisms (“per” and “pers”) as a gender-neutral pronouns.[1]

Stallman is an extremely stubborn language hyper-pedantic with some fairly unconventional views and usages on any issue, not just this one. And he has 20 years of documented support for trans people. So with that context in mind, I think it makes sense to take it in good faith.

To say I find his position on this peculiar would be an understatement. But I find that on many of Stallman's positions on similar topics wrt. language. Either way, I'm reasonably confident it's not intended as a cover for transphobic bullying or the like, even though it may appear like that at a glance.

[1]: https://stallman.org/articles/genderless-pronouns.html

I'm trans and the GNU Communication Guidelines feel way more empathetic to me than CoC-like documents.

> gives cover for transphobes to intentionally misgender trans people

It also gives cover to people who prefer to always use gender neutral pronouns. If a transphobe is acting on their views on gender to bully people, I'd rather deal with them on a case-by-base basis, while being empathetic to everyone else who might have meant to harm.

BTW, I've met RMS in person a few years ago, and exchange emails with him every once in a while. I've found him to be very fun, and not hard to deal with if you're used to hanging out with neurodivergent people.

I've also seen attempts at using someones mistake with misgendering someone on accident be used to start what amounts to a witchhunt in various private communities. So I really don't like it when a CoC assumed maliciousness by default, which a lot of them are.

I am no longer part of most of those communities, for both related and unrelated reasons.

ITYM "meant _no_ harm"

you're correct, my bad. :)