This just showed up to me, so I apologize for voicing this late. Had I been aware of this post or response before, I may have issued it privately. But for the sake of those who aren't willing to share their opinions because of my forementioned take on this, I will do it publicly.
The education bit as to why it is a problem is greatly appreciated (I did know a good amount of this before, but hearing even more info on it is good to know) and I think that even those members of the community who voiced frustration initially can at least understand why it may affect a decent amount of trans individuals. And if they're a decent human being, they'll use that knowledge and avoid any issues in the future.
While I understand why it is offensive to deadname and wouldn't do it myself, I feel like your response, while it acknowledges the issue at hand doesn't actually take accountability. The education bit here is what is important for preventative measures moving forward, but to reduce the reaction from staff into two or three sentences does not fully show what the problem here is.
I also believe that staff has a clear mischaracterization at the attempted effort to explain this situation by that person. That does not greenlight them to do or say whatever they want with information that may be harmful, however it could have been discussed with said person in private or at least give a reason without sending a demanding and potentially hostile message publicly.
The problem from the subset of community member's who are upset with Donut Team isn't that they think deadnaming is okay, rather its that reaction from staff has been subpar for a long time. I can even take accountability for my part in that as well during my tenure.
This is what needs to be improved on from DT's side and does not reflect my opinion on the situation at hand, but the greater community's opinion on all moderation dealings.
Without actually going into the situation, I feel like this response is more aiming to educate the issue rather than accept any responsibility for the issue growing more out of control. That includes the fact that someone in staff notified the person being discussed and they joined and escalated the issue.
Not every staff member did wrong. I've read the messages about a 100 times and I've talked with many people involved and not involved in this situation. I understand the knee-jerk reaction, and if there's any irony in that, its because I, myself, have many knee-jerk reactions.
The world is changing, these things weren't something we talked about 10-20 years ago. And even now there's a debate on whether we can use things for historical purposes or not. If you head over to Caitlyn Jenner's wikipedia page, you can see this debated and if you dig into Wikipedia's manual, you can see this discussed further
I have a feeling this response will get me into hotwater, but I felt like voicing this was important. This isn't to say I completely disagree with you or anyone else. Everyone needs to do better.
: Oh wow, what a surprise. Being downvoted for sharing a differing opinion on the matter. I've made it very clear the community members involved were wrong for its part and so were the staff. Bite my ass with your inclusivity bulls***.
By simply downvoting my message of basically saying that both sides of the coin need to be fixed, you ultimately sit an echo chamber where you think everything is alright. The fact is, a large amount of people disagree with how staff handled this situation, among others.