Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An Update to Our Community and an Apology

meta.stackexchange.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 424 posts

Re: An Update to Our Community and an Apology

#351

Post by humanrebar »

henrikschroder wrote: post #314
humanrebar wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...if someone has an onerous or complicated preferred pronoun, that person is rude and can't expect others to comply or remember. To the extent that there is any controversy here, it's in this guideline. I'd just soften 'rude' to unreasonable. 1. I have not seen any code of conduct make room for this scenario. It's taken as a given that pronoun preferences are reasonable. 2. Some people think singular 'they' and 't…

> To the extent that there is any controversy here, it's in this guideline. I'd just soften 'rude' to unreasonable. Yes. There's a lot of grey area here. I personally don't think it's unreasonable to ask people to use 'he', 'she', or 'they' regardless of how someone presents themselves. And I do think it's unreasonable to ask people to use 'xe' and 'hir' except every odd Tuesday when it's 'xim' and 'phe'. At least re…

Who says, "No, you're Kenny." in the context of an online community: moderated conduct, etc.?

And what if someone wants to go by "The Sampsons" for personal reasons? There's not a precise analogy here, but people infer plurality from 'they' and not 'John'.

Re: An Update to Our Community and an Apology

#352

Post by michannne »

mthoms wrote: post #312
michannne wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But I do know that knowingly and actively hurting people "because society does it too" when you could trivially avoid it is reprehensible My argument isn't "do it because society does it too", it's we already have systems in place to give people the therapeutic treatment they need to get past issues like this, which are issues, because it is unfeasible to expect society to shape itself around coddling that person's…

> it is unfeasible to expect society to shape itself around coddling that person's beliefs What indication do you have that a majority of the "society" in question (Stack Overflow) has a problem with addressing people in the manner they prefer? In other words, have you considered the possibility that you are the one with an opinion or belief that runs contrary to what this "society" expects of its members? If so, are…

Judging from the overwhelming negative response to what SO did, I'm confident that I am not the one with the controversial beliefs.

Re: An Update to Our Community and an Apology

#353

Post by otterley »

wincy wrote: post #287
otterley wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don’t need a reason to kick someone out of your house.

Absolutely, but then everyone can leave and call you a jerk for doing it. Actions have consequences and taking them unilaterally in a community might not go how you want it to.

I have a feeling, based on prior experience, that that is unlikely to be the consequence here.

Re: An Update to Our Community and an Apology

#354

Post by solinent »

TheAdamAndChe wrote: post #344
solinent wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If non-binary people want a world which exclusively genders them (exclusive of man/woman) they have to pick their own word and stick to it. Adopting an existing gender-neutral pronoun doesn't work for anybody since they might mean cis-gendered people. So I find it difficult referring to a non-binary person in singular or in particular. I usually just say "non-binary" or trans when it's important, typically only using…

Gender neutral does not imply cis-gendered.

It means both, cis-gendered and not. If you look at "her" for example, it just means cis-gendered females or anyone who identifies as a female.

If, during conversation, we wanted to specify through a pronoun what gender a person was, there is no way to do it purely with pronouns anymore, since non-cisgendered people will sometimes use "they" so to distinguish between cis and non-cis you need to explicitly state it. Or even to specify the plurality of a group of non-gendered people you have to explicitly state it. Which is not typical english.

Re: An Update to Our Community and an Apology

#355

Post by TheAdamAndChe »

solinent wrote: post #354
TheAdamAndChe wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gender neutral does not imply cis-gendered.

It means both, cis-gendered and not. If you look at "her" for example, it just means cis-gendered females or anyone who identifies as a female. If, during conversation, we wanted to specify through a pronoun what gender a person was, there is no way to do it purely with pronouns anymore, since non-cisgendered people will sometimes use "they" so to distinguish between cis and non-cis you need to explicitly state it. O…

I think what is confusing me about this is the need for categorization of something that by definition does not have a categorization (non-binary). Why would a new set of pronouns be needed to categorize such a non-homogeneous group when neutrality already captures everyone between the normal binary categorizations?

Re: An Update to Our Community and an Apology

#356

Post by damnyou »

humanrebar wrote: post #262
damnyou wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do any of your friends use they/them pronouns? Most people get used to them with a tiny bit of practice. I've seen Italian, Mandarin, Spanish and Hindi native speakers use them fluently.

"Why are half the rations gone!?" - Inigo "They said they were hungry." - Vezzini Ambiguity: Is one person eating too much or did many people get impatient (maybe fine depending)? It's not just a matter of becoming accustomed. It's definitely more ambiguous. The only way to clear that pickle up is to get used to clarifying questions as appropriate. Or maybe a "they all" will emerge parallel to "you all", but that sor…

I understand what you're saying but it's seriously not a huge problem — usually there's context to figure out what a sentence means.

Re: An Update to Our Community and an Apology

#357

Post by damnyou »

tmp20191006cars wrote: post #327
damnyou wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The goal should be to shift the overton window towards greater justice, not simply broaden it. Yes, a view that all Christians are mentally ill has no place in workplaces either. This does not mean that you cannot privately hold such views, but that you should not act in the workplace in ways that show you hold those views (so you should not misgender a trans person, for example).

My mother is in her 70s. She won't willingly knowingly recognize a trans person to be of the "gender" they claim, because she honestly believes deep in her mind that doing so is a sin against God and man, and she would be forfeiting her place in heaven. She wouldn't hurt a fly but she's between a rock and a hard place. The only emotion she ever expresses is guilt. I think she is delusional (mentally ill) and I blame…

Your premise is wrong. A pronoun is not "silly" to a trans person! If your mother was misgendering a dog that would be one thing, but it's a person we're taking about here. A human being. Your mother does not simply get to hurt other people's feelings because of her religion.

It is still inappropriate to call all Christians mentally ill. I know plenty of Christians who have no trouble treating trans people with all the respect they deserve.

Re: An Update to Our Community and an Apology

#358

Post by groby_b »

mthoms wrote: post #315
brankoB wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you seriously equating misgendering someone with killing them?

The poster was likely referring to the astronomical rates of suicide among trans people. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/09/1... Obviously, misgendering someone is not likely to be the thing that triggers such an act. But it is part of a pattern of bullying and general disregard that transgendered people face every single day.

Well, that, and there's an orders-of-magnitude difference in homicides between trans and cis people. (And, of course, it's worst for young, black women). Being openly labelled as transgender significantly increases your risk of being assaulted.

That's why misgendering is so insidious - it's stochastic terrorism. The person doing the misgendering can claim that they never meant any violence, but they're still increasing the chance of violence.

Re: An Update to Our Community and an Apology

#359

Post by fatbird »

claudiawerner wrote: post #337
atq2119 wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pronouns are different from names because there is a very strong correlation between pronouns and certain physical aspects of people.[0] What is being asked of people in the gendering debate is to go against this correlation sometimes. Our minds are built on pattern matching and working with such correlations, so it really shouldn't be a surprise that asking people to go against it is going to tick some of them off:…

In civil society we forgo our intuitions all the time - our moral intuitions are frequently superseded by law, our intuitions about what atoms look like are superseded by a university Physics course, etc. - but your response I see repeatedly, you don't say we should give into intuition, you say that some people would be "ticked off" by being asked to do something against intuition. Part of the movement to get people…

This shouldn't be downvoted; it's a very good point addressing a basic problem with the "call 'em as I see 'em" side of the argument.

Re: An Update to Our Community and an Apology

#360

Post by mthoms »

michannne wrote: post #352
mthoms wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it is unfeasible to expect society to shape itself around coddling that person's beliefs What indication do you have that a majority of the "society" in question (Stack Overflow) has a problem with addressing people in the manner they prefer? In other words, have you considered the possibility that you are the one with an opinion or belief that runs contrary to what this "society" expects of its members? If so, are…

Judging from the overwhelming negative response to what SO did, I'm confident that I am not the one with the controversial beliefs.

You're seeing what you want to see. The controversy has little to do with that. How SO treated the moderator and handled the issue publicly is what's raising flags.

You know, it's possible to support the pronoun policy while still being against how the moderator was treated.

It seems to be an opportunistic vocal minority that is trying to make this political.

Post reply on HN