Cameras and Lenses • Hacker News Board

Re: Cameras and Lenses

#201

Post by HexagonalKitten » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 3:27 AM UTC

antonfire wrote: post #190

antonfire wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What people who harp on pronouns... Mental breakdowns over pronouns... pronoun police To my eyes, in this thread, the person who is harping on pronouns the most, seems to be closest to having a mental breakdown over them, who can most accurately be described as "pronoun police", and who shows the greatest explicit tendency to control others' use of pronouns, is also the person who in the first place corrected an in…

Oh, also, regarding > What people who harp on pronouns miss is that pronouns are not used to refer to someone's gender but their sex. I can see your sexual characteristics from across the room, and referring to them is a good way to narrow down who I'm talking about. The thing you see about someone when you look at them from across the room isn't their biological sex, if anything it's their gender presentation. This…

You seem like you intend to be helpful, but I don't think you're as surrounded by these politics, or the disingenuous arguments, as I am. imho, Contrapoints is a homophobic monster who supports shaming people with "genital preferences" (ie, gays and lesbians.) If you want a sane person who just happens to be trans, try Rose of Dawn. They're honest and sincere. Bair White is also reasonable, and often gets threats and hate from the community for being unwilling to join in the nonsense.

Ultimately the rift comes down to lying. Do we have to deny truth to be kind? I say no, and I'll leave this rough paraphrasing of Blair. "Am I male, yes. Of course. I'm a transwoman and I wouldn't be trans if I already was female. Do I wish I wasn't, yes. But am I offended, no?"

As for Contrapoint's "seeing gender", that's just simply not the case. For one thing, I grew up when boys were allowed to like pink, so most of people's signifiers don't stand out to me.

I'm super behind being sensitive, but if you're six inches taller than the others, have a beard, or breasts, etc, those are sex linked traits. Not size entirely of course, but often enough that the 10% male is larger than the 90% female. It's gaslighting to assume we can't differentiate between the sexes.

Re: Cameras and Lenses

#202

Post by HexagonalKitten » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 3:36 AM UTC

antonfire wrote: post #192

kepler1 wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Never in my comments have I displayed anger, irrationality, or a desire to dictate that others have to use certain language. It must be easy just to think I'm some fringe element going nutso like some Trump supporter living in Florida. I'm far from that. Go ahead, treat all arguments with anyone you disagree with that way. You may feel right, but it's not right, and the more you dismiss someone based on that the wors…

> or a desire to dictate that others have to use certain language. As far as I can tell, the content of your first comment in this thread was > The site is the work of a guy, "him", and "his" work. We don't have to guess and say "them" and "their" work. This, to me, indicates that you want the previous person to say "him" and "his" where they said "them" and "their". Even in this post you're displaying a negative opi…

It's supposedly the assumption that matters. I read it that Kepler was bothered by the rudeness to most people, assuming neutered pronouns for everyone, for the hypothetical sake of the 1%. (Note, the 1% are not here asking for this of course, because they don't want to be associated with these behaviors.)

Rules for thee, and not me. That's bad enough, but when someone is speaking for an entire population and using language like hate and shame they aren't helping anyone.

Re: Cameras and Lenses

#203

Post by antonfire » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 3:48 AM UTC

HexagonalKitten wrote: post #200

antonfire wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What people who harp on pronouns... Mental breakdowns over pronouns... pronoun police To my eyes, in this thread, the person who is harping on pronouns the most, seems to be closest to having a mental breakdown over them, who can most accurately be described as "pronoun police", and who shows the greatest explicit tendency to control others' use of pronouns, is also the person who in the first place corrected an in…

> If you're open to a real example, the "pronoun police" at my workplace suggest that when writing about hiring candidates, we use singular "they" instead of "he" or "she", in order not to call too much attention to the gender of that person when those evaluations are read by decision makers. The intent is to reduce any possible gender bias in hiring. I am, and I like that. Like the example of hiring musicians after…

FWIW, I agree with you that "it seems like you dislike trans folk" isn't a good place to go, for a number of reasons. For one, it's a tactical mistake to pull out that kind of accusation if you want someone to listen to you. For another, it's probably too reductive to be accurate. I'm not going to defend the hill of "SJWs aren't bullies" or even "the person you're calling an SJW here wasn't being a bully".

But I also think if you look past that and strip the junk away, there's a kernel of truth to it which is worth keeping.

Namely, the pushback against singular "they" here is grounded as pushback against some perceived nominally-pro-trans movement. (That's what "1% of the population" refers to, yeah?) A good chunk of the criticism presented is criticism of the kind of people who call for singular "they" and not actually criticism of singular "they". It's not just about the grammar, and probably wasn't in the first place, as evidenced by the fact that we're talking about trans people now somehow.

If you're willing to toss "SJW" and "bully" around, I think it's not out of line for me to scrunch up my nose and throw out a "reactionary" when I see that.

Re: Cameras and Lenses

#204

Post by sohkamyung » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 3:54 AM UTC

sohkamyung wrote: post #61

The website sliders don't work well with a touch interface. If I use a mouse, I can smoothly move the slider values. But attempting to tap and slide them either has no response or makes the slide move to the extreme left or right. I'm using Firefox (Nightly) on a Windows 10 tablet (Microsoft Surface Go).

I did some more testing and I think it's due to how Windows interact with the website slider.

I've tried with Chrome on Windows 10 and find that the slider works but only if I touch on the line the slider is sitting on to set a value. Attempting to tap on the round circle and pulling it to slide does not work.

I tried again on Firefox and if I very carefully tap on the line, I can set the slider. But touching the circle and sliding does not work. So, Firefox is more sensitive than Chrome when it comes to determining whether I am touching the line or not.

I presume this is due to how Windows interprets touch events and passes them on to the browser, making the sliders hard to work with in my case.

Re: Cameras and Lenses

#205

Post by antonfire » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 3:56 AM UTC

HexagonalKitten wrote: post #202

antonfire wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> or a desire to dictate that others have to use certain language. As far as I can tell, the content of your first comment in this thread was > The site is the work of a guy, "him", and "his" work. We don't have to guess and say "them" and "their" work. This, to me, indicates that you want the previous person to say "him" and "his" where they said "them" and "their". Even in this post you're displaying a negative opi…

It's supposedly the assumption that matters. I read it that Kepler was bothered by the rudeness to most people, assuming neutered pronouns for everyone, for the hypothetical sake of the 1%. (Note, the 1% are not here asking for this of course, because they don't want to be associated with these behaviors.) Rules for thee, and not me. That's bad enough, but when someone is speaking for an entire population and using l…

What set of rules are you actually picturing that you think echelon has that they're not applying to themselves?

As far as I can tell, the rules they're suggesting for singular "they" is that "they/them" can always refer to anybody in the singular, irrespective of their gender. (Maybe unless the person you're referring to indicates a preference otherwise.)

Like, maybe this is inconsistent with some set of standard SJW rules that you have in mind. But even if so, I don't see any reason in this conversation to assume that the person you're criticizing is attached to that standard set. (I also don't think there is a standard set at this point.)

Re: Cameras and Lenses

#206

Post by antonfire » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 4:01 AM UTC

HexagonalKitten wrote: post #201

antonfire wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, also, regarding > What people who harp on pronouns miss is that pronouns are not used to refer to someone's gender but their sex. I can see your sexual characteristics from across the room, and referring to them is a good way to narrow down who I'm talking about. The thing you see about someone when you look at them from across the room isn't their biological sex, if anything it's their gender presentation. This…

You seem like you intend to be helpful, but I don't think you're as surrounded by these politics, or the disingenuous arguments, as I am. imho, Contrapoints is a homophobic monster who supports shaming people with "genital preferences" (ie, gays and lesbians.) If you want a sane person who just happens to be trans, try Rose of Dawn. They're honest and sincere. Bair White is also reasonable, and often gets threats and…

> Contrapoints is a homophobic monster who supports shaming people with "genital preferences"

Jesus, what was the phrase you used? "Straight to ideological slander"?

> I'm super behind being sensitive, but if you're six inches taller than the others, have a beard, or breasts, etc, those are sex linked traits.

So if you were talking to me and saw someone who looks like Blair White across the room, and wanted to single that person out, do you think you'd spot that person's biological sex and say "him over there" to me rather than "her over there"?

Re: Cameras and Lenses

#207

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 6:38 AM UTC

antonfire wrote: post #206

HexagonalKitten wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem like you intend to be helpful, but I don't think you're as surrounded by these politics, or the disingenuous arguments, as I am. imho, Contrapoints is a homophobic monster who supports shaming people with "genital preferences" (ie, gays and lesbians.) If you want a sane person who just happens to be trans, try Rose of Dawn. They're honest and sincere. Bair White is also reasonable, and often gets threats and…

> Contrapoints is a homophobic monster who supports shaming people with "genital preferences" Jesus, what was the phrase you used? "Straight to ideological slander"? > I'm super behind being sensitive, but if you're six inches taller than the others, have a beard, or breasts, etc, those are sex linked traits. So if you were talking to me and saw someone who looks like Blair White across the room, and wanted to single…

[deleted]

Re: Cameras and Lenses

#208

Post by HexagonalKitten » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 6:45 AM UTC

antonfire wrote: post #206

HexagonalKitten wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem like you intend to be helpful, but I don't think you're as surrounded by these politics, or the disingenuous arguments, as I am. imho, Contrapoints is a homophobic monster who supports shaming people with "genital preferences" (ie, gays and lesbians.) If you want a sane person who just happens to be trans, try Rose of Dawn. They're honest and sincere. Bair White is also reasonable, and often gets threats and…

> Contrapoints is a homophobic monster who supports shaming people with "genital preferences" Jesus, what was the phrase you used? "Straight to ideological slander"? > I'm super behind being sensitive, but if you're six inches taller than the others, have a beard, or breasts, etc, those are sex linked traits. So if you were talking to me and saw someone who looks like Blair White across the room, and wanted to single…

It's not straight anywhere though. It came over years of watching CP defend literal incel terrorists beating up lesbians who refuse to have sex with them, while gaslighting the victims and defending the attacks. CP didn't coin "Cotton Ceiling" but they sure go on about it. If kinkshaming is bad, what is it to personally shame lesbians who reject men?

And I didn't lead with it, I used it to explain why I found your reference to be less than compelling.

> So if you were talking to me and saw someone who looks like Blair White across the room, and wanted to single that person out, do you think you'd spot that person's biological sex and say "him over there" to me rather than "her over there"?

You and I are already talking about Blair so I'd say 'He'. But If I thought it might be ambiguous I wouldn't use either. Like I wouldn't use a shirt-color if I couldn't see it clearly, or thought that you couldn't.

And I won't use people's chosen pronouns but I don't pick fights either so I'd sidestep the issue in their home or at their event.

But if you mean, would I spot Blair if I didn't know them? Ehh, I dunno.

Do you think this means I'm reading their gender expression? Doesn't that implicitly assume that there are only two gender expressions then, such that I'm being fooled into seeing the other one? This whole angle feels like it'd be labelled regressive, and it brings up the question of how one would be expected to recognize 'Moon Gender' at all.

It feels like it'd be simpler to just say that I would be mistaken about their sex.

Re: Cameras and Lenses

#209

Post by antonfire » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 7:54 AM UTC

HexagonalKitten wrote: post #208

antonfire wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Contrapoints is a homophobic monster who supports shaming people with "genital preferences" Jesus, what was the phrase you used? "Straight to ideological slander"? > I'm super behind being sensitive, but if you're six inches taller than the others, have a beard, or breasts, etc, those are sex linked traits. So if you were talking to me and saw someone who looks like Blair White across the room, and wanted to single…

It's not straight anywhere though. It came over years of watching CP defend literal incel terrorists beating up lesbians who refuse to have sex with them, while gaslighting the victims and defending the attacks. CP didn't coin "Cotton Ceiling" but they sure go on about it. If kinkshaming is bad, what is it to personally shame lesbians who reject men? And I didn't lead with it, I used it to explain why I found your re…

Alright, I'm pretty burned out on this conversation so this is gonna be my last post. It's been distracting me and I want my real life back. I'll just try to wrap up the bits I find interesting.

> But if you mean, would I spot Blair if I didn't know them?

That's more or less what I mean, but also, would you, on top of that, expect me to spot the same thing?

> Do you think this means I'm reading their gender expression?

I don't think that logically follows, and I certainly don't think I'm going to convince you of that.

I think I have a chance of convincing you that the argument you gave in the paragraph starting with "What people who harp on pronouns miss is" in the comment at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25379317 is a bad argument for the claim that pronouns (should?) refer to biological sex rather than gender. So I'm shooting for that. (But not for convincing you that the conclusion is wrong.)

I think the Blaire White across a room scenario suggests that pronouns are more useful in a referential sense if they're used in a way that aligns with gender presentation (assuming a person's gender presentation falls neatly into male or female) than if they're used in a way that aligns with biological sex, in the case where those things differ. So if you're really just optimizing for referential usefulness when you're using "he" and "she", I don't think "biological sex" is where you're going to land. I think you're going to land closer to "gender", and even closer to "gender presentation". These things align for most people, so usually it doesn't matter, but in the cases where it matters I expect "biological sex" to be less referentially useful pretty often.

I also don't think the Blaire White scenario is unusual. I know a handful of trans people in person, and the same applies to them, i.e. if you were to point someone who looks like one of them out of a room and use a pronoun to help me know which person you're talking about, the pronoun that matches their gender identity would do a better job than the pronoun that matches their biological sex.

I also don't think it's just me, i.e. I don't think most people are much more prone to 'seeing' someone's true biological sex in this kind of scenario than I am.

> Doesn't that implicitly assume that there are only two gender expressions then?

Sort of. I think "that thing that you see and also expect me to see that makes you choose which of 'he' or 'she' you would use if you want to be referentially useful when pointing out a person across the room" doesn't quite capture what "gender presentation" is either. (Hence the hedge with "if anything" in my earlier comment.) I just think that thing lines up with "gender presentation" a lot better than it lines up with "biological sex" in the cases where those differ.

> It brings up the question of how one would be expected to recognize 'Moon Gender' at all.

Taking it seriously, in real life, for people with Moon Gender (or whatever outside-the-binary gender identity you want to substitute)? I don't think one is expected to just recognize it based on presentation. Hence, the practice of being explicit about preferred pronouns in circles that care about about this.

Re: Cameras and Lenses

#210

Post by HexagonalKitten » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 9:40 AM UTC

antonfire wrote: post #209

HexagonalKitten wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not straight anywhere though. It came over years of watching CP defend literal incel terrorists beating up lesbians who refuse to have sex with them, while gaslighting the victims and defending the attacks. CP didn't coin "Cotton Ceiling" but they sure go on about it. If kinkshaming is bad, what is it to personally shame lesbians who reject men? And I didn't lead with it, I used it to explain why I found your re…

Alright, I'm pretty burned out on this conversation so this is gonna be my last post. It's been distracting me and I want my real life back. I'll just try to wrap up the bits I find interesting. > But if you mean, would I spot Blair if I didn't know them? That's more or less what I mean, but also, would you, on top of that, expect me to spot the same thing? > Do you think this means I'm reading their gender expressio…

> I think the Blaire White across a room scenario suggests that pronouns are more useful in a referential sense if they're used in a way that aligns with gender presentation

I think we should have defined what we think of as gender expression. I think it's stuff like affectations, hair styles, makeup, "gendered" clothing (dresses), etc.

Harry Styles wore a dress recently to much acclaim. He was lauded for expanding the male repertoire.

> I also don't think it's just me, i.e. I don't think most people are much more prone to 'seeing' someone's true biological sex in this kind of scenario than I am.

I saw a man, in a dress. And I think that's what everyone saw.

The difference between Harry and a transwoman is - intent, which is invisible. I only know Harry isn't trans because the article told me.

> I just think that thing lines up with "gender presentation" a lot better than it lines up with "biological sex" in the cases where those differ.

I would have agreed. Ten years ago nobody was going out of their way to queer everything. If a man wore a dress they either lost a bet or wanted to be seen as female. But now, in a world where nothing signifies sex, how can I read your gender expression?

But now a dress isn't part of gender expression anymore and is simply a garment. I guess we're expected to just move the bar and say that because Harry wasn't wearing a dress and lipstick he's a guy not a transwomen but that feels fleeting.

> I don't think one is expected to just recognize [Moon Gender] based on presentation. Hence, the practice of being explicit about preferred pronouns in circles that care about about this.

But that makes a mockery of the entire idea of gender expression. Now it's just people demanding special labels again.

The whole ideology is pushed as a unit and lives and dies as a unit. Either gender expression is a thing, and there are a finite but large set of them, and sex doesn't exist as a binary, and trans babies are real, etc, or it's not.