Live data from Hacker News

Pushing the whole company into the past on purpose

rachelbythebay.com

131–139 of 139 posts

Re: Pushing the whole company into the past on purpose

#131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So let's test this approach out. In your view, is this man a woman? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lj4V-Nme86U Should he be allowed to whip his dick out in women's bathrooms? If actual women complained about his presence in, say, a support group for mothers, what would you say to them? Should he be allowed to join a women's boxing club and punch women in the face? And so on. I'm sure you get the idea.

> So let's test this approach out. In your view, is this man a woman? She is a trans woman. She is a woman. Within the context of medical access, from what I can gather she has a penis, she has testes, and she doesn't take hormones currently (she might but a comment she made suggests she doesn't). That gender-non-conformance doesn't make her any less of a woman. I'm not sure what your hangup is with respect to her? S…

[flagged]

Re: Pushing the whole company into the past on purpose

#132
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A functioning government is not possible as long as money is speech, corporations are people, etc. That directly translates to government by the wealthiest people.

I've noticed a distinct trend in the last month where even the most casual mention of the oligarchy attracts a bunch of downvotes. I'm trying to decide if this is an indication that some cohort of users here are deeply and passionately delusional about the political state of play, or merely uncomfortable about having it pointed out.

I mean, we're on a site that revolves largely around the Silicon Valley VC world. There've always been ultracapitalist types here who treat oligarchy as aspirational.

If anything, I'd say that's become less prominent in recent years as the consequences of that mindset have been playing out around us.

Re: Pushing the whole company into the past on purpose

#133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So let's test this approach out. In your view, is this man a woman? She is a trans woman. She is a woman. Within the context of medical access, from what I can gather she has a penis, she has testes, and she doesn't take hormones currently (she might but a comment she made suggests she doesn't). That gender-non-conformance doesn't make her any less of a woman. I'm not sure what your hangup is with respect to her? S…

[flagged]

> No, he's a man who calls himself a woman. Anyone with eyes can see that, he is very clearly male.

That's just not true. What even makes you think that? Facial hair is not uncommon in women, deep voices are not uncommon in women, and sharper facial features are not uncommon in women. I'm not sure what you think is so "clearly male" about her but those were the only traditionally masculine features I could think of.

> What do you mean? Is your view of women really so shallow and sexist that you when you see a man wearing a skirt, you truly believe that he's a woman?

There's no reason to be impolite. Wearing feminine clothing is not a requirement to be a woman. Nothing about being a woman requires wearing feminine clothing. Even if she was wearing purely masculine clothing she'd still be a woman.

> Well he can't possibly be a mother, due to being a man

She could absolutely be a mother, she just may not be the birthing parent. In the exact same way a cis woman can be a mother to a child even if they weren't the one to give birth to them. And likewise a father can be the birthing parent. You see this commonly with trans men for example.

> and if you said that to women who complained about his presence they'd assume you were taking the piss.

People can complain about a person's presence all they want. It doesn't make them any less of a mother and it doesn't make it any less acceptable for them to be present. If they have a valid complaint then there can be a discussion but "they look wrong" or "I don't believe they are who they say they are" aren't valid complaints.

And I'm not sure how you think these types of discriminatory complaints are acceptable? Discrimination being acceptable against trans women doesn't just hurt them, it hurts cis women as well. Especially gender non-conforming women.

How do you think a new mother feels when people try to falsely accuse her of being a man when she's just trying to discuss her experiences and learn how to be a new parent? Who does that benefit?

My stance here is not complicated. You treat people with respect, you limit your assumptions, and if something isn't clear you politely ask. And for the love of god you don't needlessly exclude people. If the fear is that a group or minority will commit some crime or transgression, then you punish people for committing the crime or transgression. You don't punish people for being suspected of being part of a group/minority you are afraid might commit a transgression.

Re: Pushing the whole company into the past on purpose

#134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

pregnancy is certainly a condition, though to call it an illness wouldnt be appropriate. Additional care should be provided to pregnant mothers from any human organization of any variety that hopes to continue existing. He doesnt need credentials. No one needs credentials to be correct, their statements should be evaluated on their merits alone. Credentialism is a choking ideology, leading to higher prices and possib…

Gender dysphoria is also a condition, not an illness. Having studied or lived through something makes you far more likely to be correct than simply thinking about it with your giant brain. You don't need them to be correct, but they really help.

Perhaps a more apt diagnosis for most patients would be autogynophilia though.

Re: Pushing the whole company into the past on purpose

#135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet the twitter files shows an interesting case, what you posit as the platform executing their own will (their platform), was in fact heavily influenced by government threats of removal of section 230 protections. Platforms should be free from undemocratic, top down influence from our highest officials, surely you would agree? That would skew platforms far to the right from their current (2020-2024) political le…

have you actually read the twitter files? doubt that you did and also wrote this comment. you can also just read the above-the-fold part of the link you provided ... :)

Here is a better link, woth direct quotes of the source material, that back up my claim. An editorialized wikipedia article written by people who do not want the story to be true was not a good choice on my part. My apologies. I'd also suggest listening to Mark Zuckerberg's appearance on JRE if you want to get info from the horse's mouth so to speak.

[1] https://twitterfiles.substack.com/p/1-thread-the-twitter-fil...

Re: Pushing the whole company into the past on purpose

#136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

have you actually read the twitter files? doubt that you did and also wrote this comment. you can also just read the above-the-fold part of the link you provided ... :)

Here is a better link, woth direct quotes of the source material, that back up my claim. An editorialized wikipedia article written by people who do not want the story to be true was not a good choice on my part. My apologies. I'd also suggest listening to Mark Zuckerberg's appearance on JRE if you want to get info from the horse's mouth so to speak. [1] https://twitterfiles.substack.com/p/1-thread-the-twitter-fil...

Mark Zuckerberg made big claims but unfortunately he didn't provide proof, no trails of relevant threats. He blamed left for his own communication during covid but at that time Trump was at the Whitehouse. That sudden change from Zuckerberg may not be entirely motivated by genuine freedom of speech support.

Re: Pushing the whole company into the past on purpose

#137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> No, he's a man who calls himself a woman. Anyone with eyes can see that, he is very clearly male. That's just not true. What even makes you think that? Facial hair is not uncommon in women, deep voices are not uncommon in women, and sharper facial features are not uncommon in women. I'm not sure what you think is so "clearly male" about her but those were the only traditionally masculine features I could think of.…

> That's just not true. What even makes you think that?

Well, apart from the fact that he very obviously has a male body, the video title itself indicates this.

> There's no reason to be impolite. Wearing feminine clothing is not a requirement to be a woman.

Then why did you say that he "very clearly presents" himself "as a woman"? What exactly were you basing that on?

It's very clear that he presents himself as a man who calls himself a woman.

> And for the love of god you don't needlessly exclude people.

Agreed. Excluding men like this from women's and girls' spaces is absolutely needed to ensure that they still remain women's and girls' spaces.

The problem is that far too many of these men have no respect for boundaries, and will turn up to venues like support groups for mothers and demand entry.

Re: Pushing the whole company into the past on purpose

#138
post #67
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I think singleshot_ is saying the slurs do not make sense but drewbug01's explanation of the article's meaning is clear

Hi @lgats I would really like to speak to you about fccid.io. Could you DM me?

Re: Pushing the whole company into the past on purpose

#139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gender dysphoria is also a condition, not an illness. Having studied or lived through something makes you far more likely to be correct than simply thinking about it with your giant brain. You don't need them to be correct, but they really help.

Perhaps a more apt diagnosis for most patients would be autogynophilia though.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN