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

Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)

blog.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 295 posts

Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)

#41

Post by epi8 »

nawitus wrote: post #18

I'm against these, because I'm against gender discrimination. Gender discrimination means that one gender is treated differently from another. It's also interesting to know whether transwomen will be allowed. Some radical feminists only accept 'born as women' to their conferences. And if transwomen are accepted, what's their definition of that.

So, I understand your intent, I suppose, but a think a more pragmatic viewpoint could be beneficial. Sure, this conference is aimed at women, but many tech conferences are predominantly aimed at men, simply because that's the largest demographic who attend. This isn't hurting men in any appreciable way, and could encourage more equality later down the road.

> Some radical feminists only accept 'born as women' to their conferences.

This may be true in some rare, extreme cases, but is frankly hard to imagine. Can you cite any sources on this? My experience (though I am neither trans nor a woman) is that people involved in the feminist movement or gender-queer community try to treat a trans person as much as possible as any other person of that gender.

Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)

#42

Post by mtrimpe »

danilocampos wrote: post #28
nawitus wrote: post #18

I'm against these, because I'm against gender discrimination. Gender discrimination means that one gender is treated differently from another. It's also interesting to know whether transwomen will be allowed. Some radical feminists only accept 'born as women' to their conferences. And if transwomen are accepted, what's their definition of that.

> Some radical feminists only accept 'born as women' to their conferences. And if transwomen are accepted, what's their definition of that. Really. That's interesting. I know... a few feminists 'round these parts who might be characterized "radical." Can't think of anyone getting their hate on against trans women. And I don't know why you would raise such a specter of exclusion with no basis.

Feminists fighting against trans women is a fairly well known phenomenon. Feminist and transphobic are hardly mutually exclusive worldviews.

Edit: dug up a few pointer links:

http://www.transadvocate.com/unpacking-transphobia-in-femini...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transphobia#Transphobia_in_fem...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_views_on_transgenderi...

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=transphobia+feminism

Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)

#43

Post by philwelch »

I don't know why people ascribe ideological significance to this kind of thing. Fact is, there are proportionally few female founders, probably even fewer than we would expect even if we expect more men than women to do startups, hence encouraging women in particular to do startups will increase the pool of founders overall (which benefits everyone) with the side benefit of improving YC's portfolio. There is still Startup School.

Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)

#44

Post by epi8 »

loceng wrote: post #32
badman_ting wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Gender discrimination means that one gender is treated differently from another. Yes, it does. Think on that more deeply.

Are you trying to imply two wrongs makes a right?

I don't know about the person to whom you are replying, but in my opinion, in this case, two wrongs make a right, if you can call hosting a conference aimed at an under-represented group a "wrong". Sure, in a perfect world, we wouldn't want or need such conferences, but in this world, we should strive for the best equality we can manage and not limit ourselves by blind idealism.

If in the future, women and men are equally represented in STEM fields, then we can have a discussion about whether such conferences have outlived their purpose. But since that is not the case today, I think that trying to rectify the imbalances in a reasonable, non-confrontational way that doesn't harm anyone is laudable.

Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)

#45

Post by mtrimpe »

badman_ting wrote: post #34
danilocampos wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Some radical feminists only accept 'born as women' to their conferences. And if transwomen are accepted, what's their definition of that. Really. That's interesting. I know... a few feminists 'round these parts who might be characterized "radical." Can't think of anyone getting their hate on against trans women. And I don't know why you would raise such a specter of exclusion with no basis.

I have never heard of such a thing in a conference context, but I have seen it come up in others. And I don't think it's helpful to label such exclusion "hate", as it typically comes from women who feel that self-identifying as female is not sufficient to qualify one to be called a woman. But it's a very complex and interesting issue, not worth bringing up here, as you note. It's brought up here to stir the pot, I se…

I agree that it's largely to stir the pot in this case, but as a gender-dysphoric bisexual male I am curious where the line would be drawn.

I'm fairly sure Jessica will just apply common sense though and would put me somewhere below full (trans-)women but above cisgendered men as far as priority goes, which would make sense.

Not that I'd be able to attend either way though; even though I would very much love to.

Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)

#46

Post by badman_ting »

loceng wrote: post #32
badman_ting wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Gender discrimination means that one gender is treated differently from another. Yes, it does. Think on that more deeply.

Are you trying to imply two wrongs makes a right?

You think this conference is wrong? Why?

Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)

#47

Post by nhangen »

soneca wrote: post #30

I'm assuming some HNers are soon to arrive saying things like "why does it matter that a founder is a female?", "why make an excluding event? isn't it sexism all the same", "imagine if someone make a 'male founders conference'?" I would like to ask you to think for a moment, before raising this concerns (I am not bothering here to debate with haters, only with those who are genuinely concerned that this might sexism…

My only concern with events like this is that males could also learn from female founders advice and experiences. It just seems like a loss to forcefully segregate the audience.

I would love to attend an event that featured a female only stage. It would be a refreshing change from the current conference lineup.

Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)

#48

Post by mantas »

epi8 wrote: post #41
nawitus wrote: post #18

I'm against these, because I'm against gender discrimination. Gender discrimination means that one gender is treated differently from another. It's also interesting to know whether transwomen will be allowed. Some radical feminists only accept 'born as women' to their conferences. And if transwomen are accepted, what's their definition of that.

So, I understand your intent, I suppose, but a think a more pragmatic viewpoint could be beneficial. Sure, this conference is aimed at women, but many tech conferences are predominantly aimed at men, simply because that's the largest demographic who attend. This isn't hurting men in any appreciable way, and could encourage more equality later down the road. > Some radical feminists only accept 'born as women' to thei…

How are many tech conferences "predominantly" aimed at men?By not saying they're specifically for women? So now not mentioning gender is women discrimination? Nice. Go, Equalia!

Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)

#49

Post by unmole »

soneca wrote: post #30

I'm assuming some HNers are soon to arrive saying things like "why does it matter that a founder is a female?", "why make an excluding event? isn't it sexism all the same", "imagine if someone make a 'male founders conference'?" I would like to ask you to think for a moment, before raising this concerns (I am not bothering here to debate with haters, only with those who are genuinely concerned that this might sexism…

This is by far the best comment on gender issues I've ever read!

Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)

#50

Post by danilocampos »

mtrimpe wrote: post #42
danilocampos wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Some radical feminists only accept 'born as women' to their conferences. And if transwomen are accepted, what's their definition of that. Really. That's interesting. I know... a few feminists 'round these parts who might be characterized "radical." Can't think of anyone getting their hate on against trans women. And I don't know why you would raise such a specter of exclusion with no basis.

Feminists fighting against trans women is a fairly well known phenomenon. Feminist and transphobic are hardly mutually exclusive worldviews. Edit: dug up a few pointer links: http://www.transadvocate.com/unpacking-transphobia-in-femini... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transphobia#Transphobia_in_fem... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_views_on_transgenderi... http://lmgtfy.com/?q=transphobia+feminism

While this may be a thing, what I have observed is that those most concerned with feminism in tech offer pretty consistent solidarity with their trans brothers and sisters. I don't believe this was invoked in good faith. Next level concern troll.

Thanks for discussing this issue and offering links, too.

Post reply on HN