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

Dear Stack Exchange, Inc.

dearstackexchange.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 444 posts

Re: Dear Stack Exchange, Inc.

#361

Post by xibalba »

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #261
patmcc wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Singular they" is indeed well used, but it's not normally used when the gender of the person in question is explicitly known. If you use "they" for someone who has specifically said to you "please use the pronouns 'she/her' when referring to me", you are being rude, not neutral.

"Where's Dave?" "They're in the garage, I think" is common to hear, just as "He's in the garage, I think" Many will mix between the "he/she" and "they" in the same conversation. Quite often referring to their closest friends and family rather than pointed attempt to misuse a pronoun.

> "Where's Dave?" > "They're in the garage, I think"

I am born and raised US, have lived all over west coast and midwest, and have traveled extensively throughout all regions of US. I have never heard people use the singular they in this pattern.

Where are you from? Wondering if perhaps it is a regional dialect difference.

Re: Dear Stack Exchange, Inc.

#362

Post by PhasmaFelis »

anon12345690 wrote: post #211
Pfhreak wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not. People are having a hard time adjusting and overreacting. It's only a problem if you using singular they specifically and only for trans folk, ie singling them out.

thats not a problem either. you cant force people to say anything.

You can't "force" people to say things, but it's still a problem when people are deliberately insulting, obviously.

Re: Dear Stack Exchange, Inc.

#363

Post by whamlastxmas »

xibalba wrote: post #5

I suspect that the average user of SE will not care one bit about this whole drama. I do find it frustrating, puzzling, and sad how SE appears to have treated Monica Cellio. She provides an excellent summary (from her perspective) here: https://cellio.dreamwidth.org/2064709.html

Average user here, I completely don't give a shit about any of this. As long as I can google to find answers to my bugs I'm fine.

Re: Dear Stack Exchange, Inc.

#364

Post by josteink »

kevhito wrote: post #165
ShamelessC wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I keep seeing this notion that the singular they is offensive. I thought its whole purpose was to be more inclusive. At what point did it become offensive and why is it considered to be offensive?

I was just recently at a gender-inclusivity seminar. The speaker asked everyone in the room to give their name, but specifically asked for NOT everyone to state their [preferred?] pronouns. Why not? Apparently the speaker is currently in a community were certain transgender members feel quite strongly that stating pronouns is itself problematic and hurtful. For those of us not quite up to date on social movements, an…

> I don't know where that leaves me or my workplace.

It leaves you in a position to call out bullshit where you see it. Just say “no”.

Letting a fascist PC-regime driven by a small but vocal ring of extremists enslave your speech and thought temporarily for “safety” is not a good long term strategy.

Every time you let them get away with one thing, they will always keep pushing for more.

Re: Dear Stack Exchange, Inc.

#365

Post by josteink »

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #362
anon12345690 wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

thats not a problem either. you cant force people to say anything.

You can't "force" people to say things, but it's still a problem when people are deliberately insulting, obviously.

The problem is a very small minority within the trans community assuming everything is a targeted attack when people are actually just acting naturally, living their lives.

Everyone shouldn’t have to adapt to appease the 0.0001% hyper-sensitive. That’s not a reasonable proposition.

Re: Dear Stack Exchange, Inc.

#366

Post by PhasmaFelis »

kevhito wrote: post #165
ShamelessC wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I keep seeing this notion that the singular they is offensive. I thought its whole purpose was to be more inclusive. At what point did it become offensive and why is it considered to be offensive?

I was just recently at a gender-inclusivity seminar. The speaker asked everyone in the room to give their name, but specifically asked for NOT everyone to state their [preferred?] pronouns. Why not? Apparently the speaker is currently in a community were certain transgender members feel quite strongly that stating pronouns is itself problematic and hurtful. For those of us not quite up to date on social movements, an…

It is tricky, yeah. Everyone has their own preferences, and no one set of rules will apply 100% to everyone. And, unfortunately, some people are simply acting in bad faith.

There was a discussion a few days ago about how a few people say that the terms "assigned male/female at birth" should apply only to intersex people and the trans community appropriated them. But if you look into it, you find that the trans community invented those terms, and the people who originated the claim are outspoken transphobes who want to invalidate trans people in any way they can. And there's probably some well-meaning people who were taken by those assholes, unfortunately. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21139083

At the end of the day, all you can do is respect people's individual wishes when they express them, and when they don't, go with the consensus and try to extend the benefit of the doubt. Someone who's been hassled and harassed their whole life is gonna be high-strung about some things; you don't need to agree with them, but give them a little slack when you can.

Edit: I'm curious what their rationale for asking people not to state their pronouns was. I can't think of any way that could benefit anyone. Do you recall what they said exactly?

Re: Dear Stack Exchange, Inc.

#367

Post by PhasmaFelis »

josteink wrote: post #364
kevhito wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was just recently at a gender-inclusivity seminar. The speaker asked everyone in the room to give their name, but specifically asked for NOT everyone to state their [preferred?] pronouns. Why not? Apparently the speaker is currently in a community were certain transgender members feel quite strongly that stating pronouns is itself problematic and hurtful. For those of us not quite up to date on social movements, an…

> I don't know where that leaves me or my workplace. It leaves you in a position to call out bullshit where you see it. Just say “no”. Letting a fascist PC-regime driven by a small but vocal ring of extremists enslave your speech and thought temporarily for “safety” is not a good long term strategy. Every time you let them get away with one thing, they will always keep pushing for more.

Calling people what they want to be called is not "enslaving your speech and thought."

Re: Dear Stack Exchange, Inc.

#368

Post by beerandt »

mcv wrote: post #276
beerandt wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's pronouns. More generally, it's "I expect you to conform with the way I perceive the world, even if it's not the way you perceive it." The entire point of a pronoun is to convey my perceived relation to the noun. We do it all the time with possessives and formalities; if gender is truly a fluid, to-be-perceived, non-biological construct, then why shouldn't we treat it the same way?

I suspect the reason that some people are so insistent on preferred pronouns, is a backlash against people who insist on misgendering them. They've had to fight for every shred of recognition. This could have been a complete non-issue if there hadn't been so much stubborn hate and disrespect towards transgender and non-binary people. A single case of misgendering would be easy to take as an honest mistake if it wasn'…

I get that, and sort of sympathized at one point. But for one thing, if you're not allowed to avoid the controversy except by not speaking at all, then the hands been overplayed.

Personally, I always try to draw the line from a natural rights approach. If one "right" requires the infringement of the rights of someone else, then it's not really a natural right. If your personal belief requires me to have a certain personal belief, it's not a natural-right, it's a form of religious jihad.

People need to realize that if you aren't "normal" in some way (whether it's a personality quirk, weird hobby, odd fetish, or disability, or whatever) that life isn't guaranteed to be easy, and you're going to need to take certain conversations or commentary with a thick skin. (I know "normal" can be a no-no in this topic, but I mean in general terms, which I think is still appropriate for this context.)

And the "coerced" or "forced speech" approach really doesn't make sense in practice if we're strictly looking at self-identity. If it were strictly about self-identity, we'd still say pro-life and pro-choice, instead of pro-woman and anti-abortion. "Racist" would basically be off limits except for the very small number of people that openly embrace it as a badge. Making any assumption about anyone's outward appearance (or any assumption about the underlying motive of anyone's actions) could land you in trouble with the thought police.

People say 1984 and BNW, but I think the whole thing is...it's very Victorian- just with a different set of taboos and standards. Although with the direction me-too is headed, with people being offended (or even feeling harassed or assaulted) just by being asked-out in (what they perceive to be) an offensive manor, we've almost come full circle.

Re: Dear Stack Exchange, Inc.

#369

Post by beerandt »

0-_-0 wrote: post #314
beerandt wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why continue to support stack exchange through this? To exploit the new rules and demand everyone refer to you by your preferred pronoun of "God". If you're into that kind of thing.

"Master" would also work well. Or "Daddy" if you're into that kind of thing. Hmm, I'm starting to actually like this policy...

"Don't confine me within your normative definition of 'pronoun'!"

Re: Dear Stack Exchange, Inc.

#370

Post by beerandt »

bwat49 wrote: post #346
beerandt wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're giving them too much credit. She said she'd prefer not using pronouns at all. They said if she avoids using pronouns, she's just as guilty as using the wrong one. Then they fired/de-moded her based on her stated preference, assuming she would not follow the future rules. They also did this at 6 pm on a Friday. She's Jewish.

> They said if she avoids using pronouns, she's just as guilty as using the wrong one. People that think like this baffle me When I refer to people online, I rarely use 'pronouns'. IMO in online communication, it's most clear/neutral to just refer to people by their name or username, e.g. if I'm referring to you I might just say @beerandt. I can't imagine how that could be seen as offensive in any way

I don't get it either.

I can see a case where trolls could abuse it, but that shouldn't preclude well-intentioned use.

Post reply on HN