Lawyer lawyer lawyer LAWYER lawyer LAWYER • Hacker News Board

Re: Lawyer lawyer lawyer LAWYER lawyer LAWYER

#81

Post by peterwwillis » Wed, May 11, 2016, 3:44 PM UTC

busterarm wrote: post #71

pc86 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't consider myself a feminist by any stretch, and I'm a pretty conservative person generally (certainly more conservative than most of HN). But Jesus Christ, the definition of "guy" is literally "a man." Let's not start this "I didn't mean the actual definition of the word when I said it" trope. And I didn't say gender had anything to do with harassment. We're discussing the article, which happens to be written…

Absolutely incorrect. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...

It's not incorrect. Guy does mean "a man." Gal means "a woman." Those are their uses today. They are as gendered as "man".

And just so I can get really pedantic: gender is inferred as a context of speech. If you are calling a cis-woman "guy" or "dude", it is inferred you are speaking colloquially. If you call a transwoman "guy" or "dude", it is inferred [by the subject] that you are mis-gendering them, and is offensive.

And more to the point of the context of the (now-deleted) comment: if you say "guy", "he", "him", and "dude" all about the same subject, you are calling the subject a man. You can't argue your way around blatantly misgendering someone multiple times.

Re: Lawyer lawyer lawyer LAWYER lawyer LAWYER

#82

Post by [deleted] » Wed, May 11, 2016, 3:51 PM UTC

barking wrote: post #78

patio11 wrote: post #29

I believe I know why Michelle is dissatisfied with an interaction we had some years ago over email, but that is not my story to share. I'm positive that I've never criticized her, on or off HN, nor attempted to induce other people to do so. My comment about "A younger, stupider me" does explicitly repudiate advice that I had given before to people, because I had come to realize there are much better ways to freelance…

Said plenty there at the same time without backing any of it up.

[deleted]

Re: Lawyer lawyer lawyer LAWYER lawyer LAWYER

#83

Post by busterarm » Wed, May 11, 2016, 3:54 PM UTC

peterwwillis wrote: post #81

busterarm wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely incorrect. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...

It's not incorrect. Guy does mean "a man." Gal means "a woman." Those are their uses today. They are as gendered as "man". And just so I can get really pedantic: gender is inferred as a context of speech. If you are calling a cis-woman "guy" or "dude", it is inferred you are speaking colloquially. If you call a transwoman "guy" or "dude", it is inferred [by the subject] that you are mis-gendering them, and is offensi…

That's the thing about language though. It is because you choose it to be so. Other people choose for 'guys' and 'dude' to have a different meaning.

Collectively we decide who wins. Nobody is right or wrong in the present because it's a never-ending battle over an idea. Words change over time - always have and always will. You can only be right historically in context. 'Guy', _historically_, does not mean 'man'. What it means now is your interpretation. You should not get so bent out of shape because other people disagree with you.

There is an inherent problem with basing gender-politics around the meanings of words. How do you deal with people coming from languages that do not have gendered pronouns that are trying to translate their language into English? Do you beat them over the head for how wrong they are (before you say no, I've seen it countless times)?

Also hey, guess what. 'He' has seen use as a gender-neutral pronoun well into the 1960s.

Re: Lawyer lawyer lawyer LAWYER lawyer LAWYER

#84

Post by beeboop » Wed, May 11, 2016, 3:57 PM UTC

BowBun wrote: post #77

What is up with this Reddit-like trend towards drama and immature posts on HN? I don't come on here to see this kind of junk, I come on here to find informative posts on topics surrounding tech. I don't care about your beef with patio11. Hell, I don't even care who you two are. Please stop polluting this site with meta posts that reference each other, which encourages less useful information and more clutter on here.

I recommend just flagging it and moving on.

Re: Lawyer lawyer lawyer LAWYER lawyer LAWYER

#85

Post by kasey_junk » Wed, May 11, 2016, 4:04 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #62

This is a contender for the dumbest thread on HN of 2016. What doesn't it have? Drama? Gender parity arguments? Relitigating old threads? It's like an extravaganza of stupid.

I'll tell you what it doesn't have. Someone demanding $20K

Re: Lawyer lawyer lawyer LAWYER lawyer LAWYER

#86

Post by Nadya » Wed, May 11, 2016, 4:12 PM UTC

peterwwillis wrote: post #81

busterarm wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely incorrect. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...

It's not incorrect. Guy does mean "a man." Gal means "a woman." Those are their uses today. They are as gendered as "man". And just so I can get really pedantic: gender is inferred as a context of speech. If you are calling a cis-woman "guy" or "dude", it is inferred you are speaking colloquially. If you call a transwoman "guy" or "dude", it is inferred [by the subject] that you are mis-gendering them, and is offensi…

>They are as gendered as "man".

Linguistically, "man" is still gender neutral in many contexts and even any dictionary recognizes this. Oxford, Cambridge, take your pick! Usually cited as #2 or #3 in the list of definitions.

>If you call a transwoman "guy" or "dude", it is inferred [by the subject] that you are mis-gendering them, and is offensive.

To 'some' and I prefer that 'some' do not speak for 'all'. In case I need an example: I do not take offense at this. I prefer people continue to use whatever gendered pronoun they're more comfortable with. I don't need or seek their validation and I'm not so fragile that their choice of word bothers me.

Re: Lawyer lawyer lawyer LAWYER lawyer LAWYER

#87

Post by busterarm » Wed, May 11, 2016, 4:23 PM UTC

zepto wrote: post #80

busterarm wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the implication is that if the rules of community are no personal attacks, making those personal attacks in another venue where it's still clearly and identifiably about the community/member is still a violation of the rules of community.

I think you have made this up. I can't see anywhere in the guidelines where there is any rule about not posting anything off-site relating to HN, or not identifying members of the community. There isn't even a rule against what you are choosing to label a 'personal attack', but looks reasonably civil to me. Even if there were such a rule, attempting to silence dissent outside the communities own spaces is behavior ty…

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10906242

I'm not saying silence dissent outside HN. People are free to post on their blogs whatever they want. If they are making a personal attack against someone on HN on their personal blog, the link to that blog post should be blocked from this site and the user absolutely warned/banned if they themselves share it.

Re: Lawyer lawyer lawyer LAWYER lawyer LAWYER

#88

Post by peterwwillis » Wed, May 11, 2016, 4:59 PM UTC

busterarm wrote: post #83

peterwwillis wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not incorrect. Guy does mean "a man." Gal means "a woman." Those are their uses today. They are as gendered as "man". And just so I can get really pedantic: gender is inferred as a context of speech. If you are calling a cis-woman "guy" or "dude", it is inferred you are speaking colloquially. If you call a transwoman "guy" or "dude", it is inferred [by the subject] that you are mis-gendering them, and is offensi…

That's the thing about language though. It is because you choose it to be so. Other people choose for 'guys' and 'dude' to have a different meaning. Collectively we decide who wins. Nobody is right or wrong in the present because it's a never-ending battle over an idea. Words change over time - always have and always will. You can only be right historically in context. 'Guy', _historically_, does not mean 'man'. What…

So you're saying it doesn't matter what you call someone, because hey, interpretations.

Re: Lawyer lawyer lawyer LAWYER lawyer LAWYER

#89

Post by dragonwriter » Wed, May 11, 2016, 5:06 PM UTC

smoyer wrote: post #32

jasode wrote: post #8

>So, I am female. Yes, but here's the way I read it: "I am [a] female" and you provided one anecdote for us to consider. (E.g. Working relationship turned out fine for you in the end.) Nonetheless, I don't read it as "I represent females". My experience behind closed doors with HR about harassing males is to err on the side of termination. Sure, if a man makes 2 offers for a "drinks after work?" and the woman refuses…

"Sure, if a man makes 2 offers for a "drinks after work?" and the woman refuses" Turn that around ... if the woman is making the offer and the man refuses, he's likely to still feel flattered but the woman is likely to get the signal and move on. But ... many men are absolutely clueless and will never get that signal. On the other hand, if the man asks every day but goes no further, is that really sexual harassment o…

> But ... many men are absolutely clueless and will never get that signal.

Which is irrelevant to the existence of sexual harassment, a hostile work environment, or the employer's tort liability for failing to address those things, and so not particularly relevant to what the employer rationally should do in the situation.

> So I think part of this discussion needs to acknowledge that you can't write HR policy that will satisfy everyone.

HR policy isn't intended to satisfy everyone, its intended to maximize benefits and minimize costs to the employer of its relation with its (current, past, and potential future) employees, and an important area of cost minimization it deals with is costs of litigation and ensuing legal liabilities.

Re: Lawyer lawyer lawyer LAWYER lawyer LAWYER

#90

Post by dragonwriter » Wed, May 11, 2016, 5:08 PM UTC

fridek wrote: post #36

jasode wrote: post #8

>So, I am female. Yes, but here's the way I read it: "I am [a] female" and you provided one anecdote for us to consider. (E.g. Working relationship turned out fine for you in the end.) Nonetheless, I don't read it as "I represent females". My experience behind closed doors with HR about harassing males is to err on the side of termination. Sure, if a man makes 2 offers for a "drinks after work?" and the woman refuses…

I think firing someone is a valid reaction to some things, but also the fired person is unlikely to change in the process. This is just pushing the problem on other people in another company. Again, you might not want to personally sacrifice anything for the betterment of the industry, but it's a good argument to have. Also, if you suggest only females are getting harassed at work, you are wrong :)

> I think firing someone is a valid reaction to some things, but also the fired person is unlikely to change in the process. This is just pushing the problem on other people in another company.

Firing someone is generally not something that is done to help the person change, help the industry, or anything other than limit costs to the firing firm resulting from continuing to employ the fired person.