10 ms·

I'm disgusted at her reflection that the question was transphobic, not that she commented on the difference. Whether the data scientist overreacted or not is ir

I'm disgusted at her reflection that the question was transphobic, not that she commented on the difference. Whether the data scientist overreacted or not is irrelevant.

ivraatiems 9y ago
It's not irrelevant because it's the reason she was fired, and hence the reason the post exists. The fact that you disagree with her assertion about the question seems to be the irrelevant thing to me.
- Dirlewanger 9y ago
  No, it is irrelevant. The fact that the incident got her fired is a failing with GitHub's management and dearth of communication. Playing the victim card and shitting on the data scientist is misguided.
  - ivraatiems 9y ago
    But it seems to me that if GitHub failed her in its practices, she was a victim. Why wouldn't she be?
dcole2929 9y ago
Calling a comment transphobic in no way implies that the speaker of that comment is transhpobic. It is a description of what's been said. The same way if someone was to say something that could possibly be construed as racist. If someone points that out and says hey that statement is racist, that's not calling that person racist. They might be. They might not, but that statement in and of itself implies no assertion on that actual person. In short, calling the statement in question transphobic is correct.
- fenwick67 9y ago
  Intent is the difference between being transphobic and being ignorant. The survey question was ignorant.
  - roguecoder 9y ago
    How silly it sounds to anthropomorphize the question that way should tell you that you are wrong in this case. A question doesn't have a brain to be ignorant with, nor does it have intentions of any sort: once someone has written it down, it just is. In TDD, do we talk about a unit test succeeding because I intended for it to fail and it did? No, we say it failed because the actual result is red. I didn't fail, but the test sure did. Intention doesn't change the impact of communication; if the intent doesn't match the actual outcome, what it means is that the author probably wanted to change it.
- Sorreah 9y ago
  >Calling a comment transphobic in no way implies that the speaker of that comment is transhpobic. Then what does it imply, that the comment has a phobia of or holds hate for trans people? If I call your post autistic, does that not imply I think less of you for making it?

I'm disgusted at her reflection that the question was transphobic, not that she commented on the difference. Whether the data scientist overreacted or not is irrelevant.

ivraatiems 9y ago

It's not irrelevant because it's the reason she was fired, and hence the reason the post exists. The fact that you disagree with her assertion about the question seems to be the irrelevant thing to me.

Dirlewanger 9y ago
No, it is irrelevant. The fact that the incident got her fired is a failing with GitHub's management and dearth of communication. Playing the victim card and shitting on the data scientist is misguided.
- ivraatiems 9y ago
  But it seems to me that if GitHub failed her in its practices, she was a victim. Why wouldn't she be?

dcole2929 9y ago

Calling a comment transphobic in no way implies that the speaker of that comment is transhpobic. It is a description of what's been said. The same way if someone was to say something that could possibly be construed as racist. If someone points that out and says hey that statement is racist, that's not calling that person racist. They might be. They might not, but that statement in and of itself implies no assertion on that actual person. In short, calling the statement in question transphobic is correct.

fenwick67 9y ago
Intent is the difference between being transphobic and being ignorant. The survey question was ignorant.
- roguecoder 9y ago
  How silly it sounds to anthropomorphize the question that way should tell you that you are wrong in this case. A question doesn't have a brain to be ignorant with, nor does it have intentions of any sort: once someone has written it down, it just is. In TDD, do we talk about a unit test succeeding because I intended for it to fail and it did? No, we say it failed because the actual result is red. I didn't fail, but the test sure did. Intention doesn't change the impact of communication; if the intent doesn't match the actual outcome, what it means is that the author probably wanted to change it.
Sorreah 9y ago
>Calling a comment transphobic in no way implies that the speaker of that comment is transhpobic. Then what does it imply, that the comment has a phobia of or holds hate for trans people? If I call your post autistic, does that not imply I think less of you for making it?