6 ms·

I've seen people at work defend trans hate as a "conservative value". It's fine if people have different opinions on taxes but to reject people's identity like

I've seen people at work defend trans hate as a "conservative value". It's fine if people have different opinions on taxes but to reject people's identity like that, especially one held by some of their colleagues, should cross a line and they shouldn't be able to hide behind "conservative values".

azffz 7y ago
That's the point, you should be able to hold that opinion, but you should not publicly state it openly at work in the first place.
- october_sky 7y ago
  Taking the other side, how do you counter the "So some opinions are okay to state publicly, while others are not?" I think this is the rub... For any given X, you'll find groups of people that are pro-X, and someone anti-X.
  - my_username_is_ 7y ago
    There's a big difference between fiscal policy and sexual orientation, though. If you say "taxes are theft" I may disagree with your viewpoint, but I'm not personally attacked by it. If your viewpoint is a challenge to their personal identity, you should probably keep that to yourself.
  - tdb7893 7y ago
    Some things shouldn't be okay to say. That intolerance actually hurts people, if someone says "the Nazis were right" that really doesn't end up being a victimless crime, America is an example right now where the rhetoric is leading to actual violence towards certain groups. While I think the government regulating it too much is not good I don't see the issue of doing it collectively as individuals. Edit: just as a final thought, I've been on both sides of this, I've been silenced and I've silenced other people and honestly they both suck. I hold this view with the believe that some middle ground of things not being okay is the only one that works. If someone thinks that a free for all of ideas works well they are welcome to try it on their social media and at their company and I could be convinced if I could see it work at scale. It's really a practical view more than a philosophical one
    - ntnxw 7y ago
      You know this only leads to only left-wing points of view being acceptable.
      - ceejayoz 7y ago
        You're arguing that right-wing points of view are the only ones that can harm people or cause violence?
- chipotle_coyote 7y ago
  The example given by the person you're replying to seems, to be understated about it, to be in a bit more complicated of an area than "just don't talk about it and things will be fine." If Bob and Alice have significant disagreements about health care policy and taxation, they can probably still get along by just not talking about it. If Bob believes Alice should be put to death because she's a transwoman, that could, you know, lead to a bit of workplace tension even if they don't have casual conversations at the La Croix cooler over how he thinks she should be stoned and she thinks she shouldn't.
  - josteink 7y ago
    > If Bob believes Alice should be put to death because she's a transwoman That’s clearly a straw man. Nobody is having that discussion at work. And death threats are not politics, they are matters which should be reported to the police.
    - r0ze-at-hn 7y ago
      Nobody should be having that discussion at work, but sadly that discussion does occur. It mostly occurs behind the back of "Alice" so if you ever hear that type of talk it is your job to report it to HR who can investigate. No one should have to fear for their safety when they come to work.
    - chipotle_coyote 7y ago
      I was responding to the exact argument made in the post above me. Since people are downvoting me, presumably because I used sarcastic humor and HN is populated by people who are just too darn logical for sarcasm,* let me make the point more explicit: no, Bob and Alice aren't literally going to have that conversation at work. I get that. However, even if the work has a strict "no politics" policy, if Bob does have significant prejudice against transgender people, then having Bob in the workplace with Alice at all potentially puts her at risk. There doesn't need to be a conversation about trans rights for him to know that she is trans, and for that to translate into harassment and even violence. I don't have a solution for that problem. But that doesn't mean it's not a problem. And it's not a problem that's solved by prohibiting employees from talking about controversial topics in the workplace -- which is the argument that was made by the poster I was actually responding to. *Dammit, I did it again! Sorry.
- josteink 7y ago
  So only leftist politics are allowed to be discussed openly? That sounds like a rather discriminating and polarising policy. And are we allowed to discuss that (clearly leftist) policy?
  - wtveb 7y ago
    I think you should not discuss politics at work. Unfortunately I agree with you: this will lead to only feelgood (i.e. leftist) politics being talked about.
- nailer 7y ago
  Many women don't want people with penises in their change rooms. Others believe this is hatred. Google provides onsite gyms at many locations, which have change rooms. In this case, that discussion will likely have to take place at work.
- LaGrange 7y ago
  As a trans woman, I’d rather they did. Even if they don’t get fired, at least I know it’s not safe to come out. “Don’t ask don’t tell” is a tempting policy, but that’s how you end up surrounded by TERFs when something inadvertently outs you.
josteink 7y ago
> I've seen people at work defend trans hate as a "conservative value". As long as you don’t define what you mean with “trans hate”, there’s no way for an outsider to judge if your “conservative” colleague held a reasonable position or not. Constantly defining opposing views as “hate” is IMO one of the most effective ways you can kill reasonable discourse and increase polarisation. And if “everything” is “hate”, clearly “hate” is no big deal, so why should we care? Maybe what you encountered were not actually “hate”, but something we back in the days used to call “disagreement”? It’s a pretty normal thing.
wtdata 7y ago
Serious question, what do you define as trans hate (in regard to the people you are talking about)? This is because, what you may be describing as "trans hate" may simply be someone that simply doesn't accept the non scientifically proven theory of gender fluidity. And may be people that simply are stating that transgenderism should be approached and supported like other cases of body dysphoria.
LifeLiverTransp 7y ago
Its traditional how a rule of law was created in most older societys. Ostracice a caste of sexual deviants and give them social power at the same time. Things didnt change, the church is just called diffrent, the dogma of social contracts and the heresy to break them is still the same. Explain to me the social construct difference between a catholic procession and a gay pride parade.
mancerayder 7y ago
Not disagreeing with the idea that people shouldn't express hatred. However I'm very nervous at some of the Orwellian redefinitions of words like hatred, racism, sexism, white supremacy and so forth. Sometimes when you scratch under the surface of an accusation, you get a string. If you tug the string, it turns into a complex worldview, and it turns out the thing is a straw man used against political opponents. One red flag for this is when someone starts by saying, "So, you're really saying..." or, "The logical conclusion of your argument is..." I was told recently that Louis CK's joke (recent underground taping that ended up on YouTube) was transphobic. I then listened to the joke and didn't come to that conclusion. Who's correct? I read on HN someone coming out supporting law enforcement in the US. Someone responded that that made them racist, due to the history and the logic of institutional racism. Be careful when you hear accusations.
r0ze-at-hn 7y ago
If you company has an anti-discrimination policy that includes gender identity (most do including places like Google) you should report them to HR for creating a hostile work environment. HR usually has an anonymous way of reporting things to investigate such as a phone number you can call.
lawnchair_larry 7y ago
Did they call it trans hate? Or did they object to unisex restrooms and/or pronoun usage rules? I usually see “hate” used very loosely here, when the reality is much more nuanced, and mischaracterizing it as trans hate (or hate in general, for whatever the issue might be) is contributing to the problem.
- SolaceQuantum 7y ago
  Is it merely a viewpoint to disagree politely upon that people should be called using pronouns they identify as? For example, if I repeatedly called a cis woman a man, and insisted she was a male, should this be objected to any differently than if I repeatedly called a trans woman a man and insisted she was a male? I understand the former (calling a cis woman a man and insisting on referring to her as he pronouns) to be incredibly rude. But the idea of calling a trans woman a woman is a political move?
  - lawnchair_larry 7y ago
    I don’t care to get into it or take a position on the matter, I am just pointing out that it’s possible to have disagreements about where the boundaries are without it being the case that there is an element of hate involved. It’s possible for someone to disagree that a man is a woman without hating them for thinking they are a woman. It’s also possible for them to be sensitive about how they express that without unnecessarily harassing or harming the other person. And it goes both ways. The degree to which others, particularly those with incompatible views, are willing to modify their own life in order to accommodate yours, is going to vary greatly. Figuring out where to compromise is the difficult part. Do you think it’s disrespectful for someone to eat a big juicy steak at work while sitting right next to a vegan animal rights activist who sincerely feels anguish at the thought of us factory farming and slaughtering animals for food? I think that issue is a lot simpler than some of these other issues, and yet I doubt that polite society can even agree on that.
    - SolaceQuantum 7y ago
      Yes, and at certain points how you refer to a person is political because they are trans, what do you do then? What is the sensitive, non-harmful way to refer to a trans woman as a male? What is the sensitive, non-harmful way to refer to a trans woman as a woman (if you believe referring to trans women being seen as women is a hateful thing)? Similarly, what happens if you believe espousing homosexuality as normal is hateful? What is the sensitive, non-harmful manner to ask your co worker to never bring up his husband, ever, in the workplace? I'm not asking meanly, I genuinely don't understand.
um_ya 7y ago
I draw the line at compelled speech. I don't want to have to remember your "pronoun" in order to have a regular conversation with you. At some point the politeness of inclusivity pervades upon the efficiency of getting your job done. Being offended and upset is a personal problem, not a public one. Requiring colleagues to bend over backwards to accommodate your needs should be a matter of politeness, not company policy.
- microtherion 7y ago
  > I don't want to have to remember your "pronoun" in order to have a regular conversation with you. Good thing, then that the debate is about third person pronouns, which are used to talk about someone, not with them. I have literally never seen anybody use customized second person pronouns (although of course honorifics are traditional — try refusing to address a judge in court as "your honor" because you don't want to remember their honorific).

azffz 7y ago

That's the point, you should be able to hold that opinion, but you should not publicly state it openly at work in the first place.

october_sky 7y ago
Taking the other side, how do you counter the "So some opinions are okay to state publicly, while others are not?" I think this is the rub... For any given X, you'll find groups of people that are pro-X, and someone anti-X.
- my_username_is_ 7y ago
  There's a big difference between fiscal policy and sexual orientation, though. If you say "taxes are theft" I may disagree with your viewpoint, but I'm not personally attacked by it. If your viewpoint is a challenge to their personal identity, you should probably keep that to yourself.
- tdb7893 7y ago
  Some things shouldn't be okay to say. That intolerance actually hurts people, if someone says "the Nazis were right" that really doesn't end up being a victimless crime, America is an example right now where the rhetoric is leading to actual violence towards certain groups. While I think the government regulating it too much is not good I don't see the issue of doing it collectively as individuals. Edit: just as a final thought, I've been on both sides of this, I've been silenced and I've silenced other people and honestly they both suck. I hold this view with the believe that some middle ground of things not being okay is the only one that works. If someone thinks that a free for all of ideas works well they are welcome to try it on their social media and at their company and I could be convinced if I could see it work at scale. It's really a practical view more than a philosophical one
  - ntnxw 7y ago
    You know this only leads to only left-wing points of view being acceptable.
    - ceejayoz 7y ago
      You're arguing that right-wing points of view are the only ones that can harm people or cause violence?
chipotle_coyote 7y ago
The example given by the person you're replying to seems, to be understated about it, to be in a bit more complicated of an area than "just don't talk about it and things will be fine." If Bob and Alice have significant disagreements about health care policy and taxation, they can probably still get along by just not talking about it. If Bob believes Alice should be put to death because she's a transwoman, that could, you know, lead to a bit of workplace tension even if they don't have casual conversations at the La Croix cooler over how he thinks she should be stoned and she thinks she shouldn't.
- josteink 7y ago
  > If Bob believes Alice should be put to death because she's a transwoman That’s clearly a straw man. Nobody is having that discussion at work. And death threats are not politics, they are matters which should be reported to the police.
  - r0ze-at-hn 7y ago
    Nobody should be having that discussion at work, but sadly that discussion does occur. It mostly occurs behind the back of "Alice" so if you ever hear that type of talk it is your job to report it to HR who can investigate. No one should have to fear for their safety when they come to work.
  - chipotle_coyote 7y ago
    I was responding to the exact argument made in the post above me. Since people are downvoting me, presumably because I used sarcastic humor and HN is populated by people who are just too darn logical for sarcasm,* let me make the point more explicit: no, Bob and Alice aren't literally going to have that conversation at work. I get that. However, even if the work has a strict "no politics" policy, if Bob does have significant prejudice against transgender people, then having Bob in the workplace with Alice at all potentially puts her at risk. There doesn't need to be a conversation about trans rights for him to know that she is trans, and for that to translate into harassment and even violence. I don't have a solution for that problem. But that doesn't mean it's not a problem. And it's not a problem that's solved by prohibiting employees from talking about controversial topics in the workplace -- which is the argument that was made by the poster I was actually responding to. *Dammit, I did it again! Sorry.
josteink 7y ago
So only leftist politics are allowed to be discussed openly? That sounds like a rather discriminating and polarising policy. And are we allowed to discuss that (clearly leftist) policy?
- wtveb 7y ago
  I think you should not discuss politics at work. Unfortunately I agree with you: this will lead to only feelgood (i.e. leftist) politics being talked about.
nailer 7y ago
Many women don't want people with penises in their change rooms. Others believe this is hatred. Google provides onsite gyms at many locations, which have change rooms. In this case, that discussion will likely have to take place at work.
LaGrange 7y ago
As a trans woman, I’d rather they did. Even if they don’t get fired, at least I know it’s not safe to come out. “Don’t ask don’t tell” is a tempting policy, but that’s how you end up surrounded by TERFs when something inadvertently outs you.

josteink 7y ago

> I've seen people at work defend trans hate as a "conservative value". As long as you don’t define what you mean with “trans hate”, there’s no way for an outsider to judge if your “conservative” colleague held a reasonable position or not. Constantly defining opposing views as “hate” is IMO one of the most effective ways you can kill reasonable discourse and increase polarisation. And if “everything” is “hate”, clearly “hate” is no big deal, so why should we care? Maybe what you encountered were not actually “hate”, but something we back in the days used to call “disagreement”? It’s a pretty normal thing.

wtdata 7y ago

Serious question, what do you define as trans hate (in regard to the people you are talking about)? This is because, what you may be describing as "trans hate" may simply be someone that simply doesn't accept the non scientifically proven theory of gender fluidity. And may be people that simply are stating that transgenderism should be approached and supported like other cases of body dysphoria.

LifeLiverTransp 7y ago

Its traditional how a rule of law was created in most older societys. Ostracice a caste of sexual deviants and give them social power at the same time. Things didnt change, the church is just called diffrent, the dogma of social contracts and the heresy to break them is still the same. Explain to me the social construct difference between a catholic procession and a gay pride parade.

mancerayder 7y ago

Not disagreeing with the idea that people shouldn't express hatred. However I'm very nervous at some of the Orwellian redefinitions of words like hatred, racism, sexism, white supremacy and so forth. Sometimes when you scratch under the surface of an accusation, you get a string. If you tug the string, it turns into a complex worldview, and it turns out the thing is a straw man used against political opponents. One red flag for this is when someone starts by saying, "So, you're really saying..." or, "The logical conclusion of your argument is..." I was told recently that Louis CK's joke (recent underground taping that ended up on YouTube) was transphobic. I then listened to the joke and didn't come to that conclusion. Who's correct? I read on HN someone coming out supporting law enforcement in the US. Someone responded that that made them racist, due to the history and the logic of institutional racism. Be careful when you hear accusations.

r0ze-at-hn 7y ago

If you company has an anti-discrimination policy that includes gender identity (most do including places like Google) you should report them to HR for creating a hostile work environment. HR usually has an anonymous way of reporting things to investigate such as a phone number you can call.

lawnchair_larry 7y ago

Did they call it trans hate? Or did they object to unisex restrooms and/or pronoun usage rules? I usually see “hate” used very loosely here, when the reality is much more nuanced, and mischaracterizing it as trans hate (or hate in general, for whatever the issue might be) is contributing to the problem.

SolaceQuantum 7y ago
Is it merely a viewpoint to disagree politely upon that people should be called using pronouns they identify as? For example, if I repeatedly called a cis woman a man, and insisted she was a male, should this be objected to any differently than if I repeatedly called a trans woman a man and insisted she was a male? I understand the former (calling a cis woman a man and insisting on referring to her as he pronouns) to be incredibly rude. But the idea of calling a trans woman a woman is a political move?
- lawnchair_larry 7y ago
  I don’t care to get into it or take a position on the matter, I am just pointing out that it’s possible to have disagreements about where the boundaries are without it being the case that there is an element of hate involved. It’s possible for someone to disagree that a man is a woman without hating them for thinking they are a woman. It’s also possible for them to be sensitive about how they express that without unnecessarily harassing or harming the other person. And it goes both ways. The degree to which others, particularly those with incompatible views, are willing to modify their own life in order to accommodate yours, is going to vary greatly. Figuring out where to compromise is the difficult part. Do you think it’s disrespectful for someone to eat a big juicy steak at work while sitting right next to a vegan animal rights activist who sincerely feels anguish at the thought of us factory farming and slaughtering animals for food? I think that issue is a lot simpler than some of these other issues, and yet I doubt that polite society can even agree on that.
  - SolaceQuantum 7y ago
    Yes, and at certain points how you refer to a person is political because they are trans, what do you do then? What is the sensitive, non-harmful way to refer to a trans woman as a male? What is the sensitive, non-harmful way to refer to a trans woman as a woman (if you believe referring to trans women being seen as women is a hateful thing)? Similarly, what happens if you believe espousing homosexuality as normal is hateful? What is the sensitive, non-harmful manner to ask your co worker to never bring up his husband, ever, in the workplace? I'm not asking meanly, I genuinely don't understand.

um_ya 7y ago

I draw the line at compelled speech. I don't want to have to remember your "pronoun" in order to have a regular conversation with you. At some point the politeness of inclusivity pervades upon the efficiency of getting your job done. Being offended and upset is a personal problem, not a public one. Requiring colleagues to bend over backwards to accommodate your needs should be a matter of politeness, not company policy.

microtherion 7y ago
> I don't want to have to remember your "pronoun" in order to have a regular conversation with you. Good thing, then that the debate is about third person pronouns, which are used to talk about someone, not with them. I have literally never seen anybody use customized second person pronouns (although of course honorifics are traditional — try refusing to address a judge in court as "your honor" because you don't want to remember their honorific).