4 ms·

> the establishment only permits fervent discussion about gender and skin color. Do they? Try making a case that we don't need more than two sets of gendered p

> the establishment only permits fervent discussion about gender and skin color. Do they? Try making a case that we don't need more than two sets of gendered pronouns in your tech job.

bigYahnz 7y ago
Why would there need to be more than two when there are only two genders?
SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
Are you saying tech isn’t establishment? IDK about percentages, but it’s definitely not the 90s anymore.
- Will_Parker 7y ago
  I'm saying the establishment, including tech, doesn't permit open critical discussion on the topic of gender.
wayoutthere 7y ago
So the pronouns thing is literally about being nice to people and respecting their ability to define their own identity. It's less "we need more than two sets of gendered pronouns" and more "people use pronouns other than he or she and we want to make space for that".
- Will_Parker 7y ago
  And any sort of diversion from that approved narrative, like suggesting that some of this is going a little too far, will make you a pariah in the industry. This is what I'm getting in, in questioning how much "the establishment" allows vigorous debate.
  - danharaj 7y ago
    How is it going too far to call someone "they" or even a neopronoun like "xie"? What cost is it to you that you need to vigorously debate it?
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - DuskStar 7y ago
      "why do you need to debate it" isn't the point - the point is that you can't debate one side of it without people lining up to burn the witch.
    - Will_Parker 7y ago
      I'm not interested in debating it here, because it could damage my career, which is my point. In fact, even debating whether I should be able to debate it could damage my career. I believe this widespread use of silencing tactics, by implicit threat, has gone too far.
      - danharaj 7y ago
        There are a great many things you can't debate about people. For example, you would be severely censured if you debated whether your colleague's chronic illness really was as bad as they claim it is. If the position is "I should be able to question and debate anything about my colleagues" then the position is obviously absurd and I would ask a person holding such a view to reevaluate what they think society is. I don't think you would hold such a position. So, why are you troubled that you can't debate this particular thing, when I'm sure there are things you shouldn't debate about your colleagues?
        Will_Parker 7y ago
        > So, why are you troubled that you can't debate this particular thing, when I'm sure there are things you shouldn't debate about your colleagues? I'm troubled by the top-down nature of what is decided to be beyond debate vs not: it feels like it is leading to a scary kind of authoritarianism I don't want. For fun, I'll throw you a specific plausible hypothetical. If an app has a gender identity field, and a user enters "Apache Helicopter", should this be treated as valid data or not?
  - _qzu7 7y ago
    > Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted. Like it or not, it matters why you believe things are "going a little to far", and why you're willing to be vocal about it
tremon 7y ago
Okay. We only need one set of gendered pronouns. Using words from one set for some people, while using words from a different set for other people, is subject to arbitrary interpretation and therefore vulnerable to othering.
- Will_Parker 7y ago
  > We only need one set of gendered pronouns Which set do you think would suffice?
  - manicdee 7y ago
    Spivak
  - rigorous 7y ago
    In my native language, that is, Kazakh, third-person pronouns are gender-less. "It said it would come tomorrow" means "He/She/It said he/she/it would come tomorrow" and it somehow works :) You're to infer the gender from context.
    - AstralStorm 7y ago
      English example is the singular they. "It" has some additional implication on age.
      - f1refly 7y ago
        Except the "singular they" doesn't exist and in basically a forced change of spoken language by a minority who thinks forcing people is a great way to accomplish things
        AstralStorm 7y ago
        There's no other way to enact change than force or consensus, or mix of these. Consensus is not going to happen. Languages change very slowly. Royal We was forced, but in widespread use. This pronoun is an offshoot thereof. And other languages have even better pronouns than English. Check Chinese and Japanese.

> the establishment only permits fervent discussion about gender and skin color. Do they? Try making a case that we don't need more than two sets of gendered pronouns in your tech job.

bigYahnz 7y ago

Why would there need to be more than two when there are only two genders?

SlowRobotAhead 7y ago

Are you saying tech isn’t establishment? IDK about percentages, but it’s definitely not the 90s anymore.

Will_Parker 7y ago
I'm saying the establishment, including tech, doesn't permit open critical discussion on the topic of gender.

wayoutthere 7y ago

So the pronouns thing is literally about being nice to people and respecting their ability to define their own identity. It's less "we need more than two sets of gendered pronouns" and more "people use pronouns other than he or she and we want to make space for that".

Will_Parker 7y ago
And any sort of diversion from that approved narrative, like suggesting that some of this is going a little too far, will make you a pariah in the industry. This is what I'm getting in, in questioning how much "the establishment" allows vigorous debate.
- danharaj 7y ago
  How is it going too far to call someone "they" or even a neopronoun like "xie"? What cost is it to you that you need to vigorously debate it?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - DuskStar 7y ago
    "why do you need to debate it" isn't the point - the point is that you can't debate one side of it without people lining up to burn the witch.
  - Will_Parker 7y ago
    I'm not interested in debating it here, because it could damage my career, which is my point. In fact, even debating whether I should be able to debate it could damage my career. I believe this widespread use of silencing tactics, by implicit threat, has gone too far.
    - danharaj 7y ago
      There are a great many things you can't debate about people. For example, you would be severely censured if you debated whether your colleague's chronic illness really was as bad as they claim it is. If the position is "I should be able to question and debate anything about my colleagues" then the position is obviously absurd and I would ask a person holding such a view to reevaluate what they think society is. I don't think you would hold such a position. So, why are you troubled that you can't debate this particular thing, when I'm sure there are things you shouldn't debate about your colleagues?
      - Will_Parker 7y ago
        > So, why are you troubled that you can't debate this particular thing, when I'm sure there are things you shouldn't debate about your colleagues? I'm troubled by the top-down nature of what is decided to be beyond debate vs not: it feels like it is leading to a scary kind of authoritarianism I don't want. For fun, I'll throw you a specific plausible hypothetical. If an app has a gender identity field, and a user enters "Apache Helicopter", should this be treated as valid data or not?
- _qzu7 7y ago
  > Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted. Like it or not, it matters why you believe things are "going a little to far", and why you're willing to be vocal about it

tremon 7y ago

Okay. We only need one set of gendered pronouns. Using words from one set for some people, while using words from a different set for other people, is subject to arbitrary interpretation and therefore vulnerable to othering.

Will_Parker 7y ago
> We only need one set of gendered pronouns Which set do you think would suffice?
- manicdee 7y ago
  Spivak
- rigorous 7y ago
  In my native language, that is, Kazakh, third-person pronouns are gender-less. "It said it would come tomorrow" means "He/She/It said he/she/it would come tomorrow" and it somehow works :) You're to infer the gender from context.
  - AstralStorm 7y ago
    English example is the singular they. "It" has some additional implication on age.
    - f1refly 7y ago
      Except the "singular they" doesn't exist and in basically a forced change of spoken language by a minority who thinks forcing people is a great way to accomplish things
      - AstralStorm 7y ago
        There's no other way to enact change than force or consensus, or mix of these. Consensus is not going to happen. Languages change very slowly. Royal We was forced, but in widespread use. This pronoun is an offshoot thereof. And other languages have even better pronouns than English. Check Chinese and Japanese.