4 ms·

You shouldn’t be allowed to use transitioned unless there is literal gene replacement happening.

hackmiester 6y ago
Who would police that, and... why?
dang 6y ago
In HN's context, this and your other posts in the thread constitute flamebait—that is, inflammatory and unsubstantive. You're violating these two guidelines: "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive." "Eschew flamebait." If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and sticking to the rules, we'd be grateful.
- trianglem 6y ago
  It’s a clear disagreement and not “bait”. But yes, I get it.
  - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
    Let's discuss. You see male/female as being genetic therefore effectively unalterable, therefore the label of male/female cannot be changed. I am comfortable with the idea that if a person wishes to be seen in a particular way that I do so. Actual example: a couple I know were F/F when I first met them. Now one prefers to use a male name and be referred to as 'he'. Took a bit of adjusting to, ok. Now genetically one thing, but socially speaking another, isn't it just polite to make them feel comfortable? Would you call them 'her' to their face, knowing how it could upset them?
    - encom 6y ago
      (not parent) >Would you call them 'her' to their face, knowing how it could upset them? Maybe, maybe not. What I don't want to do however is keep track of everyones imaginary genders, and face legal repercussions for "misgendering" them. Here's an interesting search to look through: https://duck.com/?q=illegal+misgendering https://duck.com/?q=illegal+misgendering
      - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
        When they have become what they want, they quite well look male/female so you don't have to remember anything. Indeed, you'd have to make an effort to get it wrong. If they are transitioning they're very forgiving of genuine mistakes. Your links don't support your position - did you read them yourself? "Good News: Law Penalizing “Misgendering” with Hefty Fine and/or Jail Time being Legally Challenged" (california) "Misgendering is not a crime and not a hate-crime, no. However, it can be a hate-crime if done in combination with another criminal offence, which suggests that the offender is motivated by a hatred for transgender people." (UK) "California health care workers who “willfully and repeatedly” decline to use a senior transgender patient's “preferred name or pronouns” could face punishments ranging from a fine to jail time under a newly signed law." (california) so as you see it's mostly about intent. I don't think you actually know any TG people.
        encom 6y ago
        >Your links don't support your position My position is that it's stupid, and I was illustrating that there are forces that want to make it illegal. And they have succeeded in some places. The Canadian Bill C16 is one example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Act_to_amend_the_Canadian_Human_Rights_Act_and_the_Criminal_Code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Act_to_amend_the_Canadian_H... >I don't think you actually know any TG people. And I think you have no basis for making that assumption. You are wrong.
        throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
        > there are forces that want to make it illegal Yep, in the context of a hate crime. Not standalone. Seems reasonable. I don't think you read the link you posted. To quote from it " Speaking for the [Canadian Bar Association], the President, [...] made explicit the protections for transgender people which were already contained in the prohibition on discrimination based on sexual orientation; and did not pose any risk to freedom of expression" So it's about discrimination, and freedom of expression is not affected. Further "Peterson argued that the law would classify the failure to use preferred pronouns of transgender people as hate speech. According to legal experts, including law professors Brenda Cossman of the University of Toronto and Kyle Kirkup of the University of Ottawa, not using preferred pronouns would not meet legal standards for hate speech" So getting him/her wrong is not hate speech, so... problem? What I'm getting from you is anger+fear, and what I'm not getting is why treating TGs decently bother you so much.
  - dang 6y ago
    A comment can easily be both, and the flamebait is the high-order bit. You just did it again, predictably starting a flamewar. Not cool.

Who would police that, and... why?

dang 6y ago

In HN's context, this and your other posts in the thread constitute flamebait—that is, inflammatory and unsubstantive. You're violating these two guidelines: "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive." "Eschew flamebait." If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and sticking to the rules, we'd be grateful.

trianglem 6y ago
It’s a clear disagreement and not “bait”. But yes, I get it.
- throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
  Let's discuss. You see male/female as being genetic therefore effectively unalterable, therefore the label of male/female cannot be changed. I am comfortable with the idea that if a person wishes to be seen in a particular way that I do so. Actual example: a couple I know were F/F when I first met them. Now one prefers to use a male name and be referred to as 'he'. Took a bit of adjusting to, ok. Now genetically one thing, but socially speaking another, isn't it just polite to make them feel comfortable? Would you call them 'her' to their face, knowing how it could upset them?
  - encom 6y ago
    (not parent) >Would you call them 'her' to their face, knowing how it could upset them? Maybe, maybe not. What I don't want to do however is keep track of everyones imaginary genders, and face legal repercussions for "misgendering" them. Here's an interesting search to look through: https://duck.com/?q=illegal+misgendering https://duck.com/?q=illegal+misgendering
    - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
      When they have become what they want, they quite well look male/female so you don't have to remember anything. Indeed, you'd have to make an effort to get it wrong. If they are transitioning they're very forgiving of genuine mistakes. Your links don't support your position - did you read them yourself? "Good News: Law Penalizing “Misgendering” with Hefty Fine and/or Jail Time being Legally Challenged" (california) "Misgendering is not a crime and not a hate-crime, no. However, it can be a hate-crime if done in combination with another criminal offence, which suggests that the offender is motivated by a hatred for transgender people." (UK) "California health care workers who “willfully and repeatedly” decline to use a senior transgender patient's “preferred name or pronouns” could face punishments ranging from a fine to jail time under a newly signed law." (california) so as you see it's mostly about intent. I don't think you actually know any TG people.
      - encom 6y ago
        >Your links don't support your position My position is that it's stupid, and I was illustrating that there are forces that want to make it illegal. And they have succeeded in some places. The Canadian Bill C16 is one example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Act_to_amend_the_Canadian_Human_Rights_Act_and_the_Criminal_Code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Act_to_amend_the_Canadian_H... >I don't think you actually know any TG people. And I think you have no basis for making that assumption. You are wrong.
        throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
        > there are forces that want to make it illegal Yep, in the context of a hate crime. Not standalone. Seems reasonable. I don't think you read the link you posted. To quote from it " Speaking for the [Canadian Bar Association], the President, [...] made explicit the protections for transgender people which were already contained in the prohibition on discrimination based on sexual orientation; and did not pose any risk to freedom of expression" So it's about discrimination, and freedom of expression is not affected. Further "Peterson argued that the law would classify the failure to use preferred pronouns of transgender people as hate speech. According to legal experts, including law professors Brenda Cossman of the University of Toronto and Kyle Kirkup of the University of Ottawa, not using preferred pronouns would not meet legal standards for hate speech" So getting him/her wrong is not hate speech, so... problem? What I'm getting from you is anger+fear, and what I'm not getting is why treating TGs decently bother you so much.
- dang 6y ago
  A comment can easily be both, and the flamebait is the high-order bit. You just did it again, predictably starting a flamewar. Not cool.