3 ms·
The linked blog post says nothing about pronouns specifically, it's making a much broader statement that is clearly nonsense. When you promote putting people o
by ZGDUwpqEWpUZ 6y ago
The linked blog post says nothing about pronouns specifically, it's making a much broader statement that is clearly nonsense.
When you promote putting people on lists, bear in mind that some of us are happy to reciprocate. I certainly wouldn't want to employ someone who thinks "if it offends a trans person, then it is transphobic" is a reasonable maxim.
- maweki 6y agoDid you follow the arguments against RMS? https://rms-open-letter.github.io/appendix https://rms-open-letter.github.io/appendix "RMS has spent years on a campaign against using people’s correct pronouns." And OP said: "Ah, postmodernism! Where the words are made up, and intent doesn't matter!" I'm not commenting on RMS's views about what makes consent. And I am not stepping into that discussion. But calling people something different than what they want to be called, is just dickish.
- ZGDUwpqEWpUZ 6y agoThe OP was responding to the maxim he quoted, specifically: > There is no space to argue over whether a comment was transphobic – if it hurt a trans person then it is transphobic and it is unacceptable. That is a much broader statement - pronouns are only one possible example* of something which might "hurt a trans person". Stop playing games. Edit: Other examples are arguments about trans access to women's sports/prisons/shelters/etc., which TERFs may say "hurt females" and are thus misogynistic. Whose hurt wins?
- torthrowaway998 6y agoThis appendix is pretty much filled with lies and misrepresentations of his statements. Please avoid spreading it. It is pretty much "fake news". >"RMS has spent years on a campaign against using people’s correct pronouns." This is false.