5 ms·

So what counts as political? Let’s take a recent polarizing topic: whether trans people should use the bathroom corresponding to their gender identity. Which b

So what counts as political? Let’s take a recent polarizing topic: whether trans people should use the bathroom corresponding to their gender identity. Which bathroom do trans employees use? How can Basecamp possibly avoid that issue?

DashAnimal 6y ago
Couldn't Basecamp just have designated bathrooms, choose one way or the other, employees follow company guidelines and HR for dealing with complaints? Would employees discussing this internally finally solve the bathroom war and bring everyone to one side?
digitaltrees 6y ago
Political speech is anything related to normative discussion of public or social policy especially as it relates to government action. Simple.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- jakelazaroff 6y ago
  Okay, so let’s tweak the example a bit so it involves literal speech. Say an employee asks a coworker to refer to them with a specific set of pronouns, and the coworker refuses. Who is bringing politics into the workplace? People are upset about the policy because it gives cover to treat people’s identities (such as using they/them pronouns) as forbidden political speech.
  - ratww 6y ago
    Nobody is bringing politics to the workplace. But the person refusing to use the pronouns is kind of being an asshole? I mean, it's a workplace, not a school. You don't get to choose how you call other people, period. Other people's pronouns and names don't really matter to your day to day job, just call them whatever they want and go on with your life.
    - jakelazaroff 6y ago
      The response would be something like "I come here to work, not have their lifestyle shoved down my throat". You do see how a blanket "no politics" rule creates space for HR to turn to the other employee and say "look, you two are not gonna solve this at work so just leave the pronoun stuff at home", right?
      - ratww 6y ago
        No I don't. Someone saying that name/pronoun choice is "shoving a lifestyle down their throats" is not being reasonable and is being an unreasonable asshole on purpose just to make a point. At this point you tell this person to shut the fuck up or get the fuck out. Telling someone how you should be called is not unreasonable. You're still allowed to roll eyes in your head, but calling them anything else is behaving like a petulant schoolchildren. There's no place for that in a professional environment. Just accept and move on with your life.
        jakelazaroff 6y ago
        I agree with you, but you have to realize that you’re describing a sociopolitical stance that is far from universal. See for example this comment elsewhere in the thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27002001 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27002001 Imagine that a coworker keeps misgendering you, and that commenter is your manager. Your workplace has a “no politics” rule. Who do you think will be told to stop being “political”?
        ratww 6y ago
        Sure, but if a workplace is unreasonable then all bets are off... I don't think any kind of political discussion is going to have any effect in a workplace that accepts a manager purposefully misgendering a co-worker. I also don't think that someone politicising something makes the "other side" political automatically. If Basecamp hired a retrograde sexist that called unmarried women "whores" in the hallway, the women would have all the right to complain, and it wouldn't be a political discussion. It would be just be (in a perfect world) HR vs Asshole. EDIT: Also I'd like to say that I'm not condoning banning politics at work. We probably agree on most things. I'm just saying that co-workers, managers and the company being reasonable makes way more difference than politics/no politics. Unfortunately there's no perfect solution to the problem of people being unreasonable, other than those sociopaths ceasing to exist.
  - digitaltrees 6y ago
    That is clearly an interpersonal conflict that can be resolved through standard dispute resolution process in an apolitical fashion. If a common ground of mutual respect and civility can’t be achieved then the disputing employees can be transferred to different teams.
    - jakelazaroff 6y ago
      How can it be resolved in an apolitical fashion? It is by definition a political dispute. Again, the point is that banning "politics" creates space for the company to say "leave the pronouns at home; engage in social issues on your own time".
      - digitaltrees 6y ago
        Apolitical is 1. Mutual respect, 2. Transfer disputing employees to different teams so they are not in continuous dispute.
        jakelazaroff 6y ago
        1 is not apolitical; it essentially means the misgendering employee needs to acquiesce. 2 is frankly a terrible solution. You're keeping a "missing stair" employee whom you need to carefully ensure doesn't interact with any coworkers they'd misgender. If someone can't respect a coworker, especially after being directly told to, they should be let go.
        digitaltrees 6y ago
        Mutual respect means one person makes a good faith to respect the preferences and culture of another person. And the other person it patient and forgiving of mistakes and assumes good faith from the counter party. Some cultures have different salutations based on age. Even though the US doesn’t make that distinction it is respectful to adopt it. It isn’t necessary to fire every employee because a dispute is intractable. If an employee makes a good faith effort to adapt but makes innocent mistakes that are very poorly received they may not be at fault.
  - stretchwithme 6y ago
    I'd say the person trying to dictate the speech of other people, especially when that speech conforms to physical reality more than the alternative. And especially when people seek power over others by trying to control speech. I don't believe that there's anything wrong with ASKING to be referred to in a specific way. Or in voluntarily complying. I would try to comply, out of courtesy. But it's certainly political to try and FORCE compliance. People may have many reasons for not complying and they don't have to justify their beliefs to all comers. If you want to use female pronouns to refer to me, go for it. It's not a violation of my rights in any way. I don't need everybody to agree with how I see myself. I'm pretty sure most don't. At the same time, I realize how much of a pain it is to constantly be dealing with this issue. I just think freedom is more important. Rights are more important than wants. As are the rights of a company that wants to enforce the use of pronouns. They can choose this brand of politics. And it clearly IS a political issue.
    - jakelazaroff 6y ago
      > I'd say the person trying to dictate the speech of other people, especially when that speech conforms to physical reality more than the alternative. Anyone wondering "how can a ban on politics be used to hurt marginalized people?", here is your Exhibit A.
      - stretchwithme 6y ago
        If the rights of others hurts someone's feelings, maybe they need to learn some acceptance.
        jakelazaroff 6y ago
        I don’t see why people’s feelings are hurt when their significant others cheat on them. It’s their partners' right to do so, after all. Maybe they need to learn some acceptance.
        stretchwithme 6y ago
  - Aeolun 6y ago
    I dunno, if you get upset about being referred to with your legal gender maybe you are the one with a problem instead? I find it hard to emphathise with someone making a big deal out of that. I can sort of see how you’d like to be called differently if you are changing your gender, but at the same time I cannot really blame the person calling a boy a boy. I’d try to, but probably find it exhausting to try and keep track of how people want to be called.
    - pseudalopex 6y ago
      Why do you assume the gender they tell people isn't their legal gender? Some jurisdictions allow changing it. Do you keep track of people's names? Their partners' names? Their jobs? Did you ever think someone was a different gender when you first saw them? What did you do after you realized?
      - Aeolun 6y ago
        > Why do you assume the gender they tell people isn't their legal gender? Some jurisdictions allow changing it. I don’t. But generally, by the time someone is legally allowed to change their gender it’ll be fairly hard to call them anything else, so most of the issues come from the transitional phase. > Do you keep track of people's names? Their partners' names? Their jobs? Fair point, though the answer is somewhere in between. I suck at remembering names too :) I don’t think I’ve ever had to deal with it, which is probably part of the reason I find it hard to imagine.
        jakelazaroff 6y ago
        > But generally, by the time someone is legally allowed to change their gender it’ll be fairly hard to call them anything else, so most of the issues come from the transitional phase. For what it’s worth, literally everyone I’ve ever met that requests specific pronouns is fine with occasional slip-ups as long as you make a good faith effort to get it right.
        pseudalopex 5y ago
        Some places have no prerequisites for changing legal gender. Some places don't allow it at all. Trans people can look androgynous just like cis people. And non binary people can look male or female.
slaughtr 6y ago
It reads to me - based on the founders' blogs - that the issue would then become one related to the business and thus be open for discussion. Maybe not exactly what they were thinking (Apple. Apple. Apple.) but still in the spirit of it. However, the rest of the company openly discussing another employee's bathroom dealings probably crosses lines outside of politics. I would be highly uncomfortable if that came up at my employer about some new hire.
- jakelazaroff 6y ago
  My point was that Basecamp is forced to take a stance on the issue. But probably a better scenario to illustrate the point is an employee intentionally misgendering another. Who is “bringing politics into the workplace” — the employee who asks for a specific set of pronouns, or the employee who refuses to use them?
  - rswail 6y ago
    The employee who refuses to use them. They are being deliberately confrontational. If, in 2021, with all of the medical, psychological and sociological evidence, you refuse to accept that gender identity is an individual's choice, and to respect that choice, then you are at fault.
    - jakelazaroff 6y ago
      I mean, I strongly agree. But the point is that not everyone would.
    - disgruntledphd2 6y ago
      > with all of the medical, psychological and sociological evidence, you refuse to accept that gender identity is an individual's choice Look, I really don't want to be confrontational, but I would like to know more about this evidence. Can you provide me with some sources?
    - throwawayacc2 6y ago
      I have posted a similar comment above, I will make a similar comment here. And I am making this comment in good faith. My religious beliefs prevent me from accepting the frame of reference of the person requesting unconventional pronouns. Their frame is “my identity is different to what society imposes on me, I will ask that you treat me in the way I request, not using the societal default”. My frame is “God has made Adam and Eve, a man and a woman. They are not interchangeable, by asking me to accept interchanges, you are asking me to go again my religious beliefs and commit sin”. I am asking this sincerely. Why must I give in to accommodate the other instead of the other way around? Why must I commit sin instead of the other accepting my religion prevents me from indulging the request?
digitaltrees 6y ago
Political deals with social and governmental public policy. Company bathroom policy is not political. If the company wants to solicit policy debate for a specific bathroom policy then it’s leadership can. The CEO could also issue a unilateral decision with no debate.
- jrochkind1 6y ago
  They pretty much announced they will never want to solicit policy debate on anything ever again, is how I read it. Which is what made some employees realize the boss didn't respect them and wouldn't tolerate dissent, so they didn't respect the boss anymore, so they took the buy-out (which was in fact very kind).
RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago
> Which bathroom do trans employees use? How can Basecamp possibly avoid that issue? First, working remotely solves that problem for Basecamp. You use the bathroom at your home. Second, if you are designing for an office, you have private, individual bathrooms. What happens behind a closed bathroom door, and what someone looks like behind a closed bathroom door, is nobody's business.
WesolyKubeczek 6y ago
Since Basecamp is a 100% remote company, the trans people can use the bathroom they have at their home.
Aeolun 6y ago
> How can Basecamp possibly avoid that issue? Unisex bathrooms?

DashAnimal 6y ago

Couldn't Basecamp just have designated bathrooms, choose one way or the other, employees follow company guidelines and HR for dealing with complaints? Would employees discussing this internally finally solve the bathroom war and bring everyone to one side?

digitaltrees 6y ago

Political speech is anything related to normative discussion of public or social policy especially as it relates to government action. Simple.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
jakelazaroff 6y ago
Okay, so let’s tweak the example a bit so it involves literal speech. Say an employee asks a coworker to refer to them with a specific set of pronouns, and the coworker refuses. Who is bringing politics into the workplace? People are upset about the policy because it gives cover to treat people’s identities (such as using they/them pronouns) as forbidden political speech.
- ratww 6y ago
  Nobody is bringing politics to the workplace. But the person refusing to use the pronouns is kind of being an asshole? I mean, it's a workplace, not a school. You don't get to choose how you call other people, period. Other people's pronouns and names don't really matter to your day to day job, just call them whatever they want and go on with your life.
  - jakelazaroff 6y ago
    The response would be something like "I come here to work, not have their lifestyle shoved down my throat". You do see how a blanket "no politics" rule creates space for HR to turn to the other employee and say "look, you two are not gonna solve this at work so just leave the pronoun stuff at home", right?
    - ratww 6y ago
      No I don't. Someone saying that name/pronoun choice is "shoving a lifestyle down their throats" is not being reasonable and is being an unreasonable asshole on purpose just to make a point. At this point you tell this person to shut the fuck up or get the fuck out. Telling someone how you should be called is not unreasonable. You're still allowed to roll eyes in your head, but calling them anything else is behaving like a petulant schoolchildren. There's no place for that in a professional environment. Just accept and move on with your life.
      - jakelazaroff 6y ago
        I agree with you, but you have to realize that you’re describing a sociopolitical stance that is far from universal. See for example this comment elsewhere in the thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27002001 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27002001 Imagine that a coworker keeps misgendering you, and that commenter is your manager. Your workplace has a “no politics” rule. Who do you think will be told to stop being “political”?
        ratww 6y ago
        Sure, but if a workplace is unreasonable then all bets are off... I don't think any kind of political discussion is going to have any effect in a workplace that accepts a manager purposefully misgendering a co-worker. I also don't think that someone politicising something makes the "other side" political automatically. If Basecamp hired a retrograde sexist that called unmarried women "whores" in the hallway, the women would have all the right to complain, and it wouldn't be a political discussion. It would be just be (in a perfect world) HR vs Asshole. EDIT: Also I'd like to say that I'm not condoning banning politics at work. We probably agree on most things. I'm just saying that co-workers, managers and the company being reasonable makes way more difference than politics/no politics. Unfortunately there's no perfect solution to the problem of people being unreasonable, other than those sociopaths ceasing to exist.
- digitaltrees 6y ago
  That is clearly an interpersonal conflict that can be resolved through standard dispute resolution process in an apolitical fashion. If a common ground of mutual respect and civility can’t be achieved then the disputing employees can be transferred to different teams.
  - jakelazaroff 6y ago
    How can it be resolved in an apolitical fashion? It is by definition a political dispute. Again, the point is that banning "politics" creates space for the company to say "leave the pronouns at home; engage in social issues on your own time".
    - digitaltrees 6y ago
      Apolitical is 1. Mutual respect, 2. Transfer disputing employees to different teams so they are not in continuous dispute.
      - jakelazaroff 6y ago
        1 is not apolitical; it essentially means the misgendering employee needs to acquiesce. 2 is frankly a terrible solution. You're keeping a "missing stair" employee whom you need to carefully ensure doesn't interact with any coworkers they'd misgender. If someone can't respect a coworker, especially after being directly told to, they should be let go.
        digitaltrees 6y ago
        Mutual respect means one person makes a good faith to respect the preferences and culture of another person. And the other person it patient and forgiving of mistakes and assumes good faith from the counter party. Some cultures have different salutations based on age. Even though the US doesn’t make that distinction it is respectful to adopt it. It isn’t necessary to fire every employee because a dispute is intractable. If an employee makes a good faith effort to adapt but makes innocent mistakes that are very poorly received they may not be at fault.
- stretchwithme 6y ago
  I'd say the person trying to dictate the speech of other people, especially when that speech conforms to physical reality more than the alternative. And especially when people seek power over others by trying to control speech. I don't believe that there's anything wrong with ASKING to be referred to in a specific way. Or in voluntarily complying. I would try to comply, out of courtesy. But it's certainly political to try and FORCE compliance. People may have many reasons for not complying and they don't have to justify their beliefs to all comers. If you want to use female pronouns to refer to me, go for it. It's not a violation of my rights in any way. I don't need everybody to agree with how I see myself. I'm pretty sure most don't. At the same time, I realize how much of a pain it is to constantly be dealing with this issue. I just think freedom is more important. Rights are more important than wants. As are the rights of a company that wants to enforce the use of pronouns. They can choose this brand of politics. And it clearly IS a political issue.
  - jakelazaroff 6y ago
    > I'd say the person trying to dictate the speech of other people, especially when that speech conforms to physical reality more than the alternative. Anyone wondering "how can a ban on politics be used to hurt marginalized people?", here is your Exhibit A.
    - stretchwithme 6y ago
      If the rights of others hurts someone's feelings, maybe they need to learn some acceptance.
      - jakelazaroff 6y ago
        I don’t see why people’s feelings are hurt when their significant others cheat on them. It’s their partners' right to do so, after all. Maybe they need to learn some acceptance.
        stretchwithme 6y ago
- Aeolun 6y ago
  I dunno, if you get upset about being referred to with your legal gender maybe you are the one with a problem instead? I find it hard to emphathise with someone making a big deal out of that. I can sort of see how you’d like to be called differently if you are changing your gender, but at the same time I cannot really blame the person calling a boy a boy. I’d try to, but probably find it exhausting to try and keep track of how people want to be called.
  - pseudalopex 6y ago
    Why do you assume the gender they tell people isn't their legal gender? Some jurisdictions allow changing it. Do you keep track of people's names? Their partners' names? Their jobs? Did you ever think someone was a different gender when you first saw them? What did you do after you realized?
    - Aeolun 6y ago
      > Why do you assume the gender they tell people isn't their legal gender? Some jurisdictions allow changing it. I don’t. But generally, by the time someone is legally allowed to change their gender it’ll be fairly hard to call them anything else, so most of the issues come from the transitional phase. > Do you keep track of people's names? Their partners' names? Their jobs? Fair point, though the answer is somewhere in between. I suck at remembering names too :) I don’t think I’ve ever had to deal with it, which is probably part of the reason I find it hard to imagine.
      - jakelazaroff 6y ago
        > But generally, by the time someone is legally allowed to change their gender it’ll be fairly hard to call them anything else, so most of the issues come from the transitional phase. For what it’s worth, literally everyone I’ve ever met that requests specific pronouns is fine with occasional slip-ups as long as you make a good faith effort to get it right.
      - pseudalopex 5y ago
        Some places have no prerequisites for changing legal gender. Some places don't allow it at all. Trans people can look androgynous just like cis people. And non binary people can look male or female.

slaughtr 6y ago

It reads to me - based on the founders' blogs - that the issue would then become one related to the business and thus be open for discussion. Maybe not exactly what they were thinking (Apple. Apple. Apple.) but still in the spirit of it. However, the rest of the company openly discussing another employee's bathroom dealings probably crosses lines outside of politics. I would be highly uncomfortable if that came up at my employer about some new hire.

jakelazaroff 6y ago
My point was that Basecamp is forced to take a stance on the issue. But probably a better scenario to illustrate the point is an employee intentionally misgendering another. Who is “bringing politics into the workplace” — the employee who asks for a specific set of pronouns, or the employee who refuses to use them?
- rswail 6y ago
  The employee who refuses to use them. They are being deliberately confrontational. If, in 2021, with all of the medical, psychological and sociological evidence, you refuse to accept that gender identity is an individual's choice, and to respect that choice, then you are at fault.
  - jakelazaroff 6y ago
    I mean, I strongly agree. But the point is that not everyone would.
  - disgruntledphd2 6y ago
    > with all of the medical, psychological and sociological evidence, you refuse to accept that gender identity is an individual's choice Look, I really don't want to be confrontational, but I would like to know more about this evidence. Can you provide me with some sources?
  - throwawayacc2 6y ago
    I have posted a similar comment above, I will make a similar comment here. And I am making this comment in good faith. My religious beliefs prevent me from accepting the frame of reference of the person requesting unconventional pronouns. Their frame is “my identity is different to what society imposes on me, I will ask that you treat me in the way I request, not using the societal default”. My frame is “God has made Adam and Eve, a man and a woman. They are not interchangeable, by asking me to accept interchanges, you are asking me to go again my religious beliefs and commit sin”. I am asking this sincerely. Why must I give in to accommodate the other instead of the other way around? Why must I commit sin instead of the other accepting my religion prevents me from indulging the request?

digitaltrees 6y ago

Political deals with social and governmental public policy. Company bathroom policy is not political. If the company wants to solicit policy debate for a specific bathroom policy then it’s leadership can. The CEO could also issue a unilateral decision with no debate.

jrochkind1 6y ago
They pretty much announced they will never want to solicit policy debate on anything ever again, is how I read it. Which is what made some employees realize the boss didn't respect them and wouldn't tolerate dissent, so they didn't respect the boss anymore, so they took the buy-out (which was in fact very kind).

RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago

> Which bathroom do trans employees use? How can Basecamp possibly avoid that issue? First, working remotely solves that problem for Basecamp. You use the bathroom at your home. Second, if you are designing for an office, you have private, individual bathrooms. What happens behind a closed bathroom door, and what someone looks like behind a closed bathroom door, is nobody's business.

WesolyKubeczek 6y ago

Since Basecamp is a 100% remote company, the trans people can use the bathroom they have at their home.

Aeolun 6y ago

> How can Basecamp possibly avoid that issue? Unisex bathrooms?