5 ms·

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

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 5y 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 5y 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 5y ago
    I mean, I strongly agree. But the point is that not everyone would.
  - disgruntledphd2 5y 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 5y 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?
    - jakelazaroff 5y ago
      You’re free to retain your beliefs, but you can’t vocalize them in the office. Just as it would be disrespectful to publicly judge a coworker’s religion, it’s similarly disrespectful to comment on their gender identity. As a concrete example: if a woman gets married and takes her husband’s name, it would be inappropriate for a coworker who believes her religion’s marriage is immoral to continue referring to her by her pre-married name. You mention “societal defaults”, but you must know that in the west those norms are heavily influenced by Judeo-Christian (especially Protestant) values. So frankly, it’s frustrating when a presumably Christian person asks why they should respect deviation from those norms. It kind of feels like playing a game with someone who has made up house rules to give themselves an advantage, and accuses others of unfair play for choosing not to follow them.
      - throwawayacc2 5y ago
        I feel like your comment did not answer my question. And, I feel like you’re biased in the opposite way but attempt to coat that in neutrality. For the avoidance of doubt, I’m not saying that as an attack, or even as a “bad” thing ( whatever bad is ) but as an observation of what I perceive. There is also the example with the married woman changing her name. I think it’s a very good argument. In fact this is perhaps the best argument I have seen so far surrounding the pronoun debate. In the example you give, I would agree completely, the judging person refusing to use the new name is in the wrong. But, this argument makes a hidden assumption. One cleverly hidden in the parallel. You are assuming the two scenarios ( marriage name change and trans pronoun change ) are the same category, and thus it follows those two should be traded in the same way. Here is why I believe the two are distinct categories. The marriage name change is language neutral while the pronoun name change is language altering. Language in part exists to establish labels for categories in order to facilitate communication. You cannot “hunt mammoth” if you don’t know what “hunt” and “mammoth” is and you cannot substitute different words expecting the same result. “Hunt mammoth” is not the same as “Hunt deer”. Categories are important. They make communication possible. In the example you give, the woman changing her name does not alter the language in any way. In the pronoun side however, the request makes an implicit language change. The request involves altering the category of men or women. “He”, and “she” loose their meaning if they are applied on request. The discussion to be had at this point is weather those are categories worth having. But that is a separate discussion. For this discussion I don’t feel like the parallel holds. > You’re free to retain your beliefs, but you can’t vocalize them in the office. Why can’t we apply the same logic in reverse? The person believes they are a gender or a sex and they would like to be treated in accordance with their beliefs. They can retain that belief but can’t vocalise it in the office. > Just as it would be disrespectful to publicly judge a coworker’s religion But, here is the crux of it. By asking me to indulge the pronoun request, they are publicly judging my religion. My religion forbids me from accepting the interchangeably of men and women. They are judging this aspect and attempt to force me to change it. How do we handle this conflict in a way agreeable to everyone? And if we can’t find a way agreeable to everyone, why should one camp give in to the other? > in the west those norms are heavily influenced by Judeo-Christian (especially Protestant) values This is an irrelevant point. As a side note, I don’t believe “Judeo-Christian” is a thing. This is a strange, made up category originating from the bizzare melding of politics and religion in the souther US. This concept is devoid of any meaning outside the US. It’s certainly something foreign in Europe and other broadly Christian nations like those in South America. But, regardless, this point is irrelevant. If we were in an Arab country, the influence would be Islamic. In India it would be Hindu, in every place there are influences from the past. Let me turn on the head your assumption, because again I feel like you are making unstated assumptions. Why should the expectation be neutrality and not conformity to the historical norm? Why should the historical norm give in to new trends?
0xCMP 5y ago
Last I checked every business involves at least one customer if it's going to survive. Maintaining lists of "funny" customer names is inherently related to the business.

jakelazaroff 5y 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 5y 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 5y ago
  I mean, I strongly agree. But the point is that not everyone would.
- disgruntledphd2 5y 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 5y 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?
  - jakelazaroff 5y ago
    You’re free to retain your beliefs, but you can’t vocalize them in the office. Just as it would be disrespectful to publicly judge a coworker’s religion, it’s similarly disrespectful to comment on their gender identity. As a concrete example: if a woman gets married and takes her husband’s name, it would be inappropriate for a coworker who believes her religion’s marriage is immoral to continue referring to her by her pre-married name. You mention “societal defaults”, but you must know that in the west those norms are heavily influenced by Judeo-Christian (especially Protestant) values. So frankly, it’s frustrating when a presumably Christian person asks why they should respect deviation from those norms. It kind of feels like playing a game with someone who has made up house rules to give themselves an advantage, and accuses others of unfair play for choosing not to follow them.
    - throwawayacc2 5y ago
      I feel like your comment did not answer my question. And, I feel like you’re biased in the opposite way but attempt to coat that in neutrality. For the avoidance of doubt, I’m not saying that as an attack, or even as a “bad” thing ( whatever bad is ) but as an observation of what I perceive. There is also the example with the married woman changing her name. I think it’s a very good argument. In fact this is perhaps the best argument I have seen so far surrounding the pronoun debate. In the example you give, I would agree completely, the judging person refusing to use the new name is in the wrong. But, this argument makes a hidden assumption. One cleverly hidden in the parallel. You are assuming the two scenarios ( marriage name change and trans pronoun change ) are the same category, and thus it follows those two should be traded in the same way. Here is why I believe the two are distinct categories. The marriage name change is language neutral while the pronoun name change is language altering. Language in part exists to establish labels for categories in order to facilitate communication. You cannot “hunt mammoth” if you don’t know what “hunt” and “mammoth” is and you cannot substitute different words expecting the same result. “Hunt mammoth” is not the same as “Hunt deer”. Categories are important. They make communication possible. In the example you give, the woman changing her name does not alter the language in any way. In the pronoun side however, the request makes an implicit language change. The request involves altering the category of men or women. “He”, and “she” loose their meaning if they are applied on request. The discussion to be had at this point is weather those are categories worth having. But that is a separate discussion. For this discussion I don’t feel like the parallel holds. > You’re free to retain your beliefs, but you can’t vocalize them in the office. Why can’t we apply the same logic in reverse? The person believes they are a gender or a sex and they would like to be treated in accordance with their beliefs. They can retain that belief but can’t vocalise it in the office. > Just as it would be disrespectful to publicly judge a coworker’s religion But, here is the crux of it. By asking me to indulge the pronoun request, they are publicly judging my religion. My religion forbids me from accepting the interchangeably of men and women. They are judging this aspect and attempt to force me to change it. How do we handle this conflict in a way agreeable to everyone? And if we can’t find a way agreeable to everyone, why should one camp give in to the other? > in the west those norms are heavily influenced by Judeo-Christian (especially Protestant) values This is an irrelevant point. As a side note, I don’t believe “Judeo-Christian” is a thing. This is a strange, made up category originating from the bizzare melding of politics and religion in the souther US. This concept is devoid of any meaning outside the US. It’s certainly something foreign in Europe and other broadly Christian nations like those in South America. But, regardless, this point is irrelevant. If we were in an Arab country, the influence would be Islamic. In India it would be Hindu, in every place there are influences from the past. Let me turn on the head your assumption, because again I feel like you are making unstated assumptions. Why should the expectation be neutrality and not conformity to the historical norm? Why should the historical norm give in to new trends?

0xCMP 5y ago

Last I checked every business involves at least one customer if it's going to survive. Maintaining lists of "funny" customer names is inherently related to the business.