3 ms·

I disagree. Forcing made-up pronoun "choices" and the notion of changeable, additional, or even infinite genders is the same as forcing others to go along with

I disagree. Forcing made-up pronoun "choices" and the notion of changeable, additional, or even infinite genders is the same as forcing others to go along with an ideology that is invented by a small but loud segment of activists. It is disconnected both from biological realities and language standards. When others are forced to go along with it, they are being forced into supporting harms like women’s spaces being lost (for example women’s sports), impressionable children being exposed to gender identity ideology in school, and so on. Telling someone who you want to be called in terms of a name, is reasonable. But asking them to reconsider what gender you are, what pronouns to use, etcetera is asking them to participate in an ideology or religion. Rather than asking people to blindly obey pronouns but “roll eyes in your own head”, we could just as easily ask those demanding different pronouns to “keep it in your own head”. What makes one stance more legitimate than the other? I believe trans people deserve safety and legal protections but I don’t see altering genders or pronouns as being the same as being guaranteed basic rights. I would say the neutral position for a workplace might be that someone can claim a different gender or pronoun for themselves, but others could choose whether to go along with it or not, per their own individual choice and ideology. Neither side should let that deter from their work responsibilities.

ratww 6y ago
I go to work to get things done. Gender is completely meaningless when it comes to do real work. This should be similar to filling a form with preferred title "Mr", "Ms", "Mrs", "Dr", whatever. It doesn't make a difference in the final output of my work. It's the same as religion, for example. Someone wearing a Hijab or a Kippah, or a Dastar shouldn't and doesn't affect anyones capacity to work. And it doesn't. I don't need access to the hair of my co-workers. Even if you dislike someone's life choices, you're not being asked of anything other than to behave as neutrally and as professional as possible. You don't need to love them or spread their gospel. You're just being asked for a bare minimum of respect. Just because some people want to turn this into a political crusade doesn't mean that the trans people or religious people are. They are just living their own lives and those things we're discussing so far are completely harmless.
- jakelazaroff 6y ago
  I know we’re basically in agreement, but I’m just curious whether the multiple comments asserting that misgendering people is the “neutral” position have affected your opinion on how politics bans can be weaponized.
  - ratww 6y ago
    Oh, I don't disagree with that. I still think political discussion bans are dangerous and the wrong way to go, and it could definitely be used as a tool for oppression. But having political discussions is also not a panacea, and I've seen it also being weaponised in the name of the same oppression. For instance a very publicly racist CTO I worked under was kept because the CEO claimed "we want diversity, even diversity of opinion". Of course it was bullshit and both of them were ousted by the board. I guess I'm just trying to be pragmatic and say we should solve the pronouns issue in a more pragmatic and humane manner (HR) rather than let people weaponise it with alt-right politics (or by claiming that trans people are being political). Honestly I just wish those people had other hobbies other than picking on others.

ratww 6y ago

I go to work to get things done. Gender is completely meaningless when it comes to do real work. This should be similar to filling a form with preferred title "Mr", "Ms", "Mrs", "Dr", whatever. It doesn't make a difference in the final output of my work. It's the same as religion, for example. Someone wearing a Hijab or a Kippah, or a Dastar shouldn't and doesn't affect anyones capacity to work. And it doesn't. I don't need access to the hair of my co-workers. Even if you dislike someone's life choices, you're not being asked of anything other than to behave as neutrally and as professional as possible. You don't need to love them or spread their gospel. You're just being asked for a bare minimum of respect. Just because some people want to turn this into a political crusade doesn't mean that the trans people or religious people are. They are just living their own lives and those things we're discussing so far are completely harmless.

jakelazaroff 6y ago
I know we’re basically in agreement, but I’m just curious whether the multiple comments asserting that misgendering people is the “neutral” position have affected your opinion on how politics bans can be weaponized.
- ratww 6y ago
  Oh, I don't disagree with that. I still think political discussion bans are dangerous and the wrong way to go, and it could definitely be used as a tool for oppression. But having political discussions is also not a panacea, and I've seen it also being weaponised in the name of the same oppression. For instance a very publicly racist CTO I worked under was kept because the CEO claimed "we want diversity, even diversity of opinion". Of course it was bullshit and both of them were ousted by the board. I guess I'm just trying to be pragmatic and say we should solve the pronouns issue in a more pragmatic and humane manner (HR) rather than let people weaponise it with alt-right politics (or by claiming that trans people are being political). Honestly I just wish those people had other hobbies other than picking on others.