6 ms·

I disagree. I think rather that people need to be tolerant and accepting of different peoples' definitions of words.

chx 5y ago
No, that is past, we need to do better. Tolerance has its places but sex and gender not being the same is not controversial any more. It's not like mass vs weight which is mostly of interest to physicist. We are talking about real people. Truly, there's no place for this any more. We need to do better. Tolerance is necessary to accept people not like us and but erasing their very existence by using certain words is not tolerance. https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2019/jul/26/gender-reveal-party-pioneer-regrets-trend https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2019/jul/26/gender-revea... https://slate.com/human-interest/2016/05/gender-reveal-celebrations-for-babies-help-explain-transphobia.html https://slate.com/human-interest/2016/05/gender-reveal-celeb... > the gender-reveal phenomenon pulls off a rousing counter-progressive two-for-one: weapons-grade reinforcement of oppressive gender norms (sorry, feminists!) and blunt-force refusal of the idea that sex assigned at birth does not necessarily equate with gender identity (sorry, trans-rights movement!). This is how the vernacular gets weaponized.
- spankyspangler 5y ago
  I disagree. We need to do better with tolerance and acceptance. Preaching these things when it benefits a favored point of view and then rejecting them when it comes to others is actually the definition of weaponizing, and it does more harm and causes everyone to be intolerant.
  - chx 5y ago
    What exactly do you want me to accept? Transphobia? Make no mistake: when you confound sex and gender that's what you are fueling. One half of the USA is busy enacting transphobic laws, we must not fuel that agenda. We can not just accept behavior singing "tolerance". That's not how this works. Tolerance means we respect every human being equally and it does not mean that any opinion denying that needs to be tolerated. https://medium.com/thoughts-economics-politics-sustainability/why-intolerance-should-not-be-tolerated-d1bc92228dec https://medium.com/thoughts-economics-politics-sustainabilit...
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - spankyspangler 5y ago
      No. Be tolerant of other people's own definitions of words.
      - chx 5y ago
        You can not just go around and redefine words especially when this tolerance hides transphobia. Again, it just doesn't work this way. These words have a meaning, a very specific meaning at that and I don't think transphobic dogwhistling is something worthy of tolerance. You know, sex, gender, same thing, we can mix it up, wink, wink? Even if you didn't intend it that way, even if you think it's still just ignorance/lack of knowledge, time is up for that. This is why I said the vernacular is now obsolete. What made it obsolete? Obviously, the GOP did by declaring open season on trans people, especially by denying treatment to trans children. This is sheer evil that will lead to suicidal children -- they might as well just shoot them, same result, just less acceptable (although how much is an open question given how American society have normalized school shootings as well but now I really digress). These laws fit the very definition of genocide as defined by the convention. We can not stand for this. We need to fight back. Every day. Every sentence. Every word if need to be. We need to show that aside from a far right fringe, society stands with trans people. It's civil solidarity. And yes, I asked on /r/trumpsupporters what they think is the difference between society and just living next to each other and of course the reply is there's no difference. But there is. We do live in a society. We do care for the next person and if politicians want to erase we will not let that happen. We can not let that happen. Do you have a workplace policy where people put in pronouns right in their chat name? We do that because we want to normalize that when you introduce yourself, your pronouns are a normal, everyday part of that. Do I need to quote Niemöller ? First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me. So we do speak out because we learned from history what happens when do not. Especially when all it takes is such a tiny thing as getting the words sex and gender right and using the pronouns a person prefers. If someone uses the n-slur on a black person, are you just going to preach tolerance of their words or are you going to step up, use your white privilege (most of HN readers are white cis het males) and say "that's not okay"? They elected an openly nazi person to the highest office of the United States and when he rightly got the boot, they attempted a coup to keep him in power. And one of their chief weapons indeed were -- as they called it -- alternative facts. Yeah, there is a certain part of society which does not want to be part of society and does use words and facts rather arbitrarily. Is this what you want me to accept? Because I will not. I have not started this, I have not wanted this but if history calls us to task, answer we will. And again, right now, in here, we just need to make sure our speech is precise. Not more. It's a small act but it has serious weight.

chx 5y ago

No, that is past, we need to do better. Tolerance has its places but sex and gender not being the same is not controversial any more. It's not like mass vs weight which is mostly of interest to physicist. We are talking about real people. Truly, there's no place for this any more. We need to do better. Tolerance is necessary to accept people not like us and but erasing their very existence by using certain words is not tolerance. https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2019/jul/26/gender-reveal-party-pioneer-regrets-trend https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2019/jul/26/gender-revea... https://slate.com/human-interest/2016/05/gender-reveal-celebrations-for-babies-help-explain-transphobia.html https://slate.com/human-interest/2016/05/gender-reveal-celeb... > the gender-reveal phenomenon pulls off a rousing counter-progressive two-for-one: weapons-grade reinforcement of oppressive gender norms (sorry, feminists!) and blunt-force refusal of the idea that sex assigned at birth does not necessarily equate with gender identity (sorry, trans-rights movement!). This is how the vernacular gets weaponized.

spankyspangler 5y ago
I disagree. We need to do better with tolerance and acceptance. Preaching these things when it benefits a favored point of view and then rejecting them when it comes to others is actually the definition of weaponizing, and it does more harm and causes everyone to be intolerant.
- chx 5y ago
  What exactly do you want me to accept? Transphobia? Make no mistake: when you confound sex and gender that's what you are fueling. One half of the USA is busy enacting transphobic laws, we must not fuel that agenda. We can not just accept behavior singing "tolerance". That's not how this works. Tolerance means we respect every human being equally and it does not mean that any opinion denying that needs to be tolerated. https://medium.com/thoughts-economics-politics-sustainability/why-intolerance-should-not-be-tolerated-d1bc92228dec https://medium.com/thoughts-economics-politics-sustainabilit...
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - spankyspangler 5y ago
    No. Be tolerant of other people's own definitions of words.
    - chx 5y ago
      You can not just go around and redefine words especially when this tolerance hides transphobia. Again, it just doesn't work this way. These words have a meaning, a very specific meaning at that and I don't think transphobic dogwhistling is something worthy of tolerance. You know, sex, gender, same thing, we can mix it up, wink, wink? Even if you didn't intend it that way, even if you think it's still just ignorance/lack of knowledge, time is up for that. This is why I said the vernacular is now obsolete. What made it obsolete? Obviously, the GOP did by declaring open season on trans people, especially by denying treatment to trans children. This is sheer evil that will lead to suicidal children -- they might as well just shoot them, same result, just less acceptable (although how much is an open question given how American society have normalized school shootings as well but now I really digress). These laws fit the very definition of genocide as defined by the convention. We can not stand for this. We need to fight back. Every day. Every sentence. Every word if need to be. We need to show that aside from a far right fringe, society stands with trans people. It's civil solidarity. And yes, I asked on /r/trumpsupporters what they think is the difference between society and just living next to each other and of course the reply is there's no difference. But there is. We do live in a society. We do care for the next person and if politicians want to erase we will not let that happen. We can not let that happen. Do you have a workplace policy where people put in pronouns right in their chat name? We do that because we want to normalize that when you introduce yourself, your pronouns are a normal, everyday part of that. Do I need to quote Niemöller ? First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me. So we do speak out because we learned from history what happens when do not. Especially when all it takes is such a tiny thing as getting the words sex and gender right and using the pronouns a person prefers. If someone uses the n-slur on a black person, are you just going to preach tolerance of their words or are you going to step up, use your white privilege (most of HN readers are white cis het males) and say "that's not okay"? They elected an openly nazi person to the highest office of the United States and when he rightly got the boot, they attempted a coup to keep him in power. And one of their chief weapons indeed were -- as they called it -- alternative facts. Yeah, there is a certain part of society which does not want to be part of society and does use words and facts rather arbitrarily. Is this what you want me to accept? Because I will not. I have not started this, I have not wanted this but if history calls us to task, answer we will. And again, right now, in here, we just need to make sure our speech is precise. Not more. It's a small act but it has serious weight.