32 ms·

I think the irony of the current battle around identity is that we have been making steady progress based on the idea that personal characteristics shouldn't ma

I think the irony of the current battle around identity is that we have been making steady progress based on the idea that personal characteristics shouldn't matter. However this whole debate is reversing that by not only saying it matters a great deal but that other people should be forced to defer to others personal choices even when it directly affects them

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
mike00632 5y ago
Do you feel the same way about nicknames? If you call someone by a nickname that they don't like and they let you know they prefer their own name then do you consider it too onerous to defer to them about it?
- handmodel 5y ago
  I don't think that is what commenter is saying. I, personally, of course defer to nicknames and pronouns. I think it is more similar to race-blind versus race-conscious policies - along with gender-blind versus gernder-concious. Is it better to assume that men and women are pretty much the same in academia and each are capable of the same thing? Or is it better to assume that men and women are intrinsically better at different things with certain characteristics. I think the answer is in the middle but clearly there has been a move in the last five years to say that gender inherently effects your worldview/characteristics while simultaneously saying that men/women should have equal outcomes in all fields. Its not internally consistent.
  - klyrs 5y ago
    > Is it better to assume that men and women are pretty much the same in academia and each are capable of the same thing? Or is it better to assume that men and women are intrinsically better at different things with certain characteristics. This is something I think a lot of people misunderstand about [id]-consciousness. Is it better to assume that you as an individual have biases that align/oppose with overarching biases in our society, or is it better to assume that you alone, or society at large, are bias-free? Can we address inequality by treating everybody the same in this moment and ignoring the historical context they exist in, or do observed biases need to be compensated for in some manner?
  - sophacles 5y ago
    It's certainly consistent. Worldview happens as a result of experiences - if ones biological sex and/or gender is used as a reason to allow or deny certain experiences to someone, then maybe it affects their worldview, no? This is different than whether the gating on biological sex makes sense. (Note I don't mean strictly mechanical stuff like peeing your name into the snow, I'm talking about things like teachers "not wasting time on helping girls understand math"[1] - because I suspect that teachers not helping girls with math is probably more causal to fewer women in math than their vaginas. [1] I've personally heard math teachers say this, and heard stories of others saying it too.)
    - handmodel 5y ago
      That's not quite what I'm saying. It seems like you are advocating a gender blind policy - one in which no one is every denied treatment or eduction based on their gender. And one in which teachers do not insult girl students and make sure to have examples that would interest them. However, what happens if this is completely eliminated and there are still discrepancies in grades, degrees, income? Many would say then that the subject matter is tilted towards men or women and needs to be reformed. Those who argue that position are arguing for gender conscious policy. Which is definitely not the same as gender neutral policy (which was the most popular 15 years ago when I was in school - but things seem to be shifting towards more conscious policy)
- xupybd 5y ago
  This is common in many of the team sports I've played in. The more someone hates their nickname the more likely it will stick. Generally it's only done with close friends.
  - watwut 5y ago
    It is also done with people you want to bully. Also, this mocking relationship is very often one way instead of symmetric.
  - mike00632 5y ago
    Yeah, but is such behavior acceptable in the workplace? And is it right to use this behavior as a guide to lessen the legal status of trans people?
    - xupybd 5y ago
      I think it is, and it's sad that you have been so heavily downvoted. We seem to be finding ourselves lacking the etiquette to deal with this situation. Can you do this in the workplace, yes, with the right people and relationships. Can you treat trans people like this, yes, with the right people and relationships. If ribbing someone causes them to get offended, you leave them alone or it is just bullying. If they come back at you, it's a game, a fun game that builds relationships with the right people. This is a key element missing from the discussion. In some contexts being purposefully disrespectful is a good thing. This also means you need to operate in an environment where it's okay to make a mistake, apologise and move on. You have to be able to read the person's response to attempt any of this. You cannot do that over text, so it can't be used online.
- just_to_reply 5y ago
  It's not just like a nickname, though. It's about who you're willing to date, who is put in which prison or who is allowed to compete in which sports competitions.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - mike00632 5y ago
    Are you in prison or competing at the highest level of sports? If not then why not just respect the preferences of trans people?
    - a1369209993 5y ago
      > > It's about who you're willing to date, who is put in which prison or who is allowed to compete in which sports competitions. > Are you in prison or competing at the highest level of sports? I assume they're dating.
      - mike00632 5y ago
        Still not a good reason to forbid trans people from public accomodations, keep it legal to discriminate against hiring trans people, deny them service, deny them loans, etc. My point in asking about those edge cases is to say that it's not an excuse for the wide-ranging ways we torment trans people as a society.
      - CRConrad 5y ago
        > > > It's about who you're willing to date, who is put in which prison or who is allowed to compete in which sports competitions. > > Are you in prison or competing at the highest level of sports? > I assume they're dating. Then the time to rise a stink and become loudly anti-trans is surely when the law starts to mandate[1] you dating them, or at the earliest, when it's starting to look as if the law is about to do so... But not before, right? [1]: Hnyuk, hnyuk.
- cheeseomlit 5y ago
  Not really an apt comparison since there's nothing about a nickname that defies observable reality, a name is a social construct to begin with. Sex however is a biological construct in which the characteristics are directly and quantitatively observable.
  - saxonww 5y ago
    The idea is that sex and gender are different though; gender _is_ a social construct. I think lack of agreement on this is a big part of the issue right now. Edit: as pointed out below, gender roles are something we've made up, but preferences and behavior themselves (which we're calling gender) are not. Still separate from sex.
    - HideousKojima 5y ago
      Attempts to separate sex from gender are prescriptive, not descriptive. And the academic who first attempted to separate their meanings was a child molester with strong personal and ideological motivations for doing so: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Money https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Money
      - saxonww 5y ago
        This has no bearing on whether the idea is right or not, and shame on you for trying to shut down conversation by comparing adherents to child molesters.
        mpfundstein 5y ago
        he didnt try to shut down the conversation, he just pointed out a fairly shocking truth about one of the first gender scholars
        saxonww 5y ago
        Which was irrelevant, and intended to get people questioning whether thinking along the same lines would cause others to look at them the same way. "I don't want people to think I might be a child molester too... maybe I should keep these ideas to myself." It absolutely shuts down conversation.
- briffle 5y ago
  I had this exact same argument with a family member who's legal name is William, but has gone by 'Bill" his whole life...
- omginternets 5y ago
  Do you think legislators and employers should get involved in decisions about nicknames? If so, that would make you some sort of authoritarian. And this is what the debate is really about: authoritarian vs libertarian political attitudes. I’m certainly ready to have that debate, but it would require the “woke left” [0] to abandon the moral high-ground. [0] There’s surely a better term to use, but I can’t think of it right now.
  - mike00632 5y ago
    My point was that this is not about how personally difficult it is for you to respect someone else's preferences. It's actually very easy and we do it all the time for other things, like nicknames. If you're so against trans people having similar status as you then you shouldn't claim that it's because trans people are causing you a burden.
    - omginternets 5y ago
      >If you're so against trans people having similar status as you then you shouldn't claim that it's because trans people are causing you a burden. Yes, I understand. But, much of the opposition you're seeing isn't because people are "against trans people". It's because they're opposed solving the problem of intolerance through authoritarian methods.
      - mike00632 5y ago
        Aren't you being the "authoritarian" by insisting on calling people by the wrong nicknames (gender), promoting laws that outlaw nickname (gender) preference and going as far as violence if that person continues to disagree with your name (gender)? The proposed protections for trans people are in response to real acts of violence that are not in line with laws like the 14th Amendment which promotes equality for all people. And let's remember that these laws to protect trans people are only being proposed. Many laws on the books are against trans people. What you're reacting to is social pressure to treat trans people with respect, not authoritarian legal pressure. If anyone is feeling authoritarian legal pressure it's trans people.
- newsbinator 5y ago
  I defer to nicknames, but if the State or my university or my company forced me to, on pain of getting fired, expelled, fined, or worse, then I wouldn't want to defer to nicknames anymore on principle. I don't care what gender someone calls themselves, and as a nice person I'll try to remember and use it, so long as they don't attempt to get me fired if I get it wrong.
  - mike00632 5y ago
    What if you insist on calling that person by the wrong name even though you know it's not what they prefer? That seems like a pretty good example of creating a toxic work environment and you should be fired over it.
    - RealStickman_ 5y ago
      That's called being an asshole
    - golemiprague 5y ago
      Name has no factual meaning, it is an ID, referring to someone as male or female indicates a fact, the way you see the world. It is like demanding saying about someone that he is tall even though he is short factually. So I don't think it is a good comparison. Sometimes people sugarcoat reality, especially women when they compliment other women's kids in social media, but that's out of their own will and reasons, not because someone is demanding it from them.
    - omginternets 5y ago
      It would depend on the specifics. There is a difference between harassing someone and not deferring to their request on the basis that you don't agree with it (however misguided you may be). Conflating these two things is precisely why there's a backlash against CRT et al. from otherwise left-leaning individuals.
      - mike00632 5y ago
        You missed the point that trans people aren't creating the burden here. It's pretty clear that it's a simple request and we regularly make similar adjustments, like with nicknames. You're hitting the nail in the head that the problem is with the anti-trans person making a stink about it. That is where the real burden is, and that is who is to blame for the toxic work environment. The bully is the problem, not their target.
- jotux 5y ago
  Wouldn't this be the opposite of that scenario? As in, someone has a given name at birth but they prefer a nickname and some people find using the nickname too onerous and use their given name instead?
  - mike00632 5y ago
    Yeah, my legal name is "Michael". If I asked you to call me "Mike" is that really such a pain for you?
    - kofejnik 5y ago
      If I asked you to call me "Your Majesty" and bow your head every time (only slightly, tho), would it really be such a pain to you?
      - mike00632 5y ago
        I will leave it as an exercise to you to describe the difference between calling someone by their preferred pronouns and treating them like royalty.
        inglor_cz 5y ago
        I will leave it as an exercise to you Not the OP, but what a smug reply. This is not mathematics, you are not the professor, and it would be only fair if you started with your own description of said difference, as you see it. You cannot expect that everyone sees it in the same way, can you?
        mike00632 5y ago
        Can you really not see the difference? Do you need me to explain it to you? Because it's pretty clear that they're different and obvious that this was a bad faith comment. If you honestly believe that respecting a trans person's pronouns is similar to calling them "Your majesty" and bowing to them, then tell me and I will patiently explain to you the lessons you missed as a child in basic human decency.
- Causality1 5y ago
  I have that exact situation at work, twice in fact. One woman's nickname is Pookie. Some people are uncomfortable with using that term and they use her legal name. It doesn't bother her. Another man insisted on people calling him "PawPaw". Nobody was comfortable with that, especially the women he borderline harassed every day. He was fired for stealing food out of the break room before the name situation came to a head. You don't have the right to compel speech in other people in any way. You don't even have the right to make people call you by your birth name. Some jurisdictions like NYC have laws against malicious miss-naming by an employer or landlord, but even that only applies if they essentially make it a harassment campaign.
  - mike00632 5y ago
    What is interesting is that you value rights... but not for trans people. You wrote many paragraphs about your God-given right to misgender people. Noticably missing is any talk about trans people being able to use public accomodations or have access to medical care or not face discrimination in terms of hiring, loans, services. Like, "compel speech"? Really? You were going to use a pronoun anyways. It's just such a simple ask for the sake of politeness but you frame it as "compel speech"? This idea that it's such a burden is obviously contrived.
    - Causality1 5y ago
      That talk is missing because it wasn't the subject of the comment to which I was replying. Misgendering people is dick behavior and terfs are by and large hypocrites. Believing in peoples' rights to say mean things to each other is not the same as advocating for fascistic bathroom restrictions or arguing that trans people don't deserve the same freedom from legal discrimination as any other gender identity or sexuality.
- throwaway_8Z3E 5y ago
  Can my nickname be, "My lord and master" ? I assume you will call me by my preferred nickname.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- thomasahle 5y ago
  In my experience it's pretty hard stopping people from calling you nicknames, if they feel like doing so. I've never introduced myself with a nickname to anybody, but somehow they often end up using one anyway. Then, a name is really something other people use for refering to you. Whatever is more convenient for them is probably the best name.
- will4274 5y ago
  You know.. I call people their nicknames and preferred pronouns. But... I have a name like David Goldsmith - common first name, two common syllable last name. People call me Dave, David, Davy, Goldsmith, and this one Indian coworker of mine always seems to call me Goldsith, which I think is cool because star wars, but also like wtf dude, you're missing the same letter every time. The point is though, I don't really care what people call me. People call me a dozen different things nowadays. The last time I got bothered about what somebody was calling me, I was 12 and it was "Davy dumbsmith".
smoldesu 5y ago
This was ironically one of the things that was hardest about coming out as gay, for me. Nobody ever treated me the same way again. I was either uncomfortably praised or silently judged, with practically no in-between. Suffice to say, my sexuality is on a need-to-know basis, now.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  And the reverse: your sexuality - or anybody else's who is not my mate - is not on my list of 'want-to-know'. I simply do not care about the choices and/or attributes of other people though I believe they should be 100% free to make whatever choice they want and be whoever they are, and have gone out of my way to ensure that this is the case for people who find their life's choices frustrated or their reality denied by others. This is probably a sign of my advancing age, I'm probably a prude by today's standards, but I simply don't find these subjects for semi-public or even public discussion with strangers.
  - noobermin 5y ago
    This isn't about strangers, but acquaintances and friends, who would know you a little more intimately, no?
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      Sure, but by the time I would call someone my friend or acquaintance I would assume that they would feel safe enough saying anything that might reveal that fact in an indirect way. Then again, being gay/lesbian is very much an accepted thing here. Being trans still not so much, though that is changing. If I would meet some stranger or some person in a work setting their sexuality would not be on my list of things I would be interested in, either we don't know each other that well or we have at best a working relationship, a job to get done, and to move the subject to sexuality would be - according to me - inappropriate.
  - kelnos 5y ago
    I think the issue is that a gay man probably wants to be comfortable answering "what did you do last night?" with "I went out to dinner with my boyfriend", but can't be with a new friend who doesn't know about their sexuality. As much as we'd like to believe we have no biases, we do. Straight is the societal default. People who are not straight and just want to answer a question about their dinner run the risk of a bad reaction if the person they're talking to just happens to be homophobic. Someone might prefer to get that reaction in a controlled setting, when they've emotionally prepared themselves for it, not during the course of answering a routine question about dinner. So that's why someone you're just starting to get to know might prefer to specifically tell you that they're gay, rather than waiting for it to just come up as an incidental fact during conversation. This isn't about them assuming that you specifically care about their sexuality. It's about them being able to determine if you are a person with whom is safe to share details about their life... innocuous details that a straight person would take for granted as being safe to share.
colechristensen 5y ago
You can notice this in a few fields of popular ideologies these days, that is overcorrecting for a problem to the point of becoming exactly the thing one was originally fighting against. I am of the somewhat progressive-unpopular opinion that some people have an unhealthy interest in how they label themselves and how others perceive them, and in the attempts to be supportive the popular opinion is doing more harm than good. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against anyone with a certain genotype or phenotype having any particular interest in whom they love, how they dress, their hobbies, behaviors, etc. as long as they don’t put hurts on other people. I do have doubts about the amount of “identifying” people do with their preferences though. It can be a subtle point that is hard to make just right without getting pitchforks raised, I’m never sure i’ve done it right.
- TimTheTinker 5y ago
  The problem is that people entangle their sense of identity with their opinions. (I think PG had an essay on HN recently that talked about this - he called out religious and political opinions in particular.) So their opinions aren't up for discussion. If you disagree with them, they feel offended and personally attacked.
  - 9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago
    Interfering with the opinion of another is contrary to the principles of human rights. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma...
    - TimTheTinker 5y ago
      Disagreeing with someone's opinion isn't interfering with it.
      - 9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago
        Marginalizing someone’s identity is interference with a person’s honor, also contrary to the principles of human rights.
kwanbix 5y ago
100% Agree. At least in my home country, this is mostly fueled by the left (I consider myself center). Lots of them just "work" of doing nothing but protesting, so once they get something they wanted, they have to move to the next thing. For example, they start by making changes to the language so, instead of being "los" (male) or "las" (female) they started to say "les" (does not exists in spanish) as they say it is more inclusive (nor male nor female). But it is not that they say "los", "las", and "les", they want you to say "les". So first it was an "innocent" thing, and now they are trying to pass laws and indoctrinate everyone, included kids from any age, 6 years old or less.
- lotu 5y ago
  Language is defined by the people who speak it, not by some authority. If people are using “les” than it is part of Spanish.
  - inglor_cz 5y ago
    Some languages actually do have a central authority. IDK about Spanish, but my native language (Czech) definitely has an official standard. Anyone can, of course, use any weird construction they want, it is just not correct Czech.
    - kwanbix 5y ago
      Spanisch also hast it. Real academia española But he post of the other member was about that languages naturally evolve, which is true, but this is forced and unatural.
      - joshuamorton 5y ago
        What makes it forced or unnatural? It's intentional, to be sure, but hope does that make it less natural? Or put differently, how do you distinguish between a natural and unnatural change to language?
        5y ago
tshaddox 5y ago
I don't see any irony there, because there is a huge difference between accepting that certain personal characteristics shouldn't matter, and accepting that people nevertheless do face a wide range of problems because of their personal characteristics that shouldn't matter. The former has experienced some progress as you mention (at least for what's considered acceptable to voice publicly), but the latter appears to be highly controversial.
evo 5y ago
There's a nuance here: it's possible to both want systemic change on the macro scale, but also meanwhile seek a local maximum for oneself given the current system dynamics at play. By proxy, I might advocate that income inequality is too high, and that some form of wealth redistribution should be considered. You might say that, therefore, I ought to donate my entire salary to charities. Someone might do that, as a radical stand against capitalism, and I would support that. However, I would also support someone that is trying to seek better wages under the current system, even if they do support wealth redistribution on the wider political scale--in context, it's understandable. Translating that back to the original space, it seems that you advocate that someone that might today identify as a trans woman might instead identify as a man (or person) with phenotypically female presentation, due to medical treatment, and with a significant number of traditionally feminine attributes, as 'personal characteristics shouldn't matter'. This would place them in the vanguard of challenging gender dynamics. I think that's admirable of people that choose to do that. I understand that many other trans folk want to challenge the status quo less severely, and identifying as their gender allows them increased safety, sanity, and happiness within the confines of the current world.
yanderekko 5y ago
>However this whole debate is reversing that by not only saying it matters a great deal but that other people should be forced to defer to others personal choices even when it directly affects them Yep, and the problem is that this is obviously a principal that is not going to be impartially implied, but instead that deference towards personal identity is going to be parceled out based on tribal lines - look how common it is for many on the left to argue that black conservatives are "not really black" (or maybe they're black, but not Black?) The battle for trans rights is intertwined much more tightly with a battle for control of language - extending to affirmative demands that others deeply change their normal language to avoid giving unintentional offense - than any other civil rights push I can think of, and I wonder if this will become more commonplace in the future.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

mike00632 5y ago

Do you feel the same way about nicknames? If you call someone by a nickname that they don't like and they let you know they prefer their own name then do you consider it too onerous to defer to them about it?

handmodel 5y ago
I don't think that is what commenter is saying. I, personally, of course defer to nicknames and pronouns. I think it is more similar to race-blind versus race-conscious policies - along with gender-blind versus gernder-concious. Is it better to assume that men and women are pretty much the same in academia and each are capable of the same thing? Or is it better to assume that men and women are intrinsically better at different things with certain characteristics. I think the answer is in the middle but clearly there has been a move in the last five years to say that gender inherently effects your worldview/characteristics while simultaneously saying that men/women should have equal outcomes in all fields. Its not internally consistent.
- klyrs 5y ago
  > Is it better to assume that men and women are pretty much the same in academia and each are capable of the same thing? Or is it better to assume that men and women are intrinsically better at different things with certain characteristics. This is something I think a lot of people misunderstand about [id]-consciousness. Is it better to assume that you as an individual have biases that align/oppose with overarching biases in our society, or is it better to assume that you alone, or society at large, are bias-free? Can we address inequality by treating everybody the same in this moment and ignoring the historical context they exist in, or do observed biases need to be compensated for in some manner?
- sophacles 5y ago
  It's certainly consistent. Worldview happens as a result of experiences - if ones biological sex and/or gender is used as a reason to allow or deny certain experiences to someone, then maybe it affects their worldview, no? This is different than whether the gating on biological sex makes sense. (Note I don't mean strictly mechanical stuff like peeing your name into the snow, I'm talking about things like teachers "not wasting time on helping girls understand math"[1] - because I suspect that teachers not helping girls with math is probably more causal to fewer women in math than their vaginas. [1] I've personally heard math teachers say this, and heard stories of others saying it too.)
  - handmodel 5y ago
    That's not quite what I'm saying. It seems like you are advocating a gender blind policy - one in which no one is every denied treatment or eduction based on their gender. And one in which teachers do not insult girl students and make sure to have examples that would interest them. However, what happens if this is completely eliminated and there are still discrepancies in grades, degrees, income? Many would say then that the subject matter is tilted towards men or women and needs to be reformed. Those who argue that position are arguing for gender conscious policy. Which is definitely not the same as gender neutral policy (which was the most popular 15 years ago when I was in school - but things seem to be shifting towards more conscious policy)
xupybd 5y ago
This is common in many of the team sports I've played in. The more someone hates their nickname the more likely it will stick. Generally it's only done with close friends.
- watwut 5y ago
  It is also done with people you want to bully. Also, this mocking relationship is very often one way instead of symmetric.
- mike00632 5y ago
  Yeah, but is such behavior acceptable in the workplace? And is it right to use this behavior as a guide to lessen the legal status of trans people?
  - xupybd 5y ago
    I think it is, and it's sad that you have been so heavily downvoted. We seem to be finding ourselves lacking the etiquette to deal with this situation. Can you do this in the workplace, yes, with the right people and relationships. Can you treat trans people like this, yes, with the right people and relationships. If ribbing someone causes them to get offended, you leave them alone or it is just bullying. If they come back at you, it's a game, a fun game that builds relationships with the right people. This is a key element missing from the discussion. In some contexts being purposefully disrespectful is a good thing. This also means you need to operate in an environment where it's okay to make a mistake, apologise and move on. You have to be able to read the person's response to attempt any of this. You cannot do that over text, so it can't be used online.
just_to_reply 5y ago
It's not just like a nickname, though. It's about who you're willing to date, who is put in which prison or who is allowed to compete in which sports competitions.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- mike00632 5y ago
  Are you in prison or competing at the highest level of sports? If not then why not just respect the preferences of trans people?
  - a1369209993 5y ago
    > > It's about who you're willing to date, who is put in which prison or who is allowed to compete in which sports competitions. > Are you in prison or competing at the highest level of sports? I assume they're dating.
    - mike00632 5y ago
      Still not a good reason to forbid trans people from public accomodations, keep it legal to discriminate against hiring trans people, deny them service, deny them loans, etc. My point in asking about those edge cases is to say that it's not an excuse for the wide-ranging ways we torment trans people as a society.
    - CRConrad 5y ago
      > > > It's about who you're willing to date, who is put in which prison or who is allowed to compete in which sports competitions. > > Are you in prison or competing at the highest level of sports? > I assume they're dating. Then the time to rise a stink and become loudly anti-trans is surely when the law starts to mandate[1] you dating them, or at the earliest, when it's starting to look as if the law is about to do so... But not before, right? [1]: Hnyuk, hnyuk.
cheeseomlit 5y ago
Not really an apt comparison since there's nothing about a nickname that defies observable reality, a name is a social construct to begin with. Sex however is a biological construct in which the characteristics are directly and quantitatively observable.
- saxonww 5y ago
  The idea is that sex and gender are different though; gender _is_ a social construct. I think lack of agreement on this is a big part of the issue right now. Edit: as pointed out below, gender roles are something we've made up, but preferences and behavior themselves (which we're calling gender) are not. Still separate from sex.
  - HideousKojima 5y ago
    Attempts to separate sex from gender are prescriptive, not descriptive. And the academic who first attempted to separate their meanings was a child molester with strong personal and ideological motivations for doing so: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Money https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Money
    - saxonww 5y ago
      This has no bearing on whether the idea is right or not, and shame on you for trying to shut down conversation by comparing adherents to child molesters.
      - mpfundstein 5y ago
        he didnt try to shut down the conversation, he just pointed out a fairly shocking truth about one of the first gender scholars
        saxonww 5y ago
        Which was irrelevant, and intended to get people questioning whether thinking along the same lines would cause others to look at them the same way. "I don't want people to think I might be a child molester too... maybe I should keep these ideas to myself." It absolutely shuts down conversation.
briffle 5y ago
I had this exact same argument with a family member who's legal name is William, but has gone by 'Bill" his whole life...
omginternets 5y ago
Do you think legislators and employers should get involved in decisions about nicknames? If so, that would make you some sort of authoritarian. And this is what the debate is really about: authoritarian vs libertarian political attitudes. I’m certainly ready to have that debate, but it would require the “woke left” [0] to abandon the moral high-ground. [0] There’s surely a better term to use, but I can’t think of it right now.
- mike00632 5y ago
  My point was that this is not about how personally difficult it is for you to respect someone else's preferences. It's actually very easy and we do it all the time for other things, like nicknames. If you're so against trans people having similar status as you then you shouldn't claim that it's because trans people are causing you a burden.
  - omginternets 5y ago
    >If you're so against trans people having similar status as you then you shouldn't claim that it's because trans people are causing you a burden. Yes, I understand. But, much of the opposition you're seeing isn't because people are "against trans people". It's because they're opposed solving the problem of intolerance through authoritarian methods.
    - mike00632 5y ago
      Aren't you being the "authoritarian" by insisting on calling people by the wrong nicknames (gender), promoting laws that outlaw nickname (gender) preference and going as far as violence if that person continues to disagree with your name (gender)? The proposed protections for trans people are in response to real acts of violence that are not in line with laws like the 14th Amendment which promotes equality for all people. And let's remember that these laws to protect trans people are only being proposed. Many laws on the books are against trans people. What you're reacting to is social pressure to treat trans people with respect, not authoritarian legal pressure. If anyone is feeling authoritarian legal pressure it's trans people.
newsbinator 5y ago
I defer to nicknames, but if the State or my university or my company forced me to, on pain of getting fired, expelled, fined, or worse, then I wouldn't want to defer to nicknames anymore on principle. I don't care what gender someone calls themselves, and as a nice person I'll try to remember and use it, so long as they don't attempt to get me fired if I get it wrong.
- mike00632 5y ago
  What if you insist on calling that person by the wrong name even though you know it's not what they prefer? That seems like a pretty good example of creating a toxic work environment and you should be fired over it.
  - RealStickman_ 5y ago
    That's called being an asshole
  - golemiprague 5y ago
    Name has no factual meaning, it is an ID, referring to someone as male or female indicates a fact, the way you see the world. It is like demanding saying about someone that he is tall even though he is short factually. So I don't think it is a good comparison. Sometimes people sugarcoat reality, especially women when they compliment other women's kids in social media, but that's out of their own will and reasons, not because someone is demanding it from them.
  - omginternets 5y ago
    It would depend on the specifics. There is a difference between harassing someone and not deferring to their request on the basis that you don't agree with it (however misguided you may be). Conflating these two things is precisely why there's a backlash against CRT et al. from otherwise left-leaning individuals.
    - mike00632 5y ago
      You missed the point that trans people aren't creating the burden here. It's pretty clear that it's a simple request and we regularly make similar adjustments, like with nicknames. You're hitting the nail in the head that the problem is with the anti-trans person making a stink about it. That is where the real burden is, and that is who is to blame for the toxic work environment. The bully is the problem, not their target.
jotux 5y ago
Wouldn't this be the opposite of that scenario? As in, someone has a given name at birth but they prefer a nickname and some people find using the nickname too onerous and use their given name instead?
- mike00632 5y ago
  Yeah, my legal name is "Michael". If I asked you to call me "Mike" is that really such a pain for you?
  - kofejnik 5y ago
    If I asked you to call me "Your Majesty" and bow your head every time (only slightly, tho), would it really be such a pain to you?
    - mike00632 5y ago
      I will leave it as an exercise to you to describe the difference between calling someone by their preferred pronouns and treating them like royalty.
      - inglor_cz 5y ago
        I will leave it as an exercise to you Not the OP, but what a smug reply. This is not mathematics, you are not the professor, and it would be only fair if you started with your own description of said difference, as you see it. You cannot expect that everyone sees it in the same way, can you?
        mike00632 5y ago
        Can you really not see the difference? Do you need me to explain it to you? Because it's pretty clear that they're different and obvious that this was a bad faith comment. If you honestly believe that respecting a trans person's pronouns is similar to calling them "Your majesty" and bowing to them, then tell me and I will patiently explain to you the lessons you missed as a child in basic human decency.
Causality1 5y ago
I have that exact situation at work, twice in fact. One woman's nickname is Pookie. Some people are uncomfortable with using that term and they use her legal name. It doesn't bother her. Another man insisted on people calling him "PawPaw". Nobody was comfortable with that, especially the women he borderline harassed every day. He was fired for stealing food out of the break room before the name situation came to a head. You don't have the right to compel speech in other people in any way. You don't even have the right to make people call you by your birth name. Some jurisdictions like NYC have laws against malicious miss-naming by an employer or landlord, but even that only applies if they essentially make it a harassment campaign.
- mike00632 5y ago
  What is interesting is that you value rights... but not for trans people. You wrote many paragraphs about your God-given right to misgender people. Noticably missing is any talk about trans people being able to use public accomodations or have access to medical care or not face discrimination in terms of hiring, loans, services. Like, "compel speech"? Really? You were going to use a pronoun anyways. It's just such a simple ask for the sake of politeness but you frame it as "compel speech"? This idea that it's such a burden is obviously contrived.
  - Causality1 5y ago
    That talk is missing because it wasn't the subject of the comment to which I was replying. Misgendering people is dick behavior and terfs are by and large hypocrites. Believing in peoples' rights to say mean things to each other is not the same as advocating for fascistic bathroom restrictions or arguing that trans people don't deserve the same freedom from legal discrimination as any other gender identity or sexuality.
throwaway_8Z3E 5y ago
Can my nickname be, "My lord and master" ? I assume you will call me by my preferred nickname.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
thomasahle 5y ago
In my experience it's pretty hard stopping people from calling you nicknames, if they feel like doing so. I've never introduced myself with a nickname to anybody, but somehow they often end up using one anyway. Then, a name is really something other people use for refering to you. Whatever is more convenient for them is probably the best name.
will4274 5y ago
You know.. I call people their nicknames and preferred pronouns. But... I have a name like David Goldsmith - common first name, two common syllable last name. People call me Dave, David, Davy, Goldsmith, and this one Indian coworker of mine always seems to call me Goldsith, which I think is cool because star wars, but also like wtf dude, you're missing the same letter every time. The point is though, I don't really care what people call me. People call me a dozen different things nowadays. The last time I got bothered about what somebody was calling me, I was 12 and it was "Davy dumbsmith".

smoldesu 5y ago

This was ironically one of the things that was hardest about coming out as gay, for me. Nobody ever treated me the same way again. I was either uncomfortably praised or silently judged, with practically no in-between. Suffice to say, my sexuality is on a need-to-know basis, now.

jacquesm 5y ago
And the reverse: your sexuality - or anybody else's who is not my mate - is not on my list of 'want-to-know'. I simply do not care about the choices and/or attributes of other people though I believe they should be 100% free to make whatever choice they want and be whoever they are, and have gone out of my way to ensure that this is the case for people who find their life's choices frustrated or their reality denied by others. This is probably a sign of my advancing age, I'm probably a prude by today's standards, but I simply don't find these subjects for semi-public or even public discussion with strangers.
- noobermin 5y ago
  This isn't about strangers, but acquaintances and friends, who would know you a little more intimately, no?
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    Sure, but by the time I would call someone my friend or acquaintance I would assume that they would feel safe enough saying anything that might reveal that fact in an indirect way. Then again, being gay/lesbian is very much an accepted thing here. Being trans still not so much, though that is changing. If I would meet some stranger or some person in a work setting their sexuality would not be on my list of things I would be interested in, either we don't know each other that well or we have at best a working relationship, a job to get done, and to move the subject to sexuality would be - according to me - inappropriate.
- kelnos 5y ago
  I think the issue is that a gay man probably wants to be comfortable answering "what did you do last night?" with "I went out to dinner with my boyfriend", but can't be with a new friend who doesn't know about their sexuality. As much as we'd like to believe we have no biases, we do. Straight is the societal default. People who are not straight and just want to answer a question about their dinner run the risk of a bad reaction if the person they're talking to just happens to be homophobic. Someone might prefer to get that reaction in a controlled setting, when they've emotionally prepared themselves for it, not during the course of answering a routine question about dinner. So that's why someone you're just starting to get to know might prefer to specifically tell you that they're gay, rather than waiting for it to just come up as an incidental fact during conversation. This isn't about them assuming that you specifically care about their sexuality. It's about them being able to determine if you are a person with whom is safe to share details about their life... innocuous details that a straight person would take for granted as being safe to share.

colechristensen 5y ago

You can notice this in a few fields of popular ideologies these days, that is overcorrecting for a problem to the point of becoming exactly the thing one was originally fighting against. I am of the somewhat progressive-unpopular opinion that some people have an unhealthy interest in how they label themselves and how others perceive them, and in the attempts to be supportive the popular opinion is doing more harm than good. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against anyone with a certain genotype or phenotype having any particular interest in whom they love, how they dress, their hobbies, behaviors, etc. as long as they don’t put hurts on other people. I do have doubts about the amount of “identifying” people do with their preferences though. It can be a subtle point that is hard to make just right without getting pitchforks raised, I’m never sure i’ve done it right.

TimTheTinker 5y ago
The problem is that people entangle their sense of identity with their opinions. (I think PG had an essay on HN recently that talked about this - he called out religious and political opinions in particular.) So their opinions aren't up for discussion. If you disagree with them, they feel offended and personally attacked.
- 9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago
  Interfering with the opinion of another is contrary to the principles of human rights. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma...
  - TimTheTinker 5y ago
    Disagreeing with someone's opinion isn't interfering with it.
    - 9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago
      Marginalizing someone’s identity is interference with a person’s honor, also contrary to the principles of human rights.

kwanbix 5y ago

100% Agree. At least in my home country, this is mostly fueled by the left (I consider myself center). Lots of them just "work" of doing nothing but protesting, so once they get something they wanted, they have to move to the next thing. For example, they start by making changes to the language so, instead of being "los" (male) or "las" (female) they started to say "les" (does not exists in spanish) as they say it is more inclusive (nor male nor female). But it is not that they say "los", "las", and "les", they want you to say "les". So first it was an "innocent" thing, and now they are trying to pass laws and indoctrinate everyone, included kids from any age, 6 years old or less.

lotu 5y ago
Language is defined by the people who speak it, not by some authority. If people are using “les” than it is part of Spanish.
- inglor_cz 5y ago
  Some languages actually do have a central authority. IDK about Spanish, but my native language (Czech) definitely has an official standard. Anyone can, of course, use any weird construction they want, it is just not correct Czech.
  - kwanbix 5y ago
    Spanisch also hast it. Real academia española But he post of the other member was about that languages naturally evolve, which is true, but this is forced and unatural.
    - joshuamorton 5y ago
      What makes it forced or unnatural? It's intentional, to be sure, but hope does that make it less natural? Or put differently, how do you distinguish between a natural and unnatural change to language?
      - 5y ago

tshaddox 5y ago

I don't see any irony there, because there is a huge difference between accepting that certain personal characteristics shouldn't matter, and accepting that people nevertheless do face a wide range of problems because of their personal characteristics that shouldn't matter. The former has experienced some progress as you mention (at least for what's considered acceptable to voice publicly), but the latter appears to be highly controversial.

evo 5y ago

There's a nuance here: it's possible to both want systemic change on the macro scale, but also meanwhile seek a local maximum for oneself given the current system dynamics at play. By proxy, I might advocate that income inequality is too high, and that some form of wealth redistribution should be considered. You might say that, therefore, I ought to donate my entire salary to charities. Someone might do that, as a radical stand against capitalism, and I would support that. However, I would also support someone that is trying to seek better wages under the current system, even if they do support wealth redistribution on the wider political scale--in context, it's understandable. Translating that back to the original space, it seems that you advocate that someone that might today identify as a trans woman might instead identify as a man (or person) with phenotypically female presentation, due to medical treatment, and with a significant number of traditionally feminine attributes, as 'personal characteristics shouldn't matter'. This would place them in the vanguard of challenging gender dynamics. I think that's admirable of people that choose to do that. I understand that many other trans folk want to challenge the status quo less severely, and identifying as their gender allows them increased safety, sanity, and happiness within the confines of the current world.

yanderekko 5y ago

>However this whole debate is reversing that by not only saying it matters a great deal but that other people should be forced to defer to others personal choices even when it directly affects them Yep, and the problem is that this is obviously a principal that is not going to be impartially implied, but instead that deference towards personal identity is going to be parceled out based on tribal lines - look how common it is for many on the left to argue that black conservatives are "not really black" (or maybe they're black, but not Black?) The battle for trans rights is intertwined much more tightly with a battle for control of language - extending to affirmative demands that others deeply change their normal language to avoid giving unintentional offense - than any other civil rights push I can think of, and I wonder if this will become more commonplace in the future.