4 ms·

Bias isn't the same as being bigoted. If when you find out you missed it you go "Oh, crap, you're right! We should fix that" you had a bias. If when you find ou

Bias isn't the same as being bigoted. If when you find out you missed it you go "Oh, crap, you're right! We should fix that" you had a bias. If when you find out you missed it you start to defend why it's fine to not include it (not to admit you should, but maybe you don't have time/it isn't worth the cost), that's the point it's bigoted. It's the difference between making a mistake, and getting defensive that it wasn't a mistake. Per old systems, they all fall under bias; it's only with how do the existing support personnel deal with it that you start looking at bigotry, a "I'm sorry, I know, it's just an old system and we don't have the money to update it" is totally understandable and I would argue okay. Digging in that it's not the system that is at fault but the individual wanting a different pronoun, or the person refusing to pick an anglicized name and start using it everywhere, is bigoted.

CoastalCoder 5y ago
> If when you find out you missed it you start to defend why it's fine to not include it (not to admit you should, but maybe you don't have time/it isn't worth the cost), that's the point it's bigoted. > > It's the difference between making a mistake, and getting defensive that it wasn't a mistake. I think that definition is pretty good, but it also reveals something about the popular usage of the term "bigot". IIUC, an underlying assumption in the parent comment is a person is at fault for not accommodating the offended party's preferred taxonomy / categories / terminology. That a person is a "bigot" if they see their system's current taxonomy as better or more appropriate. Merriam-Webster's definition is somewhat different [0]: "a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices". Note that with MW's definition, either or both persons in that "you missed it" conversation could be labelled a bigot, depending on how obstinately they held onto their views. [0] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot
- slg 5y ago
  You are skipping over the last two words in the definition. It isn't just holding to their own opinions. It is holding to their "opinions and prejudices". Of the two stances "I want to be referred to by the pronouns of my choosing" and "I want to refer to you be the pronouns I dictate for you" only one of those would qualify as prejudice and therfore that is the stance that qualifies as bigoted.
  - CoastalCoder 5y ago
    I wonder if we're assuming different definitions of "prejudices". What I mean is having reached a conclusion without consideration of all the relevant details. I.e., deciding a matter prematurely. I think this lines up pretty well with the MW definition [0]. I don't see how that's related to the particular opposing stances in your example. Can you elaborate? [0] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prejudice https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prejudice
    - slg 5y ago
      The person who refuses to use another person's preferred pronouns is obvious dictionary definition prejudice. It is someone prejudging the proper pronouns without the relevant details from the individual they are referencing. It is almost literally the person saying "I am deciding your gender without consulting you." What are the relevant details when choosing your own preferred pronouns? Wouldn't all the relevant details be known by the person making the decision? I don't see how that can be prejudice.
      - CoastalCoder 5y ago
        Thanks for clarifying! I can see now how that could be an example of prejudice. I had a different scenario in mind: person A indicates their preferred pronouns to person B, but person B refuses to use those pronouns for well-considered reasons and with a full understanding of the situation. It's this scenario that I was arguing to not be a case of bigotry nor prejudice.
        slg 5y ago
        Oh, I thought lostcolony had already eliminated that specific scenario as not being bigoted. It can be biased, but it wouldn't be bigoted if there are justifiable reasons for not making the switch. That isn't prejudice as it is a decision made after the relevant details are known.
        5y ago

CoastalCoder 5y ago

> If when you find out you missed it you start to defend why it's fine to not include it (not to admit you should, but maybe you don't have time/it isn't worth the cost), that's the point it's bigoted. > > It's the difference between making a mistake, and getting defensive that it wasn't a mistake. I think that definition is pretty good, but it also reveals something about the popular usage of the term "bigot". IIUC, an underlying assumption in the parent comment is a person is at fault for not accommodating the offended party's preferred taxonomy / categories / terminology. That a person is a "bigot" if they see their system's current taxonomy as better or more appropriate. Merriam-Webster's definition is somewhat different [0]: "a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices". Note that with MW's definition, either or both persons in that "you missed it" conversation could be labelled a bigot, depending on how obstinately they held onto their views. [0] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot

slg 5y ago
You are skipping over the last two words in the definition. It isn't just holding to their own opinions. It is holding to their "opinions and prejudices". Of the two stances "I want to be referred to by the pronouns of my choosing" and "I want to refer to you be the pronouns I dictate for you" only one of those would qualify as prejudice and therfore that is the stance that qualifies as bigoted.
- CoastalCoder 5y ago
  I wonder if we're assuming different definitions of "prejudices". What I mean is having reached a conclusion without consideration of all the relevant details. I.e., deciding a matter prematurely. I think this lines up pretty well with the MW definition [0]. I don't see how that's related to the particular opposing stances in your example. Can you elaborate? [0] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prejudice https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prejudice
  - slg 5y ago
    The person who refuses to use another person's preferred pronouns is obvious dictionary definition prejudice. It is someone prejudging the proper pronouns without the relevant details from the individual they are referencing. It is almost literally the person saying "I am deciding your gender without consulting you." What are the relevant details when choosing your own preferred pronouns? Wouldn't all the relevant details be known by the person making the decision? I don't see how that can be prejudice.
    - CoastalCoder 5y ago
      Thanks for clarifying! I can see now how that could be an example of prejudice. I had a different scenario in mind: person A indicates their preferred pronouns to person B, but person B refuses to use those pronouns for well-considered reasons and with a full understanding of the situation. It's this scenario that I was arguing to not be a case of bigotry nor prejudice.
      - slg 5y ago
        Oh, I thought lostcolony had already eliminated that specific scenario as not being bigoted. It can be biased, but it wouldn't be bigoted if there are justifiable reasons for not making the switch. That isn't prejudice as it is a decision made after the relevant details are known.
        5y ago