3 ms·

So basically you are saying that you have to be a academic philosopher to understand such simple questions? How is that helpful, when language is there for comm

So basically you are saying that you have to be a academic philosopher to understand such simple questions? How is that helpful, when language is there for communication of ordinary people? Why not keep things simple and reserve sex for the biological terms? Summarized, men have a penis, women have a vagina. So a mens toilet can look different to a women toilet, out of physological reasons. And none of this has anything to do with how a person feels inside or how he or she or it identifies, or to what jobs they qualify. Except well, giving birth and breast feeding. Edit: I think the terms trans men and trans women are clear and precise enough, to describe people who identify with the other sex, why having another body. But as far as I understood, some think that is already discriminating? It is confusing and this is what annoys me with the topic. My initial reaction to the top post and transphobic, was that the maintainer is a sadistic asshole who attacks trans people, but so far I only have seen, that he has a different opinion on the topic and the tendency to push his opinion on other people in a not ideal way, but maybe it is still possible to not exclude him from participation in society? Because the whole thread here seems to be a discussion about that. Can we still use his software? I think yes, otherwise we are heading into a totalitarian society.

wizzwizz4 4y ago
> So basically you are saying that you have to be a academic philosopher to understand such simple questions? Well, yeah – or familiar with that kind of thought, at least. Confronted with the question "what is red?", most people just shrug and get on with their lives. Just look at the SEP page on qualia,[0] and that's a summary of part of that question. It simply doesn't matter to most people. I don't have to know what, exactly, a Hindu is, in order to respect Hindus; the question simply doesn't have all that much relevance to my life. > Why not keep things simple and reserve sex for the biological terms? I mean, you can. How you use language is up to you. But, rightly or wrongly, "man" and "woman" are very salient social categories in our society, and pressuring people into social boxes without their consent harms them. (It's a form of violence, for some senses of the word "violence".) If you can use the terminology how you want to, without forcibly social-categorising people, then more power to you! And please teach me your ways, if you have the time. > But as far as I understood, some think that is already discriminating? That isn't discriminating. Discriminating is discriminating. Such insistence on such terminology can be part of discrimination, but the essence of the discrimination is not in the words. > It is confusing and this is what annoys me with the topic. Me too. The world is large, and confusing. Especially with social topics, people are inclined to yell at you as soon as you "step out of line", because if they make space for those who genuinely aren't informed, they open themselves up to sealions.[1][2] Fortunately, you usually have opportunities to learn about these things other than in the spaces that get trolled often. > My initial reaction to the top post and transphobic, was that the maintainer is a sadistic asshole who attacks trans people, but so far I only have seen, that he has a different opinion on the topic and the tendency to push his opinion on other people in a not ideal way, It can be both. (Though I wouldn't call him sadistic. Some people around him are quite sadistic, sure, but I don't think he wants to hurt people because he likes their pain.) > but maybe it is still possible to not exclude him from participation in society? I'm happy to play catch with him again, if he stops lobbing bricks at my head and claiming it's dodge-ball (and if I can trust that he isn't likely to start again once my guard comes down). He's not excluded from participation in society; just some parts of it he used to be included in. He's got plenty of new friends to enjoy spending time with, if he can. Just because he's sad about the relationships he's thrown away, that doesn't mean he's entitled to other people's friendliness. [0]: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/ [1]: http://wondermark.com/1k62/ http://wondermark.com/1k62/ [2]: https://everydayfeminism.com/2017/01/sealioning/ https://everydayfeminism.com/2017/01/sealioning/
- hutzlibu 4y ago
  "Confronted with the question "what is red?", most people just shrug and get on with their lives." They would most likely point to something red and say "this is red" "and this is red, but more orange". They don't want to say "this is #ff0000". And asked what is a women, they would point to some human with characteristic female charaters and say "she is a woman", "and this person probably" "and this is likely a man". Very concrete and refering to the biological terms. And yes, that can be wrong on first look. And oh my, having long hair I also have been misstaken for a women some times and told, that I seem androgyn. So what? I know that I am biological a men and yes, I have a female side, maybe stronger than in stereotype man. That doesn't mean, I feel justified to go to a women only sauna and start a drama, because I feel more female that day. "if he stops lobbing bricks at my head" But is he really throwing something against you? Is he insulting you directly, or do you feel insulted by his opinion? What would matter to me in this concrete example: does he only accept pull requests from trans people, if they use their old name for example and insist on using "she" only for biological females? That would be over the line for me. Otherwise I could look over it.
  - wizzwizz4 4y ago
    > And asked what is a women, they would point to some human with characteristic female charaters and say "she is a woman", "and this person probably" "and this is likely a man". Pretty much. > Very concrete and refering to the biological terms. They're referring to the categories, and those categories are often described in biological terms. But they're often described in other terms, too – men are XYZ, women are ABC. There are many ways you can point at the "woman" and "man" categories, none of which are descriptions of every man or woman. Outside of mathematics, categories don't have rigid boundaries and formal definitions… unless this is the one case in all the world where they do? (Not impossible, but Occam's Razor says human cognition probably doesn't special-case this.) My claim here is experimentally falsifiable, too: if you think you've got a formal definition, provide it, and I'm happy to give you examples of hypothetical people who obviously don't fit into it, exhibiting the divergence between your definition and the real-world man/woman distinction. Side note: over 10% of English speakers are from cultures with a continued tradition of having more than two genders. It's clear they mean something other than "biological terms", so I won't labour that point. > That doesn't mean, I feel justified to go to a women only sauna and start a drama, because I feel more female that day. I understand you're trying to express… confusion? Disagreement? But so far, it seems like you get it just fine. (Unless you're saying that you frequently feel more female than you do male, in which case… I don't think HN's the right place for the ensuing discussion. Check my NickServ taxonomy on libera.chat, if you like.) Fun (probable) fact: did you know, most trans people don't even go swimming? --- > But is he really throwing something against you? Is he insulting you directly, or do you feel insulted by his opinion? That was a tortured metaphor. We've never played catch, either, in case you were wondering. (I don't know that we've been in the same country at the same time.) I don't think Alex has ever hurt me directly; in fact, he's had access to a reasonable amount of my personal information and, as far as I know, hasn't done anything bad with it. One of the hate groups he's tech support for spent about three days harassing me online, one time. (I think it started because they were harassing one of my acquaintances for daring to put pronouns in her bio, and simultaneously work for a feminist non-profit.) Don't remember whether I was crying, but I know some of the other targets were. Does that count? > does he only accept pull requests from trans people, if they use their old name for example Not to my knowledge. Then again, it's a while since anyone I know has worked with him. > and insist on using "she" only for biological females? At one point he was trying to insist upon that; no clue whether he still does. I never knew him all that well, and it's not like I keep tabs on every bigot I've ever been social media "mutuals" with. > That would be over the line for me. Otherwise I could look over it. I'm not saying you should hate him. Heck, I don't hate him, so it'd be pretty weird for me to insist you do. But he advocates for, and aids, the harassment of people I care about. It's not about blame; it's about trust: he doesn't deserve yours.

wizzwizz4 4y ago

> So basically you are saying that you have to be a academic philosopher to understand such simple questions? Well, yeah – or familiar with that kind of thought, at least. Confronted with the question "what is red?", most people just shrug and get on with their lives. Just look at the SEP page on qualia,[0] and that's a summary of part of that question. It simply doesn't matter to most people. I don't have to know what, exactly, a Hindu is, in order to respect Hindus; the question simply doesn't have all that much relevance to my life. > Why not keep things simple and reserve sex for the biological terms? I mean, you can. How you use language is up to you. But, rightly or wrongly, "man" and "woman" are very salient social categories in our society, and pressuring people into social boxes without their consent harms them. (It's a form of violence, for some senses of the word "violence".) If you can use the terminology how you want to, without forcibly social-categorising people, then more power to you! And please teach me your ways, if you have the time. > But as far as I understood, some think that is already discriminating? That isn't discriminating. Discriminating is discriminating. Such insistence on such terminology can be part of discrimination, but the essence of the discrimination is not in the words. > It is confusing and this is what annoys me with the topic. Me too. The world is large, and confusing. Especially with social topics, people are inclined to yell at you as soon as you "step out of line", because if they make space for those who genuinely aren't informed, they open themselves up to sealions.[1][2] Fortunately, you usually have opportunities to learn about these things other than in the spaces that get trolled often. > My initial reaction to the top post and transphobic, was that the maintainer is a sadistic asshole who attacks trans people, but so far I only have seen, that he has a different opinion on the topic and the tendency to push his opinion on other people in a not ideal way, It can be both. (Though I wouldn't call him sadistic. Some people around him are quite sadistic, sure, but I don't think he wants to hurt people because he likes their pain.) > but maybe it is still possible to not exclude him from participation in society? I'm happy to play catch with him again, if he stops lobbing bricks at my head and claiming it's dodge-ball (and if I can trust that he isn't likely to start again once my guard comes down). He's not excluded from participation in society; just some parts of it he used to be included in. He's got plenty of new friends to enjoy spending time with, if he can. Just because he's sad about the relationships he's thrown away, that doesn't mean he's entitled to other people's friendliness. [0]: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/ [1]: http://wondermark.com/1k62/ http://wondermark.com/1k62/ [2]: https://everydayfeminism.com/2017/01/sealioning/ https://everydayfeminism.com/2017/01/sealioning/

hutzlibu 4y ago
"Confronted with the question "what is red?", most people just shrug and get on with their lives." They would most likely point to something red and say "this is red" "and this is red, but more orange". They don't want to say "this is #ff0000". And asked what is a women, they would point to some human with characteristic female charaters and say "she is a woman", "and this person probably" "and this is likely a man". Very concrete and refering to the biological terms. And yes, that can be wrong on first look. And oh my, having long hair I also have been misstaken for a women some times and told, that I seem androgyn. So what? I know that I am biological a men and yes, I have a female side, maybe stronger than in stereotype man. That doesn't mean, I feel justified to go to a women only sauna and start a drama, because I feel more female that day. "if he stops lobbing bricks at my head" But is he really throwing something against you? Is he insulting you directly, or do you feel insulted by his opinion? What would matter to me in this concrete example: does he only accept pull requests from trans people, if they use their old name for example and insist on using "she" only for biological females? That would be over the line for me. Otherwise I could look over it.
- wizzwizz4 4y ago
  > And asked what is a women, they would point to some human with characteristic female charaters and say "she is a woman", "and this person probably" "and this is likely a man". Pretty much. > Very concrete and refering to the biological terms. They're referring to the categories, and those categories are often described in biological terms. But they're often described in other terms, too – men are XYZ, women are ABC. There are many ways you can point at the "woman" and "man" categories, none of which are descriptions of every man or woman. Outside of mathematics, categories don't have rigid boundaries and formal definitions… unless this is the one case in all the world where they do? (Not impossible, but Occam's Razor says human cognition probably doesn't special-case this.) My claim here is experimentally falsifiable, too: if you think you've got a formal definition, provide it, and I'm happy to give you examples of hypothetical people who obviously don't fit into it, exhibiting the divergence between your definition and the real-world man/woman distinction. Side note: over 10% of English speakers are from cultures with a continued tradition of having more than two genders. It's clear they mean something other than "biological terms", so I won't labour that point. > That doesn't mean, I feel justified to go to a women only sauna and start a drama, because I feel more female that day. I understand you're trying to express… confusion? Disagreement? But so far, it seems like you get it just fine. (Unless you're saying that you frequently feel more female than you do male, in which case… I don't think HN's the right place for the ensuing discussion. Check my NickServ taxonomy on libera.chat, if you like.) Fun (probable) fact: did you know, most trans people don't even go swimming? --- > But is he really throwing something against you? Is he insulting you directly, or do you feel insulted by his opinion? That was a tortured metaphor. We've never played catch, either, in case you were wondering. (I don't know that we've been in the same country at the same time.) I don't think Alex has ever hurt me directly; in fact, he's had access to a reasonable amount of my personal information and, as far as I know, hasn't done anything bad with it. One of the hate groups he's tech support for spent about three days harassing me online, one time. (I think it started because they were harassing one of my acquaintances for daring to put pronouns in her bio, and simultaneously work for a feminist non-profit.) Don't remember whether I was crying, but I know some of the other targets were. Does that count? > does he only accept pull requests from trans people, if they use their old name for example Not to my knowledge. Then again, it's a while since anyone I know has worked with him. > and insist on using "she" only for biological females? At one point he was trying to insist upon that; no clue whether he still does. I never knew him all that well, and it's not like I keep tabs on every bigot I've ever been social media "mutuals" with. > That would be over the line for me. Otherwise I could look over it. I'm not saying you should hate him. Heck, I don't hate him, so it'd be pretty weird for me to insist you do. But he advocates for, and aids, the harassment of people I care about. It's not about blame; it's about trust: he doesn't deserve yours.