4 ms·

While I can understand there may be debate around various trans issues purposefully calling someone something when they’ve politely asked you to call them somet

While I can understand there may be debate around various trans issues purposefully calling someone something when they’ve politely asked you to call them something else isn’t up for much debate. Seems like common courtesy/politeness. I see your point about losing users potentially but I would argue that Twitter’s intense focus on the US (as shown by the democrat/republican metrics) and trying to placate everyone is actually a negative for their business. There’s billions of other internet users outside the US. Shifting focus to serve them instead of focussing intensely on trying to please both sides in the US (and failing) would probably deliver better value for their shareholders.

concordDance 4y ago
> purposefully calling someone something when they’ve politely asked you to call them something else isn’t up for much debate. Seems like common courtesy/politeness. It can be if the thing they're asking for is perceived to be untrue and the person being asked is a big stickler for that sort of thing. If you'll excuse me using metaphors on this sensitive topic: if someone wants to be referred to as "His Majesty" but is not actually the king then while many nice people will indulge him[1], some who care a great deal about the "correct" usage of noble titles won't. [1] And it'll work out well! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_Norton https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_Norton
- Timon3 4y ago
  But what if you flip the coin? What if the person being asked really, really thinks that the other person is a pissface, and is a big stickler for calling people he perceives to be pissfaces as such? Surely we can all agree that allowing them to follow their ideas will lead to bad discourse. And it doesn't even have to be such a crass example. What if a person is legally called Robert, but he's gone by Bob his whole life - is the stickler right if they insist on calling them by their legally given name?
  - concordDance 4y ago
    > Surely we can all agree that allowing them to follow their ideas will lead to bad discourse. I actually think that if someone genuinely thinks someone else is a pissface then it's their right to call the other person that. I also think that excluding such a person from your conversations may be sensible. This applies to pronouns too.
    - Timon3 4y ago
      Sure, is somebody arguing for something differently? It's strange to me how often people repeat "oh, but they are allowed to", when that's irrelevant to the topic at hand.
      - concordDance 4y ago
        It's the difference between "what you're doing is wrong" and "what you're doing isn't compatible with our vibe, so you're not welcome". I think the main difference between my faction and the main trans activist faction is we don't think honest misgendering (done due to an earnestly held belief about the sex of the other person and some moral convictions against white lies) should be a firing offense.
        Timon3 4y ago
        > I think the main difference between my faction and the main trans activist faction is we don't think honest misgendering (done due to an earnestly held belief about the sex of the other person and some moral convictions against white lies) should be a firing offense. This seems counter to what you wrote earlier: > I also think that excluding such a person from your conversations may be sensible. Let's say your a customer of a company, and an employee "honestly misgenders you", even after you've repeatedly asked them not to. What can the company and you do to exclude them from your conversations, without firing them? Should a company also accept a racist employee calling customers the n-word? Is it acceptable to fire somebody for that?
  - Sparyjerry 4y ago
defrayi 4y ago
Compelling people to lie about what they observe, often under threat of punishment, isn't polite or courteous.

concordDance 4y ago

> purposefully calling someone something when they’ve politely asked you to call them something else isn’t up for much debate. Seems like common courtesy/politeness. It can be if the thing they're asking for is perceived to be untrue and the person being asked is a big stickler for that sort of thing. If you'll excuse me using metaphors on this sensitive topic: if someone wants to be referred to as "His Majesty" but is not actually the king then while many nice people will indulge him[1], some who care a great deal about the "correct" usage of noble titles won't. [1] And it'll work out well! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_Norton https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_Norton

Timon3 4y ago
But what if you flip the coin? What if the person being asked really, really thinks that the other person is a pissface, and is a big stickler for calling people he perceives to be pissfaces as such? Surely we can all agree that allowing them to follow their ideas will lead to bad discourse. And it doesn't even have to be such a crass example. What if a person is legally called Robert, but he's gone by Bob his whole life - is the stickler right if they insist on calling them by their legally given name?
- concordDance 4y ago
  > Surely we can all agree that allowing them to follow their ideas will lead to bad discourse. I actually think that if someone genuinely thinks someone else is a pissface then it's their right to call the other person that. I also think that excluding such a person from your conversations may be sensible. This applies to pronouns too.
  - Timon3 4y ago
    Sure, is somebody arguing for something differently? It's strange to me how often people repeat "oh, but they are allowed to", when that's irrelevant to the topic at hand.
    - concordDance 4y ago
      It's the difference between "what you're doing is wrong" and "what you're doing isn't compatible with our vibe, so you're not welcome". I think the main difference between my faction and the main trans activist faction is we don't think honest misgendering (done due to an earnestly held belief about the sex of the other person and some moral convictions against white lies) should be a firing offense.
      - Timon3 4y ago
        > I think the main difference between my faction and the main trans activist faction is we don't think honest misgendering (done due to an earnestly held belief about the sex of the other person and some moral convictions against white lies) should be a firing offense. This seems counter to what you wrote earlier: > I also think that excluding such a person from your conversations may be sensible. Let's say your a customer of a company, and an employee "honestly misgenders you", even after you've repeatedly asked them not to. What can the company and you do to exclude them from your conversations, without firing them? Should a company also accept a racist employee calling customers the n-word? Is it acceptable to fire somebody for that?
- Sparyjerry 4y ago

defrayi 4y ago

Compelling people to lie about what they observe, often under threat of punishment, isn't polite or courteous.