2 ms·

> For instance pronouns: antiwokism wants to have society at large decide what someone's pronouns are and are upset that people they describe as "woke" want to

> For instance pronouns: antiwokism wants to have society at large decide what someone's pronouns are and are upset that people they describe as "woke" want to allow individuals to define their own gender identity. That some people believe in the concept of 'gender identity' and define it for themselves is not a problem in itself. Essentially, this is covered under freedom of religion, a widely accepted human right. The problem is that many of those who hold such beliefs want everyone else to use 'gender identity' in lieu of sex, and lobby for law and policy to be changed so this is enforced. A man who declares himself to have a 'female gender identity' will typically want this declaration to grant him access to female-only spaces. Naturally, this is opposed by anyone who wants women's spaces to remain male-free. As this has such widespread impact and is effectively a top-down reorganization of society that disadvantages women in favor of a subset of men, it's become a hot-button political issue for this reason, particularly amongst feminists.

EthanHeilman 3y ago
> The problem is that many of those who hold such beliefs want everyone else to use 'gender identity' in lieu of sex, and lobby for law and policy to be changed so this is enforced. You objection is that that individual is defining how the collective treats the individual. You would rather than individual must play by the rules of the collective.
- dj_rappist 3y ago
  > You would rather than individual must play by the rules of the collective. The collective in this case is women, and the individuals are those men who desire to be women, or call themselves women. These men are attempting, for their own gratification, to undermine the well-established collective rights of women, particularly regarding female-only spaces. So yes, I would much rather these men abide by the rules of the collective, and stop trying to impose themselves on women's spaces, and refrain from forcing everyone to accept their belief that they are women simply because they say they are.
- nvm0n2 3y ago
  By definition, identity is something that other people use to refer to you. You can invent all the personal identities you like if you just use them when referring to yourself. The moment what other people do comes into question then it's not about the individual anymore.
  - EthanHeilman 3y ago
    It is about respecting the individuals wishes. Consider a more general case than gender, as the gender debate has been so poisoned by right wing attempts to turn it into a wedge issue it is difficult to discuss without a bigger discussion of sex, gender, society and biology. Let's say someone's legal name is Robert. They deeply dislike the name Robert and prefer to be called Bob. Should they legally be allowed to change their name to Bob? Is the authority of the label Robert on their birth certificate greater than the authority of an individual to name themselves? Taking this out of the realm of law and into the more murky area of social dynamics. Lets say Bob asks people in their workplace to call them Bob, but everyone in their workplace calls Bob, Robert instead. In doing so they are not being respectful of an individual. While all groups are made of individuals, the question here is should the individual be able to determine the name they are called or should a collective group decide it for them? I would take Bob's side and say that his coworkers are being shitty. There are some interesting cases here. Fighter pilots don't get to choose their call signs. Instead they are given by the other pilots and often refers to something they messed up. The authority of the call sign comes from group consensus not individual wishes.
    - nvm0n2 3y ago
      Changing your name is a pretty involved legal process exactly because identity is so widely used by other people, so it generates a lot of work to alter it. And governments in some parts of the world regulate what names you can use, and may refuse to let you change your name if they have reasons for it. I don't personally care much what people want to be called, and would of course be happy to call Robert Bob if that is what he wanted. But that's because I'm a reasonable person and that's a reasonable request. If Robert changed his mind every week about what he wanted to be called, people would stop respecting his wishes because he'd be placing an unreasonable burden on them by doing so. If he decided his new name was 56 characters long and impossible to spell, or some unpronounceable symbol, again, people might reject his wish because it would place an unreasonable burden on them. Perhaps more apropos for Hacker News, many websites don't let you change your username because it's a primary key, or because that's how other users identify you, or for whatever other reasons. They may also ban things like emoji in name fields, or even in some incompetent cases not work if your name is Null. Are these violations of my human rights? Well, no, not really. So whilst I don't wish to get into trans issues here, the claim that identity is a purely personal choice is clearly backwards. Your identity is how other people identify you, by definition, so it requires their consent to have a specific identity. You can ask them nicely but it's ultimately their choice.

EthanHeilman 3y ago

> The problem is that many of those who hold such beliefs want everyone else to use 'gender identity' in lieu of sex, and lobby for law and policy to be changed so this is enforced. You objection is that that individual is defining how the collective treats the individual. You would rather than individual must play by the rules of the collective.

dj_rappist 3y ago
> You would rather than individual must play by the rules of the collective. The collective in this case is women, and the individuals are those men who desire to be women, or call themselves women. These men are attempting, for their own gratification, to undermine the well-established collective rights of women, particularly regarding female-only spaces. So yes, I would much rather these men abide by the rules of the collective, and stop trying to impose themselves on women's spaces, and refrain from forcing everyone to accept their belief that they are women simply because they say they are.
nvm0n2 3y ago
By definition, identity is something that other people use to refer to you. You can invent all the personal identities you like if you just use them when referring to yourself. The moment what other people do comes into question then it's not about the individual anymore.
- EthanHeilman 3y ago
  It is about respecting the individuals wishes. Consider a more general case than gender, as the gender debate has been so poisoned by right wing attempts to turn it into a wedge issue it is difficult to discuss without a bigger discussion of sex, gender, society and biology. Let's say someone's legal name is Robert. They deeply dislike the name Robert and prefer to be called Bob. Should they legally be allowed to change their name to Bob? Is the authority of the label Robert on their birth certificate greater than the authority of an individual to name themselves? Taking this out of the realm of law and into the more murky area of social dynamics. Lets say Bob asks people in their workplace to call them Bob, but everyone in their workplace calls Bob, Robert instead. In doing so they are not being respectful of an individual. While all groups are made of individuals, the question here is should the individual be able to determine the name they are called or should a collective group decide it for them? I would take Bob's side and say that his coworkers are being shitty. There are some interesting cases here. Fighter pilots don't get to choose their call signs. Instead they are given by the other pilots and often refers to something they messed up. The authority of the call sign comes from group consensus not individual wishes.
  - nvm0n2 3y ago
    Changing your name is a pretty involved legal process exactly because identity is so widely used by other people, so it generates a lot of work to alter it. And governments in some parts of the world regulate what names you can use, and may refuse to let you change your name if they have reasons for it. I don't personally care much what people want to be called, and would of course be happy to call Robert Bob if that is what he wanted. But that's because I'm a reasonable person and that's a reasonable request. If Robert changed his mind every week about what he wanted to be called, people would stop respecting his wishes because he'd be placing an unreasonable burden on them by doing so. If he decided his new name was 56 characters long and impossible to spell, or some unpronounceable symbol, again, people might reject his wish because it would place an unreasonable burden on them. Perhaps more apropos for Hacker News, many websites don't let you change your username because it's a primary key, or because that's how other users identify you, or for whatever other reasons. They may also ban things like emoji in name fields, or even in some incompetent cases not work if your name is Null. Are these violations of my human rights? Well, no, not really. So whilst I don't wish to get into trans issues here, the claim that identity is a purely personal choice is clearly backwards. Your identity is how other people identify you, by definition, so it requires their consent to have a specific identity. You can ask them nicely but it's ultimately their choice.