Hacker News Reader

Comment by etjossem | Hacker News Reader

> If Chelsea doesn't like it, well, she can take it up with the dictionary.

On her behalf, let's call up Merriam-Webster.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/singular-nonbi...

The only correct use of the singular-they is as "a pronoun of choice for someone who doesn’t identify as either male or female." You could use singular-they for "a person whose gender isn’t known or isn’t important in the context," but strictly speaking that would be grammatically incorrect.

If - as you claim - you're eager to abide by prescriptive conventions of the English language, feel free to start using "she" when referring to Chelsea Manning.

View on HN

Dictionaries are reflections of usage rather than arbiters of it -- but yes, generally speaking, singular "they" is for use in situations where people's gender is ambiguous or unknown. And in particular, calling trans people "they" is often a tactic that is used to implicitly deny that they are "really" their gender.

I'm well aware, which is why it's totally inappropriate usage here.

Chelsea Manning's gender and pronoun are arguably among the most well-known in the world, since she has very publicly made them explicit! The only reason anyone in this situation is using "they" is because of a desire to avoid saying the correct pronoun "she."

Precisely. Except i don't think it's a "mistake".

I just took that part out, after thinking about it for a little bit. Our default pattern of speech is to choose "he" or "she" if we know one of these pronouns is correct, so the use of singular-they is nearly always deliberate.

Yeah, exactly. In my observation, even when people are trying to use "they" - like if they're telling someone a story where they're deliberately obfuscating someone's gender - folks often slip up midway through.

The volume of downvotes and hate comments you are getting for standing up on this issue is disturbing. I hope some of those commenters eventually reconsider whether the acceptance of disrespectful pronouns on HN is truly the cause they want to be known for.

I honestly believe the majority of the downvotes are because of tone, not position.

As for hate comments in response to any of 'adrienne's in this thread, I see three that are very uncivil and have been flagged dead (and won't appear unless you have showdead on). Another is arguably uncivil and has also received a net negative votes. If you have a separate tally, please point it out.

That's not to say all of the downvotes are purely for tone. There are people who will downvote out of spite or disagreement. One issue I do think a majority of HN members agree on is the value of civil, substantive discussion, regardless of topic. As a result, HN members do overwhelmingly downvote incivility, including incivility directed at 'adrienne's comments. Please note that multiple commenters have mentioned exactly this. If you contend that they're being insincere in doing so, you of course are free to do so, but it's unlikely that you're going to be able to constructively engage with them from a position of bad faith.

I want people to be able to discuss these types of things. Regardless of what people think should be, it remains a fact that not everyone agrees on a whole host of issues. Changing one's mind is hard; changing someone else's even harder. If I can't approach the discussion with the perspective that there's hope of some sort of understanding (if not yet agreement), I'll refrain from saying anything. It's not useful—and very likely counterproductive—to do otherwise.

I am not on board with categorically downvoting incivility, even on that last bastion of civil discourse we call HN. While we may feel uncomfortable hearing from someone who is upset, it's hard to deny that we notice them more - and that can be very important for those whose voice isn't very loud in the community otherwise. To the empathetic, an uncivil outcry can serve as a stinging reminder that their behavior has deeply offended someone else.

I'm reminded of an MLK Jr. quote about the tendency of moderates to oppose the loudness of minorities whose views aren't yet well-accepted.

I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

We should strive to be an orderly community, but we should also strive to be an accepting one.

Thanks for the MLK quote! I agree with the spirit of it, and personally struggle to understand where the balance is between order and justice. though I think there's a meaningful distinction to be made between "set a timetable for another man's freedom" and trying to figure out what ways are effective in making change. I'm not encouraging anyone to wait. I'm encouraging people to do what's effective. MLK was also very good at figuring out effective methods of promoting change, and is well known for non-violent civil disobedience. He's also well known for his eloquence. I'm not a scholar of his speeches and writings, but I'm not aware of cases where he was uncivil in his language. Happy to be educated otherwise.

And with respect to uncivil outcry, there may indeed be a place for it. If it's repeated to the point where it ends up being effectively ignored and dismissed, does it still serve the purpose of reminding people that there are those who are offended? I personally don't think so.

A downvote, whether it's because of tone or message, is a way to say "this comment has no place here." Enough of them concentrated on one message will censor it from everyone else's view.

All I ask is that we be careful about using that tool, particularly against a "freedom from" position that has historically been given few venues.

I believe trans people should have freedom from misgendering, because being in an environment in which you are constantly humiliated and disrespected can have negative psychological effects. As a white guy who doesn't suffer through this, I can afford to play it safe when I talk about it, because I am not directly impacted by how well my message is heard.

There are also some people who can't afford to play it safe. They need to talk about this, even if it is emotional or tough for them. If anything, they deserve to be heard more than I do. I want to make HN a place where they feel like they have a seat at the table, so I don't mind it when they meet what they perceive as incivility with a fire of their own.

I understand where you're coming from. I likewise want people to feel like they can discuss issues that are important to them. And I can also understand why people often respond passionately and possibly uncivilly in response to what they perceive (and sometimes objectively is) incivility. That said, I don't agree with it. It's just not effective in the vast majority of cases, and I see the severe polarization in the US as partly due to this lack of civil, charitable discourse.

Would you and I be able to have continued this discussion (which I feel is civil and constructive, and I thank you for that) if we weren't taking care with how we express ourselves? I personally doubt it. For my part, I haven't felt that I've gotten heated or needed to restrain myself or rephrase for tone (as opposed to clarity), which I most definitely have in other discussions on divisive issues (in this case the role of civility in discussion of contentious issues). I sincerely hope you feel similarly, even if you ultimately disagree with what I've said.

Regarding downvoting: I believe it's off-topic here to discuss the proper use of downvoting. There's plenty of that to be found on HN already. In my comment above I'm describing the behavior I see: the positive as opposed to the normative. I do have opinions on the matter, but they're similarly off-topic.

I'm not sure what else I have to add on the topic of civility and discussion. I often reference the Principle of Charity[0] and Rapoport's Rules[1] as I personally find them useful in guiding my approach to discussion. Thanks again for your thoughtful discussion. I appreciate it.

[0]: http://philosophy.lander.edu/oriental/charity.html

[1]: https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/03/28/daniel-dennett-rapo...

If people are downvoting me for incivilty, they should also be downvoting all the misgendering, which is fundamentally uncivil no matter how calm and even the tone in which it is done.

I skimmed the comments in this thread, searching for references to "he" or "they" (and the instance of "guy" I found) in reference to Manning. I found 3 "he", 1 "guy", and one "they". All were downvoted, two of them flagged dead. Admittedly this isn't comprehensive: there are currently over 500 comments. This doesn't include discussion of the use of "they" in general, or reflection on the use of "they" when the gender is unknown. Given that people regardless of whether you think it's reasonable or not have not come to a universal consensus on this issue, I think it's understandable to have civil discussion on this, which it nearly wholly has been.

User 'wtbob has posted three comments in this thread full of really appalling transphobia and they don't seem to be getting downvoted. Meanwhile i'm down 30+ points.

All of 'wtbob's comments have been posted within the past hour, well after I skimmed the comments two hours ago, and while HN is not nearly as active as it was earlier in the day. I've sincerely tried to engage you fairly and charitably, and in the case of looking at behavior, as objectively as I can, 'adrienne. I wish you the best.

Edit to add: Within the time it took me to compose this comment, at least two of their comments have been downvoted.

I just sent an email to the mods about those comments. And yes, i acknowledge that they are newer than your last post to me. I see how my comment implied otherwise, and i apologize for that. I am really, really appalled at those comments and i was uncareful in writing about it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com