Comment by shkkmo | Hacker News Reader

Comment by shkkmo | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I am sure safe spaces are implemented in a variety of ways and with varying levels of competence.

I would point out that "being opposed to sex-reassignment surgery" is not so much an opinion as it is an ideology. I suspect many safe spaces would be far more open to including people who subscribe to that ideology if those people entered those discussions with a willingness to learn, a desire to honestly explore the pros and cons of that surgery, and a desire to share their own experiences of gender while also learning about other experiences of gender.

That is not any easy thing to do and it is especially difficult to do for cisgender people who have little knowledge of the emotional land mines they can trigger by simply relying on the "common sense" they have learned over a lifetime. If there is an honest desire to be included in these discussions, I would highly recommend taking the time to listen and learn before you start sharing your viewpoint so you can understand the effects that your words will have.

> a desire to honestly explore the pros and cons of that surgery

What if these pros and cons were subjective, and someone decided that in the end, the cons outweighed the pros? Would you cast them as an evil person and exile them from your safe space? Would you accept their opinion, respectfully disagree, and move on?

It seems that you must either abide by the ideology, censor yourself, or be exiled and called a nazi. This goes against everything that a university is about: free speech and open discussion.

> cisgender people who have little knowledge of the emotional land mines they can trigger by simply relying on the "common sense" they have learned over a lifetime.

Correct. Cisgendered people represent the majority of the population. Personally I have had maybe one or two opportunities to interact with a transgender person because they make up a tiny percentage of the population. That is not to say that I refuse to be respectful towards them, it shows that the majority of people don't get the chance to interact and learn what to avoid saying. Is everyone really required to learn all these new words / triggers / etc. in order to appease a tiny tiny fraction of the population? Genuinely curious to know your thoughts.

> Is everyone really required to learn all these new words / triggers / etc. in order to appease a tiny tiny fraction of the population?

Every person you meet is a minority of 1 in 7 billion. Is it so hard for you to learn how to understand people? Do you have trouble with new words and concepts?

All you have to do if you say something offensive to somebody is say "I'm sorry, I won't say that again. I'll be more accommodating in the future."

> Do you have trouble with new words and concepts?

The trouble comes when a tiny minority (i) decides that the accepted meaning of common terms no longer suits their personal preference — I refer here to the use of they as a generic singular pronoun in formal language — and (ii) insists loudly that anyone who fails to conform to their new preference is being hurtful and disrespectful instead of merely precise.

It's not up you how somebody wants to be addressed after requesting it. You don't have to harbor cruel feelings about it. Singular they has been used in English for a long time historically.

> It's not up you how somebody wants to be addressed after requesting it.

Really? If you were to ask me to address you as Your Imperial Majesty, you should not hold your breath waiting for me to comply.

Language evolves; in formal English, singular they has long been unacceptable. (Informal English is another story.)

EDIT:

>You don't have to harbor cruel feelings about it.

You're proving my point in assuming I "harbor cruel feelings" about trans people.

Can you use a concrete example to illustrate your claim?

I did in the edited version (I hadn't seen your question before doing the edit).

I'ma be real with you chief. That's hella shallow and pedantic.

I think it would be hurtful and disrespectful to die on such a mole hill instead of just accommodating people over something so simple.

It never ceases to astonish me how ready some people are to feel hurt and disrespected — and to brand anyone who disagrees with them as "shallow and pedantic." I have no desire to expend scarce brain cycles trying to keep up with who wants to be addressed in what manner.

> I have no desire to expend scarce brain cycles trying to keep up with who wants to be addressed in what manner.

This is disrespectful. You might think that this disrespect is warranted- that's fine; one must make judgment calls about what to respect and what not to respect. It's still disrespect. Be yourself: own it :)

> This is disrespectful.

You've calibrated your disrespect alarm to an awfully low setpoint.

Many people of different types have preferences about what they consider respectful forms of address and communication. I don't expect people to always get it right (I certainly don't), but it is entirely reasonable to see am unwillingness to even try to be polite as disrespectful.

It's not impolite to use standard terms of address, and it's disrespectful to expect others to learn and remember your personal, nonstandard preference for how you want to be addressed.

They is the only available standard gender neutral term. The only alternative is "it" which is generally considered offensive when applied to people (try calling a new baby whose gender you don't know "it" and see what kind of look you get).

"Personally I have had maybe one or two opportunities to interact with a transgender person because they make up a tiny percentage of the population."

That's super interesting to me, because in my experience in any social group I participate in greater than, say, 50 or 100(anything from gamer rooms to code-a-thons), chances are good that at least one person will not be cis. I may not know they aren't cis, but in spaces that ask for preferred pronouns, it's quite common for they/them to be taken up as an accepted pronoun.

> What if these pros and cons were subjective, and someone decided that in the end, the cons outweighed the pros?

Of course the pros and cons can be subjective, relative and individual. Among the trans and non-binary community, sexual reassignment surgery is not ubiquitous.

> Would you cast them as an evil person and exile them from your safe space? Would you accept their opinion, respectfully disagree, and move on?

You seem to be missing the distinction between sharing your opinions kindly and respectfully and self-censoring. My point is that people without much experience on this topic will likely have no clue about they ways they are being cruel, disrespectful or ignorant.

> Is everyone really required to learn all these new words / triggers / etc. in order to appease a tiny tiny fraction of the population? Genuinely curious to know your thoughts.

If you would like to act respectful towards (and be taken seriously by) any population, you must make an effort to learn their volcabulary and desired forms of respectful communication. This applies to any cultural group and isn't anything new or an audacious request.

On this specific point, I agree with you, and generally have for some time, but am generally more skeptical than ever of the people on the apparently altruistic inclusivity side. It may be confirmation bias, but the kind of shit I've become aware of is ridiculous. Some examples are the backlash that Bret Weinstein got a few years ago at Evergren, the amount of "Fuck Terfs" that's spraypainted all over my neighborhood because women's shelters don't allow people who only identify as women to be the same as bio-sex females, and the banning of public libraries from inclusion of events like pride on the basis that they allow critics a space to speak. If the genuine desire to have a dialogue was there, it would be more obvious. Even some of my friends who live the social justice life seem to shut down when they don't have script readily indexed to respond to what they deem a threat in regular conversation. I wish this wasn't the case, because I am a liberal person, but believe these things need scrutiny as much as anything else. That's the only way people who are currently suppressed can then be elevated in a sustainable way.

Here I'm trying to make distinctions between things like a gay person's human right to marry and a male's ability to identify as a woman and sue female oriented genital grooming places for discrimination on the basis that they have male parts. In one case that human right was denied arbitrarily based on the ideology of doctrine imbued culture and law.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com