Hacker News Reader

I wanted to step back to the beginning and ask why you felt that you needed to jump into a conversation with someone who was obviously much more deeply involved that you. In no way did I criticize trans people, or otherwise attack anyone other than SJWs who fight for people who don't want them.

Don't you see the issue of people claiming to fight for others, but really just stirring up trouble?

I'm honestly interested because I see many communities attacked and turned into a hollow shell, leaving the original members as the primary enemies. Transexuals are literally hated on Twitter despite being the group who fought for the freedom that the current justice warriors are using against them. And people like yourself, who seem to sincerely be trying to help, are helping the attackers. What about the transgender message to you justifies death threats and insane hatred of transexuals? Because that's what you're supporting if you back these pronoun bullies. All anyone different needs is just for everyone to let them be. Fighting in their name is directly counterproductive.

Real LGBTQ+(everything) people don't want to force the public to do anything, they simply want to be equals! Everyone who fights for this "must use pronouns" or "must say 'cis'", etc, fight must hate actual LGBTQ people or they wouldn't try to pick a fight for them. Do you and everyone else not understand how hard it is without people making it harder?

I mean, it is a way for you (the generic you, but also the personal you) to virtue signal. But do you really think this justifies the damage?

How, and why? This stuff is crazy!

Oh, also, regarding

> What people who harp on pronouns miss is that pronouns are not used to refer to someone's gender but their sex. I can see your sexual characteristics from across the room, and referring to them is a good way to narrow down who I'm talking about.

The thing you see about someone when you look at them from across the room isn't their biological sex, if anything it's their gender presentation. This chunk of youtube video (https://youtu.be/9bbINLWtMKI?t=548) talks more or less about that.

You seem like you intend to be helpful, but I don't think you're as surrounded by these politics, or the disingenuous arguments, as I am. imho, Contrapoints is a homophobic monster who supports shaming people with "genital preferences" (ie, gays and lesbians.) If you want a sane person who just happens to be trans, try Rose of Dawn. They're honest and sincere. Bair White is also reasonable, and often gets threats and hate from the community for being unwilling to join in the nonsense.

Ultimately the rift comes down to lying. Do we have to deny truth to be kind? I say no, and I'll leave this rough paraphrasing of Blair. "Am I male, yes. Of course. I'm a transwoman and I wouldn't be trans if I already was female. Do I wish I wasn't, yes. But am I offended, no?"

As for Contrapoint's "seeing gender", that's just simply not the case. For one thing, I grew up when boys were allowed to like pink, so most of people's signifiers don't stand out to me.

I'm super behind being sensitive, but if you're six inches taller than the others, have a beard, or breasts, etc, those are sex linked traits. Not size entirely of course, but often enough that the 10% male is larger than the 90% female. It's gaslighting to assume we can't differentiate between the sexes.

> Contrapoints is a homophobic monster who supports shaming people with "genital preferences"

Jesus, what was the phrase you used? "Straight to ideological slander"?

> I'm super behind being sensitive, but if you're six inches taller than the others, have a beard, or breasts, etc, those are sex linked traits.

So if you were talking to me and saw someone who looks like Blair White across the room, and wanted to single that person out, do you think you'd spot that person's biological sex and say "him over there" to me rather than "her over there"?

It's not straight anywhere though. It came over years of watching CP defend literal incel terrorists beating up lesbians who refuse to have sex with them, while gaslighting the victims and defending the attacks. CP didn't coin "Cotton Ceiling" but they sure go on about it. If kinkshaming is bad, what is it to personally shame lesbians who reject men?

And I didn't lead with it, I used it to explain why I found your reference to be less than compelling.

> So if you were talking to me and saw someone who looks like Blair White across the room, and wanted to single that person out, do you think you'd spot that person's biological sex and say "him over there" to me rather than "her over there"?

You and I are already talking about Blair so I'd say 'He'. But If I thought it might be ambiguous I wouldn't use either. Like I wouldn't use a shirt-color if I couldn't see it clearly, or thought that you couldn't.

And I won't use people's chosen pronouns but I don't pick fights either so I'd sidestep the issue in their home or at their event.

But if you mean, would I spot Blair if I didn't know them? Ehh, I dunno.

Do you think this means I'm reading their gender expression? Doesn't that implicitly assume that there are only two gender expressions then, such that I'm being fooled into seeing the other one? This whole angle feels like it'd be labelled regressive, and it brings up the question of how one would be expected to recognize 'Moon Gender' at all.

It feels like it'd be simpler to just say that I would be mistaken about their sex.

Alright, I'm pretty burned out on this conversation so this is gonna be my last post. It's been distracting me and I want my real life back. I'll just try to wrap up the bits I find interesting.

> But if you mean, would I spot Blair if I didn't know them?

That's more or less what I mean, but also, would you, on top of that, expect me to spot the same thing?

> Do you think this means I'm reading their gender expression?

I don't think that logically follows, and I certainly don't think I'm going to convince you of that.

I think I have a chance of convincing you that the argument you gave in the paragraph starting with "What people who harp on pronouns miss is" in the comment at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25379317 is a bad argument for the claim that pronouns (should?) refer to biological sex rather than gender. So I'm shooting for that. (But not for convincing you that the conclusion is wrong.)

I think the Blaire White across a room scenario suggests that pronouns are more useful in a referential sense if they're used in a way that aligns with gender presentation (assuming a person's gender presentation falls neatly into male or female) than if they're used in a way that aligns with biological sex, in the case where those things differ. So if you're really just optimizing for referential usefulness when you're using "he" and "she", I don't think "biological sex" is where you're going to land. I think you're going to land closer to "gender", and even closer to "gender presentation". These things align for most people, so usually it doesn't matter, but in the cases where it matters I expect "biological sex" to be less referentially useful pretty often.

I also don't think the Blaire White scenario is unusual. I know a handful of trans people in person, and the same applies to them, i.e. if you were to point someone who looks like one of them out of a room and use a pronoun to help me know which person you're talking about, the pronoun that matches their gender identity would do a better job than the pronoun that matches their biological sex.

I also don't think it's just me, i.e. I don't think most people are much more prone to 'seeing' someone's true biological sex in this kind of scenario than I am.

> Doesn't that implicitly assume that there are only two gender expressions then?

Sort of. I think "that thing that you see and also expect me to see that makes you choose which of 'he' or 'she' you would use if you want to be referentially useful when pointing out a person across the room" doesn't quite capture what "gender presentation" is either. (Hence the hedge with "if anything" in my earlier comment.) I just think that thing lines up with "gender presentation" a lot better than it lines up with "biological sex" in the cases where those differ.

> It brings up the question of how one would be expected to recognize 'Moon Gender' at all.

Taking it seriously, in real life, for people with Moon Gender (or whatever outside-the-binary gender identity you want to substitute)? I don't think one is expected to just recognize it based on presentation. Hence, the practice of being explicit about preferred pronouns in circles that care about about this.

> I think the Blaire White across a room scenario suggests that pronouns are more useful in a referential sense if they're used in a way that aligns with gender presentation

I think we should have defined what we think of as gender expression. I think it's stuff like affectations, hair styles, makeup, "gendered" clothing (dresses), etc.

Harry Styles wore a dress recently to much acclaim. He was lauded for expanding the male repertoire.

> I also don't think it's just me, i.e. I don't think most people are much more prone to 'seeing' someone's true biological sex in this kind of scenario than I am.

I saw a man, in a dress. And I think that's what everyone saw.

The difference between Harry and a transwoman is - intent, which is invisible. I only know Harry isn't trans because the article told me.

> I just think that thing lines up with "gender presentation" a lot better than it lines up with "biological sex" in the cases where those differ.

I would have agreed. Ten years ago nobody was going out of their way to queer everything. If a man wore a dress they either lost a bet or wanted to be seen as female. But now, in a world where nothing signifies sex, how can I read your gender expression?

But now a dress isn't part of gender expression anymore and is simply a garment. I guess we're expected to just move the bar and say that because Harry wasn't wearing a dress and lipstick he's a guy not a transwomen but that feels fleeting.

> I don't think one is expected to just recognize [Moon Gender] based on presentation. Hence, the practice of being explicit about preferred pronouns in circles that care about about this.

But that makes a mockery of the entire idea of gender expression. Now it's just people demanding special labels again.

The whole ideology is pushed as a unit and lives and dies as a unit. Either gender expression is a thing, and there are a finite but large set of them, and sex doesn't exist as a binary, and trans babies are real, etc, or it's not.

> Alright, I'm pretty burned out on this conversation so this is gonna be my last post.

I sometimes try to have proper conversation, but these days try to make sure I'm not dealing with some form of alt-right bandwagon trolling by checking comment histories. Every single HexagonalKitten comment so far has been about how others get all upset about things, and, of course, 'immigration issues'.

It's not that I have an issue discussing these topics, but at some point I do feel I have to use some quick heuristics to weed out the trolls or 'culture wars' group-thinkers.

This is a useful comment -- this is the sort of total derail that hijacks a discussion of (scrolls up) oh right, cameras and lenses, color filters, how we (hehe) filter the world to 'master the art of recording what we see'.

It's good to know when you're conversing with people who prefer fires that don't shed light.

So, what's your conclusion of one day of posting history? Far-Right? Alt-right? Full on Notsee? Transphoooooobe? Paid Russian?

As far as group thinker goes, lol. I'm in the 5% side, against he 95% braying mob who dox and torment people all the time. This used to just be common sense, for instance that you can't medicate children to be the other sex, and now people insist that up is down. I'm saying what I said ten years ago, and barring an actual change in human biology, what I'll be saying in another ten years.

But since you brought up immigration issues, do you expect to see an alt-right person (such as you seem to believe I am) saying that race is not an issue? That immigration shouldn't be stopped? Where does that fit in your categorization? Could you describe what a moderate, liberal, Parisian view would be, such that you could judge mine against it?

> If you're open to a real example, the "pronoun police" at my workplace suggest that when writing about hiring candidates, we use singular "they" instead of "he" or "she", in order not to call too much attention to the gender of that person when those evaluations are read by decision makers. The intent is to reduce any possible gender bias in hiring.

I am, and I like that. Like the example of hiring musicians after a blind listening. Kind of the whole schtick of that music show where the hosts spin around only after listening to the artist. fwiw, that's actually not considered progressive anymore because it amplifies the homogeneity of choice. Because of this or that factor, many cellists are one sex, or the QA department skews heavily towards one demographic. Without active HR grooming you don't get those SV pleasing diversity numbers where you have a numerical microcosm of the country. But yes, the idea of a meritocracy and blind hiring is always refreshing.

> To my eyes, in this thread, the person who is harping on pronouns the most, seems to be closest to having a mental breakdown over them, who can most accurately be described as "pronoun police", and who shows the greatest explicit tendency to control others' use of pronouns, is also the person who in the first place corrected an in-the-wild usage of singular "them" to "him".

Have you cared for groups of children? Like all bullies, SJWs try to make the victim appear the aggressor. As a current example, Letitia Wright got taken in by pseudo-science, but people attacked her (viciously!) for retweeting it even though she had been victimized by the "hoax". "You're pushing a message that KILLS PEOPLE! F you, cword", and so forth. Presumably if they found anyone taken in by Letitia's post they'd attack them too. Simply put, none of this is what you'd do to actually fix a problem, or if you actually cared about people.

In our case, look at how the person who used "them" responded to the criticism. They went straight to trying to ideological slander.

>> It seems like you dislike trans folk. I'm not sure what they did to hurt you, but I suspect your fears and hate are the result of conditioning.

Accusations of transphobia. That's not the kind of allyship that anyone needs. In fact, that's almost exactly how a troll who wanted to make people hate each other would act.

Yes, this is obviously a non-problem, but by their own rules, the OP assumed someone's pronouns. And when called on this they didn't respond reasonably but lashed out with essentially accusations of hate. If they intend to be helpful they should check themselves before they wreck their allies.

FWIW, I agree with you that "it seems like you dislike trans folk" isn't a good place to go, for a number of reasons. For one, it's a tactical mistake to pull out that kind of accusation if you want someone to listen to you. For another, it's probably too reductive to be accurate. I'm not going to defend the hill of "SJWs aren't bullies" or even "the person you're calling an SJW here wasn't being a bully".

But I also think if you look past that and strip the junk away, there's a kernel of truth to it which is worth keeping.

Namely, the pushback against singular "they" here is grounded as pushback against some perceived nominally-pro-trans movement. (That's what "1% of the population" refers to, yeah?) A good chunk of the criticism presented is criticism of the kind of people who call for singular "they" and not actually criticism of singular "they". It's not just about the grammar, and probably wasn't in the first place, as evidenced by the fact that we're talking about trans people now somehow.

If you're willing to toss "SJW" and "bully" around, I think it's not out of line for me to scrunch up my nose and throw out a "reactionary" when I see that.

Never in my comments have I displayed anger, irrationality, or a desire to dictate that others have to use certain language. It must be easy just to think I'm some fringe element going nutso like some Trump supporter living in Florida. I'm far from that. Go ahead, treat all arguments with anyone you disagree with that way. You may feel right, but it's not right, and the more you dismiss someone based on that the worse you will get surprised.

All I said was that we don't have to speak like we don't know that someone is a man or woman with a high degree of certainty, based on a name. Bending over backwards to neuter someone's pronoun on a 1% chance is silly.

I guess that makes me a grammatical nitpicker if you can only oversimplify it. And sure, attribute it however you like, but I don't speak in vagaries when something is specific and known. And it counters an accurate use of the English language, for some political purpose.

I'm against the dumbing down of discourse at the hands of people who are riding the latest bandwagon, and on other people's behalf no less.

Finally, about your example of obscuring during someone's hiring candidacy by calling him/her "they". That is ridiculous to the extreme. I guess that's what happens when you buy into the idea that your world is dominated by evil bias, and everyone around you is repeating that mantra.

> or a desire to dictate that others have to use certain language.

As far as I can tell, the content of your first comment in this thread was

> The site is the work of a guy, "him", and "his" work. We don't have to guess and say "them" and "their" work.

This, to me, indicates that you want the previous person to say "him" and "his" where they said "them" and "their". Even in this post you're displaying a negative opinion about the use of singular "they", and expressing that you want others to stop using singular "they" this way. Am I wrong?

Like, if you referred to Dominique McLean with "he", and someone said to you "We know that person prefers they/them pronouns, we don't have to guess based on appearances and say 'he'," would you not characterize them as dictating that you have to use certain language?

> I don't speak in vagaries when something is specific and known.

I hope you do. (And I'm pretty sure you do.) Omitting information that is specific, known, and irrelevant is a basic part of communicating well. Not every failure to bring up something that is specific and known constitutes "dumbing down of discourse".

It's supposedly the assumption that matters. I read it that Kepler was bothered by the rudeness to most people, assuming neutered pronouns for everyone, for the hypothetical sake of the 1%. (Note, the 1% are not here asking for this of course, because they don't want to be associated with these behaviors.)

Rules for thee, and not me. That's bad enough, but when someone is speaking for an entire population and using language like hate and shame they aren't helping anyone.

What set of rules are you actually picturing that you think echelon has that they're not applying to themselves?

As far as I can tell, the rules they're suggesting for singular "they" is that "they/them" can always refer to anybody in the singular, irrespective of their gender. (Maybe unless the person you're referring to indicates a preference otherwise.)

Like, maybe this is inconsistent with some set of standard SJW rules that you have in mind. But even if so, I don't see any reason in this conversation to assume that the person you're criticizing is attached to that standard set. (I also don't think there is a standard set at this point.)