Hacker News Reader

Comment by 2pEXgD0fZ5cF | Hacker News Reader

I can't comment on most of the accusations, I have never met rms in person. But what really shocked me was that the authors of the anti rms letter label him as "transphobe", as a source for that claim they link to his GNU Kind Communications Guidelines [1], which to me spell the exact opposite. Why put such a claim in there?

I find it really disturbing that so many people willingly accept that it's ok to mix legitimate criticism (assuming it is) with what is basically lies. "Might as well call him a few other bad names while we're at it for maximum impact"?. Why?

[1]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/kind-communication.html

View on HN

It's the footnote. Call people by their pronouns, not some random one "per" you made up for them.

The footnote of that policy allows you to persistently call a trans man "they", even if his preferred pronoun is he. That is, the policy endorses you misgendering.

Calling a he/him person a "they" is a way of saying that you don't think they're a real man. It's really not much better than calling a trans man "her".

Finally, the previous version of the said guidelines used to reject singular they. Singular they is a great way to refer to somebody whose pronouns you don't know. Moreover, it's the preferred pronoun for many non-binary people.

Then what about the following part from the guidelines:

> Honoring people's preferences about gender identity includes not referring to them in ways that conflict with that identity. For instance, not to use pronouns for them that conflict with it.

The guideline argues "they" is gender neutral, so it does not conflict with anybody's gender identity. This misses the point.

"they" is indeed gender neutral. But when we talk about specific individuals, we almost always use gendered pronouns.

Hence, as I said, persistently using "they" for a binary trans person is a veiled insult. Again, it's like saying 'You're not a real man, but I am not allowed to call you she, so I will call you they'.

Knowing very little about this issue, this seems like a minefield. I have met many people whose native language doesn't have gendered pronouns, who make mistakes constantly when trying to use them in English and eventually learn to use "they" consistently to avoid getting it wrong. According to this standard, they would be being disrespectful whenever they meet someone with a strong preference about their pronoun, even if they had no knowledge of the preference.

> According to this standard, they would be being disrespectful whenever they meet someone with a strong preference about their pronoun, even if they had no knowledge of the preference.

No, the point is to use somebody's preferred pronouns once you know them.

My complaint is the GNU guidelines explicitly allow you to not correctly pronoun/gender somebody, once you know their gender identity.

Re non-native speakers, etc, all I am criticising is transphobic intent. People are, of course, allowed to slip up. Hence my use of the word "persistent" in some of my posts: I mean persistent and deliberate.

I think we agree - but I do notice that there often seems to be a lot of "assumption of intent". (The below is general in nature and not related to the article from which this thread grew.)

I've had >30 years of conditioning to select the pronoun according to the physical appearance of the person I'm referring to. Until last year, the concept of a person stating a preference of pronoun and expecting me to follow that preference had never crossed my mind. I simply had never been exposed to the concept. I make no judgement about whether that is the "right" way; I merely assert that this is the way I have learned. Since I was exposed to the concept, I have tried to understand it better and do my best to use the pronouns a person wants me to use, though I am by no means perfect at this.

A person whose native language does not have gendered pronouns has potentially spent their entire life using neutral pronouns without consideration to the apparent gender of the person they are referring to, and the concept of that person having a preference of pronoun is likely completely foreign to them, too.

Given that, it seems reasonable that a sudden shift in societal expectations of people, namely that they should learn the pronouns of others and correctly and consistently use them, should be coupled with a recognition that people are likely to make many mistakes whilst adjusting to this shift, and therefore good faith should be assumed unless there are indications to suggest otherwise.

A person who struggles with gendered pronouns because their native language doesn't have them would struggle with them when talking about cis people too.

Yes, they do!

The point is it's easy to see if someone uses neutral pronouns all the time or only for trans people.

Using "she" and "he" would be hurtful in reference to a non-binary individual. Non-binary are more common than you think.

"they" is useful when you don't know someone's pronouns, and it's better to form a habit of using "they" for everyone (not just non-trans imo), than to accidentally use the wrong gendered pronoun, which may trigger their dysphoria more strongly.

I'm not getting the notion from this policy that it is intended to get individuals to deliberately use the wrong pronoun, because they're uncomfortable with using the correct pronoun for them. But, if you think it is ambiguous, then it could certainly be reworded.

They explicitly call out ways to respect and accommodate all pronouns. This footnote describes methods of using pronouns so that they don’t conflict in situations where a pronoun may not be known or understood.

The previous item says that gender identity should be respected and so purposely using the wrong pronoun would be in conflict here.

Interpreting this footnote that seems to provide more detail on how to work with diverse pronouned people as a transphobic issue is not a good piece of evidence to label RMS as a transphobe.

Especially since it seems to be pro trans and pro inclusivity.

> Interpreting this footnote [...]

No, the footnote itself is very clear that it's OK to call a trans man "they" and never "he", if you reject his identity and would prefer to call him "she".

We cannot excuse the footnote just because the main text is better.

> Especially since it seems to be pro trans and pro inclusivity.

Moreover, the context is this document used to reject calling non-binary they people "they".

So the context is this document used to be outright transphobic. Thus skepticism is warranted. Has the document improved? Substantially. Is it still problematic? Very much so.

I interpreted that differently as there’s a separate point about respecting people’s gender identity and purposely misusing pronouns would conflict with the guidance.

I read this to mean that there are ways to use they or per your address people when pronouns are uncertain. In that it I don’t know a pronoun then a good way to handle this is to use singular they.

I do this when gender is uncertain, as typical with the Internet and mailing lists and projects and what not.

I did not read this as allowing rude and inappropriate behavior to bypass people’s preferred pronouns.

> The footnote of that policy allows you to persistently call a trans man "they", even if his preferred pronoun is he. That is, the policy endorses you misgendering.

This one of example here is why I think RMS debacle is a bit overblown. This really just stretching it to make his statement seems offensive. It even put him in a stance in which he never had.

I cannot in my best intention to read "Honoring people's preferences about gender identity includes not referring to them in ways that conflict with that identity." as endorsing misgendering.

The old version of the document was worse, and Stallman's personal website to this day rejects the use of singular they. That's the context. It's why there's little doubt to give the benefit of.

It's the bit about singular "they". RMS for some reason doesn't like singular "they", despite the fact that it predates singular "you" in common English usage. Singular "they" also happens to be, by far, the preferred pronoun of nonbinary people. By telling people not to use singular "they", RMS is harming, offending, and driving away nonbinary people from participation in GNU projects.

That policy has since been updated to allow singular they, despite Stallman's objection to singular they.

But now the footnote of the policy would allow you to call a trans woman "they" and never "her". That's not something transphobes (or anybody else) would ever do to a cis woman.

FWIW, I tried to get in the habit of using singular-“they” for everyone, even where I know their gender and they are cis, to reduce any subconscious gender bias. This has had two effects: learning that some trans people really don’t like that, and everyone assuming my partner is a dude. (He is, but I’m bi and therefore this is mere coincidence).

Interesting.

I've taken to calling my partner "partner", to be gender neutral. But in the short term, people probably incorrectly infer I use the term because I am gay. Or, if they're presumptive but less presumptive, gay or bi.

Has he objected? If he is voicing his opinion on his blog, but the policy for GNU (which he runs) is otherwise progressive, then it feels like he is separating his personal opinions from how he operates a professional venue.

> By telling people not to use singular "they", RMS is harming, offending, and driving away nonbinary people

Are we really at a point where a pronoun is persecuting people...?

This sort of attitude is seriously disrespectful to people who are actually being harmed, offended, and physically chased away from real spaces.

> Are we really at a point where a pronoun is persecuting people

Chosing to reject someone's identity is persecuting them, yes. Luckily in England the courts agree and transphobes who refuse to use people's correct pronouns often lose their employment tribunal cases.

“Often” - I’d be curious to see stats. Not that I don’t believe you, I do; I’m just thinking this is such an edge case of an edge case, that the trade-offs involved in accommodating it might not be worth for society at large. After all, the Holy Inquisition made ultracatholics very happy too.

It's actually a hate crime in Canada. You deliberately misgender someone, you can expect to be arrested and maybe spend time in prison.

> Are we really at a point where a pronoun is persecuting people...?

If you're intentionally going out of your way to use a pronoun that someone doesn't feel represents them, then yes - that is persecuting them.

If someone asks you to stop, and you keep doing it - that's persecuting them.

In the linked guidelines it says the following:

> Honoring people's preferences about gender identity includes not referring to them in ways that conflict with that identity. For instance, not to use pronouns for them that conflict with it.

> There are several ways to avoid that; one way is to use gender-neutral pronouns, since they don't conflict with any possible gender identity.

> One choice is singular use of “they,” “them” and “their.”

> Another choice uses the gender-neutral singular pronouns, “person,” “per” and “pers,” which are used in Information for Maintainers of GNU Software.

> Other gender-neutral pronouns have also been used in English.

I'm genuinely trying to understand this. That does not spell a strong opposition to the supposedly preferred use of "they". But even then, does that really warrant the label "transphobe"?

Is that all it takes to qualify as a transphobe person, despite all the other points?

> There are several ways to avoid that; one way is to use gender-neutral pronouns, since they don't conflict with any possible gender identity.

I have explained elsewhere in this thread why it's problematic to call a he/him trans man "they" and never "him"

> That does not spell a strong opposition to the supposedly preferred use of "they".

A previous version of the guidelines banned singular they. It has single been updated, even though Stallman on his personal site continues his disapproval.

> Is that all it takes to qualify as a transphobe person, despite all the other points

Rejecting gender identities is core to being a transphobe.

I feel like you're stuck on the reference to the guidelines. People are combing the guidelines with other things RMS has said about the word "they".

RMS has spent several years railing against "them"/"they", based on his flawed understanding of English.

> Is that all it takes to qualify as a transphobe person, despite all the other points?

If you know my pronouns are he/him but you decide that you can't use those and insist on using they/them instead then yes, you have an irrational dislike of trans people and you're a transphobe, unless you can show that you only use gender neutral pronouns for everyone.

TBH even as a nonbinary person who goes by singular “they”, even I think that singular-they is ambiguous and I wish that some other non-ambiguous singular-gender-neutral pronoun had taken off instead…

(I’m still going by “they” because a bad standard beats an incompatible hodgepodge of non-standards)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com