Hacker News Reader

Comment by leephillips | Hacker News Reader

I would like to suggest that you resist the urge to police other’s use of language, especially when their use of terms is well established and reasonable. Whether you intend it or not, this is quite disrespectful.

View on HN

How is calling transgender women "not women" "well established and reasonable"? Whether you intended to parrot what I said to be so snide, this is quite disrespectful.

Well established: a woman is an adult human female. Try a dictionary, biology textbook, etc. You might not like it, but you can’t reasonably say that it’s not well established. I hope you agree that a “transgender woman”, or, to use more neutral language, a trans identified man, is not female. That’s the entire issue here.

Reasonable: see the above. Also, implied by the users of the term itself. If a T.W. is a W., why do they say T.W.?

> If a T.W. is a W., why do they say T.W.?

If a human female is a human, why do we say human female? Because it adds additional, usually relevant, context.

Difference being, usually we don't say "human female".

So, when someone says “I date women”, are you implying that it is established and reasonable to the typical person in the world or even Western society that this statement would be including trans people?

Of course. Dating women doesn't mean all women are your type of course.

Have to agree with this. It’s like someone calling me the N word. Arguable the word is “established” and probably reasonable to the sayer. Still hella disrespectful to me though.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com