Comment by mabub24 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by mabub24 | Hacker News Reader

One thing I find quite odd is how the study of gender emerged out of an approach that demanded a critical understanding of assumptions and the things society insist upon (that there are only 2 genders, that gender is essentially related to biological sex rather than something that is manifest in social behaviour, ect.) and yet that view has twisted into a sort of all or nothing view that is extremely antagonistic to critical inquiry. The tendency for a number of trans activists and talking points to revert back to a kind of gender essentialism; the logical inconsistencies in the idea that one identifies a private gender identity, rather than a personal desire to transition or live as another gender; the insistence that a trans person has special insight into the concept of gender --- raise up any of these points and you bear the risk of being labelled a "transphobe" even though you are entirely committed to the protection of a trans persons rights and dignity.

A small, extremely vocal minority insists that anyone that voices the slightest hesitation in accommodating trans people into gender/sex segregated social functions must be a transphobe or be complicit in the violence against trans people. It makes the entire conversation exhausting.

I dunno if I'd agree that it's a small vocal minority, zero-tolerance to anybody questioning the current dogma is seen everywhere where trans acceptance is a focus. Ten years ago I was told, by trans people, that there are physical differences between trans and cis brains. Say that today, and you get kicked out of LGBT spaces for being a transmedicalist or truscum.

I have no idea whether it's true or not because you can't even find research on the subject because of how absurdly politicized the topic is.

"Truscum" being the word for someone who thinks that changing one's gender and sexual characteristics might not be the greatest idea ever unless you actually have, like, gender dysphoria. Never mind the many, many people who are now pursuing "detransition" after going one step too far. I mean, what could possibly go wrong?

"many, many people" -- do you have numbers as to how many people detransition, not due to being pressured but because they aren't trans after all, and only after making irreversible changes?

Seems like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detransition might be a point to start. YMMV with how much weight a controversial topic like that on WP should carry.

The idea that you can even detransition is fairly recent. Before then you just had to live with it...and the suicide rate historically has actually been 20 times higher post-op.

You might want to look up what Danielle Bunten Berry, rest in peace, had to say on the matter. The important quote is on her wikipedia page.

Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar. We're trying for a different sort of internet here, to the extent possible.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Its interesting that you didn't actually tell the poster what they did wrong.

I'm also genuinely puzzled by dang's remark. I had tried to limit the unpleasantness in my comment as far as possible, while providing clarifying info and staying accurate to (i) what the trans activism movement itself seems to be stating internally, as well as (ii) the easily foreseeable consequences of these attitudes, if stated only obliquely for the sake of general politeness. If even that counts as "furthering a flamewar", this has some remarkably unpleasant implications about the overall debate re: gender issues.

As I read it, your comment fit the genre of boilerplate ideological rhetoric and that is the last thing we need here.

OK, I'll just agree to disagree then. I understand that boilerplate ideological rhetoric is an unavoidable hazard in a thread about gender issues (or indeed, politics more generally) and I'll keep trying to write comments that are as far as possible from any 'boilerplate'.

it seems like you need to study ideological boilerplate and then constrain your opinions to what is acceptable here at hn.

I wonder if dang could point us to a reference of ideological boilerplate to be avoided, or if its just supposed to be something "we should know."

By "ideological boilerplate" I mean repetitive ideological points, the kind that people repeat over and over again to bludgeon their enemies with in internet battles. That's the opposite of the discussion we want here. What we want is people listening to each other, taking in the specifics of what they have to say, and then responding with something that they haven't thought or said before—let alone a thousand times before. Conversation should be a co-creation between mutually respecting equals. When done well, it is always new. This follows from the core principle of HN, namely curiosity [1], because curiosity withers under repetition [2].

Snark is also a clear indicator of repetitive bludgeoning because people only resort to that when they have, let's call it, surplus creative energy left over—no real thought being needed to repeat the underlying points—which they use to try to add force to the smiting [3].

[1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...

[2] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...

[3] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

Thank you for taking the time to write that out dang.

You are getting close to criticizing posters for "wrongthink"

dressing it up under the term "boilerplate ideological rhetoric" doesn't change anything.

That's easily disproven: HN commenters post views from every side of these questions, and as long as they do so thoughtfully and substantively, we don't moderate them.

Commenters in the habit of posting typical internet dreck love nothing better than to paint themselves in grandiose colors as noble, freethinking victims of repression. In fact the problem is, to put it crudely, that they post such shitty comments. We're just trying to have an internet forum that manages to hover a little above the bottom of the barrel.

p.s. It looks like your account has been breaking the site guidelines by using HN primarily for ideological battle. That's not allowed here, regardless of which ideology you're battling for or against, because it destroys the curiosity this place is supposed to exist for. See https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme... for more explanation. Single-purpose accounts aren't allowed here either, for the same reason. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.

> HN commenters post views from every side of these questions, and as long as they do so thoughtfully and substantively, we don't moderate them.

It's the absence of action that is the issue. There is all kinds of left wing (I'm from the US for reference) dreck on here that receives no push back nor moderation. It's very common to see very low value statements on HN that disparage Republicans. People on here have said all kinds of nasty things about Republicans and conservatives. I rarely see any push back from you against these. It's pretty common to see people assume that Republicans don't care about people and state so, like it is an obvious truth without any supporting argument. How is that thoughtful or substantive?

I think your personal biases are blinding you to just how low value much of the accepted discussion here at HN is, when it is left-leaning

These perceptions are notoriously in the eye of the beholder: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26148870. The opposite side to you makes exactly the opposite generalizations. It's obvious that these claims can't all be right. What's less obvious, but I think also true, is that because they're so identical, there must be some common mechanism producing them. I think it's that people's perceptions are strongly conditioned by their passions.

In other words, while "I rarely see" is no doubt true, the reasons for that have to do with your own filters as much as the objective situation. This explains why the opposite side reaches the opposite conclusions from the same data: they have the opposite filters. It's the same mechanism in both cases, and there are more than enough datapoints to support every pre-existing view. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

As you can imagine, what this boils down to is that all passionate political observers feel equally aggrieved and, ironically, all share the same perception that HN is stacked against them and they're being treated unfairly.

Thanks for the response. There is a lot of truth to what you say. I've come to notice that different articles seem to be magnets for different groups of posters. So there seems to be a little bit of a echo-chamber-like-bubble around particular articles, which probably enhances these effects of everyone feeling aggrieved.

I do not know anything about the subject of the linked article, nor her views. Did not venture past the pay/registration wall. I have no opinion about her.

    zero-tolerance to anybody questioning the current dogma is seen everywhere

Generally, of course dogma should be questioned.

However, academic freedom does not mean that universities must provide a platform to literally anybody that wants one. Their resources are finite and choices need to be made.

Surely, we can agree that some discussions by their very nature are harmful or at least deeply insulting. Imagine discussions such as "should women be allowed to vote?" or "are $ETHNICITY people worthwhile of being treated like other human beings?" or "was Hitler right?" or some other such topic.

I would certainly not say such speech should be banned, but it is equally clear to me that no institution should be obligated to provide a platform for such ideas.

It's worth noting that "teach the controversy" is the disingenuous rallying cry of creationists seeking to wedge anti-evolution religious dogma into US public school systems. Those people know that merely giving creationism a figurative seat at the table serves to legitimize it to some extent. They also hope to wear down their opposition (in this case, already-overworked educators) by consuming massive amounts of their time and energy. Well, such religious teachings should be denied a seat at the table, at least in publicly-funded secular schools.

I am not sure if your definition of academic freedom applies equally all over the world. I understand Humboldts definition of "Freiheit von Forschung und Lehre" an university is obligated to support you once you have been taken on and to fire people because of their research alone would violate it.

In this specific case she was a guest of Essex University and not a tenured professor there, so they were under no specific obligation to provide a platform for her.

    Jo Phoenix, a professor of criminology 
    at Britain’s Open University, was due to 
    give a talk at Essex University

To your point though, I wouldn't find it good for a tenured professor to lose their job for such a thing. However, even the idea of tenure really is meant to be more like "freedom from interference" and not "unlimited freedom without consequences", right? And of course the tenure track prior to tenure is of course a period of intense vetting.

The way people aligned to academic gender and racism ideas justify discharging other tells me a lot about the quality of said ideas. It happens in other faculties too, but not nearly that often and that decisive.

You have to convince others of your ideas at some point...

Why are publicly funded institutions allowed to decide who's opinion matters and whose doesn't? Assuming the discussion is poised and not straight up slandering nonsense, what harm does it do? Are we trying to curtail freedom of speech? They shouldn't be allowed to take a stance because they are the government. Although for some reason colleges can operate as some separate entity that just happens to siphon government funds...

    Why are publicly funded institutions allowed to 
    decide who's opinion matters and whose doesn't?

At a very minimum, there are real-world constraints at work.

There are a limited number of lecture halls and auditoriums. It costs money to run the facilities. Staff is required to maintain them. Somebody has to sweep the floors. There are heating and cooling bills to be paid and new boilers to be purchased every few decades. There are a limited number of hours available in students' academic careers.

A university cannot provide platforms for an unlimited number of professors and guest speakers; a student cannot attend an unlimited number of talks/lectures.

Therefore it is obvious. Choices must be made. One could even say that this curation is one of the most elementary duties of an educational institution.

What's your alternative? Should publicly funded institutions make zero curatorial choices whatsoever? Should literally anybody be able to teach there? If that is not your position, then you surely accept that some curation needs to occur.

This is not incompatible with the wishes of the people nor does it suggest that educational institutions should have dictatorial carte blanche. They must make choices, but must also be accountable to the public.

    Are we trying to curtail freedom of speech?

No.

Nobody is arguing that the subject of the linked article should be barred from expressing her views. This is strictly a question about who should (or should not) be obligated to give her a soapbox and a megaphone.

    They shouldn't be allowed to take a stance 
    because they are the government.

There would be considerable benefits to getting the government out of the education business entirely. The downsides would be considerable as well.

It would be worth looking for examples of times and places when government kept its nose out of education entirely. I do not think you will enjoy the correlation between "governments disinterested in education" and... well, anything good.

> Their resources are finite and choices need to be made.

By your own description[0][1], choices had already been made, and resources had already been committed.

0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27609417

1: > Jo Phoenix, a professor of criminology at Britain's Open University, was due to give a talk at Essex University

Yes. Decisions are made all the time. Sometimes they are reconsidered and sometimes even reversed. That is not inherently a bad thing, particularly when new information comes to light subsequent to the initial decision.

What are you getting at? I can guess, but these things work better if we don't make assumptions or guesses about what others are saying.

Given that reproduction in mammals is inescapably binary, and a really big fraction of social interaction in humans is shaped by courtship, both overt and covert, it's hardly surprising that our historical perspective on gender roles has been predominantly binary too.

I think another reason "things are different now" is that more of us think abstractly today than in years past. Many of the perspectives and possibilities we entertain today would have been alien to more of us 50 or 100 years ago, when the world was more conventional, more black and white.

Finally, with the multitudes of voices that no longer remain hidden behind mainstream media outlets, we're more aware of nontraditional, complex, and nuanced POVs today. That helps us realize that many psychological variations exist "between the lines", not as pathology but as a matter of natural variation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com