Hacker News Reader

You're saying it should be reactionary, that someone should get angry first. You're also making assumptions about the people pushing for this. Why not pre-empt it and save everyone a lot of headaches? You don't need to be a victim or to be offended to realize a problem and work on a fix. I mean I'm not affected or offended by your comment, yet here I am.

View on HN

I do make assumptions about people pushing this at this point. I don't realize the problem and nobody can explain it. I see this as PR and people falling for it that wait for empty promises about something.

You actually do, in this case. If using the terms "male" and "female" causes harm, the harm it causes is psychological. You can't really realize it from the outside. There is nothing to pre-empt here: These terms are already used to either they already cause harm or they won't start doing so. Which means there is no reason to effectively guess if they cause harm since you can actually ask someone who you think may be harmed. Solving a problem that doesn't actually exist is just a waste of time and resources. Moreover, it gives people the impression that "wokeness" in general is just pointless virtue signalling.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com