Hacker News Reader

Comment by banannaise | Hacker News Reader

(hopefully) relevant perspective from a transgender person: It is irrelevant to me that most people are not extremists. There are a lot of "non-extremist" people who consider me a loon because of my appearance and gender. Those people seem to get along perfectly fine with "moderates" who are more accepting of me... and that really doesn't help, because the typical result is that both of them will agree to treat me as an extremist. For existing.

View on HN

"There are a lot of "non-extremist" people who consider me a loon because of my appearance and gender. Those people seem to get along perfectly fine with "moderates" who are more accepting of me... and that really doesn't help, because the typical result is that both of them will agree to treat me as an extremist."

I'm curious, why would these people not be considered extreme for treating you like a loon or treating you as an extremist?

I've seen similar stuff on other issues. For example, there are people who hate guns who treat gun owners as loons and extremists regardless of their actions/positions/etc. Just saying that some people treat others as extremists just because they hold an opposing view. My guess is it's often to prevent cognitive dissonance in examining their own beliefs (most people don't consider themselves extremists even if they hold extreme views).

I think you're on to something here, but my (admittedly anecdotal) experience (in person, not online) is that these people are not generally considered extremist. You make a very good point in your last sentence: this extremist view is held by a lot of people who are otherwise non-extremist, and it's hard for most people to differentiate between "extremist views" and "extremist people". So it ends up being considered much less extremist than it should be, which also means it gets much more mainstream acceptance than it should.

Yeah, you said it better than I did.

Yeah, that's my position as well. People make fun of leftists for infighting and "cancel culture" and "eating their own", but the alternative seems to be allowing the worst parts of "your side" to keep and even expand their influence over the political landscape, and that seems to be what the right has done.

This is what happens with a first-past-the-post voting system — you agree to band together behind your side’s resident extremist, or you lose :/

I think that’s because you don’t denounce actual extremists within the transgender movement.

I think you’re conflating both groups denouncing those extremists as denouncing you, because those extremists are who represents your group on the mainstream narrative.

So now I'm supposed to spend my time proving that I'm mainstream enough to be acceptable, because my existence makes me guilty by association? This is the "Black people should have no issue proving they aren't criminals" argument.

Also, transgender people aren't a movement. We're people.

> Also, transgender people aren't a movement. We're people.

I’m not saying it’s fair or right…

But transgender people are a minority whose voice has been appropriated by a political movement to force their radical agenda under euphemisms like “inclusion”.

I’m not saying that you need to be outspoken about it — but if the only exposure most people have is that extremist view from TV, they will associate you with that due to how humans work.

> "Black people should have no issue proving they aren't criminals"

The equivalent would be black people debouncing the neo-racism of Democrats under euphemisms like “equity” and publicly denouncing nonsense done in their name, like de-policing.

Again, I’m not saying it’s fair or right… but I’d tell a black Democrat who was upset about being associated with that idiocy the same thing:

You’re tacitly letting your identity be used to push dumb policies — and you’ll be associated until you stand up and say “no, this doesn’t represent me”.

You're using a thin facade of decorum to push the idea that the oppression of minorities is their own fault, with the strong implication that you have nothing to do with it because that's just the way the world works. How am I personally responsible by association for the actions of others, while you aren't?

And again, am I supposed to be out here actively looking for people and views to disavow? Do I have to do this in front of everyone I meet, so then they'll be sure I'm one of the good ones and they can treat me like a normal person?

> How am I personally responsible by association for the actions of others, while you aren't?

Whites not associated with racism are expected to denounce it.

Men not associated with misogyny are expected to denounce it.

I’m not holding double-standards, just acknowledging that humans work based on heuristics.

> Do I have to do this in front of everyone I meet, so then they'll be sure I'm one of the good ones and they can treat me like a normal person?

You don’t have to do it at all, but yelling at people because they’re human and their brains react to repeated exposure by finding patterns isn’t going to lead to the outcome you want.

So if you don’t like being associated with that kind of behavior — you probably want to do it some time, in some way.

That perception won’t change until there’s enough people out there denouncing the misappropriation of their identity by politicians to make it clear that they dont represent that group.

Racism and Misogyny are actual forces in this country. Minority activists don't actually have any political power.

Besides, who are you expecting to do the denouncing and what are they supposed to denounce? Before I started this comment was I supposed to do a quick google search and see if there were any fringe activists saying something to denounce? What's the time scale I have to cover before I can reply to your comment. A week? A month? What if I already denounced it in another thread, do I have to do a recap of everything I've denounced in every thread?

I'm not calling you racist, No one asked you to denounce racism or misogyny, so why are you bringing it up?

> there’s enough people out there denouncing the misappropriation of their identity by politicians to make it clear that they don't represent that group

This is laughably unquantifiable and political forces ensure that even if this was happening you wouldn't know about it.

> Minority activists don't actually have any political power.

As Malcolm X explained, minorities are routinely used as a political cudgel in feuds between parties — and the promotion of extremist voices is part of that today.

> political forces ensure that even if this was happening you wouldn't know about it

…which is why it’s important to occasionally share those thoughts in your personal life, to help unwind that narrative for people around you.

>Racism and Misogyny are actual forces in this country

As everybody knows off course, only the things you hate are actual and real, and you're being noble and virtuous by talking about them. While the things your opponents hate are disinformation and a mirage, and they're being hysteric and alarmist by talking about them.

This is the kind of thinking that got us into this mess.

And you're engaging in it by downplaying and denying the very real power that that transgender ideology holds in US institutions and corporations.

How so?

>> Minority activists don't actually have any political power

No I mean, what 'very real power that that transgender ideology holds in US institutions and corporations'. All the political action is bathroom bills and sports bills coming from the right, what political power is the 'transgender ideology' wielding.

They have the power to make some assholes uncomfortable, by existing.

>All the political action is bathroom bills and sports bills coming from the right

It's hilariously disingenuous and backward how you mention the reaction to the encroaching transgender ideology without mentioning the action itself that prompted it. The bathroom and sports bills are defensive measures against the ideology infiltrating institutions and allowing the easy access of vulnerable spaces to mentally unstable individuals.

>what political power is the 'transgender ideology' wielding.

Other than

- In [1] an academic professor is fired for publishing a book critical of transgender beliefs

- In [2] a school covered for a trans rapist who raped a teenager in the girls bathroom, he was eventually transfered to another school where he raped a second teenager.

- In [3] an. archeologist is fired for trans critical views

- [4] documents several other cases of harassment perpetrated by trans ideology supporters in academia

- In [5], a British political party struggles with the definition of a woman, party representatives repeatedly refused to answer straightforward questions about basic female biology to avoid angering the trans lobby

- In [6], as in [5], a US Supreme Court judge refused to answer the question "What's a woman", citing that "She's not a biologist".

- The social media giants ban any dissenting discussion. Examples too numerous to mention, and can be empirically reproduced for yourself.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/education/2021/may/22/kathleen-s...

[2] https://news.yahoo.com/judge-rules-loudoun-county-teen-13141...

[3] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-021-01950-9

[4] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349967840_The_Gende...

[5] https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/labour-s-refusal-to-acce...

[6] https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/22/blackburn-jackson-d...

This is a bunch of stories of people acting individually, this isn't political power. My argument isn't that there aren't people in this world trying to establish their validity in our society, and that those people aren't upsetting other people, just that those people aren't exercising broad systemic political power.

Is your argument that people should just accept their lot in life and not challenge the status quo? Or more that they should do it in a way that doesn't upset anyone.

I see that you have some concerns here, I don't see why your response is to try and ostracize or ban this thing you don't understand.

I think he's pretty clear about his reasons:

"The bathroom and sports bills are defensive measures against the ideology infiltrating institutions and allowing the easy access of vulnerable spaces to mentally unstable individuals."

He considers transgender women to be mentally unstable predators who want access to women's spaces in order to attack them.

What activity/behaviour, anologous to racism and misogyny in your example, do you believe is being done by politicians "in the name of (trans) inclusivity"?

A return to institutional bigotry, under the DIE agenda, of which the misappropriation of transgender voices (or rather, promoting extremist voices) is a piece. Further, using the claim “you’re not being inclusive!” as a club towards people who object to things such as preferential hiring, affinity groups based on protected class, censorship on social media, etc.

For example, WA and CA are attempting to repeal civil rights laws to re-legalize government bigotry.

https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Pr...

https://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Initiative_1000,_Affirmat...

Radical agenda like... being able to safely receive healthcare? Being safe from violence? Being able to grow into a happy and successful human being?

Ah, but yes, you're right, that's preposterous.

"I’m not saying it’s fair or right…"

Good, because concern trolling like this is pretty shitty, and definitely not fair or right.

Certainly not intellectually honest. You attack someone repeatedly for supposedly not standing up against "dumb policies" and "extremist" positions, without your daring to name what you think those are. After all, if you did that, you might have to defend your stance against criticism instead of attacking someone for not preventing the entire Democratic Party from committing unspecified wrongs of "inclusion".

It's not really a matter of "daring". Most online platforms don't permit dissent on transgender issues. If someone attempted to directly argue that they don't think transgenderism is real, they wouldn't face criticism or engage in a robust debate, they'd simply get their comment deleted. (If you turn on showdead you can see that's happened in this very thread, although admittedly the guy was a bit rude about it.)

The fact that transgender people exist is quite settled from a scientific perspective. Most reasonable platforms will not put up with people asserting that trans people are either mentally ill, clout-chasing, or victims of abuse, in the same way that most reasonable platforms will not put up with arguments that Black people are a criminal race because <insert debunked science here>.

Dissent along those lines, no matter how politely framed, is simply an attempt to launder bigotry into "debate".

And that's all reasonable on its own terms, but your opponents don't see it this way at all. I see being trans as more like being a Mormon; it would obviously be obnoxious for me to walk up to random Mormons and say "you don't exist" or "Joseph Smith was a fraud", but it would be equally obnoxious if a Mormon friend told me that studies have proven they hold the Melchizedek priesthood and I need to affirm that or they won't feel comfortable around me.

I don't see any posts by him in this thread with showdead on that I can't see with it off, so I don't buy your complaint. As it is it, looks like what you think is "a bit rude" amounts to some guy facing criticism and working himself up into a lather about how that's everyone saying "shut up white man".

But at any rate, your argument amounts to, "But he has to be disingenuous and chickenshit, because Hacker News is run by the SJWs!", which I find laughable.

The comment I'm referring to is by a different commenter twofornone.

My argument definitely isn't that Hacker News is run by the SJWs, both because I don't think HN moderation is particularly left wing and because I don't think "the SJWs" is a meaningful category. What I would say is that debates about the fundamental legitimacy of transgender stuff get too heated for most platforms to accept, because people have strong, passionate beliefs on the issue which can't easily be compromised on. It's an entirely reasonable moderation decision and I might very well make the same one if I were in charge - but as a consequence, those of us who are transgender skeptical sometimes need to carefully talk around the touchiest issues rather than engaging on them directly.

> It's equally forbidden (and there's also an example of this downthread) to go around saying that if you don't believe the right things about trans people you're committing genocide.

That's a very strange interpretation of my comment. If you think my gender identity is invalid, you're not committing genocide, you're just an asshole. If you think my gender identity makes me a pedophile groomer who needs to be kept away from kids, and want to enforce that via imprisonment, then you're committing genocide. Unfortunately, that is a political position of the governor of at least one US state. It is not the political position of most of the people voting for him, but that's not a ton of consolation.

"The comment I'm referring to is by a different commenter twofornone"

Then you're just being disingenuous, jumping into a thread responding to someone else entirely and talking about dead comments as if the person being responded to had made them.

To be clear, I was attempting to point to external data to explain why people in this thread might be hesitant to explain their views in full detail. Sorry if it came across as misleading.

> I’d tell

It's really at this step where things start to take a wrong turn. I truly believe you're acting in good faith, so please take this as a gentle suggestion. Rather than telling trans/black/etc people anything, pause and really listen.

We are already told how to do everything else in our lives, being told how to stand up for ourselves and how to fight for our rights feels like another example of the same pattern. A better question is, "How can we help?" or "What do you need?"

Like it or not, you are beholden to what your group says and does in public. The group name you identify with strongly biases anybody meeting you into modeling you as the most visible people of your group.

> transgender people aren't a movement. We're people.

Every movement is ultimately a group of people with a purpose.

Sad to say, but I think this is both (1) fairly true, and (2) a sign that the world we live in is fairly f*cked up. I'm free to identify as a white male American, without needing to immediately denounce a laundry list - ..., NAMBLA, Nathaniel Hawthorn's ancestors, Nazi sympathizers, negro slavery, NIN's substance abuse, ... - of notorious positions, people, and practices which are publicly associated with white males Americans.

I have noticed that even the L and G (to say nothing of BTQ+) folks who've come out to me in the past 10 years have added "but I am nothing like those {unfavorable words here} who proclaim themselves L's or G's on the web" - generally so fast that I couldn't have gotten a word in edgewise.

I don't see non extremist anti-trans to condem extremists in their ranks. Ever. Nor conservatives for that matter.

Until that is requirement for then too, then this just amounts to support for anti trans extremists.

It's not clear to me what you're referring to as "extremists" or by "transgender movement", because at this point that could mean a lot of things that almost don't even exist or it could just mean "anything I don't like".

But even if it did refer to actually existing extremism, presuming a trans person should know about a sub-category of extremists that happen to be trans and make unprompted verbal attacks against them just to signal some kind of virtue at is a pretty weird demand of compelled speech on your part.

This kind of shameless bigotry and stereotyping is pretty transparent.

And I encourage everyone to keep whatever circles make them happy. But if a devout Christian said she doesn't like anyone who hangs out with atheists, or a meat-eater said he doesn't like anyone who hangs out with vegans, I don't think you'd struggle to identify these as extremist attitudes. The expectation that a person is guaranteed to mistreat me if any of their friends disapproves of me or think I'm a loon seems like a clear example of miscalibrated contempt.

I could say everything you said, as a person hoping the planet will remain habitable for my children.

(Substitute the bit about appearance with "because I think we should immediately stop new fossil fuel exploration / capital investment and institute atmospheric carbon recapture taxes of $1-2 per gallon-of-gasoline-equivalent emissions")

Anyway, I think the premise of the article is flawed:

I don't care whether voters in some red state are queer-bashing, abortion-banning putin apologists that want to strip mine for coal. (Want them for neighbors, or not? Move!)

I care that the people they've voted in and appointed to the supreme court are all of those things, and this planet is not large enough to let the rest of us escape from their idiocy.

> I care that the people they've voted in and appointed to the supreme court are all of those things...

Do you care whether this belief (which may have the appearance of knowledge) is objectively and flawlessly true?

The abortion banning part is provably true at this point.

And it is very fair to guess it was plan from the start, despite pretention not. Despite calling those who guesses it 100% correctly exaggerating and hysterical.

The claim was:

>> I don't care whether voters in some red state are queer-bashing, abortion-banning putin apologists that want to strip mine for coal. (Want them for neighbors, or not? Move!)

>> I care that the people they've voted in and appointed to the supreme court are all of those things

> The abortion banning part is provably true at this point.

a) Not comprehensively for all people, as was claimed.

b) It is supreme court justices that would be banning it, not elected representatives.

c) How might one prove it for any given elected representative, short of an explicit confession?

d) Abortion banning wasn't the only claim.

> And it is very fair to guess it was plan from the start, despite pretention not.

"Fair to say" and "correct/true" are very different things.

> Despite calling those who guesses it 100% correctly exaggerating and hysterical.

Where "100% correctly" refers to perception of reality, but is typically perceived as reality itself.

Human beings are silly, I would say without exception - News at 11.

> Human beings are silly, I would say without exception - News at 11.

I dont think they are silly. I think that they prefer to good relationship with that political branch over telling truth. They think it makes them sound like smart and rational and dont mind throwing others under the bus in the process.

E.g., they have priorities.

> "Fair to say" and "correct/true" are very different things.

Ok, I will say out loud, it is correct thing to say.

> It is supreme court justices that would be banning it, not elected representatives.

Supreme court did not came out of skies. They were put in place by politicians who picked people guaranteed to make political decisions.

> Abortion banning wasn't the only claim.

No. But it was part I 100% agree with.

> Ok, I will say out loud, it is correct thing to say.

It may be a "correct thing to say" (aka: popular), but this is distinctly different from correct from en epistemology perspective.

> But it was part I 100% agree with.

You are welcome to agree, but I am discussing what is true (and indirectly, the nature of human consciousness, which renders the customized/unique "reality" that each person on this forum experiences, and tends to mistake for reality itself).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com