Hacker News Reader

Comment by Dan_Sylveste | Hacker News Reader

You wrote:

>Did you intend to be offensive, or was it just the easiest way to describe a certain group of people?

Did you find what they wrote offensive? It isn't clear.

If yes, what aspect of their writing (what particular phrase or word, when considered with/in the appropriate context) was offensive?

If you in particular didn't find what they wrote offensive but believe that others might find it offensive, what aspect of their writing (what particular phrase or word, when considered with/in the appropriate context) do you believe that others would find offensive?

View on HN

The OP claimed that the word TERF is clearly offensive, citing as evidence that "very few TERFs call themselves that".

The GP was pointing out that the OP's own use of the word "TERF" is counter-evidence to their original claim, unless OP was indeed meaning to bring offense.

Essentially, it would be like saying "the n-word is obsiously offensive, most n-words don't call themsleves that".

If you truly find the word offensive, you just don't use it to refer to the people it is meant to offend. The fact that OP didn't use another word to refer to this group is evidence that this is one of the best words we have for describing the group that it describes.

> Essentially, it would be like saying

except the n-word is considered so offensive, it's offensive in any context, hence why you said "n-word", which is not at all true for "TERF".

> GP was pointing out that..

is this different from "claiming"? because I disagree with this point; burden is on you to demonstrate that this constitutes "counter evidence".

> it's offensive in any context

What about black people calling each other that? What about it being used in rap?

those wouldn't be forum posts

So, you are excluding certain contexts? In your own words it was any context.

any context in the context discussed ie hn posts.

In an alternate universe it wouldn't be offensive either, yet this isn't a "gotcha" over my use of "any".

At some point it require of you common sense, unless you are purposefully trolling.

For me, any seemed to imply ANY, as in without limitations. But it seems I misunderstood your original comment.

If a term is offensive to a group, at least when used by someone outside the group, it's always offensive when used to refer to that group.

While I can discuss the word "fag" without feeling a need to censor it, I would never use it to refer to gay people explicitly *. TERF is not the same - even for you, it was the term that came easiest to use, because there is no other word that describes feminists opposed to trans rights so easily without writing a whole explanation.

It's not an offensive term, except that many people find their sincere beliefs offensive. It's most similar to "socialist" as used on the right - intended to indicate someone holds offensive beliefs, but not offensive when used about someone who is, in fact, a socialist.

* except perhaps in jokes, with someone who knows me well enough to know I can't mean any offense, but that is a completely different discussion

> because there is no other word

I disagree, gender critical is also appropriate.

> it was the term that came easiest to use

it was easiest for describing the group to which the term is applied, yes, this proves nothing else about that group eg about people who are not TERFs but to whom the label is applied.

> feminists opposed to trans rights so easily without writing a whole explanation

I don't think the term is self explanatory (what does "exclude" mean) nor that this description is correct (feminists that don't consider trans women as women don't necessarily oppose separate trans rights).

> It's not an offensive term, except that many people find their sincere beliefs offensive

that's not how slurs work.

> It's most similar to "socialist"

except socialists self describe/label, where many TERFs do not.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com