Hacker News Reader

Comment by rejectfinite | Hacker News Reader

Why design a society after the minority?

It's designing after the whole, not the minority.

If we can make a simple change to include everyone, not just a subset, why wouldn't we do that?

I agree that this is the goal. And a worthy one. However, I think a lot of the controversy around self-identity centric models of gender is that they don't achieve that goal. They don't allow people to talk about the physical aspects of sex, which is something that lots people want to do. And they redefine gender in such a way that many people will feel like they no longer self-identify as the gender they identified as their entire lives.

> Why design a society after the minority?

We always have an obligation to design society to accommodate everyone, not just the majority. Otherwise, with your line of reasoning, you might as well repeal the ADA, do away with ethical AI considerations to enable equal processing of richer skin tones, etc.

Society isn't designed. It emerges spontaneously over time due to the beliefs and behaviors of everyone, and it's literally impossible to "design society to accommodate everyone."

I'm 6'3" and I wish plane seats were designed with me in mind, but they aren't. My short wife wishes countertops were usually built higher, but they aren't.

I think children are treated very poorly in our society and I've homeschooled my children to allow them to exert more agency over their lives. I'm fortunate to live in the US where this is legal, but in most of the world it isn't. Other cultures believe that they should dictate that children's time be spent according to adults' wishes. How can both be accommodated?

One of the great accomplishments of industrialization is that shoes became mass produced cheaply, rather than expensive one-offs handmade by a cobbler. The downside, of course, is that mass produced shoes come in standard sizes, and too bad for you if your feet don't work in them (mine don't).

Why split society into a zero-sum war of factions by declaring that society should be organized around the majority, rather than attempting to accommodate as many people as possible?

> Why split society [...] factions

Biology did that. Society is recognizing it, and only recently at that, by giving women sex-based rights.

> by declaring that society should be organized around the majority, rather than attempting to accommodate as many people as possible?

The needs of X vs the needs of Y.

Females need single-sex spaces to avoid violence and rape. Males do not need to be in female single-sex spaces. Needs trump wants.

> zero-sum war of

Many things are zero sum. A single-sex space is only useful if it remains single-sex. A single male rapist can traumatize and attack an entire rape shelter of female victims.

Women's rights don't matter if "woman" means whatever anyone else wants.

We're not talking about biology, we're talking about gender.

I think concerns about single-sex spaces are very understandable. It's a sensitive topic and should be handled as such. But with the language on a pregnancy website I think we could accommodate everyone. In the root comment I suggested different materials for cis women and trans men.

Acknowledging that a minority exists is not “designing society” after them. It’s accepting reality.

Why bother with quantum physics if classical physics works for most things we need?

An interesting argument. Quantum physics does a better job of explaining the universe, that’s why we use it.

Changing common language for the sole purpose of being an “ally” to some ultra small minority only serves to confuse. Quite a dumb thing to do when the best possible effect is sparing a few hurt feelings.

99% of the people who support this nonsense aren’t in the affected group and are simply trying to earn “cool points” via virtue signaling.

I'm non binary. When people use the correct pronouns, understand that I prefer a gender neutral restroom, and ensure that I'm represented in surveys, it helps me feel included.

This allyship has a material, positive benefit on my life beyond just "feelings".

Trans and non binary people represent somewhere around 1-3% of people. (Some studies push it up to about 5%, others closer to 0.5%)

This makes trans and non binary folks about as frequent as wheelchair users or people with red hair. That's millions of people in America, and it's enough people that most workplaces and schools will have trans and non binary people in them.

Even in your analogy no one bothers with quantum physics outside it's specific scope.

Are societies designed? And if so why not add some protections for minorities? They tend to be oppressed and ignored by majorities

How acknowledging a minority also exists "designing society after a minority"?

Because changing the sites/books/medical language that EVERYONE uses is exactly that.

I can "acknowledge" something, but I don't have to change anything.

"designing after" would to me suggest solely focussing on, not also including. The same way that we didn't "design society after women" when they got voting rights.

What size minority counts?

Medicine has done a great job excluding groups as a large as ‘women’ historically. Still does in many areas.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com