Hacker News Reader

Comment by magicfractal | Hacker News Reader

He was free to chose his own pronouns and keep his gender ideology to himself. The company is also free to chose the policy that maximizes the well-being of most employees. Instead, he decided to engage in proselytizing at work, well deserved imo.

View on HN

That's not how I read it. He was "pressured" or forced depending on how you interpret the article to play that game and couldn't leave it blank. So he lashed out a bit when provoked. At least he took a stand and didn't just capitulate and play that stupid game. I wouldn't say I agree with putting something inflammatory, but it's way more respectable that just letting something absurd get forced on you. I would have just quit. (Same as I would quit if I was asked to affirm I believed in the principles of any religion, as sometimes comes up).

Something absurd like asking someone how they want to be referred to in the third person?

If someone feels that's a critical piece of information to share, nothing is stopping them. My understanding is that he was being coerced into doing that himself when it wasn't relevant to him, and in fact he found it offensive to be aksed. So yes it's absurd.

(I'm not sure I should have replied, I consider the whole issue too stupid to spend time on other than to say "piss off, adults are talking", but anyway)

> If someone feels that's a critical piece of information to share, nothing is stopping them. My understanding is that Assigned by God was being coerced into doing that Assigned by Godself when it wasn't relevant to Assigned by God, and in fact Assigned by God found it offensive to be aksed. So yes it's absurd.

FTFY.

Is "referred in the third person" something flexible, like a preference? If yes, where is the limit, if any limit exists? Or is it like a nickname, where you can chose anything? Then it is no longer a pronoun, but a nickname or alias.

A man has a right to be offended by somebody asking him if he is a man. (Woman too, for that matter.)

Asking everybody their pronouns by default is an overtly political act, meant to re-engineer society to be more accommodating to people who's preferred pronouns do not match their visual appearance. The idea is that if everybody lists their pronouns, those people who's pronoun doesn't match their appearance will seem less conspicuous when they specify their preference. Since this listing of pronounces is a fundamentally a political act, you shouldn't be surprised when you encounter people who don't wish to participate in this sort of political action. Furthermore it is clearly inappropriate for employers to coerce workers to participating in such activism.

If he was free to choose then "assigned by god" is just as valid as any other pronoun.

"the policy that maximizes the well-being of most employees"

Of most?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com