Hacker News Reader

Comment by mlok | Hacker News Reader

Maybe it starts when some people start to apply some power on other people ? But all your examples are people talking about themselves : their own lives, their own choices, their own specifics, their own struggles. I would say people can have all this and mention it as long as it stays on the fringe and does not become a topic to debate. This would be outside the scope of the group.

Maybe other people should avoid commenting on peoples life / choices / specifics / struggles, and the atmosphere may stay nice.

View on HN

Here’s the thing though: Helen is presenting herself to be called Helen. That’s inherently asking other people to call her Helen and imposing on people to allow a person they see as male to enter a female bathroom! For people who see being transgender as a political issue, being asked to call a trans person by their name is bringing politics into it because theyre being imposed on to recognize a trans woman as female for bathroom purposes.

Thats what I mean when i think “no politics” gets weirdly messy. Like to me it’s not political to let Helen use the female bathroom, but that’s not a given. I’ve also seen situations like, is it political if David brings his boyfriend to the DnD group and they role play a gay couple? What about if Emily, an IRL conservative, says she’s not being political when her lawful good paladin tries to break up the gay couple in the game, because being gay is evil in her DnD religion?

That actually sounds like a relatively simple one to resolve although the practicality might be a bit poor. The nonpolitical resolution is to use a space with 1 small unisex bathroom and insist that everyone keep it clean. If there isn't a consensus on who gets a special bathroom then there shouldn't be one.

So forcing everyone to change their meeting place to a venue with a unisex bathroom only is not political, but a trans woman using a woman’s bathroom is political?

Also, Helen still wants to be called Helen and still wants to be referred to as a she. By this logic, everyone must go by they/them? Or what?

> So forcing everyone to change their meeting place to a venue with a unisex bathroom only is not political, but a trans woman using a woman’s bathroom is political?

Nobody is calling for unisex bathrooms as far as I know, so it can't really be called a political choice. It is just practical - there isn't a consensus about who should get a special bathroom. How can there be a special bathroom if we don't know who is supposed to be using it?

> Also, Helen still wants to be called Helen and still wants to be referred to as a she. By this logic, everyone must go by they/them? Or what?

I don't see how to get away from that one, there is a fundamental rift between the people who think individuals control their identity and the people who think that identity is constructed by someone's peers (see also, shaking off an unwelcome nickname).

But that is an inescapable problem that has dogged humanity since before we were a species so good luck excluding it from any space. If it flares up and diplomacy can't smooth it out then some organiser is just going to have to make a call.

I think you’re missing my point here, which is that “no politics” is an impossible standard for any given social group even if the social group isn’t itself a political movement. There will need to be some measure of baseline politics, like trans people are welcome, jokes about Indian people being smelly are fine, gay people shouldn’t bring their partners around, “retarded” is/isn’t cool to use. Etc.

I did just write "that is an inescapable problem that has dogged humanity since before we were a species" you know. But nonetheless the trans bathroom one has a simple and nonpolitical resolution until the people who want segregation start making an argument about why some people need a special bathroom. At which point the gender thing probably doesn't matter.

This is a part of why people are hopeful that they can keep spaces focused. Many of the popular "political issues" are more theatre around identity than any real substance.

So you’re in agreement with me that “no politics” isn’t really a thing in a space? That’s all I’m saying. I’m using transgender issues as an example but my overall point is that there’s no such thing as a space that is focused around something and simply gets a no politics rule. There is always some kind of politics in play simply by nature of politics being an extension of acceptable and unacceptable community, e.g. a person who happens to be trans is the hot topic now, but within my parents generation probably the political act is enforcing a shared bathroom between whites and blacks!

> So you’re in agreement with me that “no politics” isn’t really a thing in a space?

Yeah, its a meaningless term. The people calling for it are clearly being inarticulately and are trying to say something else.

But the trans bathroom thing has an obvious resolution. The people fighting over it are more about wanting to pick a fight than that there is an actual issue; if the people around me wanted me to use the female bathroom or the male bathroom either is cool. It's a bathroom. They meet a unisex need. If segregation is an issue in the abstract then stop doing that until there is an objective standard to use instead of a subjective one.

'Everyone who disagrees with my obvious resolution only wants to pick a fight over what I deem a non-issue for me, and therefore, everyone.'

That is generally how it works when people don't accept obvious resolutions. If you want to challenge its obviousness be my guest. It is pretty normal for a DnD/board game group to be meeting at someone's house where there is literally only one bathroom. It is hard to miss the fact that both genders can use it without complaint.

In a sporting context or similar where people are needing to change clothes then it isn't an easy one, but in this context it isn't much of a challenge.

Are you saying that a policy which works for invited guests in a private, one-bathroom home, should, based on its success there, be adopted at a societal scale?

These are issues of civility, not politics.

I don’t see what you mean. It really isn’t considered civil to let men use the female restroom when a male restroom is available outside of circumstances like taking one’s young children to the restroom. If one sees a trans woman as a man, it is uncivil for “him” to parade at being a woman.

It is also super normal for couples to roleplay being couples, gay or not. What do you call civil here, to let a (in the mind of an Anti-homosexual conservative) illegitimate couple pretend as if it’s on the level of a legitimate one? Or it’s maybe uncivil for the illegitimate gay guy to come in and force the rest of the group to sit in discomfort with his sexuality?

In my opinion “maintain civility” is equally as fraught as “no politics” because different people have radically different opinions of what these mean. Often times when it comes to “identity politics” it’s mutually exclusive.

Politics is the apparatus of civility. It determines how we treat the uncivil, and the direction we push for “new” civility standards.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com