I'm putting this here because wtbob's original comment was flagged to death and can no longer be replied to directly. Although I vehemently disagree with wtbob's comment, I think it was a mistake to flag it. It was a cogent and even a defensible claim. It was simply wrong, and flagging comments to death simply for being wrong is very, very dangerous. For one thing, it deprives people of the opportunity to explain to someone why they are wrong, instead saying, in effect, "You are so wrong that you are not even entitled to an explanation of what you are wrong about." That is not constructive. It instills a sense of martyrdom that causes these wrong views to fester and thrive, the exact opposite of what we should be striving for here.

So, for the record, wtbob:

> Gender is an objective, physical, biological fact, not a subjective experience.

You are wrong about this. It is both a biological circumstance (though not nearly as crisp a dichotomy as most people think) and a subjective experience, and some people have a mismatch between their biology and their subjective experience. It is simple human decency to defer to how someone chooses to self-identify even if it does not conform to your prejudices about how the world ought to be.

> Although I vehemently disagree with wtbob's comment, I think it was a mistake to flag it.

For what it's worth: I didn't see the comment in question, but based on context, I assume that reading it would have made me want to cry.

Maybe that's an unpopular emotion to express on HN, but that's what happens when a place you think of as a home suddenly makes you feel unwelcome and conditionally accepted.

So thank you, community, for saying that if someone wants to make any more "cogent claims" about the validity of my existence, they're welcome to do so, elsewhere.

You can see the original comment by going to your settings page (click on your user name in the upper right hand corner of the screen) and set "Showdead" to "Yes". You really ought to read it. If you're going to support the suppression of a point of view you really should know what it is you are trying to suppress. Supporting censorship of things you haven't read based on "context" generally does not lead to good outcomes in the long run. Widespread frustration with that sort of attitude is one of the reasons that Donald Trump is getting so much mileage out of criticizing rampant political correctness.

You're being very dramatic. As you point out, the comment hasn't even been deleted. I simply choose not to read it, and the community nicely made that choice very easy for me.

Perhaps you believe I shouldn't have that choice, or it should come at a higher price. That's fine, you're entitled to your opinion. Just realize that what seems to you like a novel and reasoned argument could be, to someone closer, just one more voice in a screaming mob of rejection. And remember that when you shout back at a mob, you join it.

So I'm not going to tell you you have to be on my side here. But you could at least believe what I've already told you about my experience: it may be useful for you to read more about folks' opinions on my life, but not for me. Communities that respect that are going to see more of my participation, and those that don't will wonder why they have such a diversity problem.

> You're being very dramatic

Sorry about that. I'm trying very hard to be sober about this.

> the comment hasn't even been deleted

It was. I undeleted it.

> Perhaps you believe I shouldn't have that choice

Of course you should have that choice. But you wrote:

"So thank you, community, for saying that if someone wants to make any more "cogent claims" about the validity of my existence, they're welcome to do so, elsewhere."

That sounded to me like an oblique endorsement of censorship, and that's what I was objecting to.

> So I'm not going to tell you you have to be on my side here

Not knowing anything about you besides what you've written in this thread it's hard for me to know what your side actually is. (One of the things I've learned after years on the Internet is to never try to extrapolate someone's beliefs beyond what they actually say.) But I'm pretty sure I'm more on your side than you think. Please note that the reason I undeleted wtbob's comment was so that I could rebut it. I'm sorry if that caused you personal pain. But I really believe that the best way to fight bad ideas is to expose them to the light of reason.

> It was. I undeleted it.

Flagged is not deleted, as you have demonstrated. I didn't realize it's been vouched. In any case I still haven't read it, and still have no interest to, so don't worry about it.

> Please note that the reason I undeleted wtbob's comment was so that I could rebut it.

In the nicest possible way: I don't care. I appreciate that you're trying to be helpful, truly. But I think I've been clear on my perspective, and I hope you'll continue to think about it.

To play Devil's advocate, how about because "humoring" is usually a way to hold off extreme self-righteousness, shaming, and so on from the humor'd party.

Moral discussions like these are not like most discussions on HN. People's opinions and comments come loaded with assertions of moral absolutism, and as above, are usually an attempt to shame the parent commenter.

If Chelsea Manning prefers to be called "her," that's fine with me. But I appreciate being brow-beaten by people who have placed themselves on a morally superior plane as much as I like being told I'm going to hell by any number of religious leaders who also like to place themselves on high, asserting that their beliefs make them inherently better than others.

I'm of the belief that what people do in a consenting, non-harmful fashion with, to, and about themselves and willing participants is not only fine, but none of my business. But the squeaky wheels are always those who believe that they have somehow been harmed by your discord with their moral self-righteousness - no matter which side of a position they find themselves.

Devil's advocate, though.

There's always a balance to strive for, but we live in such an imbalanced culture (homogeneous, unrepresentative).. sometimes we don't realize some issues until we have kids and see what they go through [1]. It's easy to dismiss people as cry-babies, and there are always crazy exceptions, but if people say they are harmed, it doesn't hurt to listen and find out why :)

[1] like those republican politicians who are suddenly OK with homosexuality because they find out that one of their kids is homosexual, or many friends who are suddenly the biggest feminists on the Internet because they have daughters. I don't mind, but I do wish they had not been such dicks before having their epiphany.

Specifically about that type of person you mentioned that is against something vehemently until they are personally related to the side of the issue they opposed, I can't help myself but feel more disdain for these individuals than if they had continued holding their prejudiced/bigoted views because their transformation seems incredibly intellectually dishonest. I liken it to the type of person that apologizes profusely after they have been caught red-handed with some wrongdoing, but they never once apologized or confessed during the time they were doing it. In other words, they aren't sorry they did it, they're sorry they got caught doing it.

Maybe my views on the issue are too harsh, but those are my own prejudices. I do think that people can have genuine transformations of views, but it doesn't sit well with me when it only came about because they were cornered into it.

I think asking someone to refrain from speaking (what they believe to be) the truth is one thing, especially if they are doing it simply to cause controversy, draw attention to themselves, or signal some sort of tribal loyalty. If that is what the flagged comment was doing, then perhaps flagging them was the appropriate response.

However, asking someone to actively say something (that they believe to be) false is not within the scope of what I would call "politeness".

For instance, I have friends and acquaintances who have religious beliefs that I do not, and those religious beliefs are essential to their identity. I don't constantly tell them that they are deluded idol worshipers (that's rude). However, I don't participate in their observances and I don't hide my disagreement when the subject comes up.

Agreed. The world is not this black and white place we might sometimes try to make it. Rather than writing diatribes about how people are "objectively" wrong about matters of no consequence, why not save the effort and call people what they want to be called?

What's the point of titles, adjectives, pronouns if they can be manipulated by the subject?

Statement:

"Dr. Smith ran across the street. She was terrified of what would happen next"

What actually happened:

"A burly transgender man who believes he is a doctor ran across the street."

This isn't a police report. In matters of consequence, I'd expect you would call things by whatever is most conducive to the target audience understanding what you're talking about.

Because it supports the delusion they have put themselves into.

What is a delusion in this context? Is being gay a delusion because penises are meant to go in vaginas and people putting them in anuses are delusional and just need to wake up?

It seems the point they are trying to make is that for (wrong, according to them) reasons, a person's internal gender perception is privileged over other types of internal identity, such as the false belief that one is the messiah or Napoleon, or one has missing limbs. It's an interesting enough point, which deserves careful thought, although perhaps this is not exactly the right forum for it.

Also, note that they did say in their comment that the correct pronoun to use when talking to Manning was 'her', which seems like being nice to others, and respecting their choices. I'm guessing it's probably considered unhelpful to reinforce delusions such as believing oneself to be Jesus, but would be interested to know where psychiatrists draw the line in such things.