Not disagreeing with the idea that people shouldn't express hatred.

However I'm very nervous at some of the Orwellian redefinitions of words like hatred, racism, sexism, white supremacy and so forth.

Sometimes when you scratch under the surface of an accusation, you get a string. If you tug the string, it turns into a complex worldview, and it turns out the thing is a straw man used against political opponents. One red flag for this is when someone starts by saying, "So, you're really saying..." or, "The logical conclusion of your argument is..."

I was told recently that Louis CK's joke (recent underground taping that ended up on YouTube) was transphobic. I then listened to the joke and didn't come to that conclusion. Who's correct?

I read on HN someone coming out supporting law enforcement in the US. Someone responded that that made them racist, due to the history and the logic of institutional racism.

Be careful when you hear accusations.

Did they call it trans hate? Or did they object to unisex restrooms and/or pronoun usage rules?

I usually see “hate” used very loosely here, when the reality is much more nuanced, and mischaracterizing it as trans hate (or hate in general, for whatever the issue might be) is contributing to the problem.

Is it merely a viewpoint to disagree politely upon that people should be called using pronouns they identify as? For example, if I repeatedly called a cis woman a man, and insisted she was a male, should this be objected to any differently than if I repeatedly called a trans woman a man and insisted she was a male?

I understand the former (calling a cis woman a man and insisting on referring to her as he pronouns) to be incredibly rude. But the idea of calling a trans woman a woman is a political move?

I don’t care to get into it or take a position on the matter, I am just pointing out that it’s possible to have disagreements about where the boundaries are without it being the case that there is an element of hate involved.

It’s possible for someone to disagree that a man is a woman without hating them for thinking they are a woman. It’s also possible for them to be sensitive about how they express that without unnecessarily harassing or harming the other person. And it goes both ways. The degree to which others, particularly those with incompatible views, are willing to modify their own life in order to accommodate yours, is going to vary greatly. Figuring out where to compromise is the difficult part.

Do you think it’s disrespectful for someone to eat a big juicy steak at work while sitting right next to a vegan animal rights activist who sincerely feels anguish at the thought of us factory farming and slaughtering animals for food?

I think that issue is a lot simpler than some of these other issues, and yet I doubt that polite society can even agree on that.

Yes, and at certain points how you refer to a person is political because they are trans, what do you do then? What is the sensitive, non-harmful way to refer to a trans woman as a male? What is the sensitive, non-harmful way to refer to a trans woman as a woman (if you believe referring to trans women being seen as women is a hateful thing)?

Similarly, what happens if you believe espousing homosexuality as normal is hateful? What is the sensitive, non-harmful manner to ask your co worker to never bring up his husband, ever, in the workplace?

I'm not asking meanly, I genuinely don't understand.

I don’t think those examples are the more difficult ones, and those aren’t the issues that the detractors have. It’s not symmetrical. Some people think that it’s rude or even hateful to intentionally call a trans woman a man, but nobody thinks it’s rude or hateful to call a trans woman a woman. Where that becomes a problem for that side is where things get complicated.

Can trans women fight biological women in MMA? Can they compete in tennis? If you think they shouldn’t, is that hate and misgendering? Who is allowed to apply for scholarships reserved for women? Do trans women get lower insurance rates? Should we even be discriminating on scholarships and insurance rates to begin with? Is it reasonable to expect someone to use other pronouns that didn’t previously exist in English simply because someone requests it? Is a man allowed in womens change rooms because he puts on high heels but otherwise has taken no steps to transition his/her/their identity, or is there some arbitrary level of transitioning that counts? Who decides that? Everybody seems to have strong opinions on a lot of these issues and nobody is going to agree anytime soon. Yes, sometimes it’s hate, but it doesn’t take an ounce of hate for two individuals to be radically opposed on how this is supposed to work.

Could you clarify how this is the case that it isn't the issues detractors have, when another comment responding to this is in fact exactly whether or not trans people can ask to be called by their prefered pronouns?

Yes, that's the point I'm making. Their identity and their claim is a political statement, so banning politics at work puts being trans in a confusing situation which I'm curious about.

I'm not saying anything except that what does one do when a workplace bans politics but being LGBTQ is a political act? How does one avoid politics when calling someone 'he' or 'she' (either way) is a political act?

> being LGBTQ is a political act

Clearly that’s not the case, unless you make it your mission to make it so.

> How does one avoid politics when calling someone 'he' or 'she' (either way) is a political act?

If you allow this to be a treated as a political act which can only 1. be applied by someone who wants to exercise power over others, and 2. Can be used by former group to claim discrimination universally...

> what does one do when a workplace bans politics

Clearly politics is not banned, only certain kinds of politics is. The other kind is being enforced hard.

Don’t accept the double-speak.

> Clearly that’s not the case, unless you make it your mission to make it so.

I don't know if it is so clear, since the poster I'm responding to is explicitly claiming that trans women are not women, they are men. As far as I understand this is something referred to as politically charged subject matter.

> Clearly politics is not banned, only certain kinds of politics is. The other kind is being enforced hard.

Can you clarify? What is the other kind?

> If you allow this to be a treated as a political act

Is referring to a trans woman as a man or as a woman inherently apolitical, as it does not reflect on one's belief on if trans people are the gender they identify as?

> Is referring to a trans woman as a man or as a woman inherently apolitical, as it does not reflect on one's belief on if trans people are the gender they identify as?

My personal view is that people should be free to be who they are, and as long as it doesn't negatively impact others, it should be their own bloody business, and should have no legal implications.

So you're gay? You're a queer? Good for you! And no legal implications, please.

So you're legally man, with XY chromesomes, and you somehow feel like a woman, and maybe even like to dress as one? Good for you! Have fun, be proud, defy conventions! I do not hate you, but you are still a man, so no legal implications please.

To me, that's a statement of facts, and there's nothing awfully political about it.

The people who oppose that simple rationalist approach, are the ones who are rallying for a political platform, while at the same time claiming that opposing viewpoints must absolutely be denied a voice.

Despite the popular notion that these people are "liberals", there's nothing liberal or moderate about such a view, quite the contrary.

If you company has an anti-discrimination policy that includes gender identity (most do including places like Google) you should report them to HR for creating a hostile work environment. HR usually has an anonymous way of reporting things to investigate such as a phone number you can call.

> I've seen people at work defend trans hate as a "conservative value".

As long as you don’t define what you mean with “trans hate”, there’s no way for an outsider to judge if your “conservative” colleague held a reasonable position or not.

Constantly defining opposing views as “hate” is IMO one of the most effective ways you can kill reasonable discourse and increase polarisation.

And if “everything” is “hate”, clearly “hate” is no big deal, so why should we care?

Maybe what you encountered were not actually “hate”, but something we back in the days used to call “disagreement”?

It’s a pretty normal thing.

That's the point, you should be able to hold that opinion, but you should not publicly state it openly at work in the first place.

Taking the other side, how do you counter the "So some opinions are okay to state publicly, while others are not?" I think this is the rub... For any given X, you'll find groups of people that are pro-X, and someone anti-X.

There's a big difference between fiscal policy and sexual orientation, though.

If you say "taxes are theft" I may disagree with your viewpoint, but I'm not personally attacked by it. If your viewpoint is a challenge to their personal identity, you should probably keep that to yourself.

Some things shouldn't be okay to say. That intolerance actually hurts people, if someone says "the Nazis were right" that really doesn't end up being a victimless crime, America is an example right now where the rhetoric is leading to actual violence towards certain groups. While I think the government regulating it too much is not good I don't see the issue of doing it collectively as individuals.

Edit: just as a final thought, I've been on both sides of this, I've been silenced and I've silenced other people and honestly they both suck. I hold this view with the believe that some middle ground of things not being okay is the only one that works. If someone thinks that a free for all of ideas works well they are welcome to try it on their social media and at their company and I could be convinced if I could see it work at scale. It's really a practical view more than a philosophical one

You're arguing that right-wing points of view are the only ones that can harm people or cause violence?

Many women don't want people with penises in their change rooms.

Others believe this is hatred.

Google provides onsite gyms at many locations, which have change rooms. In this case, that discussion will likely have to take place at work.

As a trans woman, I’d rather they did. Even if they don’t get fired, at least I know it’s not safe to come out.

“Don’t ask don’t tell” is a tempting policy, but that’s how you end up surrounded by TERFs when something inadvertently outs you.

> If Bob believes Alice should be put to death because she's a transwoman

That’s clearly a straw man. Nobody is having that discussion at work.

And death threats are not politics, they are matters which should be reported to the police.

Nobody should be having that discussion at work, but sadly that discussion does occur. It mostly occurs behind the back of "Alice" so if you ever hear that type of talk it is your job to report it to HR who can investigate. No one should have to fear for their safety when they come to work.

I was responding to the exact argument made in the post above me. Since people are downvoting me, presumably because I used sarcastic humor and HN is populated by people who are just too darn logical for sarcasm,* let me make the point more explicit: no, Bob and Alice aren't literally going to have that conversation at work. I get that.

However, even if the work has a strict "no politics" policy, if Bob does have significant prejudice against transgender people, then having Bob in the workplace with Alice at all potentially puts her at risk. There doesn't need to be a conversation about trans rights for him to know that she is trans, and for that to translate into harassment and even violence.

I don't have a solution for that problem. But that doesn't mean it's not a problem. And it's not a problem that's solved by prohibiting employees from talking about controversial topics in the workplace -- which is the argument that was made by the poster I was actually responding to.

*Dammit, I did it again! Sorry.

> Since people are downvoting me ... let me make the point more explicit: no, Bob and Alice aren't literally going to have that conversation at work. I get that.

You were trying to use an outlier, an extremist situation (badly representing the opposing part) to frame a discussion about general principles for politics.

Of course you will get downvoted. It’s not a constructive contribution.

So only leftist politics are allowed to be discussed openly?

That sounds like a rather discriminating and polarising policy.

And are we allowed to discuss that (clearly leftist) policy?

I think you should not discuss politics at work. Unfortunately I agree with you: this will lead to only feelgood (i.e. leftist) politics being talked about.

Serious question, what do you define as trans hate (in regard to the people you are talking about)?

This is because, what you may be describing as "trans hate" may simply be someone that simply doesn't accept the non scientifically proven theory of gender fluidity. And may be people that simply are stating that transgenderism should be approached and supported like other cases of body dysphoria.

I draw the line at compelled speech. I don't want to have to remember your "pronoun" in order to have a regular conversation with you. At some point the politeness of inclusivity pervades upon the efficiency of getting your job done.

Being offended and upset is a personal problem, not a public one. Requiring colleagues to bend over backwards to accommodate your needs should be a matter of politeness, not company policy.

> I don't want to have to remember your "pronoun" in order to have a regular conversation with you.

Good thing, then that the debate is about third person pronouns, which are used to talk about someone, not with them.

I have literally never seen anybody use customized second person pronouns (although of course honorifics are traditional — try refusing to address a judge in court as "your honor" because you don't want to remember their honorific).