While this was obviously an ideological flamewar comment, I'd let it pass if you hadn't included a gratuitous swipe at the end. You can't do that in HN threads, and we need you to do exactly the opposite when the discussion is already a flamewar. That is, we need commenters to add thoughtful, substantive information, not throw bombs.

It's fine to describe your relevant personal experience in an HN thread. What's not fine is doing the equivalent of arson (or criminal negligence). No more of this please. We've had to warn you more than once before. That's not cool.

If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and sticking to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it. Note this one: "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."

Seems like a good company to call out by name so that others can avoid it, if it was that bad.

I really tried not to take the bait here, but come on, dude, that last bit was especially rancid. You do get that we’re real human beings with rich internal lives like everyone else and not shallow, opportunistic crossdressers, yeah?

I’d be mortified if I worked with someone who thought like this, and I’m glad I don’t.

Giving the parent comment a charitable and close reading, it seems to only be mocking the performative and fake-nice corporate checkbox culture engaged in by non-trans people that puts being trans on a pedestal, and is not directed toward trans people themselves.

I think you really misread that and defaulted to an overly defensive and negative stance.

If you think "I'd be better off if I pretended to be trans by putting on a dress" is the wrong reading, then, what do you think the correct reading is?

On what planet does “I may need to put on a dress” not read as “if I pretend to be trans, I’ll have an easier time getting a job?”

“Pretending to be trans for (reason)” is a really really common way to mock trans people and I think you know that.

At what point does a mock become acceptable?

Even today there are companies, especially in the tech startup scene, which actively discriminate against "cisgender white males". It is extremely likely that even today, people put on the mask of the currently favoured sexual identity to land a job. Not to mock trans people, just to get ahead in life.

You almost certainly do, they just keep silent.

I’m lucky to work for a small company where I am treated with respect by every one of my coworkers and my bosses. They are curious, thoughtful, and kind people, and I don’t need a window into their minds to know they’re not thinking “I could find a better job if I pretended to be trans.” Believe it or not, people are sometimes just kind because it’s the right thing to do.

If there’s anything the diversity-oriented mindset should have taught us, it’s that you can’t assume what others think just based on who they are or how they act.

California has already passed a law that says he can only get certain jobs if he puts on a dress.

So as a white male, you were in the minority at this company?

Yes. Even counting the various non binary white males. Some wore dresses, so maybe they don’t count.

Hiring was based on race and sex. This was company policy.

They put money were there mouth was and hiring a TON of fresh out of college JR’s. Only had a couple of senior people and they were very overwhelmed.

Product was in bad shape because of it, which is how I came in.

This misconduct happens regardless of the demographics. It just depends on how much abuse and vitriol management allows and encourages.

My point was that i find it laughable that any white man will have a hard time getting a job in the tech industry because he is white considering there isn't a tech company i have ever known that wasn't mostly white guys working there. Maybe wait until white guys make up less than 75% of the workforce in your industry before you start complaining about descrimination.

It’s more that I was required to join in the hatred.

Staying quiet on identity politics and just focusing on the tech stack got me into trouble with management.

It seems worth complaining about abuse regardless of the ability to leave.

Might want to qualify this statement to take those whose ages start with a 4, 5 or even a 6 into consideration. Or are these people already invisible?

That would be age discrimination, not discrimination based on being a white male.

But why should that matter?

You lead with an invocation of bigotry.

You give some examples.

You close with a baldly transphobic sneer.

Really?

If it is a reasonable conclusion from the way the person's workplace is structured, and the way their coworkers judge their coworkers, I don't see how it reflects the person's purported transphobia, but rather the bigotry of their coworkers.

Chuckling at the idea that trans identity amounts to "wearing a dress" is not a "reasonable conclusion", it's a hurtful caricature. People care deeply about this stuff. People agonize for years about how to present this to the people they live and work with.

Laughing at them and pretending that they have it easy by "wearing a dress" is absolutely bigoted, sorry.

There's a big gap between

> reasonable conclusion from the way the person's workplace is structured, and the way their coworkers judge their coworkers

and

> Chuckling at the idea that trans identity amounts to "wearing a dress" is not a "reasonable conclusion", it's a hurtful caricature.

The workplace they described discriminated against the dominant white male identity, and waived it for people who deviated from it in dimensions including gender, sexual preference, and race. It is reasonable to conclude that their workplace would welcome or tolerate a dress-wearer as well, being a deviation of Western male fashion norms, with no comment on its relation to trans identity specifically, or even cross-dressing, which you somehow inferred.

To be charitable, sibling comments have made this inference as well, but I disagree that this inference is reasonable. As you mentioned,

> the idea that trans identity amounts to "wearing a dress" is not a "reasonable conclusion", it's a hurtful caricature.