Preaching these things when it benefits a favored point of view and then rejecting them when it comes to others is actually the definition of weaponizing, and it does more harm and causes everyone to be intolerant.
https://medium.com/thoughts-economics-politics-sustainabilit...
What made it obsolete? Obviously, the GOP did by declaring open season on trans people, especially by denying treatment to trans children. This is sheer evil that will lead to suicidal children -- they might as well just shoot them, same result, just less acceptable (although how much is an open question given how American society have normalized school shootings as well but now I really digress). These laws fit the very definition of genocide as defined by the convention. We can not stand for this. We need to fight back. Every day. Every sentence. Every word if need to be. We need to show that aside from a far right fringe, society stands with trans people. It's civil solidarity. And yes, I asked on /r/trumpsupporters what they think is the difference between society and just living next to each other and of course the reply is there's no difference. But there is. We do live in a society. We do care for the next person and if politicians want to erase we will not let that happen. We can not let that happen.
Do you have a workplace policy where people put in pronouns right in their chat name? We do that because we want to normalize that when you introduce yourself, your pronouns are a normal, everyday part of that.
Do I need to quote Niemöller ?
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
So we do speak out because we learned from history what happens when do not. Especially when all it takes is such a tiny thing as getting the words sex and gender right and using the pronouns a person prefers.
If someone uses the n-slur on a black person, are you just going to preach tolerance of their words or are you going to step up, use your white privilege (most of HN readers are white cis het males) and say "that's not okay"?
They elected an openly nazi person to the highest office of the United States and when he rightly got the boot, they attempted a coup to keep him in power. And one of their chief weapons indeed were -- as they called it -- alternative facts. Yeah, there is a certain part of society which does not want to be part of society and does use words and facts rather arbitrarily. Is this what you want me to accept? Because I will not.
I have not started this, I have not wanted this but if history calls us to task, answer we will. And again, right now, in here, we just need to make sure our speech is precise. Not more. It's a small act but it has serious weight.
Having a different personal definition of a word, or a different opinion or thought does not automatically make someone a -obic, or mean they are "coming for" others. Try to be inclusive and tolerant rather than hostile and divisive and uninclusive.
If you'd please not create accounts to break HN's rules with, we'd appreciate it. Everything here is in there for good reason: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2019/jul/26/gender-revea...
https://slate.com/human-interest/2016/05/gender-reveal-celeb...
> the gender-reveal phenomenon pulls off a rousing counter-progressive two-for-one: weapons-grade reinforcement of oppressive gender norms (sorry, feminists!) and blunt-force refusal of the idea that sex assigned at birth does not necessarily equate with gender identity (sorry, trans-rights movement!).
This is how the vernacular gets weaponized.