And this isn't the first time that Lunduke is behaving... reactionary, to put it mildly.
He is a very hateful person these days.
The way I see him, he is cheerful, enthusiastic and tries to find joy and fun in technology and computing.
Color me prejudist, but that's probably the polar opposite of trying to find politics in technology and computing.
Besides, not everyone is 100% caught up in this trans-bubble, where being trans is the single most important thing in the universe. I realize it is for some people, a small minority, and that's perfectly OK.
But at the same time, it is not for the vast majority, and most people just don't care that much, and don't pay much attention to the subject, at all. And that's not wrong. It's OK too. And the minority will just have to deal with different people being different. That's sort of their schtick too, isn't it?
Would it be completely out of this world to assume that Lunduke is simply being careless here, because it's not on his radar? I certainly wouldn't go checking if people I've interviewed before have changed gender since last time around, before referring to them in an article.
I've been following Lunduke since the Linux Action Show days, read his blog regularly, used Illumination Software Creator and also bought a copy of the comic he wrote. I also dabbled in his own programming language (titled after his last name) back when he worked on it. I agree that Lunduke is cheerful and enthusiastic about technology and computing. I'm prefacing this to make sure it's clear that I've been following him for a long time and am not just jumping on some bandwagon to bash some individual for no reason.
>Color me prejudist, but that's probably the polar opposite of trying to find politics in technology and computing.
Lunduke would be the first to tell you that technology is not apolitical. His public persona is tied to open source activism. He discussed political aspects of technology such as net neutrality, DRMs, big vendor influence in protocols and more at length. Back when I followed his Twitter account he commented on political news very frequently. Further, he has a blog called "Conservative Nerds" where he writes solely about politics. It is evident that Lunduke doesn't communicate about technology in apolitical fashion only.
When you follow Lunduke's political statements it is clear that part of his schtick is to belittle so-called "woke" culture. He framed Torvalds' temporary departure as forced therapy because "he was mean to people". He called a trans woman a man in a dress. There are many more examples I can cite here. He also has shared and promoted various conspiracy theories over the past few years and I am excluding milder and "harmless" ones like his musings about UFOs here.
This is all to say that Lunduke's political views aren't hidden or just presumed but very much out in the open.
>Would it be completely out of this world to assume that Lunduke is simply being careless here, because it's not on his radar?
Yes, absolutely. But is it completely out of this world to assume that someone who has a track record of being contrarian on these topics might do this deliberately?
I'd love it if that were the case, but his comments directly aimed at trans people suggest otherwise.
He is anti-vax & anti-trans and you just have to scroll down his twitter feed to see just how hateful he is. Finding "fun" in technology is not telling women that they are men in dresses, using their deadnames, or vocally pulling your kids out of school because of "medical tyranny".
I have no love for the wacky Linux Sucks guy anymore. His radicalism and hate has coloured his views too much for me.
Yes, it is narrow minded of me to shut him out of my headspace forever. But y'know what? That's okay. It's just Bryan Lunduke. Just some guy. He's as relevant to me as I am to you.
But they are biological men. Unless they had them surgically removed, they have penises and can reproduce by having sex with biological women. This part is literally un-debatable.
But having constructed a psyche different from your own biology (or how you are perceived by others) is entirely normal. I may picture myself as a tough guy. While others would probably point and laugh if I said that out loud.
That some people happen to have constructed a psyche with a different sex than what their biology dictates, does in no way change their biology. It's just another case of the utterly normal psyche <-> reality mismatch.
By all means. Feel like a woman. Do things you typically portray that women do. Feel free! Do whatever you want. Go grazy! I won't care, and I certainly don't hate. And the same is probably the case with Mr. Lunduke.
But we do in no way recognize a biological man as a women. That's not "hate", and you should stop framing it as that. It's just basic biology for you: Men are biologically programmed to find a mate, a woman. A real women. And we can tell these guys aren't. Sorry :)
Assuming bad intent doesn't often help clear up conflicts on the internet.
Bad intent is a safe assumption. I'd obviously love to be proven wrong and see an edited version of the post, but I'm 99.999% sure that will not happen.
He knows exactly what he's doing.
It's intentional.
The sad thing is I'm pretty sure he's had her on his YouTube channel before.
As far as I'm aware, Danielle didn't "announce" her transition in any EOS channels. But if you look at her profile for more than five seconds, it's pretty freaking obvious. Her name is updated on her Twitter, from which Lunduke based his article:
https://twitter.com/DaniElainaFore
It's updated on the EOS Reddit: https://old.reddit.com/r/elementaryos/comments/shdouy/update...
It's updated on the company blog: https://blog.elementary.io/elementary-os-6-1-available-now/
And it's plainly obvious on the company YouTube channel if you compare Q&A/livestreams between months:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfyFew7toGw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ryu9-F6B2Gs
I would be willing to overlook that kind of flagrant oversight if not for the fact that Lunduke calls himself A JOURNALIST. That he would continue to use her dead-name despite all of the research he's supposed to do as part of his job makes him either malicious or incompetent. Take your pick.
Using it now is incredibly rude.
I'm not saying it can't be accidental (in which case you do what you do when you've accidentally been rude - apologize, correct your mistake and move on), but it is at least careless.
He did interview Danielle a few years back however.(1) So maybe it simply was a careless mistake.
(1) https://www.networkworld.com/article/3130760/elementary-os-0...
It's worth mentioning the twitter handle is still "DanielFore"
As you can see in the linked screenshots. Try to open the old handle and you will find one tweet telling you she's moved to the new one.
Lunduke had this handle on his screen, and either missed it or chose to ignore it on purpose. The former is careless and sloppy, especially if you're trying to do journalism. The latter is very rude, to put it mildly.
I'd argue that by that point you'd be pretty aware.
You might not agree with their reasons, but these changes have a lot of costs associated with them (mostly thanks to people who share your views). Calling these reasons "arbitrary" is either ignorant or disrespectful.
> keep your gender politics out of this technical discussion platform
Keep your "gender politics" politics out of this technical discussion platform.
What do you mean by "sex"? Would a woman who goes through menopause no longer be a woman because she's not fertile? What about someone born intersex with multiple or no recognizable genitals? What about a woman with a Y Chromosome? That's not hypothetical it's recognized by actual biologists. The reason it's under diagnosed is because it rarely shows symptoms so it's only something someone already taking a DNA test would find out.
Fun fact though, when you meet someone, you forgo the strip search, DNA test, and ultrasound required to actually verify these things. Not only is gender not based on sex, YOU don't base your evaluation of it on sex. Instead you've picked a number of unrelated arbitrary qualities, which is what scientists and I call "dumb". If we're assigning genders willy nilly why should you be in charge of everyone? Let everyone pick for themselves.
Let me ask you a question to clarify things: Is ANY gender based in ANY way on the sexual organs (and thus the biologically assigned sex) of ANY human?
That's okay. I'm peering through the internet and into your mind.
> Is ANY gender based in ANY way on the sexual organs (and thus the biologically assigned sex) of ANY human?
Nope. See my above statements for proof.
At what point did everyone stop strip searching people and inspecting their reproductive organs? Must have been before I was born.