As a fellow embedded dev, I smile every time one of his projects shows up on HN. He's really talented. But c'mon, dude.
Your parent comment gave a paraphrased example of discrimination against a group, not a person.
> you should not interpret it as aggressivity
Your parent comment didn’t describe it as aggressive, they described it as dehumanising. There is a colossal difference between the two. Patton Oswalt demonstrates:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkKo1_RP_0c
Note: I don’t have a Twitter account nor have I ever encountered Dimitry’s writing, so I’m not commenting either way, but if you want to refute/contradict/disagree what your parent comment said, it’s important to respond to the point they made, not different ones.
If 99% of people in the 1960s had “harmful” stances, I feel like the word “harmful” has become very watered down, it’s been repo’d as jargon.
Note that I’m not taking a position on being permissive or non-permissive on what was previously a forbidden societal taboo, I’m just criticizing the blanket characterization as “harmful” of the non-permissive position.
It's the exclusion that ultimately leads to the damaging aspects of this "policy".
"Women should not be limited, punished or abused because of their femaleness, but their being female is an observable fact. It is also the basis for their historic oppression. Replacing verifiable sex with gender identity helps nobody but men trying to take women's rights."
And:
"Of course trans-identified men have the right to exist. They have the same rights to employment, housing, the vote and personal safety as every other citizen. However, they aren't entitled to enter women's reserved spaces or sports, because they are male."
And:
"I don't believe there's such a thing as 'gender' in the way trans activists use it, ie, as an inner male or female essence that is independent of the sexed body, so it's a matter of total indifference to me what an individual trans person looks like or how well they pass. They're free to identify however they like, whatever they look like. The clash of rights starts when they demand my compelled speech and that I, the law and the whole of society agrees they're a member of the opposite sex."
How are you interpreting her perspective as not being fundamentally based on women's rights advocacy?
¹ Though I wouldn’t be surprised if it has happened. But then again that’s not saying much on the internet. Doing a cursory search, I found a post² on her own website where she complains someone said she has “uphold [Nazi] ideology around gender”. “Nazi” is between brackets, presumably meaning it’s a substitute for another word, and even then that’s not calling her one.
² https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/statement-from-j-k-rowlin...
The original quote:
“The Nazis burnt books on trans healthcare and research, why are you so desperate to uphold their ideology around gender?”
I actually like his writing style. I think he just speaks his mind in full honesty and you should not interpret it as aggressivity.