Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Just think it's worth mentioning that she doesn't seem to present evidence that the data scientist was "transphobic". She seems to discount the possibility the data scientist was unaware of how to properly ask that question on surveys (as am I). Perhaps she had more personal experience with the data scientist in question to justify this claim, but that should of been included here.


> Just think it's worth mentioning that she doesn't seem to present evidence that the data scientist was "transphobic".

She doesn't say they were. She says the question as phrased was. That's a big difference.


You are correct, thank you for pointing that out. However, she is still assuming that the question was phrased in a "Transphobic" way. Perhaps she reads it like that, but I doubt that was the authors (or questions) intention. Perhaps i'm wrong


Having grown up around a lot of gay and working closely with a number of trans people, I have come to the conclusion (possibly wrongly), that they will forgive a lot of "-phobic" speech, as long as you accept the criticism they provide.

One of the critiques I often got was to be more gender inclusive in my speaking. Which a lot of people do now (re: replacing he/she with they). From what I read, it seemed like this person would provide feedback that would either be ignored or the contributor/employee/whomever would actively retaliate against.

It really isn't how you mean something, it is how you make someone feel. If you are trying to run an inclusive community, that distinction is very important.

All of the "accidental racism" of years past have now become "accidental -phobic".


I don’t think anyone, including the author, thought that the intention of the question was to be transphobic. That doesn’t mean it’s not a transphobic question, though. Especially when the point of the survey was to gauge engagement in Open Source by marginalized people, having such a mistake can be seen as pretty tone deaf, and imply that the company really doesn’t care.


I think it's not an assumption so much as an observation based on her definition of transphobia. This is the point I'm trying to get at throughout this thread: Github says she was fired for the way she conveyed her beliefs, and not what they were. I disagree. Those who do agree seem to be mainly those who disagree with her beliefs. I'm trying to understand that disconnect.


You can be transphobic by omission. For example, not taking any time to research the issue ("Is 'transgender' a gender?") before writing a study question, and then getting angry when someone tries patiently to educate you.

It's not what's in people's hearts that counts. Someone can truly believe that blackface is not racist, but that doesn't mean that it's not racist when they do it.


> You can be transphobic by omission.

I don't agree. Any definition from a reputable source on the term "transphobic" implies or directly states that transphobia is, specifically, a fear or dislike towards trans people. Not researching what transgender means or what a survey should include for genders in the year 2017 may be stupid or ignorant but I just don't see how it meets the bar for being "transphobic", especially when the person who is making the error of omission has no problem with trans people!

As an LGBT person I really think that people need to stop inferring malice where there is none. Not only does it not accomplish anything, it simply aggravates people who would otherwise be friends and allies and creates further divisions. If I pointed out every single time a friend or family member accidentally misgendered someone or said something that I thought was not 100% PC, I would be spending a lot of time alone.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: