Comment by yters
5 years ago
Hmm, somehow I knew Justine is a 'transwoman' by this feat. Lucky guess I suppose...
Question: if all the high achieving women in tech end up being 'transwomen', is that a step forward or backward for women in tech? Will 'transwomen' be able to take advantage of hiring privileges given to normal women? If so, won't this effectively shut normal women out of tech even more?
I think trans/self identifying people should be in a separate category so they don't exploit allowances made for under represented minorities.
You have a long history of taking HN threads into ideological flamewar and we've asked you to stop many times. The slack we cut users may be large, but it is finite, and this was the last bit. I've banned this account.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. I know you know where they are, but in case anyone is curious, they're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
Sincerely: what the fuck is wrong with you?
Please don't respond to a bad comment by breaking the site guidelines yourself. That only makes the thread even worse. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and sticking to the rules when posting here, we'd be grateful. Note that they include:
"Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead."
Isn't it a legitimate question? We have special protection for under represented groups. So when the dominant group starts taking the identity of underrepresented groups and coopting their protections, they are no longer protected. The two things are at odds with each other.
I'll engage. I think your comments are clearly bigoted, and I'll tell you why. What you do with that is up to you.
> Hmm, somehow I knew Justine is a 'transwoman' by this feat. Lucky guess I suppose...
You use scare quotes around "transwoman". Why is that? Is that a concept you believe is not real somehow?
You are guessing that something technically impressive was achieved by a trans woman. Why is that? Are women not capable of technical feats?
> Lucky guess I suppose...
This implies that women being technically inferior is something obvious, something we all know but can't say.
> If all the high achieving women in tech end up being [yet-again-scare-quotes (and for some reason one word)] "transwomen", ...
This isn't a playful hypothetical question. You are reinforcing your claim that women in tech are not high achieving.
> I think trans/self identifying people should be in a separate category so they don't exploit allowances made for under represented minorities.
> So when the dominant group starts taking the identity of underrepresented groups and coopting their protections
From these two statements it is clear you think that trans women are the dominant group (men?) that are exploiting special allowances meant for women. Because in your eyes trans women do not count as women. And they don't deserve protection.
You are getting downvoted because the community recognizes the bigotry against cis and trans women that is the backbone of your two comments.
2 replies →