> I know of people who get deeply offended when "decimated" is used to not strictly mean exactly a 10% reduction, despite language not meaning quite that forever.
You can't expect to force someone else to use the words you want. But it would be deeply wrong to force someone who felt that way to say "decimate" when they meant something different.
> Insisting on labelling someone based on your historical idea of language and what you think they should be called is not really a great way to choose to do things.
I'm not insisting on using the same word (though I'd appreciate it if words weren't changed under me by fiat and I wasn't gaslit about what I'd been taught they meant), but I do insist on being able to convey the concept of looking and seeming like a woman/man irrespective of the person's own opinions, and that's what people really object to - nelogisms like moid/foid attract just as much criticism as "misgendering". (It's reminiscent of the way airports in China will have an "International plus Taiwan Terminal" and a "Domestic except Taiwan Terminal").
> It's probably talking about a user's or a customer's gender. e.g. eventually getting in someone's face with it.
The user is never going to see the code though.
> I struggle to respond to this one. I mean-- really, really seriously-- "so what?" I mean, it seems that you're upset that stereotypes might not work as well.
> I mean, do you need to get gender of birth correct- or race, or natural hair color, or nation of upbringing, etc, so you can make judgments based on stereotypes better (which may be real biological correlates)? I think we should always be acting based on the actual individual ahead of us based on the actual measure in question, rather than some proxy.
I'm upset at deliberately limiting my ability to draw inferences from the information available. There is simply no way to know 7 billion people in their full human depth, we all make assumptions and take shortcuts, make the best guess we can based on the superficial information we have available - there's simply no other way to live. The idea that we would always be able to directly measure the individual is a pipe dream. As you say, even our best guesses are pretty bad, so why make them worse?
> And even if you really, really want stereotypes to work-- people born male who choose to present as female vary on a whole lot of measures, on average, from the overall male average. And sex hormones change a number of these measures, both immediately and with sustained usage. So, the measure is pretty broken in the first place, because of terrific individual variation and being affected by the gender transition process.
The fact that people object to anyone actually trying proves that we all know that the stereotypes actually work pretty well.
> (though I'd appreciate it if words weren't changed under me by fiat and I wasn't gaslit about what I'd been taught they meant)
Sorry, words change under us.
If you grew up hearing that retarded meant a very specific clinical thing, and then a bunch of people use it as an insult... you shouldn't be surprised, for instance, that those people and their families don't want to be referred by that term anymore or hear it in use.
It's not their fault or your fault, that it became a pejorative. But everyone has to deal with the aftermath anyways.
> but I do insist on being able to convey the concept of looking and seeming like a woman/man irrespective of the person's own opinions
"Likes to be called she, but hasn't transitioned".
Yes, it's getting a bit more complicated. Part of that at one point in time, your sex assigned at birth set everything about your life-- socially acceptable occupation, expected mannerisms, means of dress, acceptable social partners, allowed interest.
That's become much less over the last 100 years, and the pace of that change has accelerated in the past 5.
Someone born female can choose to be androgynous in a way that doesn't carry a bunch of tomboy female connotations now. That's good for a lot of people who had to struggle to fit into a category before. But it does mean we all have a little more to explain.
> The user is never going to see the code though.
No, but the user is going to see what the code does. Microsoft doesn't want to be in the middle of the debate about people writing code that allows someone to pick "nonbinary" by suggesting one way or another.
> I'm upset at deliberately limiting my ability to draw inferences from the information available.
Look, if your best hint at how good someone is at basketball is that they were an Asian male at birth, it's not a very good hint to draw inferences from. If you need to know that thing, measure it directly, or at least pick a better proxy. If not, leave yourself open to a bit more surprise.
> The fact that people object to anyone actually trying
No, having to continually "prove" your identity to each next skeptical person really sucks, because they're sure you can't be ______ because of _______.
The fact that women objected 50-100 years ago (and really, well, now) to people just habitually considering them "another dumb girl" doesn't somehow validate that girls are actually stupid. It's not like the same bad logic works now on new subjects.
> proves that we all know that the stereotypes actually work pretty well.
Confirmation bias. And even if they did, it can still be terribly unjust.
> "Likes to be called she, but hasn't transitioned".
Then can I just say "man who likes to be called she" (or "moid who likes to be called she", if it's the specific word that's the issue), if that's the best balance between concise and informative for the person in question?
> Look, if your best hint at how good someone is at basketball is that they were an Asian male at birth, it's not a very good hint to draw inferences from. If you need to know that thing, measure it directly, or at least pick a better proxy. If not, leave yourself open to a bit more surprise.
Most of life is making decisions based on limited information. You'll have dinner with, at best, maybe a hundred thousand people out of seven billion. Even to have a casual conversation with someone is to pick them out of the crowd. Even if you were to profile strictly by age, sex, dress, race, ... (which is not remotely what I'm advocating), you'd still get plenty of surprises.
You can't expect to force someone else to use the words you want. But it would be deeply wrong to force someone who felt that way to say "decimate" when they meant something different.
> Insisting on labelling someone based on your historical idea of language and what you think they should be called is not really a great way to choose to do things.
I'm not insisting on using the same word (though I'd appreciate it if words weren't changed under me by fiat and I wasn't gaslit about what I'd been taught they meant), but I do insist on being able to convey the concept of looking and seeming like a woman/man irrespective of the person's own opinions, and that's what people really object to - nelogisms like moid/foid attract just as much criticism as "misgendering". (It's reminiscent of the way airports in China will have an "International plus Taiwan Terminal" and a "Domestic except Taiwan Terminal").
> It's probably talking about a user's or a customer's gender. e.g. eventually getting in someone's face with it.
The user is never going to see the code though.
> I struggle to respond to this one. I mean-- really, really seriously-- "so what?" I mean, it seems that you're upset that stereotypes might not work as well.
> I mean, do you need to get gender of birth correct- or race, or natural hair color, or nation of upbringing, etc, so you can make judgments based on stereotypes better (which may be real biological correlates)? I think we should always be acting based on the actual individual ahead of us based on the actual measure in question, rather than some proxy.
I'm upset at deliberately limiting my ability to draw inferences from the information available. There is simply no way to know 7 billion people in their full human depth, we all make assumptions and take shortcuts, make the best guess we can based on the superficial information we have available - there's simply no other way to live. The idea that we would always be able to directly measure the individual is a pipe dream. As you say, even our best guesses are pretty bad, so why make them worse?
> And even if you really, really want stereotypes to work-- people born male who choose to present as female vary on a whole lot of measures, on average, from the overall male average. And sex hormones change a number of these measures, both immediately and with sustained usage. So, the measure is pretty broken in the first place, because of terrific individual variation and being affected by the gender transition process.
The fact that people object to anyone actually trying proves that we all know that the stereotypes actually work pretty well.