I think you’re only being downvoted for the “Just a thought” segment, not for pointing out that the name was still wrong (at the time you wrote the comment – it seems to be updated now).
In the “Just a thought” section, you’re IMO coming across as a fanatic on a crusade rather than someone who cares about EA being more welcoming and inclusive (or “taking the right side on a human rights issue” – as you view it; but others may not quite see it in the exact same way even if they generally agree that it’s good to take low-effort actions to prevent others from potentially feeling bad or making a space more accessible for them).
As a comparison, I think factory farming is really bad and I think it’s legitimate that vegans in 2014 or so criticized an EA conference for serving meat. Still, I would downvote vegans who include a rant about how it means EA is a terrible place for altruists if that’s how they approach the issue. Instead, I think vegans who care about EAs not promoting meat at conferences should approach a strategy “continue to criticize, but don’t assume that the target of your criticism is flawed beyond repair for seeing things differently from you.”
Likewise, I want a culture where people are receptive to criticism and ready to make low-effort accommodations even if they disagree with some aspects of the moral position in question.
You were insinuating that someone making a mistake (related to perhaps thoughtlessness or carelessness) is equivalent to a really bad action and calling into question the integrity of EA as a movement (if it happens that a significant portion of EAs would be likely to do that kind of thing). You’re doing this even after the OP showed willingness to update their statements (by changing pronouns at first – they then also changed Torres’s name later [but I see there’s also the issue of “formerly X” that you object to]).
The OP literally created a throw away account called throwaway151 just to attack a transgendered individual and has refused, after having been updated several times about other harmful actions to update their posts. You can rationalize this as naivety all you want, it’s obvious to anyone even slightly aware of how bigotry works what is going on here. And the repeated rationalization of this embarrassingly transparent wink wink is just absurd and disappointing, to say the least. And the fact that you all have wasted exponentially more words and energy on policing me, a non-binary queer person, than you have policing the person actually causing harm to others says pretty much everything.
The OP literally created a throw away account called throwaway151 just to attack a transgendered individual and has refused,
It’s obvious that the OP would have made the exact same type of post if Torres hadn’t changed their name and gender identity (and the post seems to be more about Zoe and Luke), so you’re being incredibly misleading here. I assume it’s probably due to the strong emotions involved – it’s unfortunate how this situation developed. I’m not planning to engage further.
Edit: In light of new comments by the throwaway account, I retract my statement that “the post seems to be more about Zoe and Luke”) – it seems like the OP also has strong views on associating with Torres all by itself. I still see absolutely no reason to believe that they’re acting differently due to the change of gender identity, but I want to flag that I now understand better why the now anonymous account above felt like the OP “had it out for Torres”). (I’m not necessarily saying “having it out for Torres” is unwarranted; I’m just acknowledging a point.)
The use of a deadname is completely unnecessary for reasons already stated. The OP and the people in this post have been informed, by a direct source, that deadname are incredibly harmful but instead of updating to serve altruistic intent, the people in this post at doubling down on a weakly rationalized excuse of naivety which is perpetuating harm.
I was under the impression that most trans people find it ok to mention a deadname in a parenthesis if the person has been notable under that name (which is true of Émile). That’s the Wikipedia policy; here’s a Reddit thread where that seems to be the consensus opinion. Is this wrong?
If this had started that way, it would’ve been fine but within this context, in which the OP clearly intended to malign the subject, regardless and then flat out ignored repeated, civil requests for a change, absolutely not. Context matters. If that was information the OP had and they meant no harm, they would have shared as much. Again, the lengths everyone is going here to police someone explaining harm is incredible...
I think you’re only being downvoted for the “Just a thought” segment, not for pointing out that the name was still wrong (at the time you wrote the comment – it seems to be updated now).
In the “Just a thought” section, you’re IMO coming across as a fanatic on a crusade rather than someone who cares about EA being more welcoming and inclusive (or “taking the right side on a human rights issue” – as you view it; but others may not quite see it in the exact same way even if they generally agree that it’s good to take low-effort actions to prevent others from potentially feeling bad or making a space more accessible for them).
As a comparison, I think factory farming is really bad and I think it’s legitimate that vegans in 2014 or so criticized an EA conference for serving meat. Still, I would downvote vegans who include a rant about how it means EA is a terrible place for altruists if that’s how they approach the issue. Instead, I think vegans who care about EAs not promoting meat at conferences should approach a strategy “continue to criticize, but don’t assume that the target of your criticism is flawed beyond repair for seeing things differently from you.”
Likewise, I want a culture where people are receptive to criticism and ready to make low-effort accommodations even if they disagree with some aspects of the moral position in question.
You were insinuating that someone making a mistake (related to perhaps thoughtlessness or carelessness) is equivalent to a really bad action and calling into question the integrity of EA as a movement (if it happens that a significant portion of EAs would be likely to do that kind of thing). You’re doing this even after the OP showed willingness to update their statements (by changing pronouns at first – they then also changed Torres’s name later [but I see there’s also the issue of “formerly X” that you object to]).
The OP literally created a throw away account called throwaway151 just to attack a transgendered individual and has refused, after having been updated several times about other harmful actions to update their posts. You can rationalize this as naivety all you want, it’s obvious to anyone even slightly aware of how bigotry works what is going on here. And the repeated rationalization of this embarrassingly transparent wink wink is just absurd and disappointing, to say the least. And the fact that you all have wasted exponentially more words and energy on policing me, a non-binary queer person, than you have policing the person actually causing harm to others says pretty much everything.
It’s obvious that the OP would have made the exact same type of post if Torres hadn’t changed their name and gender identity (and the post seems to be more about Zoe and Luke), so you’re being incredibly misleading here. I assume it’s probably due to the strong emotions involved – it’s unfortunate how this situation developed. I’m not planning to engage further.
Edit: In light of new comments by the throwaway account, I retract my statement that “the post seems to be more about Zoe and Luke”) – it seems like the OP also has strong views on associating with Torres all by itself. I still see absolutely no reason to believe that they’re acting differently due to the change of gender identity, but I want to flag that I now understand better why the now anonymous account above felt like the OP “had it out for Torres”). (I’m not necessarily saying “having it out for Torres” is unwarranted; I’m just acknowledging a point.)
The use of a deadname is completely unnecessary for reasons already stated. The OP and the people in this post have been informed, by a direct source, that deadname are incredibly harmful but instead of updating to serve altruistic intent, the people in this post at doubling down on a weakly rationalized excuse of naivety which is perpetuating harm.
I was under the impression that most trans people find it ok to mention a deadname in a parenthesis if the person has been notable under that name (which is true of Émile). That’s the Wikipedia policy; here’s a Reddit thread where that seems to be the consensus opinion. Is this wrong?
If this had started that way, it would’ve been fine but within this context, in which the OP clearly intended to malign the subject, regardless and then flat out ignored repeated, civil requests for a change, absolutely not. Context matters. If that was information the OP had and they meant no harm, they would have shared as much. Again, the lengths everyone is going here to police someone explaining harm is incredible...
At the time of writing, throwaway151 hasn’t commented in several hours (at least 5). Isn’t it possible that throwaway151 logged off a few hours ago?