Ah, I didn’t know what thread I was on. Seems the whole forum has decided they need to reasonsplain queer harm to the queer so I’ve got a lot of irons in the fire. Thanks for the response.
LB
Karma: −317
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...
Again, it speaks so much more about EA and this place that you all have put this much energy into policing me, while expending so little energy on reducing the harm you claim to be concerned about. Your forum norms are more important to you, for instance, than harm you could be causing others in this context. I find that incredibly problematic for people claiming to be the arbiters of doing good better and claiming to be altruists.
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.
The post currently includes a deadname. Deadnames are harmful and it’s completely unnecessary to include it here because the OP is literally quoting the source’s Twitter account. This is rationalizing bigotry.
Academia references people by their last names all of the time. A much more unambiguous way to reference this person would be a simply sentence providing the context (e.g., “the same tores who was notoriously banned from EA for slagging certain people off”). This isnt difficult. So not difficult, that the OP actually did include this context so that no one was confused.
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.
Yeah, you don’t get to decide for other people what is or is not harmful to them or who they are. Its just not how it works. When you start letting everyone do that for you, let me know and we can have that conversation. Every bigot (and I am not calling you one) rationalizes their bigotry and the harm they cause to others and devalues it all. That process, which you just summarized, btw, is not altruistic in any way shape or form. Again, words cost you nothing and if someone says they are harmful to them, as a supposed altruist, then you update—because it costs you nothing and you’ve reduced harm.
For instance, after having been notified twice, the OP still has this person’s deadname in the post. Want to hear a story about a 13 year old I know that started cutting their face to quiet the bullies who insisted on using their deadname to taunt them?
That’s it, that’s the story. Now tell me it’s irrelevant to change language for altruists—an act and choice that literally costs people nothing. Go ahead and tell me the OP is just not quite properly updated.
Goodbye, this is so incredibly the opposite of altruism.
I mean, you can rationalize it all you want, but its a subjective rationalizing exercise and therefore, well, not meaningfully rational at all—except to you. The participants here are actively downvoting things they don’t want to hear or disagree with and you’d be completely dishonest if you claimed that was done without malice and you know it. This is not some forum populated by Mentats and you’d also be dishonest if you claimed this forum was devoid of active bigots.
A choice of words literally costs you or the OP nothing- its just a simple choice you make. And it says far more about you in the context here than you think. Choosing to be empathetic in the way you communicate, again, costing you absolutely nothing. It is what an altruist would do and it certainly doesn’t oblige you to “take full responsibility for everybody else’s psychological state.”
Only if you completely disregard the suffering and trauma associated with deadnaming.
Frankly, with the absolute dismissiveness this issue of misgendering and misnaming and deadnaming is being handle by people here and the straight up cyberbullying and thought policing happening here around what should be an incredibly simple issue for supposed altruists to deal with, I highly doubt they’d come back here. This is not how good people deal with things that are literally matters of life and death for others. The complete lack of empathy in this thread is astounding.
First of all, this perspective is so far off base. Its not an “etiquette” issue, its a literal human rights issue. Its an issue that is, as we speak, actively harming people to the point of self harm, resulting in suicide and to the point of physical violence resulting in death. And the political climate around this issue, around the globe, is so heated and exacerbated by bigots and bigotry that anyone claiming to be an altruist should be extremely cautious around these things. It would be “sloppy reasoning” to think otherwise. The OP has literally ignored my updates about deadnaming, which rationally says the OP doesn’t actually think these things matter.
You still haven’t removed their deadname from your post. I notified you of why its problematic in the thread up above where people are deciding to thought police me for correcting you. I’m sure you just missed it in the clutter.
The person in question is banned from this forum, is what I gather, is that not correct? So they are completely unable to chime in as we all so graciously debate what is or isn’t allowed for them. I mean, we could literally write a text book on the concept of other while we’re at it I suppose, or we could just err on the side of caution as we should do in all circumstances concerning how we choose to exert power or others or not, no?
Their twitter profile, which is what is being posted here, uses they/them. I see absolutely no reason to not err on the side of caution, do you? This OP also used their deadname in place of their name and continues to use their deadname in a “formerly” known as context, which is generally not acceptable, unless explicitly noted as such. And I corrected the OP on this too, they haven’t changed it.
PS, I am queer, nonbinary. If someone with a greater personal experience wants to chime in here, please go ahead I would love to defer. I had zero expectation that I’d have to have these discussions on a forum for altruists nor that I would basically be cyber bullied for correcting people with directness (this is so dumb)...
Could some of the anonymous folks thought policing my comments here please explain what I’ve done wrong? If not, you’re sort of proving the wrong point here, fyi...
I am sorry, but why on earth is this comment being downvoted or whatever you call it?
I’m going to err on the side of caution and assume you don’t know this: the use of dead names, even for context like “formerly X” is typically viewed as derogatory and unwelcome unless the person in question explicitly states otherwise. Everyone who is aware of this story is aware of this story and who you are referencing, you’ve literally quoted their tweet.
You can actually use a deadname to reference people when it’s necessary, but because the OP put it all in context, no one needed the reference, everyone who cares knew who they were talking about. And generally in academic circles, especially self referencing ones like EA, using last names only is entirely acceptable.
The problem here is that the OP quite intentionally chose to use a deadname to begin with while they were quite clearly posting an otherwise maligning post about someone who also happened to be transgender. It’s incredibly suspect and the fact that the OP ignored me regarding the deadname just confirms the suspicion.
Sacrificing concern for harm brought to others in pursuit of rational purity over some petty drama post about the inconsequential politics of EA intrigue is not a serious altruistic argument. I’m sorry, I can never take that seriously.