Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | plapplap's commentslogin

The article they posted was a satire on USA Today naming Levine, a man, as one of their Women Of The Year.

This quote from their article highlights the absurdity:

"Levine is the U.S. assistant secretary for health for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, where he serves proudly as the first man in that position to dress like a western cultural stereotype of a woman."

Really the only "intolerance" here is from those who can't stand their ideological beliefs being made fun of, and decide to retaliate via the platform's moderation system.


There's nothing at all bigoted about pointing out that a man is a man. You just don't like this fact, so you've decided to label it as bigotry.


Do you think that there are only two combinations of chromosomes in humans? XX and XY?


I think they are happy if all XY are classified as men and all XX are classified as women, can do whatever you want with the rest.


I have studied sex chromosome aneuploidies in humans, so no, I don't think that.

Why do you ask?


It's not hatred to point out that a man is a man. What a daft exaggeration.


I don't think it's an exaggeration, and I don't think it's daft - I think the point of the common quips of the general format "trans 'women' are men", without more context, are almost always (and obviously in this case) simple provocations, intended to disparage and humiliate, in addition to serving as slogans that implicitly support an unstated argument. However, we have no way of knowing which arguments they are supporting, aside from a broad and unnecessarily bitter rejection of the concept of people who feel mentally like a different gender from their biological gender.

So, purely as a random example: One of those unstated arguments is often the "don't let trans women into women's bathrooms" debate. I sympathize greatly with women who don't feel comfortable sharing a bathroom with trans women, and don't think anybody should be put through that (and I also sympathize with the trans woman's side of that problem, and have no good solution to offer to either side, but that's beside the point I'm making), but despite sharing that sympathy, I don't pretend to be unable to recognize hateful versions of that "sympathy" - that would be petty ideology.


But this is strong disagreement you are talking about, not hatred.

And if you look at the history of what Sall Grover has had to endure regarding this issue - being harassed, threatened, dragged through the legal system - it's very obvious why she strongly disagrees with the idea that some men are women, and why she is so very outspoken in drawing a line in the sand on this.


She posted a factual statement to test the waters and was instantly censored for it.


Doesn't seem factual to me. Smells like a troll or flamebait. Deserves to be moderated into the ground.


Why doesn't it seem factual to you?


This is a very common form of dishonesty on this topic.

First, even if we give you the benefit of the doubt and say it is factual, you do not need to lie in order to spread hatred, or at the very least provoke/troll people. "But it's true" is a childish defense in that context. If you were being honest, you would defend the practice of provoking/trolling people regarding gender identity (rather than merely defending the generic concept of saying something factually true, which is akin to the classic "I'm not touching you" game of provocation). And to be clear: I am not arguing against that theoretical argument in this comment - I am just saying that you should make that argument, since clearly you believe it but are being oblique about it.

Secondarily (and I do mean secondarily - it's entirely subservient to the first point and basically just an exercise in argument): The statement isn't factual, since it's just disagreeing with a context in which a word is used. It's literally a semantic argument, which is always more or less subjective.


Let's say she was testing the moderation system on a different topic. For example she'd posted the statement "Jesus was nothing more than a man", which resulted in her post being instantly censored and her profile slapped with a content warning.

Would you still be making the claim that she is "spreading hatred"?

I would still say she was making a factual statement that she was censored for. As we have evidence that this person was a historical figure and not just some figment of fiction. Only those with a particular ideological belief, i.e. most Christians, think there's more to it.

Fortunately that's not what happened, and such ideologues are not in charge of imposing those beliefs on others via Bluesky's moderation system. But it's clear that those who assert that some men are women are imposing their beliefs. Which is exactly what Sall demonstrated.


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

Search: