If you say so, then by definition that's the way it is.
I cannot help but notice, though, that apparently all subthreads critical of Manning and/or commenting on the gender thing have been not only heavily downvoted but marked as 'flagged', while some fairly vitriolic ones in Manning's favor have not.
Not trying to be polemical, and not out to kindle further unproductive discussion, but I would be interested to see the unofficial political guidelines of HN moderation spelled out a bit more explicitly.
There's no need for "unofficial political guidelines" here: that comment breaks the official guidelines and doesn't belong on a site whose purpose is to gratify our intellectual curiosity. There are other places on the Internet for the tedious back-and-forth of "you don't get it" "no you don't get it" etc., but that sort of conversational purgatory is not what we're after here.
To some, it certainly is a valid point of intellectual curiosity whether the current trend of naming people and ideas something they're not is a healthy and a proper one.
But you are right about the 'tedious back-and-forth' (which I called 'unproductive discussion'): Further down, you very appropriately link to dang's ruminations on cognitive bias. Just please remember that none of us are guaranteed to escape the dangers of CB. I certainly know that I don't, despite a decent level of awareness on the issue.
My comment has sparked a lot of responses, many of them apparently assuming that I am somehow attacking Manning. I am not. I most clearly am not. I didn't say a word about Manning or the case. I stated (in perhaps unnecessarily pointed words, I'll grant you that) my sincere opinion on the objective validity of subjective gender change. If that point and its attendant controversiality is not worthy of intellectual curiosity, I see dark times ahead indeed (and for the record: I do).
The "issue" here being which gendered pronouns to use in reference to Chelsea Manning. The "side" that's getting warned is the one that uses her transsexuality to launch petty hostilities at her.
> This person is male. Could we please avoid the biologically nonsensical charade of referring to him as"she"?
What is your definition of male? "Has the XY chromosome pair?" "Was born with testicles?" "Was born male-looking?" All these have complicated causes and effects, and you will get contradictory answers for some individuals.
Are you aware that fetus development is driven by hormones as much as by genes? "This person is male" is a generally useful simplification. Prevalence of people with out-of-ordinary combinations of genetic and hormonal developmental factors strong enough to get into the intersex category is so low that it's normally perfectly sufficient point of view. That does not mean we should dismiss people with these minority genetic/hormonal makeups.
Refusal to respect another person's body/personality mismatch and insistence on calling them something they do not identify with is hostile and petty.
I cannot help but notice, though, that apparently all subthreads critical of Manning and/or commenting on the gender thing have been not only heavily downvoted but marked as 'flagged', while some fairly vitriolic ones in Manning's favor have not.
Not trying to be polemical, and not out to kindle further unproductive discussion, but I would be interested to see the unofficial political guidelines of HN moderation spelled out a bit more explicitly.