Trans people do have all human rights - your gender expression does not change your access to your other rights.
So anyone saying 'trans people deserve basic human rights' is actually saying something else, like about access to women's spaces. That disingenuous advocacy of one thing to get another thing through under the table is more activist than principled. In a company or otherwise.
Leave a message for the president explaining that his website's instructions are broken (and that it's literally easier to contact him than a webmaster).
> For a lot of these websites it would necessitate a lot of manual work
Yes, but ... That's work they brought on themselves by not doing the right things in the easy way. Sure, once they're there, there is a lot of work to come back but that should be used as a reason to not use those frameworks in the first place.
Some accessibility is like adding alt-text. It adds work. But almost everything else is just not abusing the browser and is generally done simply by following the recommendations. And not trying to live on the bleeding edge.
People (usually by their native language) can't all hear and pronounce all sounds equally well.
If you can't reliably pronounce my name and it'll sound like a bad word when you try, then you should say what you can say safely. I don't care enough that I want you nervous or slowing down a meeting. But if you expect me to change my name to what you could say I would not.
You trying your best is okay, you requiring me to lower the bar so you can succeed is not okay.
A guy I work with has 'balls' in his name. Yes, he and management expect people to keep their mouths shut.
Anyways, yes we could require him to change his name because it's distracting. That would be one thing to do. It's the solution suggested by people in this thread...
> but please don't sound so hard done by because people are thinking about how other people feel.
They aren't though. This isn't about the poor (theoretical) coq-sayer, this is about the righteousness of the name decriers. If you can't point to a real victim we're better off assuming there isn't one and that you're just trying to look hip.
> any other name, idiom, or figure of speech that offends, embarrasses or diminishes others?
Sure, if it did actually diminish people someone would take you seriously. If the product was named after a slur, actually referencing it, and rudely. Like "TheMick, a project to track alcoholism".
But who is hurt by the concept that words in one language sound like different words in another? And is the speaker of the first language to blame or the speaker of the second who hears a dirty word? Allocate blame here, that we may smite the wicked.
> I guess you don't find it embarrassing so you don't see the problem
Even if I did I'd be hard pressed to tell some French people that they have to change because of my sexual puritanism. Is the left into forcing America's sexual mores on people again this week?
> Can we say things have improved, yes, very slowly
Nobody was asking. This is you retreating into the Motte after the Bailey was stormed.
> but racism still exist.
Who said otherwise? You sound so white "progressive" American. Consider if other people need you to say what you do, or if it takes the air from the people who would say it when actually needed?
>> You can't use that stat in that way
> No, you cannot just ignore ingrained racism
You're obviously trying to have an emotional moment not a serious conversation.
I feel that all of the protections let us chase the problems into smaller areas. Rust's unsafe doesn't eliminate unsafe code, it just means you put it in a small auditable area.
Similarly, some part of the system remains imperative. The network card at least, will always resend a packet. The goal is to pass around idempotent messages except for the very leaves.
For instance, instead of an endpoint 'email(customer, data)' you might have 'email_or_report_on_send_status(customer, data)' and the later endpoint would check the cache for (customer, data) and merely report the previous results if it found them.
I agree though, this stuff used to keep me up at night and eventually I've grown more natural about not mutating things unless I mean it. (This phrase sounds like a comic-book villain.)
> You are trying to dilute the impact the racist history of US has had on minorities via the justice system.
Hasn't anyone told you that you learn more with questions than assertions?
No. I'm saying that the language used is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Regardless of all the stuff you mentioned, which is true, the system is still a benefit.
You should not go out of your way to further weaken trust in the system that has benefitted those minorities you mention more than it has hurt them. Especially as you are presumably not those groups, you should be careful not to wreck what they have. (You may not be aware, but white 'progressives' often speak for people of color. Their messages sound like ones of support initially, but because these people are often merely social signaling the rhetoric can often prove harmful to people who have to live with it.)
> [...] all disproportionately impact minority groups compared to Caucasians
Some minorities, yes. Others, no. Deeply troubling to the white v black narrative is that Nigerian immigrants often do very well in the USA, even when Americans don't know if they're american-descendants-of-slavery or not.
But yes, ADoS do have it rough. If you want to support someone though, vague "minorities" is not how you do it.
> Per the Innocence Project, 70% of the cases
You can't use that stat in that way, presumably they picked the most egregious cases which would be the poorest, etc.
You'd make the camera reach out to a signing server for the user's signature. You'd even sign the whole photo, not a hash supplied by the camera, to give you (via the server) a chance to verify the image was correct.
Or, you'd adapt a hardware wallet to do the same. Either way, there'd be two devices from two manufacturers, communicating over a transparent protocol.
Not equality of people, equality of paths. In an FPS the shotgun and the rocket launcher shouldn't be equal or there's no need for both.
imho the thing to do is take OPs suggestion, Paradox should make gay-marriage possible but have people refer to it in variable ways. Some egalitarian societies can call it marriage, others sodomy, etc. And then add other cross-cultural restrictions too, where civilizations may not recognize bi-religious or bi-racial marriages for various reasons.
In other words don't minimize the issue, lean into it in a CK way, deeply and unsettlingly.
I think the discussion gets a bit blurred around what acceptance means.
It varies from acceptance of an adult just being trans, of trans babies, of schools preaching medical transition without parent approval, and of issue of bathroom usage and sex-segregated prisons.
Regardless of the political questions presumably Swedes are fairly liberal about someone's personal choices.
> That's not really comforting to the minority people whose lives were ruined by them.
Actually, it probably is somewhat. I hate paying money but that my taxes go to useful things makes it bearable. I hate sucking up to a guy in a uniform but that he also arrests murderers makes it less infuriating.
But moreover, that's not the issue brought up originally, which was net damage to a group. The implication was that the justice system harmed minorities and as a group that's simply not true.
Also, the language used is trying to borrow outrage. Harmed minorities? No, harmed the poor. Many of whom were minorities. But there are rich racial minorities too.
In Portland protestors have clubbed police on the head with bats (and famously a wrench), tried to set the courthouse on fire, and tried to set the mayor's occupied apartment building on fire.
Attempted murder, and arson of occupied structures. Far worse than the capitol riot.
Also, who the violence was directed at. In DC most of the rioters were unarmed and fought with police. In Portland and LA many protestors were armed and fought passing citizens, attacked drivers, etc. Police don't "deserve" to be hit, but they sign up knowing that the job can get rough. Random old ladies protesting the vandalism of their building shouldn't be hit but the justice mobs feel free to hurt anyone.
So anyone saying 'trans people deserve basic human rights' is actually saying something else, like about access to women's spaces. That disingenuous advocacy of one thing to get another thing through under the table is more activist than principled. In a company or otherwise.