[oldmanjay]

The constant attempts to keep the harassment conversation "on-message" as regards sexism is intellectually bankrupt. Detailing the problem as it really exists is the first step to actually fixing it, not an attempt at "derailing," because, and this is really important, the rails are immaterial.

[mfoy_]

I think HN just prefers when the comments are on-topic, not "on-message".

This topic is "racism in tech", not "let's discuss binary gender roles and what is 'men'".

[jsprogrammer]

The topic is sexism, not racism (I believe).

How was my comment not on-topic? The first article started with a sexist title, all while declaiming sexism. It made statements about people with a perceived gender.

[AnimalMuppet]

The first article started with a sexist title because (IIUC) it was specifically men who were making these comments to her at the trade show.

And your attempt to make that observation "sexism" seems to be ignoring a big part of the point. This isn't stuff that "people" say to her. It isn't stuff that might be said by transgender people. It's stuff that's said specifically by men.

Could it be said by women? Sure. It probably is, sometimes. Could it be said by a transgender person? Sure. But Leah perceives this stuff as being coming from men, not coming from people.

It's not sexism when it's an actual observation of specific actual events that are actually happening to someone...

And the topic is still sexism in what men say to women at trade shows, not the latent sexism inherent in the binary concept of gender.

[jsprogrammer]

I mostly agree with what you're saying. I'm only calling the title of the first post sexist (because it is on its face). I realize that Leah may not actually be a sexist (I only know what has been written in the two posts), and I don't really believe that she is.

My point is that the responses that were generated, both hate and faux support, are almost entirely predictable from the title of the article alone. We know that people tie their identities closely to a gender and like to group together along those identities. So, when you make a statement like "Things men have actually said...", you have set the stage for people to come down on the side of whatever group they identify with.

I think that is counter-productive. It seems to only be propagating the real (at least, what I perceive to be) problem, which is that people will find characteristics in specific instances and then begin projecting feelings on to people that they think have similar characteristics, even when those feelings are unwarranted. I'm not saying that Leah has done this, I'm saying that others will begin to do this when they come across an appropriate trigger.