Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by virmundi 3192 days ago
So what? Transpeople are rather low as a percentage of the population, yet we extend or argue to extend massive courtesies to them. If you are going to make a policy, expect to include a small population.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/health/transgender-popula...

1 comments

There are a lot of definitions of "trans" going about these days. Just search on Youtube of Reddit. Many of them are in my opinion attention seekers (not saying that genuine transgenderism doesn't exist, but a lot of people are making some very silly sounding claims lacking any scientific backing).
I agree. There is also anecdotal evidence that within the trans community (MtF) that take hormones, the commuity is split into people wanting to trans-ition and to as a third way that spans the genders. My point in the original post is that we have policies for such a small group of people, that the OP should look into sneezing policies to take into account small groups.
Here's a policy: Regardless of what's in your underpants -- don't sneeze in the air, don't cough on people and keep thy cooties to thyself. Pretty simple really.

Not everything is about sexual identity. This SJW nonsense has gone over the top. Please don't try to convince me we need a non-binary-trans-sneeze policy because of white cis privilege because you'd be wasting your time. If so, we have reached cultural peak absurdity.

Nope, not convincing you that you need a non-binary sneeze policy. I'm using that as an example of having policies that make sense when dealing with a minor population. The original example was people with sinititius and being able to comply with the policy. Also, another goal was to make people think do we even need such a draconian sneeze policy to begin with? What about the science that says that the more things you are exposed to the more resilient your system?