[blairbeckwith]

> New research by Mastercard across 16 countries in North America and Europe revealed that 59% of people who identity as nonbinary say they feel unsafe while shopping

We should do what we can to make life easier for everyone, but we should stop encouraging and accommodating this “everything makes me feel unsafe” attitude. It harms everyone when we redefine safety to include awkwardness or very minor psychological discomfort.

[toothrot]

If it were only a very minor psychological discomfort, you'd be right. Unfortunately, other clientele in the store may harass you and follow you out of the store.

As someone who has been on the receiving end of incredibly violent threats, being able to not be outed publicly is critical to everyday safety for trans people.

[namdnay]

i thought the minor discomfort being referred to was that of changing your name and reissuing a new ID card. i can definitely understand how it would get grating to explain the change at every security check

[snotrockets]

A legal name change is quite a chore, not a minor discomfort.

[uxp8u61q]

You should read more carefully. GP wrote "minor psychological discomfort". They're definitely trying to downplay the danger that transgender people sometimes get put in.

[wand3r]

Not parent, but I agree with the general point. Leaving this specific example aside which is a real world interaction, we (America) have gone to far to redefine what "safety" is. Ben Shapiro speaking at your school is not "putting you in danger".

[snotrockets]

Some people may act on Ben Shapiro's ideas, and that would put other people in danger.

[roynasser]

not how free speech works... "someone could act on that idea" isnt a good enough reason to sanction speech imo

[duxup]

The language surrounding these topics is so nebulous that I often have no clue what they mean.

-----------------

And beyond the general topic discussing these things generally I've had one anecdotal incident involving such nebulous concepts of "safe". I worked at a place where HR notified us that a member of our team "did not feel safe or welcome". I had no idea what to do with this information. They obviously didn't want to identify the person, or what happened (i can understand the desire to do so) ... but then what does that mean, what of any helpful things could we even do if we don't know what is going on?

Then we got a second notice just as vague as the first about someone (it seemed to be implied it was the same person) still felt that way. This notice (sent to a few hundred people) had a more finger wagging tone to it.

At that point I was actually angry. I responded that I did not feel safe working in an environment with vague notices that someone(s), maybe, did something to make someone(s) else uncomfortable or feel something ... and that to some unknown extent I and others were now on notice in some vague way about it. Maybe I did it, heck if I know, if so what could I do!??!

Shortly after a clarification email went out that nobody was in trouble and any specific incidents would be handled with those involved only and no further group emails would go out.

Someone did leave the company not long after. I was told (not sure if it was true) they were the source of the complaints. That person was "sensitive" to the extent that they seemed upset by every little thing. They were pretty hard to be around, every day events upset them, and frankly they were an asshole too. It struck me how such nebulous language in that case allows someone to impose on others.

I suspect that someone expressing that they did not feel "safe or welcome" in such a vague way contributed to the equally vague and weird "solution" to just spam out a warning(s) to everyone. The result was absurd. It really illustrates how this kind of language can be very confusing.

--------

Now the Mastercard thing isn't that exactly, and I hope it helps someone. But the vague language always throws me off a bit.

[dtjb]

Why do you assume their use of the word "unsafe" was limited to awkwardness?

There is a growing group of people willing to confront anyone in public that is transgender, with a smaller (yet still growing) group who are emboldened enough to inflict physical harm.

[jmbwell]

I fully agree. We do too much to keep people who are already safe from feeling slightly awkward or experiencing minor psychological discomfort.

We should do what we can to make life easier for everyone. If that makes a majority of people aware of the suffering of a particular group, ultimately I think it helps cultivate compassion, and compassion benefits us all.

I applaud your progressive, optimistic, and compassionate position, author

Edit: I’m being told I’m misconstruing your comments and not at all what you meant

[hellcow]

Trans people are victims of hate crimes. It’s not “minor psychological discomfort.” For many people, it’s life-and-death. Giving people control to share this very sensitive information when and how they see fit makes trans people safer.

It’s not for you to decide.

[madeofpalk]

What’s your objection? That people’s ID and cards shouldn’t contain their name?

[gruez]

From the OP:

>but we should stop encouraging and accommodating this “everything makes me feel unsafe” attitude. It harms everyone when we redefine safety to include awkwardness or very minor psychological discomfort.

It's pretty clear that the thing he's objecting to is the inflation of "feel unsafe" to include "awkwardness or very minor psychological discomfort", which might draw attention to the issue in the short term, but over the long term dilutes the term and makes the issue worse. It's like the euphemism treadmill but in reverse.

[madeofpalk]

Who are you (or OP) to tell someone how they should or should not feel.

If someone says they feel unsafe, maybe we should default to believing them rather than minimising them. A tiny bit of compassion and empathy goes a long way.

[gruez]

>If someone says they feel unsafe, maybe we should default to believing them rather than minimising them. A tiny bit of compassion and empathy goes a long way.

Okay but surely you must agree that there are limits to how much we as a society should believe? Portraying yourself as being oppressed is an effective way to garner sympathy and resources from society, so people are incentivized to use language that makes their plight seem worse. That's not to say everyone making such claims are acting in bad faith, or even misrepresenting their internal feelings, but we can't take everyone's statements at face value either.

[madeofpalk]

> but we can't take everyone's statements at face value either

In the context of this article, why not?

Why are we objecting to "the name on my credit card makes me feel uncomfortable and I wish I could change it"?

[mcphage]

> Okay but surely you must agree that there are limits to how much we as a society should believe?

There are limits, but the idea that American society is too nice, or takes concerns too seriously, is beyond laughable.

[GloomyBoots]

People can feel unsafe for a variety of reasons. Characterizing your "side" on this issue as the sole champion of compassion and empathy is a dishonest way to avoid rational debate.

We understand that people with schizophrenia have delusions which result from their condition. Those delusions often cause them to feel unsafe. We are compassionate and seek to treat the the underlying causes, not by joining in on their delusions. Gender dysphoria is much the same--transgender activists love to confound the issue by conflating dysphoria and intersex, but these are two entirely separate conditions. I have empathy and compassion for people struggling with dysphoria, and that expresses itself in my desire to help them get better.

[dwb]

Let me guess: you or a loved one has never been in the same position as the trans people this press release is talking about.

[threeseed]

> It harms everyone

How is allowing someone to use a different name harmful to everyone ?

[xdennis]

You're being disingenuous. This is the quote:

> It harms everyone when we redefine safety

He is saying it harms everyone when being called by the name you don't want is redefined as unsafe because it makes it difficult to differentiate between significant issues.

[threeseed]

> It harms everyone when we redefine safety

How is allowing someone to use a different name harmful to everyone ?

[xdennis]

So childish.

[pizzafeelsright]

I go by two names. A legal name and one my friends call me.

Legally I'm Pizza. My buddies call me Za.

I don't care for my legal name and don't identify by it. I haven't legally changed it for many reasons.

I am not harmed by someone using my legal name.

Verifying someone's identity should be against a legal identity as contracts are bound to legal entity.

[uxp8u61q]

Step 1. Go to google news or whatever news aggregation website you want.

Step 2. Search for "transgender attack".

Step 3. Take some time to digest the horrible news you're reading.

Step 4. Try to figure out the common thread between these stories. The people in question usually get outed in public during some kind of ID check, and got jumped by some intolerant moron who witnessed it.

This is happening. Today. Including in "North America and Europe". The people who say they feel unsafe because they feel unsafe for their physical integrity and safety. Not because of "awkwardness or very minor psychological discomfort".

[namdnay]

in that case it's an argument for getting the name change done properly right from the start, right? i don't think having a different name on your mastercard is a solution here (especially since choosing "mx" as a prefix is hardly keeping things secret..)

[criddell]

There’s nothing MasterCard can do to help you change your name. This is something they can do. Plus, it makes MasterCard more appealing to this market. I think it was a great move.