Political pluralism should be the default. When an "us vs them" mentality is embedded in every aspect of society, those are the conditions that lead to horrible governments arising. It becomes more about protecting/promoting the "us" and screwing over the "them" than running a functional fair government.
>Political pluralism should be the default.
Agreed.
But that doesn't mean that EVERY and ALL political view should be respected.
You can have political pluralism in some restricted spectrum, but not accept things that are too extreeme.
Not tolerating human rights abuse doesn't automatically lead to every aspect of life being overtaken by "us vs them" mentality. Claiming that it does is nothing more then a slippery slope fallacy
Sure, if the DjangoCon Africa organizers had a history of human rights abuses, maybe that would be a reason to not fund them. But having a conference in Tanzania seems like a non-issue.
Imagine Tommy Tuberville was on the PSF board, and he stonewalls PSF funding for any conference held in a place where abortion is legal. (According to Tommy, legal abortion is a gross human rights violation.) Do you think this is going to be an effective or compassionate form of pro-life advocacy?
I would call that stupid because I don't agree with that view, but yes, he would have a right to not sponsor countries that have legal abortion.
So what?
Is that the sort of world you want to live in though -- a world where people are constantly trying to impose their politics on others in this way?
I think we're all better off if we seek a little more compromise than that. It's like a prisoner's dilemma -- sure, you have the "right" to defect, but we're collectively better off if everyone cooperates.
Imagine the warm fuzzy feeling of bonding over a shared love of Python with someone from a different country who looks different from you and may even have different values from you. That was the world the Internet was supposed to create. I think we can still work towards that world, if we decide it's the world we want.
>a world where people are constantly trying to impose their politics on others in this way?
You know that this is happening from the dawn of human societies, right?
There are always some laws and some views that are imposed. It always has been that way, and it always will be
Political pluralism is nice when you are discussing things like tax levels or investment targets, but a lot of "us vs them" arises from discussions like "I just want to exist in the open without prosecution" vs "your very existence is a problem and needs to be prevented".
I would argue that one of the most effective steps you can take in a situation like that is to establish pluralistic institutions where people get to know each other in person, as fellow human beings.
What does this change? 100 years ago people were writing angry letters to the American newspapers about women suffrage being an obvious sign of mental disease spreading in the society. You think people writing those letters were isolated from women and didn't know them?
I actually think it is quite possible that the people writing those letters, for the most part, didn't have any healthy relationships with women. Or healthy relationships with suffragettes, at least.
The question is where you draw the line. Day to day politics probably shouldn't be the focus of such an org.
However care for human rights (maybe based around the UN's human rights charta or the European Charta on Human rights) might be a worthwhile foundation.
There's a really weird reversal happening here where there are a group of people who don't like LGBTQ identity, and a group of people who think it's fine, and the group that doesn't like LGBTQ identity passed laws saying they could be put in prison for life...
But somehow it's the people pointing out that the environment isn't safe who are getting accused of being against pluralism? And not the government that is literally saying, "we reserve the right to prosecute and imprison you if you come here and we don't like your identity/politics."
Taking politics out of Python should mean that whoever you are and whatever you believe and whatever your identity is, you are at least safe at a Python conference because Python conferences are not the places where we debate identity, they're places where we talk about Python. So it is not LGTBQ people who are injecting politics into Python when they point out that they can be imprisoned for their identity, that they can't go to a Python conference and just focus on the tech. It is not them who are abandoning the notion of "live and let live together."
If this was a conversation about avoiding Tanzania just because some of the attendees might be anti-gay, sure, maybe we could talk about pluralism and decorum. But that's not at all the conversation. You want to take politics out of the equation, politics is the thing that throws people in prison for an aspect of their identity that they don't even control. Politics is the thing that decides that people going to a tech conference need to be on their best behavior to avoid being prosecuted by the government.
Taking politics out of Python and embracing pluralism means saying, "if somebody wants to give a technical talk in drag then you don't get to complain about it as long as the tech talk is good." You can dislike it, you can have a political disagreement about it, but a global, officially sanctioned Python conference should be open to everyone. Of course it's not the fault of the organizers that their government won't allow them to put on a conference that meets that criteria. But it's also not the fault of the Python Software Foundation, they don't have any special input into Tanzania's laws.
And while it's definitely important to try and be as inclusive as possible to global contributors and to recognize that they are not their government, ultimately if you want to have an apolitical inclusive conference for people from all walks of life, the Tanzania government will not allow you to do that. The Tanzania government (not the African organizers and not the PSF) is saying that the political will rule the technical and the Tanzania government is saying that a politically pluralistic conference is not allowed in Tanzania. The Python Software Foundation is simply recognizing that fact.
Of course, if the Tanzania government wants to allow for a pluralistic apolitical tech conference, it could at the very least pass explicit legal guarantees for attendees that they will be at no risk for their orientation or gender identity. But I suspect it's not willing to do that for a tech conference, and I suspect (however good their intentions are) that the organizers do not have the political sway necessary to get that kind of concession from the government.
>But somehow it's the people pointing out that the environment isn't safe who are getting accused of being against pluralism?
Pointing out that it's unsafe is one thing, denying funding is another
>Taking politics out of Python should mean that whoever you are and whatever you believe and whatever your identity is, you are at least safe at a Python conference because Python conferences are not the places where we debate identity, they're places where we talk about Python.
I agree. So I don't see why you are talking about giving a tech talk in drag. Drag is a costume, worn voluntarily, in the context of LGBT entertainment. A Python conference is not an LGBT entertainment venue. LGBT entertainment wasn't what the attendees signed up for.
Political pluralism means give and take. Seems like you want LGBT people to do all of the taking and none of the giving.
>So it is not LGTBQ people who are injecting politics into Python when they point out that they can be imprisoned for their identity, that they can't go to a Python conference and just focus on the tech.
I mean, they pretty much can? Just don't advertise your LGBT status?
Most attendees are going to be from Africa anyways, so this situation is sadly pretty much expected for many of them.
Question: Is there even a single LGBT African who is complaining about this conference situation? Seems like you may be working very hard to save people who didn't ask to be saved?
In any case, in line with my "give and take" point from earlier, I think a reasonable conference policy would be as follows: Don't worry about this problem until an LGBT African person makes a complaint about it. At that point, talk to the organizers about whether the next conference could be organized in one of the few LGBT-friendly African countries, for the sake of LGBT Pythoneers in Africa. If you make that request, recognize that it may increase expense and inconvenience a lot, and be willing to foot the bill for the extra expense.
Is it? Since when does anyone have a fundamental right to funding?
> A Python conference is not an LGBT entertainment venue.
A Python conference is not the place to have a conversation about that at all. If someone shows up in drag, the question is, "what technical topic are they going to discuss?" If you have a dress code in mind for a Python conference, I would suggest that is a political ask. Code does not care if someone is wearing drag, it will compile the same.
> Political pluralism means give and take. Seems like you want LGBT people to do all of the taking and none of the giving.
"The government shouldn't be able to throw me into prison" is not "all of the taking". Again, if we were talking about the presence of anti-LGBTQ rhetoric or about people attending who were known to be anti-gay, maybe we'd have a conversation about give or take. But that is very much not what we are talking about.
Political pluralism is about give and take in order to allow people to coexist. And the scenario we are discussing is explicitly one in which one side has said, "you do not get to coexist and if you try to we will throw you in prison. Hide from us." That's not give and take.
Give and take is "we don't like each other but we'll live together and do our best to make this work." In contrast, "stop existing" is the opposite of give and take, and "stop existing" is what the Tanzanian government is asking for.
> I mean, they pretty much can? Just don't advertise your LGBT status?
If the risk of you letting slip that you're gay is a prison sentence, then that is not a reasonable ask, period.
It's also explicitly not a pluralist notion. Pluralism means living together; if someone needs to hide who they are, you're not learning about that person or getting to know them or being exposed to new viewpoints. People going undercover about something as fundamental as their gender is not pluralism, and if someone demands that of them, then they are not actually asking to live alongside people who are different. They are asking for everyone who is different to pretend that they are the same.
> Most attendees are going to be from Africa anyways, so this situation is sadly pretty much expected for many of them.
The conference was not turned down because of an assumption that the conference organizers were anti-gay, and I haven't seen any reason to label them that way. The conference funding was also not denied because of an assumption that African people would be homophobic.
I have no doubt that a lot of the people who were trying to organize this conference are great people who have no problem with LGBTQ attendees. This isn't about the African people, it's about laws.
> Is there even a single LGBT African who is complaining about this conference situation? Seems like you may be working very hard to save people who didn't ask to be saved?
What part of "you can be thrown in prison if you're outed as gay" do people not understand here? Do you think gay people in Africa like that situation?
And in any case, if you're throwing a worldwide conference and you want it to be pluralist, then it's not just your opinions that matter anymore, you have to be able to tolerate a global audience. Tanzania doesn't appear have the legal flexibility to do that.
>Is it? Since when does anyone have a fundamental right to funding?
No one has a right to funding, just a right to fair consideration. This sort of
"no one has a right to funding" rhetoric gives the PSF license to discriminate in whatever arbitrary manner they please. Suppose Tommy Tuberville turns down your funding request because he doesn't like that an organizer is LGBT, and "no one has a fundamental right to funding" -- do you support that?
>A Python conference is not the place to have a conversation about that at all. If someone shows up in drag, the question is, "what technical topic are they going to discuss?" If you have a dress code in mind for a Python conference, I would suggest that is a political ask. Code does not care if someone is wearing drag, it will compile the same.
Suppose my girlfriend and I are into BDSM, and I'm planning to lead her around the conference naked on a leash. An organizer talks to me about this. I say: "A Python conference is not the place to have a conversation about this. Your only question should be what technical topic I am going to discuss. Your suggested dress code is a political ask. Code doesn't care about our kinks."
Should we treat a kink differently just because it happens to be disproportionately common among the LGBT population? Keep your kinks at home at a professional conference.
>"The government shouldn't be able to throw me into prison" is not "all of the taking". Again, if we were talking about the presence of anti-LGBTQ rhetoric or about people attending who were known to be anti-gay, maybe we'd have a conversation about give or take. But that is very much not what we are talking about.
Sorry this seems like a total non sequiter to me, you'll have to explain better. I don't see how it connects to the drag queen scenario. It seems like you're making a motte and bailey argument: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-bri...
>And the scenario we are discussing is explicitly one in which one side has said, "you do not get to coexist and if you try to we will throw you in prison. Hide from us." That's not give and take.
Indeed, homophobic laws are bad.
I'm glad you also believe in give and take. Can you give a specific example of a "give" that the LGBT community should be willing to make? See my statement from earlier "Seems like you want LGBT people to do all of the taking and none of the giving." I'm happy to be corrected!
>Give and take is "we don't like each other but we'll live together and do our best to make this work." In contrast, "stop existing" is the opposite of give and take, and "stop existing" is what the Tanzanian government is asking for.
>...
>If the risk of you letting slip that you're gay is a prison sentence, then that is not a reasonable ask, period.
Maybe there's a misunderstanding here. I agree that the Tanzanian government are being jerks. My position is I don't think it's fair to take our frustration about that out on African people.
>What part of "you can be thrown in prison if you're outed as gay" do people not understand here? Do you think gay people in Africa like that situation?
Has there even been an anonymous complaint? Let someone make an anonymous complaint, a trusted community member can verify their identity, then maybe we can think about a venue change.
>And in any case, if you're throwing a worldwide conference and you want it to be pluralist, then it's not just your opinions that matter anymore, you have to be able to tolerate a global audience. Tanzania doesn't appear have the legal flexibility to do that.
I agree if the conference name was "DjangoCon Global" as opposed to "DjangoCon Africa", Tanzania would not be an appropriate location. As things are, I think it is reasonable to weigh the cost of a venue change, vs a few gay Africans having to briefly live under homophobic laws that they're most likely quite used to if they travel around Africa.
I think it is reasonable for "DjangoCon Africa" to target an African audience and make decisions around what works best for that audience. For example, if a venue change means that some LGBTs can now attend safely, but a much larger number of other conference attendees aren't able to reach the new location, then I think it is reasonable to stay in the original location, in order to maximize overall accessibility for attendees. Even if Tanzania is the wrong venue, I think that is a discussion for next year's conference -- this isn't a sufficient justification to cancel the conference altogether or deny it funding. That'd be like if a college defunded their intro to computer science class because not everyone got an A. It's a toxic need for equality. Again, it's not fair to take out frustration with Tanzania's laws out on the people of Africa.
> No one has a right to funding, just a right to fair consideration.
It sounds like they got consideration, problems of timing aside. I do wish the PSF had been clearer and faster in their response and I agree they deserve criticism for not handling the situation as well as they could, but they did consider funding. They gave the organizers consideration and it doesn't seem to me that the consideration was unfair.
> Suppose Tommy Tuberville turns down your funding request because he doesn't like that an organizer is LGBT, and "no one has a fundamental right to funding" -- how does that make you feel?
Is that what happened here? Were they turned down for an identity, or were they turned down because the physical location they selected, independent of anyone's political beliefs, had logistical problems that made it unsuitable for an internationally sponsored community event? Because those are two different things.
> Should we treat a kink differently
We're going to get to this "kink" brush you're painting the LGBTQ community with in a second, but also in the interest of speaking up for kink I'll ask: do you want a truly apolitical, pluralistic conference, or do you want one that makes you feel comfortable? It's okay for you to say that you want some political boundaries on a conference, I would probably feel uncomfortable at a conference with kink as well. Just don't say that you want it to be apolitical or pluralistic then. You can not be simultaneously arguing for pluralism and for people to be invisible. Invisibility is not pluralism.
> just because it happens to be disproportionately common among the LGBT population?
That being said, I would be remiss if I didn't mention that wearing drag is not inherently sexual. And before you get too caught up on drag, we should also acknowledge that of course a trans person not wearing drag but merely wearing appropriate clothing for their gender is obviously not sexual or kink. And to be clear, when you ask attendees to keep their identity under the radar, you are asking for transgender people to misgender themselves, you are denying them agency to wear clothing that would be perfectly acceptable for other people to wear at a conference, and you are denying them that agency based entirely on a political designation of their identity.
Funding was not denied for this conference because they weren't going to allow kink. Funding was denied because the government has threatened to imprison LGBTQ people, and in the defense of "pluralism" you are asking LGBTQ attendees to refrain from behaviors and actions that would not raise a single eyebrow from anyone if performed by someone of another gender. You are asking for invisibility and pretending that it's pluralism.
> Sorry this seems like a total non sequiter to me, you'll have to explain better.
It is not a reasonable cultural compromise to throw someone into prison, and laws that explicitly rule that people can be thrown into prison are the reason why funding was originally denied.
I'm not sure... how to say that more clearly. It doesn't strictly relate to drag in except that drag is yet another thing you could be thrown into prison for. But if you're under the assumption that funding was denied over drag, it wasn't. It was denied over tangible laws and government policy. Accommodation of that policy is not "give and take" and it is completely unreasonable to ask LGBTQ people to tolerate that situation.
> I'm glad you also believe in give and take. Can you give a specific example of a "give" that the LGBT community should be willing to make? See my statement from earlier "Seems like you want LGBT people to do all of the taking and none of the giving." I'm happy to be corrected!
Sure. Suppose we held a conference where people were allowed to attend that were gay, and also people were allowed to attend that were anti-gay. A conference organizer might decide, "yes, we have a position on this, but we're going to tolerate someone who is known to be anti-gay attending, provided no one is making anyone else feel unsafe."
That would be an example of give and take; two communities of people with disagreements temporarily deciding not to be at each others throats or temporarily deciding to tolerate someone's involvement even though they find them detestable. It doesn't require an anti-gay person to stop denying the existence of LGBTQ identity, and it doesn't require LGBTQ people to believe that the anti-gay person is any less of a bigot. But... we live in a pluralistic society and in the interest of keeping that society running we have collectively all agreed that we are going to do our absolute best not to kill each other.
In contrast, suppose we held a conference where people were allowed to attend that were gay, and then some other people said, "what the heck, no, I'd better not even be aware that there are gay people here, if I catch them they are going to be in physical danger." That is an example of one side doing "all the taking." The Tanzania government's position is not compromise. It gives nothing, it is a physical threat.
> Maybe there's a misunderstanding here. I agree that the Tanzanian government are being jerks. What I'm saying is I don't think it's fair to take that out on the Tanzanian people.
I disagree that this is being taken out on the Tanzanian people. The Python Software Foundation did not write the laws. I don't understand why you are looking a situation where a government has forced a tech conference to grapple with political issues to the harm of both the Tanzanian people and the general Python community, and your response is to blame the Python community.
This can stink for the Tanzanian people and that doesn't mean it's the Python Software Foundation's fault that the government makes it impossible to hold a pluralistic or inclusive conference in the country.
> Has there even been an anonymous complaint? Let someone make an anonymous complaint, a trusted community member can verify their identity, then maybe we can think about a venue change. As things are, I think it is reasonable to weigh the cost of a venue change, vs a few gay Africans having to live under homophobic laws that they're most likely quite used to if they travel around Africa.
If this complaint was about a specifically local event or about an exclusion from the community rather than a denial of funding as an official event, I would agree. But it wasn't a local event and it's not an exclusion from the community. I just don't think your characterization here is accurate, this was planned to be an international event, the linked open letter describes it that way. I'm not saying there can't be Python conferences in Tanzania, I'm saying they should not be funded by the Python Software Foundation as officially endorsed, international events -- or at the very least it is not unreasonable for the PSF to be extremely careful about funding those events and to carefully consider them.
> Again, it's not fair to take out frustration with Tanzania's laws out on the people of Africa.
Deciding after consideration not to proactively sponsor an event is not the same thing as taking out frustration on the people of Africa. It is not blaming the people of Africa, it's not punative, it's just acknowledging that unfortunately the Python Software Foundation is not in a position to change the reality on the ground about where it is and isn't safe to hold an international conference.
>You can not be simultaneously arguing for pluralism and for people to be invisible. Invisibility is not pluralism.
This seems like the motte and bailey thing again, where if you're not allowed to be a flamboyantly gay in drag at a conference, people are forcing you to be invisible.
By pluralism I mean compromise, not "danShumway gets his way on everything".
>That being said, I would be remiss if I didn't mention that wearing drag is not inherently sexual.
"My dom/sub relationship with my girlfriend is 24/7, it's not inherently sexual. She's my permanent pet and personal servant." Does that mean no one is allowed to complain about our public leash setup?
>And to be clear, when you ask attendees to keep their identity under the radar, you are asking for transgender people to misgender themselves
Again this pretty much seems like motte and bailey, ascribing a position to me that I don't hold, pretending distinctions don't exist. This style of rhetoric may be fashionable; that doesn't mean it's at all thoughtful or reasonable.
>Sure. Suppose we held a conference where people were allowed to attend that were gay, and also people were allowed to attend that were anti-gay. A conference organizer might decide, "yes, we have a position on this, but we're going to tolerate someone who is known to be anti-gay attending, provided they no one is making anyone else feel unsafe."
Thank you for giving an example.
In the same way you think a flamboyantly gay guy in drag is A-OK, I assume you also think a "flamboyantly straight" Christian would also be A-OK? ("Straight Pride", big crosses, maybe even bible quotes about gay sexuality?) After all they're just expressing their identity, it would be oppressive to force them to be invisible? ("God told me to speak my truth, you're going to send me to hell!")
Can you see why people might choose to agree on a norm of more subtle identity expression for a professional conference? And how a Christian who is asked to remove an "I Trust Leviticus" shirt would be acting like a diva if that Christian complained that you were "forcing him to be invisible"? Or if that same Christian says that gay people are oppressing him with their subtle rainbow jewelry because gay sex is gross and disgusting and causes him to involuntarily vomit, activating his gut condition?
Or are we going to define identity expression such that when gays do it, that's just an irrepressible part of their identity, but when Christians do it, they are oppressing others? It seems to me like you're pretty biased in terms of making these judgements, but for pluralism they need to be made in an unbiased way.
I guess what I'm trying to get at here is just, don't be a diva, and try to see things from the perspective of others. That's what's necessary for pluralism. I probably won't reply further here -- the conversation is not seeming especially fruitful to me.
> This seems like the motte and bailey thing again, where if you're not allowed to be a flamboyantly gay in drag at a conference, people are forcing you to be invisible.
The Tanzanian law is not that flamboyantly gay people get thrown in prison, it is that gay people get thrown in prison.
You are also letting the word "allowed" do a lot of work here. This is not about conference policies, this is about people getting thrown into prison, something that you seem to be extremely reluctant to acknowledge. There is no evidence that conference organizers here were anti-gay or had any disagreement with the PSF policies or dress codes. There is no evidence that conference organizers endorse homophobia or transphobia in any form, and no reason to believe that there was ever a disagreement between conference organizers and the PSF about what kinds of expression are suitable at a Python conference. We're not talking about conference organizers asking you to wear a different shirt, we are talking about political and legal consequences for an identity.
There is no mott and bailey happening here, you just don't seem to be understanding what LGBTQ attendees in Tanzania are being asked to do or what the risks actually are.
> By pluralism I mean compromise, not "danShumway gets his way on everything".
Throwing people into prison is not compromise. By all means, if your standard of compromise is that gay people get thrown into prison, then yes, I want my way on everything. I think our standards for collective tolerance in society should be higher than that. I believe that the baseline of tolerance is that nobody kills each other or throws each other into prison, and I believe anything less than that is not compromise or pluralism or give and take.
> "My dom/sub relationship with my girlfriend is 24/7, it's not inherently sexual.
This is a disingenuous comparison. If you believe that a trans woman wearing a dress is inherently sexual or flamboyant, then you could save us all some time by just saying that at the start. Please do not equate completely normal, reasonable gender expressions with kink.
On the same note, drag is not inherently sexual. If you believe that drag is inherently sexual, just say that. Don't do these weird wink-wink insinuations, say what you believe.
> Again this pretty much seems like motte and bailey, ascribing a position to me that I don't hold
You could fool me. You don't get to keep on doing this weird run-around where you accuse gay people of "flaunting" themselves just by being visible in public and then back off and ask where you ever asked people to keep their identity under the radar. Either you are ignorant of what Tanzania's laws on LGBTQ expression actually are, or you are asking people to be invisible when you ask attendees to respect those laws.
> In the same way you think a flamboyantly gay guy in drag is A-OK, I assume you also think a "flamboyantly straight" Christian would also be A-OK? ("Straight Pride", big crosses, maybe even bible quotes about gay sexuality?) After all they're just expressing their identity, it would be oppressive to force them to be invisible? ("God told me to speak my truth, you're going to send me to hell!")
It would be oppressive for a conference to ban Christians or to ban someone from wearing crosses. Yes, a conference might have policies about someone walking around with a giant "Straight Pride" shirt, but once again, please remember the context here: there is a difference between a dress code and throwing someone with a straight pride shirt into prison.
> Or are we going to define identity expression such that when gays do it, that's just an irrepressible part of their identity, but when Christians do it, they are oppressing others?
Explicitly no, people should feel safe identifying as Christians. I am a Christian. I want to feel safe at Python conferences. I should feel comfortable going to a conference wearing a cross pin or mentioning that I am a Christian at a conference, and I should feel confident that doing so will not get me thrown into prison. I should also feel safe flying into a conference with a Bible in my luggage even if I'm not planning to bring it to the actual conference. I shouldn't have to worry that going to a church later that week is a criminal offense. And if a location for a conference has laws on the books saying that if you're found wearing a cross pin or visiting a church you can be thrown into prison, then it is not a safe place for an international conference.
Similarly, if wearing a pride pin or packing a dress in their luggage or sharing a room with their partner can get someone thrown in prison, then it is not a safe place for an international conference, regardless of any other dress code or standard within the conference itself.
Of course, an expression of Christian identity is not inherently at odds with LGBTQ identity or LGBTQ acceptance/affirmation. Plenty of Christians are LGBTQ affirming, and the assumption that expressions of Christian identity are inherently bigoted does harm to both Christian and LGBTQ communities. But even if saying "I am a Christian" was inherently hostile to the LGBTQ community, and even if a conference in the interest of keeping its members safe decided not to allow Christian expressions that made LGBTQ attendees feel unsafe -- at the very, very least, that expression of Christian identity or opposition to gay rights should not get you thrown into prison.
This is genuinely not hard to understand.
> and try to see things from the perspective of others.
Seeing things from the perspective of others is incompatible with putting them in jail.
Trans women wearing dresses are not cross-dressing.
The amount of blatantly open transphobia on these threads makes it much more difficult to engage honestly and to have productive conversations with the people who have good-faith disagreements about safety, cultural standards, and funding policy.
They literally are cross-dressing, not that there is anything wrong with that by default of course.
My point was that for a considerable number of trans-identifying males, the primary motivation for their claims of being women begins in sexual arousal from cross-dressing. You can verify this from reading their forums (the r/AskAGP subreddit is also quite an eye-opener), and some have even written books about it.
It's something to keep in mind when considering how far the polite fiction of 'trans women are women' should be taken, especially when it comes to the rights of women to enjoy single-sex spaces.
> They literally are cross-dressing, not that there is anything wrong with that by default of course.
No they are not, not unless you start from a conclusion that trans women are not women. A woman wearing a dress is not cross dressing.
Of course, you are starting from that conclusion, which.. fine, whatever. Unlike in Tanzania HN will not threaten to imprison you over your beliefs about gender. But the rest of us are not obligated to participate in your rejection of gender identity or to pretend that it is correct for the purposes of our own discussions.
> My point was that for a considerable number of trans-identifying males, the primary motivation for their claims of being women begins in sexual arousal from cross-dressing.
This is a well discussed topic for people who have the curiosity to look more into it, and it's probably not worth debating too deeply given the context of the rest of your comment. But the short version is that gender dysphoria is real and is not a fetish and is well-documented outside of sexual environments. To reduce gender dysphoria to a fetish is medical ignorance.
And of course not every single transgender person experiences gender dysphoria; but regardless of whether or not a particular trans man/woman experiences gender dysphoria, it is still not accurate to reduce their entire gender identity and expression to autogynophilia -- if that instinct is even present to for that non-dysphoric individual to begin with. The fiction you propose assumes that no transgender people exist who are attracted exclusively to the opposite sex or who are asexual, an assumption that is trivially false.
And even in the case of transgender people who are attracted to their own bodies or for whom gender is closely tied to their sexuality or for transgender people who openly identify as autogynophiles, this reduction of their entire gender experience and of the experiences of every other trans person is an inaccurate oversimplification of how gender is processed and expressed. Autogynophila does not mean that every gender expression is sexual or that every other person shares the same experiences. Remember, autogynophila exists in cisgender spaces too, but you don't consider every cisgender woman wearing a dress to be inherently engaging in sexual conduct just because a cisgender lesbian might get aroused at seeing themselves in one.
Sexuality is often used as a cudgel against transgender women in ways that would be considered wildly sexist and inappropriate in any other context. "Critics" demand extreme intimate access to a confusing and sometimes terrifying process of self-discovery, and then they abuse that access and vulnerability to form broad conclusions that they would never dare to suggest about cisgender women, even though the experiences of transgender women are neither unique nor monolithic.
> the polite fiction of 'trans women are women'
Like I said above, these kinds of comments really do distract from more productive conversations on HN; ideally we would be able to discuss topics around conference organizing, pluralism, safety, etc... without constantly being pulled down into low-effort dismissals of transgender identity. The need to debate whether or not a trans woman is a woman doesn't add much to conversations about trans rights and doesn't add much to conversations about the PSF's funding choices, since no one involved in the actual conference planning or funding process has claimed that a debate about the validity of transgender identity was ever a contributing factor in any of the decisions that were made.
Meanwhile, we on HN demand that transgender people speak for themselves or lodge their own complaints while surrounding them in an environment that is often hostile to their participation and input.
> especially when it comes to the rights of women to enjoy single-sex spaces.
Within this world you're imagining, presumably cisgender lesbians don't exist and feminine identity is completely divorced from sexuality. Presumably outside of the presence of men women revert to being completely asexual or something. It's a little silly.
A trans woman wearing a dress is not automatically aroused, and it's both disrespectful and (more importantly) just straight-up inaccurate to automatically jump to that conclusion.
