I follow the development of elementary for a while now and even contributed a little bit from time to time and this is honestly the first time I heard of this name change. So I think it is an easy mistake to make and would not automatically assume malice here.
Her twitter (which Lunduke links to, and copied tweets from) very prominently features her new name.
I'm not saying it can't be accidental (in which case you do what you do when you've accidentally been rude - apologize, correct your mistake and move on), but it is at least careless.
A few years ago Lunduke kept sharing some views that I would place in the more “reactionary“ spectrum. I’m not sure he ever distanced himself from that.
He did interview Danielle a few years back however.(1) So maybe it simply was a careless mistake.
This handle is in the archive links the article points to, and that's the important part.
Lunduke had this handle on his screen, and either missed it or chose to ignore it on purpose. The former is careless and sloppy, especially if you're trying to do journalism. The latter is very rude, to put it mildly.
No, this is rude in any frame of mind. A person changed their name, and some people can't just accept it because of the reason for the name-change. If it had been any other reason, be marriage, adoption, religion some nerdy humor or what else...everyone would accept it without making a buzz about it.
It's more than a name change though isn't it? It's access to women only spaces and women only sports etc. This is what people are really upset about. I don't think people actually care about name changes.
I don’t see Danielle trying to compete in women only sports here, so this boils down to throwing a temper tantrum like a toddler and being rude because you (as in Lunduke, not you as a poster Im answering to) think you have a right to determine how a person feels about themselves, more than the person. There is no excuse for it.
Hate to break it to you my guy, but that is not ‘gender politics’, it‘s just her name and her pronouns. If you use he/him and I say she/her, that’s rude. It’s no different.
You might not agree with their reasons, but these changes have a lot of costs associated with them (mostly thanks to people who share your views). Calling these reasons "arbitrary" is either ignorant or disrespectful.
> keep your gender politics out of this technical discussion platform
Keep your "gender politics" politics out of this technical discussion platform.
Even from my point of view that transgender people don't exist (at least not on earth, our science hasn't developed a way to change the sexual cromosomes throughout the human body yet) I would still call someone by the name that they call themselves, even if it's a name that tipically isn't associated to their actual gender.
Whether someone is transgender or not has nothing to do with whether they decide to physically transition. As well, a person's "actual gender" is the one felt deeply as a part of themselves, not based the sex they were assigned at birth.
Doesn't gender lose its meaning if it's not tied to sex? As in, it is just a person's psych? I am not saying it negatively, I am all for sex having no predetermined effect on someone's behavior. But if there as many genders as there are people, it is no longer a useful term.
> Doesn't gender lose its meaning if it's not tied to sex? As in, it is just a person's psych?
What do you mean by "sex"? Would a woman who goes through menopause no longer be a woman because she's not fertile? What about someone born intersex with multiple or no recognizable genitals? What about a woman with a Y Chromosome? That's not hypothetical it's recognized by actual biologists. The reason it's under diagnosed is because it rarely shows symptoms so it's only something someone already taking a DNA test would find out.
Fun fact though, when you meet someone, you forgo the strip search, DNA test, and ultrasound required to actually verify these things. Not only is gender not based on sex, YOU don't base your evaluation of it on sex. Instead you've picked a number of unrelated arbitrary qualities, which is what scientists and I call "dumb". If we're assigning genders willy nilly why should you be in charge of everyone? Let everyone pick for themselves.
You seem to be putting a lot in my mouth on your own.
Let me ask you a question to clarify things: Is ANY gender based in ANY way on the sexual organs (and thus the biologically assigned sex) of ANY human?
Nice. Since the answer is "Nope", here comes my point: What IS the meaning of gender anyway? Shouldn't we rather call each human's "gender" their unique personality instead? Since that's what it actually is? What is the meaning of saying "My gender is woman"? What IS a woman? In the past "woman" was tied to the reproductory organ. Since it no longer is, well... let's get rid of the notion altogether. It only serves to put labels on personalities, and these labels themselves are based on ancient obsolete ideas.
That's ingenious, because everyone did not bother strip searching since they made their explicit conclusions about what was between your legs by the external appearance and behavior alone :)
Using it now is incredibly rude.