throwawayacc2

I feel like your comment did not answer my question. And, I feel like you’re biased in the opposite way but attempt to coat that in neutrality. For the avoidance of doubt, I’m not saying that as an attack, or even as a “bad” thing ( whatever bad is ) but as an observation of what I perceive.

There is also the example with the married woman changing her name. I think it’s a very good argument. In fact this is perhaps the best argument I have seen so far surrounding the pronoun debate. In the example you give, I would agree completely, the judging person refusing to use the new name is in the wrong.

But, this argument makes a hidden assumption. One cleverly hidden in the parallel. You are assuming the two scenarios ( marriage name change and trans pronoun change ) are the same category, and thus it follows those two should be traded in the same way.

Here is why I believe the two are distinct categories. The marriage name change is language neutral while the pronoun name change is language altering. Language in part exists to establish labels for categories in order to facilitate communication. You cannot “hunt mammoth” if you don’t know what “hunt” and “mammoth” is and you cannot substitute different words expecting the same result. “Hunt mammoth” is not the same as “Hunt deer”. Categories are important. They make communication possible. In the example you give, the woman changing her name does not alter the language in any way. In the pronoun side however, the request makes an implicit language change. The request involves altering the category of men or women. “He”, and “she” loose their meaning if they are applied on request.

The discussion to be had at this point is weather those are categories worth having. But that is a separate discussion. For this discussion I don’t feel like the parallel holds.

> You’re free to retain your beliefs, but you can’t vocalize them in the office.

Why can’t we apply the same logic in reverse? The person believes they are a gender or a sex and they would like to be treated in accordance with their beliefs. They can retain that belief but can’t vocalise it in the office.

> Just as it would be disrespectful to publicly judge a coworker’s religion

But, here is the crux of it. By asking me to indulge the pronoun request, they are publicly judging my religion. My religion forbids me from accepting the interchangeably of men and women. They are judging this aspect and attempt to force me to change it. How do we handle this conflict in a way agreeable to everyone? And if we can’t find a way agreeable to everyone, why should one camp give in to the other?

> in the west those norms are heavily influenced by Judeo-Christian (especially Protestant) values

This is an irrelevant point. As a side note, I don’t believe “Judeo-Christian” is a thing. This is a strange, made up category originating from the bizzare melding of politics and religion in the souther US. This concept is devoid of any meaning outside the US. It’s certainly something foreign in Europe and other broadly Christian nations like those in South America. But, regardless, this point is irrelevant. If we were in an Arab country, the influence would be Islamic. In India it would be Hindu, in every place there are influences from the past.

Let me turn on the head your assumption, because again I feel like you are making unstated assumptions.

Why should the expectation be neutrality and not conformity to the historical norm? Why should the historical norm give in to new trends?

I have posted a similar comment above, I will make a similar comment here. And I am making this comment in good faith.

My religious beliefs prevent me from accepting the frame of reference of the person requesting unconventional pronouns.

Their frame is “my identity is different to what society imposes on me, I will ask that you treat me in the way I request, not using the societal default”.

My frame is “God has made Adam and Eve, a man and a woman. They are not interchangeable, by asking me to accept interchanges, you are asking me to go again my religious beliefs and commit sin”.

I am asking this sincerely. Why must I give in to accommodate the other instead of the other way around?

Why must I commit sin instead of the other accepting my religion prevents me from indulging the request?

My religious beliefs prevent me from accept this frame of reference. My religious beliefs are clear. God made Adam, a man, and Eve, a woman. They are not interchangeable. This is my religious belief.

Why must it be me who gives up my beliefs to accommodate the other?

Why is mutual respect not the other person understanding this is my religion?

So, this is cynical but I actually look for some of these red flags specifically. For me they are not red flags. For me they are green flags.

Not enough clarity about your role - Consistent lack of interest or low morale from interviewers - Perfect , the less enthusiasm the better. Your interviewers aren’t prepared for the interview - Oh yeah, love those ones. Lack of a clear direction on where the company is headed - One of the best flags for me.

The reason I go for these companies is because I get to slack off and no one does anything about it. Especially now with wfh being the norm.

This strategy worked for me for close to 4 years. The last job I put actual effort in was around 2017. There are weeks on end where I just go to the morning standup, say I am working on it and for the rest of the day I play computer games or watch shows or go out dates. Sometimes, I just move jira tickets through the columns without even looking at them. No one checks, no one measures, no one seems to care.

If you want to grow in terms of skills, yeah, those are red flags to avoid. If you want to chill and bill, go for those sorts of companies. Big corporate, preferably non tech, preferably somewhere with a big churn rate so you can have the excuse of the original author no being there anymore.