Trans people do have all human rights - your gender expression does not change your access to your other rights.
So anyone saying 'trans people deserve basic human rights' is actually saying something else, like about access to women's spaces. That disingenuous advocacy of one thing to get another thing through under the table is more activist than principled. In a company or otherwise.
Leave a message for the president explaining that his website's instructions are broken (and that it's literally easier to contact him than a webmaster).
> For a lot of these websites it would necessitate a lot of manual work
Yes, but ... That's work they brought on themselves by not doing the right things in the easy way. Sure, once they're there, there is a lot of work to come back but that should be used as a reason to not use those frameworks in the first place.
Some accessibility is like adding alt-text. It adds work. But almost everything else is just not abusing the browser and is generally done simply by following the recommendations. And not trying to live on the bleeding edge.
People (usually by their native language) can't all hear and pronounce all sounds equally well.
If you can't reliably pronounce my name and it'll sound like a bad word when you try, then you should say what you can say safely. I don't care enough that I want you nervous or slowing down a meeting. But if you expect me to change my name to what you could say I would not.
You trying your best is okay, you requiring me to lower the bar so you can succeed is not okay.
A guy I work with has 'balls' in his name. Yes, he and management expect people to keep their mouths shut.
Anyways, yes we could require him to change his name because it's distracting. That would be one thing to do. It's the solution suggested by people in this thread...
> but please don't sound so hard done by because people are thinking about how other people feel.
They aren't though. This isn't about the poor (theoretical) coq-sayer, this is about the righteousness of the name decriers. If you can't point to a real victim we're better off assuming there isn't one and that you're just trying to look hip.
> any other name, idiom, or figure of speech that offends, embarrasses or diminishes others?
Sure, if it did actually diminish people someone would take you seriously. If the product was named after a slur, actually referencing it, and rudely. Like "TheMick, a project to track alcoholism".
But who is hurt by the concept that words in one language sound like different words in another? And is the speaker of the first language to blame or the speaker of the second who hears a dirty word? Allocate blame here, that we may smite the wicked.
> I guess you don't find it embarrassing so you don't see the problem
Even if I did I'd be hard pressed to tell some French people that they have to change because of my sexual puritanism. Is the left into forcing America's sexual mores on people again this week?
I feel that all of the protections let us chase the problems into smaller areas. Rust's unsafe doesn't eliminate unsafe code, it just means you put it in a small auditable area.
Similarly, some part of the system remains imperative. The network card at least, will always resend a packet. The goal is to pass around idempotent messages except for the very leaves.
For instance, instead of an endpoint 'email(customer, data)' you might have 'email_or_report_on_send_status(customer, data)' and the later endpoint would check the cache for (customer, data) and merely report the previous results if it found them.
I agree though, this stuff used to keep me up at night and eventually I've grown more natural about not mutating things unless I mean it. (This phrase sounds like a comic-book villain.)
So anyone saying 'trans people deserve basic human rights' is actually saying something else, like about access to women's spaces. That disingenuous advocacy of one thing to get another thing through under the table is more activist than principled. In a company or otherwise.