Hacker News
points by regretsresin 15 hours ago | 0 comments
Unlikely. Plenty of anti LGBTQ rhetoric is permissible here by mods, for example.

However, it often uses queer lingo - words that folks might think aren't notable, but queer folks will instantly recognize as an attack.

Refusing to call a gay man's husband a husband, but subsisting in friend or partner. Calling someone biologically male. Etc.

These get deployed quite subtly here, and because none of the words are slurs, they don't get moderated. (Though HN also permits overt slur usage -- search for the r-slur and you'll find plenty of cases.)

[–] cosmic_cheese 15 hours ago
FWIW, it may just be a colossal misconception of my own, but I’d been of the mind that “partner” was in some cases more polite to use because it doesn’t make assumptions about the individuals in question or about the dynamics of the relationship between them. I am not part of the LGBTQ world, however, and am happy to be corrected.
[–] regretsresin 1 hour ago
There's a difference between the polite use and the impolite use. If someone makes a point to always introduce and discuss their husband, some anti LGBTQ folks will make a point to never say husband. Like, "you don't get to have that word." It's a way of suggesting people aren't married.

The difficulty is that partner is also acceptable and polite, especially when gender or marital status is unknown.

It's subtle, which is exactly the sort of thing this thread is about -- ways to subtly exclude someone while appearing polite to outsiders.

[–] amanaplanacanal 14 hours ago
It can be used both ways, I suppose. I use it for my partner because legal marital status isn't important to me, but for those that had to fight to obtain the basic right to get married I can see why it would be hurtful.

I wonder how much of it is generational? I see something similar in the way second wave feminists rightly hated being called girls, whereas it's not as much of an issue for the younger generations because they didn't have those experiences.