the irony is that @sample perfectly illustrated my point about political diversity.
He took the position of Conservative/Leave voters and people who “lean right” and spun/misrepresented/exaggerated that into a position of “rejection of socially progressive values”
You’re being obtuse and acting in bad faith, you’re trying to catch me out rather than have a discussion. I was explicit that my post was built around an assumption because your post was unclear, if you didn’t mean the rejection of progressive social values then you could have quite simply said “I mean specifically when someone votes conservative but does not reject socially progressive values”, instead you’ve chosen to attack my argument on the basis my assumption was wrong.
I chose to assume you meant the rejection of progressive social values given that is what you have discussed in this thread, and “votes conservative (but doesn’t reject socially progressive values)” is (as far as I know) not a position that would see someone ostracised in a socially progressive environment – but I welcome a better understanding if indeed there are circumstances in which simply voting conservative has seen people ostracised.
What if someone at Monzo said their pronouns were “ze” and “zir” but someone else said they didn’t feel comfortable using those pronouns because they didn’t agree with the idea that someone could be “gender neutral”, or simply because it sounds very awkward using those pronouns in everyday speech?
This is the point I was making. You’re taking two fundamentally different situations and presenting them as equivalent which is disingenuous. When you intentionally misgender someone you attack their identity which is very likely to make them feel unsafe, it shows a complete disregard for their wellbeing. Pronouns are almost always a preference rooted in a desire not to be referred to by their dead gender, in almost all circumstance a trans person (who prefers ze/zir) would understand if someone chose to use “they” instead of “ze” or “zir” (because they don’t know how to pronounce it, because they forgot which pronouns were preferred).
Is that an acceptable viewpoint to hold? […] Clearly Apple didn’t think so because their Head of Diversity left the company after saying exactly that.
More bad faith. You’re taking the comment out of context. Yes, there is diversity even within a group of racially homogeneous people, nobody can deny that and it is a valid viewpoint to hold, however the discussion was explicitly focused on how Apple is supporting black women. The question began:
I just kind of wanted to know whether black women is a priority for you in this new role?
Denise answered:
Aamna, you also asked me about my work at Apple, or in particular, who do I focus on? I focus on everyone. Diversity is the human experience. I get a little bit frustrated when diversity or the term diversity is tagged to the people of color or the women or the LGBT or whatever because that means they’re carrying that around…because that means that we are carrying that around on our foreheads.
And I’ve often told people a story– there can be 12 white blue-eyed blonde men in a room and they are going to be diverse too because they’re going to bring a different life experience and life perspective to the conversation.
If you consider the context of the conversation – what is being done to support black women within Apple and are they a priority – it’s very concerning for the answer to explain that in her opinion there is diversity amongst white men. The concern is not that she’s factually incorrect, it’s that when she’s asked about whether black women are a focus she talks about white men. The take away from that comment isn’t “Denise shared a fact” it’s “Denise believes that because there’s diversity amongst white men it is less important to focus on black women who are vastly underrepresented”.
Anyway, as others have indicated, the Monzo community isn’t the correct venue for this discussion but you are welcome to send me a Private Message if you would like to continue it.
