Unusual (gender) people: Polling versus interrupts

Computer programs are often in the position of having to interact with other processes and respond when things happen. There are two basic ways of handling this. One is interrupts, where the other process sends a signal that directly affects the program. The other is polling, where the program frequently goes around to all the processes it needs to monitor and asks the other process if there is anything new it should be aware of. At least that's the way it was explained to me many decades ago.

We also in today's society feel an obligation to attend to the needs and desires of many minorities who are less fortunate. The natural way to deal with an unusual situation is by way of an interrupt. For some of these issues, liberal society is moving towards polling. Sometimes I think it goes too far.

Sometimes people's unusual characteristics interrupt us. If we see an adult who is 7 feet tall or 3 feet tall, we notice. Many physical disabilities are also instantly recognizable on sight. Such unusual-looking people may well tire of being judged instantly on their unusual appearance, but it comes with the territory. The enlightened response to such people is to notice the reaction, set it aside, and then interact with them in the way that the situation calls for.

Other unusual characteristics are not apparent. We don't know if someone is deaf or speaks a foreign language just by looking at them. We don't know if they are gay or suffer some psychological condition such as reacting badly to loud noises. We also automatically classify people we see into male and female. Sometimes a person would like to be considered to have a gender that is not what we would judge by just looking at them.

Homosexuality is an interesting case because it has often engendered strong condemnation and even violence. I think it makes sense to devote some time to it -- some high schools set aside a day to discuss the issue. Whether it's worth a whole day every year is open to question. I would tend to prefer a day that deals with all invisible minority conditions at once, of which it is one example. But I'm open on the subject. There is no consensus on the actual incidence of homosexuality, but it seems at least 5 percent of people sometimes feel a notable attraction to members of the same sex. This is not a small minority.

I have heard of no political movement suggesting that we always consider that a person we meet might be deaf and not speak to them without first ascertaining that they can hear. Similarly, I haven't heard that we need to inquire if someone speaks English (at least in most circumstances in America). These rare situations are handled by interrupts. We speak, and do not hear an appropriate answer in English, so we know that we need to adjust our behavior to communicate with them. It is the lot of many invisible minorities to have others constantly making incorrect assumptions about them and needing to set them straight. It comes with the territory. They have the option of wearing a tag announcing their condition, "I am deaf", or "I only speak Italian", though they understandably may not like that option.

Non-standard gender identification has surged to prominence in the last several years. This is the main current issue that calls forth my polling versus interrupt analysis.

The truth is that all but a tiny fraction of humans have clearly identifiable male or female genitalia, think of themselves as the associated gender, dress to mark that gender, and expect others will assume that is what they are. But a tiny proportion do not -- a larger proportion of today's young people in liberal circles, which might be the subject of another post.

There are options available to people who don't want to be considered the gender people will assume based on looking at them. They could wear a tag announcing their gender identity. But they have more subtle options too. Those with bodies that appear male can wear their hair long, use make-up, and wear women's clothing. Those with female bodies can similarly have a man's hair style and wear men's clothing. These things trigger an interrupt in sensitive people, suggesting that assumptions about gender should be suspended. One of the immediate issues that arises with gender is what pronouns to use. You can usually substitute "this person" for whatever pronoun you would otherwise use if your interaction is going to be brief, and if your interaction gets longer, you can ask them.

Where I believe it goes too far is when such individuals get huffy if people who are not familiar with this new reality make the wrong assumptions, or when everyone at a gathering is instructed to put their pronouns on their name tag, even though 99% will put the same thing that looking at them would suggest. This is moving from interrupts to polling. These responses make the issue occupy too large a place in our mental space. The idea of <addressing everyone as 'they'> goes way, way, way too far.

We've come a long way from Eleanor Roosevelt's, "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." <Dignity cultures are better than victimcultures>. According to victim culture, it's OK or perhaps even noble to be offended, and it's fitting to applaud those who get offended on behalf of other people. One result is a great deal of mental energy devoted to polling all the various ways someone could be a minority or be offended before saying anything.

I strongly support accepting and respecting non-standard gender people, but suggest a moderate push-back on the extent of our accommodation. Of course any sort of put-downs, discrimination, or disrespect of gender-nonconforming people is unacceptable. Compassion for the difficulties they face in society and perhaps in their own minds is important. A good faith effort to use feminine or masculine pronouns as they request is mandatory. But you can expect occasional slip-ups, and long pauses as a speaker with some effort retrieves the correct pronoun. Meeting someone's desire to be addressed as "they" is optional, in my view. It is not part of the English language.

Consideration of non-standard gender should be a matter of interrupts, not polling, to limit the space it occupies in our minds. What triggers an interrupt is someone whose appearance and dress and presentation are not clearly male or female. Another trigger is of course their telling you this. When a non-standard gender person comes to our attention, we should relate to them with respect and compassion, but the 99% of the time one is not present, we don't need to think about it any more than we think about deafness.

There is some role for a minority getting disproportionate attention when an issue is new to most of society, which is true of non-standard gender identities. Once we accept that they exist and call for sensitive treatment, we can stop thinking about it until such a person comes into our life. But we would should expect societal attention to the issue to die down once most people have been exposed to the possibility.

<This earlier post ofmine> is in the same spirit. Sympathy for a cause does not require doing everything that the activists request or demand. Each proposal should be considered on its own merits, and rejecting the more extreme ones does not make a person a bigot.