"Misgendering" is now a federal offense

[Trausti]

Ah yes, the aggressors are the true victims! Harumph, harumph, harumph!

Calling people by their name, whatever preferred name that is, doesn't involve any of the crybaby bull **** you spouted here. It's just calling them by their name. That's it. You don't even have to mention their gender, or their sexuality at all. Anyone can change their name when they want, so again, call people by their ******* name and drop it. Why is that so hard for you? Because you can't play the victim while doing it? Your feelings don't get hurt enough?

Are you dispensing with the pronoun requirement, Comrade?

 

[catsmate]

Wow, so much bollocks being spewed by irate idiots.

 

[plague311]

Are you dispensing with the pronoun requirement, Comrade?

Don't call me Comrade. It's not my name, it's not a title I go by, and knock it the **** off.

What pronoun requirement? Is there something in Title IX or elsewhere that says you have to call someone by their pronouns rather than their name? I mean, I obviously know you're trolling. The pathetic one-line retorts, the victim playing, the lack of anything substantive in your posts. I get it, you're under a bridge and loving it, but as far as I know there is nothing anywhere saying you can't call people by their name. The fact is it's an argument you have no retort for because it strips all your crying points away. How can you play the victim if there's a simple alternative to what you're whining and whining about?

At least troll with something better.

 

[Thermal]

Because I don't view it the same as you do. I'm pro-treating people with respect. There is only 1 reason to disregard this law, and that's to be degrading, insulting and rude. College campuses generally pride themselves on being inclusive. If that bothers you then let me introduce you to another life hack, stay the **** away from college campuses. I'm sure they would appreciate it.

Ya because it's morally and intellectually wrong to be degrading, insulting, and rude to those you disagree with. Preach.

 

[plague311]

Ya because it's morally and intellectually wrong to be degrading, insulting, and rude to those you disagree with. Preach.

Jesus, now what? Just get to the point, Thermal. I'm already dealing with one, can we just get past the "teehee" and get to the meat and potatoes?

 

[Trausti]

Don't call me Comrade. It's not my name, it's not a title I go by, and knock it the **** off.

What pronoun requirement? Is there something in Title IX or elsewhere that says you have to call someone by their pronouns rather than their name? I mean, I obviously know you're trolling. The pathetic one-line retorts, the victim playing, the lack of anything substantive in your posts. I get it, you're under a bridge and loving it, but as far as I know there is nothing anywhere saying you can't call people by their name. The fact is it's an argument you have no retort for because it strips all your crying points away. How can you play the victim if there's a simple alternative to what you're whining and whining about?

At least troll with something better.

Did you read the OP?

 

[plague311]

Did you read the OP?

Yes, can you hilite the part where it says "you have to call someone by their pronouns when referring to them and cannot use their name"?

 

[Thermal]

Jesus, now what? Just get to the point, Thermal. I'm already dealing with one, can we just get past the "teehee" and get to the meat and potatoes?

Is your screen glitching? Seems pretty readable from here. I'm concurring that being degrading, insulting and rude to those you disagree with is a sign of low character and should be penalized. We walk that like we talk that around these parts, right?

 

[Trausti]

Yes, can you hilite the part where it says "you have to call someone by their pronouns when referring to them and cannot use their name"?

The OP already did. Come on, man, xir, she, they, it, whatever.

 

[plague311]

Is your screen glitching? Seems pretty readable from here. I'm concurring that being degrading, insulting and rude to those you disagree with is a sign of low character and should be penalized. We walk that line we talk that around these parts, right?

No, because I'm not subject to Title IX on this forum, right? My argument isn't that being degrading, insulting and rude to those I disagree with shows any sign of character or anything else you've said. That's your strawman. The thread isn't about "disagreeing" with someone, it's about calling someone by a pronoun, gender, or name that they don't want to be called by, and how that shouldn't be allowed. It's not just a disagreement but I understand how someone like you would see it that way.

If I keep addressing a man in our meetings at work as "Suzy" when his name is "John" then I'm not doing it just because I disagree with their logic. It's degrading and insulting them for no reason. It's not even addressing their logic, it's just an insult. Sorry I have to explain this to you and ruin that ridiculous "gotcha" attempt you had locked and loaded.

 

[plague311]

The OP already did. Come on, man, xir, she, they, it, whatever.

I'm asking you to do it. If he already did it then you shouldn't have any problems with it at all, but you sure seem to be avoiding it.

Just show me the part in the OP where it says you HAVE to refer to someone by their pronouns and cannot use their name. I just read it again. If you can't, just say that. It's ok to be wrong.

 

[Thermal]

No, because I'm not subject to Title IX on this forum, right? My argument isn't that being degrading, insulting and rude to those I disagree with shows any sign of character or anything else you've said. That's your strawman. The thread isn't about "disagreeing" with someone, it's about calling someone by a pronoun, gender, or name that they don't want to be called by, and how that shouldn't be allowed. It's not just a disagreement but I understand how someone like you would see it that way.

If I keep addressing a man in our meetings at work as "Suzy" when his name is "John" then I'm not doing it just because I disagree with their logic. It's degrading and insulting them for no reason. It's not even addressing their logic, it's just an insult. Sorry I have to explain this to you and ruin that ridiculous "gotcha" attempt you had locked and loaded.

Agreed. And trust me, you continue to make my point.

 

[plague311]

Agreed. And trust me, you continue to make my point.

It's adorable you're pretending you had one.

 

[bruto]

I would think forcing people to take part in a lie - that a person can change their sex - is pretty egregious. Freedom of conscience be damned. That's some Soviet crap.

What aspect of "taking part" is included in the simple act of accepting a person's chosen identity. You don't have to look inside their pants, or marry them or even like them. You can think what you want. All you are forced to do is not to disparage them in public. You can even, as you do here, argue vehemently against the ideas they embody, as long as you do not make it personal - just as here one can make many statements, even when they are racist, discriminatory or just plain stupid, as long as they are general and not personal.

And though it's a quibble that I think should not matter, the law does not actually seem to say you must use a person's chosen pronouns. It only says you should not use wrongly gendered pronouns, and not the wrong name. While it is a bit clumsy and inelegant to avoid using some pronouns, it is not in fact impossible. It's a red herring, I think, because it is both more convenient and more decent and more reasonable simply to use a person's chosen pronouns, but there are ways to avoid this if one takes the trouble, just as it has been shown possible to write a whole book without using the letter "e."

 

[Thermal]

What aspect of "taking part" is included in the simple act of accepting a person's chosen identity. You don't have to look inside their pants, or marry them or even like them. You can think what you want. All you are forced to do is not to disparage them in public. You can even, as you do here, argue vehemently against the ideas they embody, as long as you do not make it personal - just as here one can make many statements, even when they are racist, discriminatory or just plain stupid, as long as they are general and not personal.

And though it's a quibble that I think should not matter, the law does not actually seem to say you must use a person's chosen pronouns. It only says you should not use wrongly gendered pronouns, and not the wrong name. While it is a bit clumsy and inelegant to avoid using some pronouns, it is not in fact impossible. It's a red herring, I think, because it is both more convenient and more decent and more reasonable simply to use a person's chosen pronouns, but there are ways to avoid this if one takes the trouble, just as it has been shown possible to write a whole book without using the letter "e."

As I am reading the article, it seems you can't ridicule the policy either, under penalty? That's a part that I have a bit of a free speech problem with, although I broadly agree with the "just don't be a bully and/or jerk" side of it.

Eta: pronoun use comes down to whether you feel s/he represents sex or an internal ID. To those who feel it's sex, it does seem like the school is demanding they lie. Which is weird, at the least? If internal ID, it's just common courtesy. Really awkward dueling of rights, here.

 

[Donal]

Your personal beliefs of someone esle's identity are irrelevant. someone here refers to themselves as a Christian and it would be rude, even a violation of the member agreement, to point out how they are the antithesis of Christ's teachings. Quite frankly, the fact that this person insists that they are a Christian is far less believable than anything any one asserts about their own gender.

 

[plague311]

• when there is open mocking of our Pronoun Policy or an individual's choice of pronouns;

The context I'm getting from this is that you can't say something like, "Because of that stupid pronoun policy I have to call you Karen instead of Josh. That's terrible."

I'm trying to think of ways you could insult the policy itself without making it about someone's gender. If you just said, "Pronoun Policies are stupid" in just a vague, general sense I am left wondering what context it would be in.

In other words, they seem to go hand in hand. It also doesn't say there's any penalty for mocking the Pronoun Policy, just that the campus would like it to be reported.

No one is demanding anyone lie, no matter how they feel about it. If an individual is so wrapped up in another person's gender that they just can't come to refer to them by their preferred pronouns then, not to beat a dead horse, just use their ******* name. This isn't hard. It's not even controversial. This is a private school, as far as I know. This is no more a "free speech" issue than my company saying I can't call people fags. Sure, I'm entitled to free speech, but a private entity isn't beholden to the same rules.

ETA: Yup, I remember someone saying it in the thread (sorry for not remembering the name) but:

Mount Holyoke College is a private liberal arts women's college in South Hadley, Massachusetts, United States. It is the oldest member of the historic Seven Sisters colleges, a group of historically female colleges in the Northeastern United States.

The free speech thing isn't really up for debate here, unless we're just saying in a general free speech sense, but it's no more restrictive than most other private entities. Many who have these same policies in place.

 

[theprestige]

To clarify: Misgendering someone isn't a federal crime under Title IX.

Rather, misgendering someone is viewed by some educational institutions that receive federal funds to be a violation of Title IX regulations. If that view is correct, those institutions could be held in violation of Title IX regulations, and have to suffer certain consequences for being in violation. I haven't looked into it, but I suspect those consequences would most likely amount to a temporary loss of federal funding, and an onerous process for reestablishing eligibility for federal funding.

The implication for the faculty and student body, then, is not that they would be charged with a federal crime, nor even that they would be considered in violation of federal regulation. But rather that the school will punish them for misgendering people, as a policy to demonstrate good faith and due diligence in adhering to Title IX regulations.

I think that as a matter of curbing hate speech on campus, there's no big problem for a school to view Title IX in this light.

Where I think the problem lies, is that such a view, applied as school policy, will inevitably have a chilling effect on gender-critical and biology-essentialist speech.

 

[Trausti]

TThis is a private school, as far as I know. This is no more a "free speech" issue than my company saying I can't call people fags. Sure, I'm entitled to free speech, but a private entity isn't beholden to the same rules.

When you take federal money, the Constitution attaches. But the underlying notion is that everyone must walk on pins and needles so that the most senstive among us isn't offended. What a horrid policy.

 

[Ron Obvious]

What aspect of "taking part" is included in the simple act of accepting a person's chosen identity. You don't have to look inside their pants, or marry them or even like them.

There's a limit to this, of course. If somebody tells me they're Napoleon, Jesus, an Alsatian, a cat, or any other obvious delusion, I don't have to play along, I hope. On the other hand, if some bearded git in a skirt tells me he's really a little girl, I'm supposed to respect that and play along and use his preferred pronouns.

I'm sorry, I don't understand why that's different.

Like the repressed memories of Satanic Panic a generation ago, I suspect this idiocy has about run its course.