"Misgendering" is now a federal offense

[Donal]

Every notice how all these Free Speech Warriors will shut down a campus if they aren't allowed to run around screaming every bigoted phrase in the book with no consequences are also silent when say...a football player is coerced in taking part in pregame patriotism pageants? Or someone who doesn't like a particular US policy is threatened with rape and murder and then beaten by state enforcers?

 

[Hercules56]

"Misgendering" and "mispronouning" are, as of August 1, federal offenses under Title IX, as explained in the memo, below, to the faculty of Mount Holyoke College signed by the Provost and Sharon Lynch, the Assistant Vice Provost for Compliance. Moreover, if a student complains that they have been "subject to incorrect use of their pronouns," faculty are required to report the incident to the college's compliance office. Faculty are also required to report incidents of "open mocking of [the college's] Pronoun Policy."




Hard to think of a more appropriate name for the head of the Compliance Office than "Lynch."

So much for the 1st Amendment. Freedom of Speech is dead.

 

[Hercules56]

I have every right to mock an official policy that I consider to be stupid or irrational. Banning such language clearly violates the 1st Amendment.

 

[Ziggurat]

I've done that "FTFY" because that is all that this topic is about - you aren't allowed to harass people.

You are mistaken. From the OP:

It is the expectation of the College that faculty report when misgendering occurs in the following ways:

• when the misgendering has created a hostile environment;
• when there is open mocking of our Pronoun Policy or an individual's choice of pronouns;
• or when a student reports being misgendered, deadnamed, or has been subject to incorrect use of their pronouns.

Note that the college wants to prohibit mocking its policy. Even when no individuals are harassed, mocking a thing (not a person) is not allowed.

 

[Hercules56]

You are mistaken. From the OP:



Note that the college wants to prohibit mocking its policy. Even when no individuals are harassed, mocking a thing (not a person) is not allowed.

They will have to get rid of that policy or face 1st Amendment lawsuits.

 

[Darat]

You are mistaken. From the OP:



Note that the college wants to prohibit mocking its policy. Even when no individuals are harassed, mocking a thing (not a person) is not allowed.

Nope they want to stop harassment - one of the ways you often find people will harass other people is to pretend it's meant to be about the policy or the principle in general yet their criticisms are always directed at the people or individual they have a beef with.

 

[Darat]

They will have to get rid of that policy or face 1st Amendment lawsuits.

Bet you they don't.

 

[pgwenthold]

Nope they want to stop harassment - one of the ways you often find people will harass other people is to pretend it's meant to be about the policy or the principle in general yet their criticisms are always directed at the people or individual they have a beef with.

This is just like those libertarians who complain about anti-discrimination laws for businesses. The only purpose of getting rid of anti-discrimination laws is to allow businesses to discriminate.

"They aren't needed" they proclaim. Because discrimination is bad business practice? OK, maybe it's true, but that doesn't stop the business from discriminating until they go out of business. How long does that take? And of course, those businesses that do go out of business turn around and open a new business that continues to discriminate, until they go out of business.

My business doesn't worry about anti-discrimination laws because we don't intend to or want to discriminate. What's their concern?

Policies against harassment are similar. Let's just be clear. The purpose of getting rid of policies to prevent harassment is to allow harassment.

 

[Thermal]

I've done that "FTFY" because that is all that this topic is about - you aren't allowed to harass people.

Because some people need everything spelt out explicitly examples of how the harassment might occur are codified. That is why a professor would not be allowed to get away with referring to all the people he perceives to be male and black as "boy". Of course, the "victims" of such anti-harassment codification (i.e. those that want to harass people) would put it as "You can't even use the word boy now!!" or "Professor sacked because they used the word 'boy'"

Right, and that's the text of the policy. No problem. But it comes with baggage, the subtext, that some of us bristle at.

I mean, you can't tell an American that they are not allowed to criticize something that has a broader range. Even the whiff of thought policing will send some of us off the deep end, having nothing to do with trans rights. I have no problem throwing down against a harassing bigot, and in the same breath, throwing down against anyone telling me that I can't criticize a politically charged policy.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

Has "majesty" or the heretofore nonexistent "magesty" been slid through the back door to pronoun-hood behind our backs? New pronouns invented in secret? Those sneaky grammatoclastic perverts, not only coming after your private parts but the parts of your very speech! Gird what loins you have left, grab your pitchforks, sheeple, before its too late!

We are not amused.

 

[theprestige]

You are mistaken. From the OP:



Note that the college wants to prohibit mocking its policy. Even when no individuals are harassed, mocking a thing (not a person) is not allowed.

Especially worrying, since you can't really trust a modern American college professor to know the difference between mockery and criticism.

 

[Hercules56]

Bet you they don't.

Bet you the ACLU sues in short order.

They care about things like freedom of speech.

You cannot punish students simply for mocking a policy. Especially when the college is publicly funded.

 

[plague311]

They will have to get rid of that policy or face 1st Amendment lawsuits.

No, they won't. You're wrong. Gloriously wrong. Exceptionally wrong.

 

[Hercules56]

No, they won't. You're wrong. Gloriously wrong. Exceptionally wrong.

They don't have to get rid of the whole policy just the part where students and faculty can be punished simply for mocking a policy, not actually mocking a student. That clearly violates the first amendment. Really ****** up how you guys are okay with such a thing.

Whatever happened to "I strongly oppose what you were saying but I will die to defend your right to say it"????

 

[plague311]

Bet you the ACLU sues in short order.

They care about things like freedom of speech.

You cannot punish students simply for mocking a policy. Especially when the college is publicly funded.

Care to make a wager? You pick the terms, I don't care what they are. I will say the college won't have to change anything at all.

Right, and that's the text of the policy. No problem. But it comes with baggage, the subtext, that some of us bristle at.

I mean, you can't tell an American that they are not allowed to criticize something that has a broader range. Even the whiff of thought policing will send some of us off the deep end, having nothing to do with trans rights. I have no problem throwing down against a harassing bigot, and in the same breath, throwing down against anyone telling me that I can't criticize a politically charged policy.

Then don't go to this college. It's that simple. You don't have to, no one is forcing you to, and no one is even inviting you. I don't like what goes on at bath and body works, guess what I do? I just don't go there. (Some comedian said that).

I don't understand the sea of butthurt over a policy that doesn't affect any of you and never will. Ever.

 

[theprestige]

Then don't go to this college. It's that simple. You don't have to, no one is forcing you to, and no one is even inviting you.

The college receives federal funds. My money is going to this college. It's that simple. I have to fund it, someone is forcing me to, even though no one invited me to. The least I can ask is that constitutional rights be upheld by any institution that receives taxpayer dollars.

 

[Ziggurat]

Nope they want to stop harassment

Are you a mind reader? How do you know their motives? And it doesn't even matter what their motives are. See below.

one of the ways you often find people will harass other people is to pretend it's meant to be about the policy or the principle in general yet their criticisms are always directed at the people or individual they have a beef with.

What happens to those who do just want to criticize the policy, and aren't directed at any individuals? They will get caught up too, because the policy does not make the distinction you're appealing to, or more accurately, that you invented. Whatever anyone's motives, the actual policy prohibits any mockery of the policy at all.

Your argument rests entirely on assuming not only the motives of the administrators, but also any critics of the policy. You assume the best motives of the administrators, and the worst motives of critics. Neither has been demonstrated, but more importantly, neither should really matter.

 

[Ziggurat]

This is just like those libertarians who complain about anti-discrimination laws for businesses. The only purpose of getting rid of anti-discrimination laws is to allow businesses to discriminate.

Well, no. That's not the only reason. Frivolous lawsuits are a real thing, and they can cost a lot of money to an employer who gets sued even if the employer wins.

There's all sorts of arguments you could make for why we should have these laws anyways, but it's dishonest to claim that nobody could ever oppose them on any grounds other than wanting to discriminate. Because that's simply not true.

 

[ahhell]

I have to admit that "mispronouning" is a new one for me. At first I thought it said "mispronouncing", which is a word I know. Man, I thought, even mispronouncing someone's name is a crime now?

So if someone decides that their pronouns are His Magesty, Your Magesty, or the like, or weird ones like Xir and Xim, now you have to know and use those too?

Funny, that was my first reaction to.
Sure, calling someone them/his/her, what ever they want but the whole neo-pronoun thing, that just dumb and bullying to make me call you Xir or whatever.

"Misgendering" and "mispronouning" are, as of August 1, federal offenses under Title IX, as explained in the memo, below, to the faculty of Mount Holyoke College signed by the Provost and Sharon Lynch, the Assistant Vice Provost for Compliance. Moreover, if a student complains that they have been "subject to incorrect use of their pronouns," faculty are required to report the incident to the college's compliance office. Faculty are also required to report incidents of "open mocking of [the college's] Pronoun Policy."



Hard to think of a more appropriate name for the head of the Compliance Office than "Lynch."

Mostly I don't care, I do think its rude to not call folks what they want but its also everyone's right to be rude and there really shouldn't be a federal law mandating politeness. But the actually bad bit, is highlighted. **** that ****, faculty are required to report folks for mocking policy? That is some 1984 authoritarian type stuff.


ETA, this also doesn't say anything about harassment which has already been addressed by Title IX. The way this is written you could get reported for misgendering, mispronouning or mocking university policy just once. Which is almost certainly going to happen to someone.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

Are you dispensing with the pronoun requirement, Comrade?

Nein, mein Schütze.