"Misgendering" is now a federal offense

[autumn1971]

So I can't say that Kaitlyn Jenner or Rachel Levine are dudes? Even though they fathered children?

You can. I will defend your right to do so.
It just makes you a dick

My friends call me “Dave”.
That’s not what’s on my birth certificate. But they aren’t irrational dicks, so can call me by a name I like rather than the formal “David” which only my mom calls me.
It’s honestly not that difficult for most people to not be a dick

 

[Darat]

You can. I will defend your right to do so.
It just makes you a dick

My friends call me “Dave”.
That’s not what’s on my birth certificate. But they aren’t irrational dicks, so can call me by a name I like rather than the formal “David” which only my mom calls me.
It’s honestly not that difficult for most people to not be a dick

And all the "it's about free speech" - no it isn't it is entirely about wanting to be able to hurt by acts such as harassment people that are not like them and not have to face any consequences for doing so. (And yes "words" are actions.)

 

[autumn1971]

"Gender decoupled from sex is functionally meaningless. Pronouns connote the sex I perceive you as, not the sex or gender you perceive yourself as, or wish that I perceived you as. And that's why I refer to you as 'he' in my speech, and describe you as a man whenever the question arises."

That's my gender-critical position, as I would express it to a transwoman who tells me they have preferred pronouns that I must conform to. According to my gender-critical position, referring to a transwoman as 'he' is not misgendering him. Rather, the opposite.

So the qestion becomes, under this university's application of Title IX, am I allowed to express this gender-critical position publicly, in conversations with faculty and students? Am I allowed to speak, using the pronouns I believe in, according to the principles of my sincerely-held gender critical viewpoint?

Or is it simply safer for me to censor my speech, and keep my viewpoint to myself, for fear a zealous school administrator might punish me for speaking?

I disagree with your first sentence; if I, biological male, wear a pretty sundress would you characterize it as me wearing women’s clothing?

Nothing about the dress has ****-all to do with biology
Gender is a social construct.
It has uses, sure, but it’s constantly changing.

 

[Thermal]

I disagree with your first sentence; if I, biological male, wear a pretty sundress would you characterize it as me wearing women’s clothing?

Nothing about the dress has ****-all to do with biology
Gender is a social construct.
It has uses, sure, but it’s constantly changing.

The only reason the dress would be considered women's clothing is because the gender is hitched extremely tightly to sex. Defined by it, come to that.

And Dave is a common shortening of David. He is not a common shortening of she, or vice versa. It's more like if your name is David, but you want to be called Nancy. Your friends would probably bumble around a little, saying "well, ok..I guess. You feeling okay man?" and eventually they would start to question your sanity, if you only answered "I just feel like I'm Nancy".

 

[autumn1971]

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.

It does. It’s good that only right-wing wankers think the private company policy of the school does anything like that

 

[autumn1971]

The only reason the dress would be considered women's clothing is because the gender is hitched extremely tightly to sex. Defined by it, come to that.

And Dave is a common shortening of David. He is not a common shortening of she, or vice versa. It's more like if your name is David, but you want to be called Nancy. Your friends would probably bumble around a little, saying "well, ok..I guess. You feeling okay man?" and eventually they would start to question your sanity, if you only answered "I just feel like I'm Nancy".

If I answered it like that they would be right to question if it was a sudden phase of questioning.
If it was years of personal questioning it would probably be something discussed with my close friends and expanded to others gradually.

It’s really not that difficult

 

[Thermal]

If I answered it like that they would be right to question if it was a sudden phase of questioning.
If it was years of personal questioning it would probably be something discussed with my close friends and expanded to others gradually.

It’s really not that difficult

Right, and I said the same about Bob/Babette just upthread. It took a while to sink in. But that's where the OP policy kicks in; you will be reported if you don't "immediately" get it, and for a lot of us, overlooking reality is something it takes a long time to "get". Like, in terms of a college, you might not be able to see a dong dangling male as a she for the duration of your studies there.

 

[autumn1971]

If it is a crime or infraction to simply criticize or mock a certain policy, then the policy itself is fatally flawed.

The policy is from the school. It is not anything to do with crimes.
I could be fired for calling coworkers by demeaning versions of their names.
No difference.
Just be a nice person and there’s no problem.

Also, when applying for a college or job one signs an agreement to follow the rules.
The company makes or loses money on what rules these are. The free-market will decide if they made a good decision.

Why does a socialist have to explain to rightists that the capitalist market works?

 

[bruto]

Agreed that Zhe and xir are "look at me I'm special" bull ****. Use the "they" and call it a day, with no skin off anyone's back.

But to your counterpoint, you might be giving one person instructions while referring to another person's work in the group, who is right there. Calling everyone "you" is going to get messy and cause a crossed wire after a bit.

And it gets more pointed if the group member is not actually there. Then, you are possibly misgendering behind their back, and to their fellow coworkers, which is back door harassment, implying that "they" are not like "us".

Every situation is different, and there are zillions of possible circumstances in which someone in earshot or someone in the same situation as the person referred to, etc. could be the subject of a pronoun. We need not fine tune everything we say to get around the problem when the easy and actually harmless thing is just to use the pronouns they prefer. I find it laughable in this discussion that the anti-trans-pronoun arguers go on and on about how oh so snowflakey it is for people to be concerned about their hurt feelings when you openly insult the choices they have made, and probably struggled all their lives with, when their only argument boils down to the fact that having to say things they don't like hurts their feelings. You can find all sorts of ways to talk around it, but embarrassing or harassing another person because not to do so violates your need to appear publicly honest is also about your feelings.

Just call people by the names and pronouns they like. It's just civil discourse. You don't have to **** them or anything.

 

[autumn1971]

Regardless of what their actual motives are, I want the rules to work even when the people enforcing them have bad motives. I don't want rules that only work with the best of intentions. These ones don't work if their intentions aren't the best. They have a very obvious failure mechanism, and we should not tolerate that.

Plus, there's another bad incentive structure that they create here which I didn't touch on in my prior response, independent of any motives from the administration. Faculty don't want to have to report incidents (it's extra work), but they also don't want to not report incidents that occur because they could get in trouble for that. So they're going to have an incentive to create an environment where incidents don't happen at all, so that they don't have to report anything. Which sounds good when it comes to things we want to suppress, right? I'd like professors to create an environment where sexual harassment doesn't happen, for example.

But it's not so good when it comes to things we shouldn't be trying to suppress. We shouldn't be trying to suppress criticism. But if we create an incentive structure where professors are encouraged to suppress criticism, then that's likely to happen. And that's not a good thing.

I agree with this.

 

[Thermal]

Every situation is different, and there are zillions of possible circumstances in which someone in earshot or someone in the same situation as the person referred to, etc. could be the subject of a pronoun. We need not fine tune everything we say to get around the problem when the easy and actually harmless thing is just to use the pronouns they prefer. I find it laughable in this discussion that the anti-trans-pronoun arguers go on and on about how oh so snowflakey it is for people to be concerned about their hurt feelings when you openly insult the choices they have made, and probably struggled all their lives with, when their only argument boils down to the fact that having to say things they don't like hurts their feelings. You can find all sorts of ways to talk around it, but embarrassing or harassing another person because not to do so violates your need to appear publicly honest is also about your feelings.

Just call people by the names and pronouns they like. It's just civil discourse. You don't have to **** them or anything.

Right, and as I've said a dozen times, that's what I do. No skin off my back, and helps them to feel "noemal".

But the flip is that in the abstract, it is a little overbearing for someone to demand that you ignore the evidence of your senses/knowledge and see things as they demand. That's where some conservative leaning posters get the "bullying" vibe, and I get that.

And btw, im.not lobbying for either view being right or wrong. Just trying to get it out in the open and on the table so everyone is not treating each other as the extreme characterization of the worst of "the other side".

 

[Thermal]

It's kind of like if you know a woman who is a brunette, but dyes her hair blonde. You wouldn't make a point of constantly referring to her as a bleach blonde, or insist on describing her as a brunette because you know she "really" is one.

 

[autumn1971]

They are the ones calling for laws to make it illegal to call someone by the "wrong" pronoun, and I am the one who is being triggered?

The real question is, since YOU'RE the one who supports these violations of Free Speech, why do YOU care soo much?

Why are you ok with people being punished, fined, kicked out school, fired from their job, just because they identify someone based on the sex listed on their birth certificate or the name on their Social Security card??

Why do YOU care so damn much?

I don’t agree with laws punishing folks.
I’m just in favor of not being a dick

If you call me Nancy at work I’ll report that to HR.
Same at Holyoke

It’s weird that a policy of just being not intentionally terrible to folks at a private institution is considered weird

 

[autumn1971]

Right, and I said the same about Bob/Babette just upthread. It took a while to sink in. But that's where the OP policy kicks in; you will be reported if you don't "immediately" get it, and for a lot of us, overlooking reality is something it takes a long time to "get". Like, in terms of a college, you might not be able to see a dong dangling male as a she for the duration of your studies there.

I agree, but if it persists the initial reports are needed to determine if it a pattern of behavior

 

[Thermal]

I agree, but if it persists the initial reports are needed to determine if it a pattern of behavior

Agreed. Night and day between saying "he" offhandedly without remembering they don't like that, and "I said you are a guy, Nancy boy"

 

[jt512]

If you call me Nancy at work I’ll report that to HR.

That explains a lot.

 

[Hercules56]

And all the "it's about free speech" - no it isn't it is entirely about wanting to be able to hurt by acts such as harassment people that are not like them and not have to face any consequences for doing so. (And yes "words" are actions.)

So you want the government to punish people if they identify someone by their biological sex?

What if they honestly believe that transgender people cannot actually transform to the other sex?

 

[Hercules56]

It's kind of like if you know a woman who is a brunette, but dyes her hair blonde. You wouldn't make a point of constantly referring to her as a bleach blonde, or insist on describing her as a brunette because you know she "really" is one.

Do you think I should face a fine, expulsion or lose my job because I keep calling her a brunette?

 

[jt512]

Jerry Coyne covers the Mount Holyoke travesty: Mount Holyoke College blatantly violates free speech: mocking a policy now becomes a reportable offense.

 

[Hercules56]

Jerry Coyne covers the Mount Holyoke travesty: Mount Holyoke College blatantly violates free speech: mocking a policy now becomes a reportable offense.

This policy will be changed.

You cannot infract students for simply mocking a policy.