"Misgendering" is now a federal offense

[ahhell]

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

No, I agree, it only would violate the first amendment if it was government policy but, I can object to a policy that bans mocking the very same policy no matter whether it impacts me, that is an infinitely mockable policy. doesn't violate the first amendment but its pretty questionable for a college. Its questionable for any institution but especially so for a college.

 

[bruto]

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.

I guess I'm kind of a backwoods existentialist. I think you are what you are, rather than what you were, might be, or should be. One of my favorite formative movies of my youth was the Italian classic "General Della Rovere," in which a sleazy con-man is roped into becoming the embodiment of a fictional anti-fascist hero in order to spy on the underground. He ends up becoming the hero he wasn't.

Anyway, (more or less reinforcing your argument) it also should not be a sin or a crime, at least on first reacquaintance, to remark that she was a brunette last we knew. To which she might well say, yes, but she no longer is, and that's the end of it all. I am entirely for accepting gender transition and addressing those who have done so as they prefer, but I do also think it should be acceptable not to pretend that one is unaware of it, and unfair for those who have done it to expect others to know automatically, in this confusing world, where they're at or what they should be called. To disavow the past is not to erase it. People who cannot accept a change ought to untwist their panties and learn to live in the world that exists, and those who make the change ought to remember that no matter how important or necessary it is to you, or how long you wished for it, it is not retroactive.

 

[jt512]

No, I agree, it only would violate the first amendment if it was government policy but, I can object to a policy that bans mocking the very same policy no matter whether it impacts me, that is an infinitely mockable policy. doesn't violate the first amendment but its pretty questionable for a college. Its questionable for any institution but especially so for a college.

State colleges and universities are subject to the First Amendment. Although, private colleges and universities are not, most have written policies ensuring free speech, which are enforceable in court. I don't know if Mount Holyoke has such a policy, but if it does, they may be violating it with this restriction on mocking their Pronoun Policy (capitalized as in the letter in the OP).

 

[Trausti]

State colleges and universities are subject to the First Amendment. Although, private colleges and universities are not,

It's not really a public vs. private distinction. It's an accepting public money or not distinction. For example, Hillsdale college takes no public money so that the federal government can't tell it what to do.

 

[jt512]

It's not really a public vs. private distinction. It's an accepting public money or not distinction. For example, Hillsdale college takes no public money so that the federal government can't tell it what to do.

That's true for Title IX, but not for First Amendment protections like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. A public university can't require students to swear an allegiance to God (it would be a violation of freedom of speech), but a private university can even if it receives federal funds in some form.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

In general, open mockery of an official policy is a protected form of speech. This school best back down.

It's always hilarious when bullies encounter pushback. They always run home to mammy crying "the mean smaller boy/girl hit me back when I attacked then. I'm being bullied!"

 

[Darat]

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?

I thought I was very clear - I want people who harass and bully people to be punished.

 

[Darat]

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

At every company I've ever worked at over the last almost 50 years harassing and bullying other employees was considered a disciplinary matter and could if severe enough or repeated enough lead to you being sacked.

 

[bruto]

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

I imagine it would depend a little on the context, and how your behavior reflects on your ability to perform the task you've been chosen to do. Are you in a conversation about hair and how it can be dyed? Or are you talking about something else and can't help but remark "so and so, that fake blonde over there, suggests we do such and such?" Your use of the phrase "keep calling" suggests the latter, and I suspect that it might well be considered creation of a hostile workplace.

There are numerous instances in ordinary life and discourse where we are expected to keep our personal beliefs and biases to ourselves, when they are inimical or irrrelevant. It's sad that we so often need the government to declare a protected class in order to curb our desire to be sanctimonious clods.

 

[Samson]

I imagine it would depend a little on the context, and how your behavior reflects on your ability to perform the task you've been chosen to do. Are you in a conversation about hair and how it can be dyed? Or are you talking about something else and can't help but remark "so and so, that fake blonde over there, suggests we do such and such?" Your use of the phrase "keep calling" suggests the latter, and I suspect that it might well be considered creation of a hostile workplace.

There are numerous instances in ordinary life and discourse where we are expected to keep our personal beliefs and biases to ourselves, when they are inimical or irrrelevant. It's sad that we so often need the government to declare a protected class in order to curb our desire to be sanctimonious clods.

New Zealand is about to invoke governmental decree to sanctify the status of middle aged men as women in law.
It will have no impact on those who rise at 7 to make these worthies' lives work, tradies, hospital laundry functionaries and so on.
It is great legislation that encourages family dissolution.

 

[Hercules56]

I thought I was very clear - I want people who harass and bully people to be punished.

What if the transwoman has not underdone any transitional surgery or therapy, and still looks like a man. Do I still have to refer to him as "her"?

If he has facial hair, do I still have to call him "her"?

 

[Darat]

What if the transwoman has not underdone any transitional surgery or therapy, and still looks like a man. Do I still have to refer to him as "her"?

If he has facial hair, do I still have to call him "her"?

I really do not know how I can put it any clearer than "I want people who harass and bully people to be punished."

What is confusing or not complete about that?

ETA: Trying to think why it wouldn't be clear the most I can add is a "I don't care how the bullying or the harassment occurred"

So restated:

I want people who bully or harass other people - no matter how they do that bullying or harassment - to be punished.

 

[Hercules56]

I really do not know how I can put it any clearer than "I want people who harass and bully people to be punished."

What is confusing or not complete about that?

ETA: Trying to think why it wouldn't be clear the most I can add is a "I don't care how the bullying or the harassment occurred"

So restated:

I want people who bully or harass other people - no matter how they do that bullying or harassment - to be punished.

Charles is a man. Charles has facial hair and is built like a typical man.

One day Charles decides to become trans. He has undergone zero transition, being surgical or hormonal. Charles still has his facial hair, but now wants to be called "Nancy".

You claim its bullying to still refer to Nancy as "he/him" even though he has undergone zero transition and has facial hair.

Is this bullying? Its a worthy debate.

 

[Darat]

Charles is a man. Charles has facial hair and is built like a typical man.

One day Charles decides to become trans. He has undergone zero transition, being surgical or hormonal. Charles still has his facial hair, but now wants to be called "Nancy".

You claim its bullying to still refer to Nancy as "he/him" even though he has undergone zero transition and has facial hair.
Is this bullying? Its a worthy debate.

Where have I made that claim?

 

[Hercules56]

Where have I made that claim?

OK, glad we agree it is definitely not bullying to refer to a non-transitioned, male-appearing trans as "he/him/sir".

 

[Thermal]

Charles is a man. Charles has facial hair and is built like a typical man.

One day Charles decides to become trans. He has undergone zero transition, being surgical or hormonal. Charles still has his facial hair, but now wants to be called "Nancy".

You claim its bullying to still refer to Nancy as "he/him" even though he has undergone zero transition and has facial hair.

Is this bullying? Its a worthy debate.

As others said, it can be. Just like if you kept referring to one man as "the gay guy" or a woman with breast implants or teeth veneers as "the woman with the fake tits" or "the lady with fake teeth". There's a line where you are getting needlessly personal about someone's body, sexuality, or identity, even when what you say is factually true and accurately descriptive.

 

[Hercules56]

As others said, it can be. Just like if you kept referring to one man as "the gay guy" or a woman with breast implants or teeth veneers as "the woman with the fake tits" or "the lady with fake teeth". There's a line where you are getting needlessly personal about someone's body, sexuality, or identity, even when what you say is factually true and accurately descriptive.

Just cuz someone demands to be identified by a certain pronoun does not mean it is bullying to refuse to comply, especially if the request is ridiculous.

 

[Darat]

OK, glad we agree it is definitely not bullying to refer to a non-transitioned, male-appearing trans as "he/him/sir".

Where have I made that claim?

 

[Thermal]

Just cuz someone demands to be identified by a certain pronoun does not mean it is bullying to refuse to comply, especially if the request is ridiculous.

True. I'd certainly refuse to use neo-pronouns. But that doesn't address the point of the post you quoted.

If you addressed an out and proud homosexual as "the gay" when you referred to him, do you think that would eventually cause a problem for you at work?. It's a true and accurate descriptor, right? You're allowed to call em as you see em, even if they ask you not to, right?

 

[Hercules56]

True. I'd certainly refuse to use neo-pronouns. But that doesn't address the point of the post you quoted.

If you addressed an out and proud homosexual as "the gay" when you referred to him, do you think that would eventually cause a problem for you at work?. It's a true and accurate descriptor, right? You're allowed to call em as you see em, even if they ask you not to, right?

In that specific example, clearly bullying is taking olace and should be stopped. I also would not accept someone being labeled as "the trans".