Moderated Using wrong pronouns= violence??

[Blank]

Why did I know you would dismiss this?

You asked for proof of ANY legislation or policy. I provided it.

So there is already legislation with statutes that state intentionally using wrong pronouns is discrimination and/or harassment that dates back to 60 years?

The claim that was unsupported was that Trans-activists are trying to get name calling them illegal (I recall 5 years being timeline) but if it already is then I suppose the argument shifts a bit to "trying to get existing laws enforced"-territory.

I mean this does mean that Colleges/universities and workplaces can legally have punishments for intentional use of wrong pronouns in their guidelines and it is not in any way infringing on anyone rights with that. "At-will"-employment has already made intentional stupidity and numbskullery a surefire way to get sacked even earlier but this does add a layer of forced enforcing to it and I'm totally fine with that.

Even the SC has apparently found that it is not a limitation of free speech or unconstitutional so what's the problem anti-transers have with it?

 

[lionking]

So there is already legislation with statutes that state intentionally using wrong pronouns is discrimination and/or harassment that dates back to 60 years?

The claim that was unsupported was that Trans-activists are trying to get name calling them illegal (I recall 5 years being timeline) but if it already is then I suppose the argument shifts a bit to "trying to get existing laws enforced"-territory.

I mean this does mean that Colleges/universities and workplaces can legally have punishments for intentional use of wrong pronouns in their guidelines and it is not in any way infringing on anyone rights with that. "At-will"-employment has already made intentional stupidity and numbskullery a surefire way to get sacked even earlier but this does add a layer of forced enforcing to it and I'm totally fine with that.

Even the SC has apparently found that it is not a limitation of free speech or unconstitutional so what's the problem anti-transers have with it?

Firstly, I’m not an anti-transer. Secondly, the law, as amended, dates back a couple of years, not 60.

 

[mumblethrax]

Secondly, the law, as amended, dates back a couple of years, not 60.

The Civil Rights Act was not amended a couple of years ago. It hasn't had any major amendments since the 70s, and those has to do with enforcement mechanisms.

The funny thing here is that you're railing against Title VII's proscription on sex discrimination without realizing it.

 

[lionking]

The Civil Rights Act was not amended a couple of years ago. It hasn't had any major amendments since the 70s, and those has to do with enforcement mechanisms.

The funny thing here is that you're railing against Title VII's proscription on sex discrimination without realizing it.

Hmmm, the legalese you are invoking is in conflict with an authority which has far more credibility.

In 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Title VII’s prohibition against sex discrimination includes discrimination based on an employee’s gender identity or sexual orientation.

 

[mumblethrax]

Hmmm, the legalese you are invoking is in conflict with an authority which has far more credibility.

Do you understand the difference between a ruling and an amendment? It's hardly legalese.

And did you even read what you quoted? If you had, you might have noticed that it supports what I just said. The ruling in question, Bostock v. Clayton County, found that employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity necessarily discriminates on the basis of sex. Title VII would have to be amended to prevent it from barring discrimination on the basis of gender identity.

(The Bostock court was not the first to notice this. Lawsuits based on exactly the same reading happened decades ago, but of course the social order of the day was not prepared to accept that there was something wrong with discriminating against gay people, let alone trans people.)

 

[Hercules56]

If Hercules56 consistently uses proper names where pronouns would be more appropriate, the odd usage will stick out. Especially if Hercules56 *only* slips into that odd usage when addressing trans people.

And when people notice Hercules56's convoluted usage, they may wonder; "Why does Hercules56 refuse to use pronouns? Why only certain pronouns for certain people? Why does Hercules56 go to such lengths in those cases?" And if a reasonable answer is not forthcoming, people may very well accuse Hercules56 of being a bigot.

Hercules56 is not being nearly as clever nor subtle as Hercules56 thinks Hercules56 is being.

Love it.

In order to keep my job, I would cease using pronouns for all people trans and non-trans.

 

[Blank]

Firstly, I’m not an anti-transer.

And yet here you are claiming that Supreme Court judgement on a 60 year old law that extends Equal human rights to trans-sexual people and which the ultimate authority in constitutionality has deemed not in any shape or form being against the 1st amendment is an example of the trans-lobbyists trying to prevent free speech?

I mean the underlying notion is that you feel threatened by equal rights and therefore are against trans-sexuals gaining same rights afforded to any other person or group - I would coin that as a pretty straightforward and clear "anti-trans" position.

Might be a misunderstanding but the entire argument was started by the preposition that (paraphrasing so might not be verbatim)
"Trans-activists are attempting to force people to use pronouns and this is discriminating cis-gendered people and taking away their 1st am. rights"

 

[Blank]

Love it.

In order to keep my job, I would cease using pronouns for all people trans and non-trans.

Why is it a surprise to people that you don't necessarily have free speech rights at work? If you don't agree with the policies in place at your employer, you are free to find new employment - It is not violating your free speech or in any way discriminating against you.

 

[Blank]

It's "Ma'am"!

I know DEI training gets a bad rap usually, but sad cases like this are a clear indication on why good customer facing processes can be great policy.

No winners here:
Store lost a customer(s)
She felt bad
Clerk prolly freaked out

Supervising the thing I couldn't really fault the kid, unless he went against store policies but would definetely have a look at training clerks in greeting customers in a neutral manner that doesn't cause misunderstandings.

 

[LondonJohn]

"Hi my name is Richard, but I go by Bubbletwat"

Yeah, I'm calling you Richard at work.

Oh great. We're back to the malign realms of "I identify as an attack helicopter" again, are we? Well done.

 

[LondonJohn]

I said it before, but I can't wait for the Furries to get their turn. I wonder if their demands to be treated as the animals they feel themselves to be will be met with the ridicule they deserve or whether the "misgendering == violence" crowd will continue to tie themselves into knots over the right of preferred victim groups to override objective reality.

I hope it'll be a step too far for them but I don't take anything for granted anymore.

Probably if mainstream medicine were ever to accept "furriness" as a valid identity*, that would happen. But frankly, I don't see much chance of that taking place.


* You are perhaps unaware (your post would seem to imply your ignorance on this) that mainstream medicine now considers transgender identity to be a valid human condition - that is to say, medicine does not consider it to be a mental health disorder. That's very important in the context of this thread (and several other related threads).

 

[LondonJohn]

Be pretty easy to handle really. If someone truly believes they are actually a wolf and not a human, then thats fine. But a wolf can't read, write, hold a pen, use a computer etc. So if we must treat them as if they are ACTUALLY the animal they claim to be, then they can be denied entry to a university.

Totally different from transgenderism, unless you are claiming that a person of another gender cannot pursue higher education.

On top of which.... if a human sincerely identifies as a wolf, mainstream medicine considers that person to be suffering from a treatable mental health disorder. By contrast, if a person has transgender identity, mainstream medicine does not consider the person to be suffering from a treatable mental health disorder (just as, for example, mainstream medicine does not now consider homosexual people to be suffering from a mental heath disorder).

So the current consensus in medical science means that society should respect the identity of trans people (including their desire to be referred to using the pronouns which correspond to their trans gender), while society is conversely under no obligation whatsoever to accommodate people who identify as wolves (other than to display empathy for their mental health disorder).

 

[LondonJohn]

Conservatives aren't the ones melting like snowflakes when their preferred pronoun is ignored. And then claiming to be a victim of "violence". Cuz they feewings hurt.

If, say, someone repeatedly referred to a cisgender female work colleague with manly physical features as "he", in spite of her desire to be referred to as "she", do you think that would be acceptable or unacceptable?

 

[LondonJohn]

You are currently accusing people for a crime (under current laws), that they have not committed nor are they going to commit. IF you truly and really think this is going to happen, then you are potentially advocating "self-defense" against this threat are you not?

Some points:

• There is no “they” – no trans cabal trying to take over the world, no conspiracy to destroy family values or anything just a bunch of people that deserve the same common respect you’d show to any other.
• Insulting or offending trans will not make it a legally permitted to assault IN retaliation. Nor is there any plausible way to codify this into any law so it's a straight out lie.
• Claim holds direct implication of threat of how “they” will use violence against “us” – Really? Current experience shows that transpeople are disproportionately targeted by violence (amount of transphobic crimes in UK quadrubled over 6 y - Link so the pronouns are they smallest concern for the community for now.

The problem is not the pronouns it is devaluation of the basic human rights and lack of respect that is shown in using wrong terms. Intentional use of a wrong pronoun is a symptom of the targeting and violence directed at the transcommunity where everyone (if they haven't been assaulted) know atleast some person who got beaten for who they are. Yes, it's the N-word equivelant.

The lies spread by bigots about the goals of the community "5 years" from now is one of the driving influences in the violence aimed at the folks.

Yes, this. Exactly this.

 

[varwoche]

In order to keep my job, I would cease using pronouns for all people trans and non-trans.

I have a solution. Put aside all distractions and brace yourself. This is super complicated...

they

 

[LondonJohn]

No One can accuse you of violence or bigotry if you just use their chosen name of a transgender person.

Yes, but..... the whole point is this: individuals who deliberately choose to misgender trans people - and who ignore/deride/mock requests to use those people's trans pronouns - are almost always acting out a performative denial of transgender identity. These individuals either a) will not understand transgender identity (and usually choose not to learn), or b) will actively oppose the concept of transgender identity and will be refusing to use preferred pronouns as part of their personal crusade against transgender identity and trans people.

What you wrote is tantamount to writing "No one can accuse a white person of violence or bigotry if he/she doesn't refer to black people as *******"....

 

[Hercules56]

I have a solution. Put aside all distractions and brace yourself. This is super complicated...

they

I refuse to refer to one person as "they". Its plural.

 

[LondonJohn]

Or just not be unpleasant, do your best and apologize when you get something wrong.

I occasionally have trans pupils come trough when I teach and if I slip up on their names/pronouns I say 'sorry' and try to remember to do better next time. The same as when I get two pupils that look alike (to me) mixed up.
What I do not do is treat them differently from anyone else.
So when I write their reports I use their preferred pronouns, the same as with every other pupil.

I know, it's hard to be polite and courteous, but I find that doing that is something that makes people accept the occasional slip up.

I fully agree with your attitude and your approach. It's common decency.

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

We all know how this end ends, right? A marginalized community gains a little traction, and suddenly you can't say the "N" word. The status quo does its best -- "Free speech," and "They use it with each other, but I can't use it?!". Society adjusts, its radius of compassion grows, and we shuffle to the next.

Gay people gain a little traction and suddenly we can't call them the "f" word with impunity. The status quo rails, "Gay marriage? What's next, people marrying dogs?!" Society adjusts and the radius grows.

It's interesting to be in the middle of this now. To see the arguments -- the paradox of tolerance, you can be too empathetic, free speech. Pronouns are onerous, "grooming," think of the children. Edge case = typical. Slippery slope. The status quo pushes back, gives it their best, and its pretty good. But it's never going to be good enough. In the end only determined bigots will cling to the arguments, they'll become footnotes in history books. At each step, we become a little more tolerant and a little more compassionate. Our humanity inches forward.

My modest prayer for the world is that the radius continues to grow. That it'll eventually encompass animals beyond our housepets, the entire biosphere, the world.

I'm a bleeding heart liberal, sue me.

 

[LondonJohn]

Preferred pronouns are the real snowflakery.

With very rare exceptions, people code as male or female to others. We have pronouns for that.

When I refer to a male as "he", I'm not referring to how he envisions himself inside his own head. I'm referring to how I envision him in my head. And how you envision him in your head. Even if you acquiesce to his preferred contra-sex-coded pronouns, you're still aware of how he actually codes. Otherwise, you wouldn't have to think about preferred versus actual pronouns. You'd just use the one that's already in your head, alongside your own sense of him as male.

Demanding that you dismiss your own sense of the world, and replace it with theirs, is an act of oppression. At this stage in the preferred pronoun debate, it's de facto gaslighting, an act of abuse. Trans rights activists have gotten the whole business of pronouns ass over teakettle. They're trying to colonize your mind with perceived realities that you know aren't true. And you're helping them do it.

So if you were to meet a cis woman who had strikingly male physical features (and there are plenty of such women around), and if you consequently "coded" that person "inside your head" as male.... would that give you the right to use he/him pronouns to refer to this person? Even if/when the person tried to correct you? Because of the way this person was "coded in your head"?