Moderated Using wrong pronouns= violence??

[Emily's Cat]

How about we ask a complementary question.

In what situations would it be acceptable for a person to ignore another person's pronoun preference, and to use sex-based descriptors?

 

[TragicMonkey]

How about we ask a complementary question.

In what situations would it be acceptable for a person to ignore another person's pronoun preference, and to use sex-based descriptors?

Their autopsy.

 

[d4m10n]

If you consistently refer to a colleague as 'Jew' as in "Good morning, Jew. Here are those reports you asked for, Jew" i'm going to be fantastically unimpressed by the idea that you cannot be harrassing him if he is, in fact, Jewish.

I'm endlessly tickled that people who would outright reject claims of transracialism keep bringing up race as an analogy here. A better analogy might be a teacher or professor who refuses to acknowledge a racial identity which wasn't assigned at birth.

 

[TragicMonkey]

They don't need to investigate or demand any evidence when they already know sex at at birth

No, they don't. What the teacher knows is that X is their student and goes by "she". Nothing further is known. What is guessed or assumed doesn't matter because

and are being asked to participate in the process of social transition

they are not "being asked to" do anything other than engage in the common courtesy of taking someone's stated preference for being addressed into account. Again, they aren't the Sex Pope issuing official edicts to declare X is a particular sex. All that's being asked is to not argue with X on a matter which is none of anybody's else's business anyway.

This is all true, but it doesn't tell us why teachers ought to be compelled to help their students change sex.

If you believe telling someone they use a particular pronoun is the same as "compelling them to help them change sex" then you clearly believe, ancient Egyptian style, in the magical powers of words. In which case you really ought to be on the side of "words = violence"; if I can change your sex by uttering a syllable then imagine what else my powers can do!

And yet you want them to be required (by law or policy) to aid in the process of transition from female to male, or vice-versa.

Again, no. I want people to mind their own business and exercise the very basic and reasonable courtesy of not challenging people on what sex they are.

It's only a battle is you assume someone has to prevail, as you clearly do.

You're the one who said "two sets of stated preferences come into conflict". I think the stated preference of a person to be referred to by a particular pronoun is the only preference that matters, as it is basic courtesy. If a professor for some reason feels called upon to act as Champion of Sexual Truth and challenge them, well, I have zero regard for that sort of unprofessional, rude, and quite possibly literally insane point of view. "I think my student, Shelly, has or had a penis at some point!" is an idea they can keep to themselves, or gossip with to someone else. It's certainly not appropriate, acceptable, or welcome for them to express that to Shelly or her classmates and start a fight about it.

 

[Shalamar]

Their autopsy.

Medical Situations.

 

[mumblethrax]

I'm endlessly tickled that people who would outright reject claims of transracialism keep bringing up race as an analogy here.

'Jewish' isn't a race, and you can in fact be 'trans-Jewish' (convert to Judaism). I also didn't present it as an analogy but as an example of a case where saying something true can constitute harassment, which you have notably failed to deal with at all.

 

[d4m10n]

I also didn't present it as an analogy but as an example of a case where saying something true can constitute harassment, which you have notably failed to deal with at all.

Someone keeps pointing out someone else's religion in a situation where that is clearly irrelevant and inappropriate, and you think that tells us something about people who use pronouns to denote sex rather than gender. Okay.

 

[d4m10n]

All that's being asked is to not argue with X on a matter which is none of anybody's else's business anyway.

Using the pronouns which one used at the beginning of the school year isn't making an argument, it is (merely?) a failure to comply with a policy of performing social transition while at school.

If you believe telling someone they use a particular pronoun is the same as "compelling them to help them change sex" then you clearly believe, ancient Egyptian style, in the magical powers of words.

If you believe the teacher from post #1 ought to have been sacked, then you believe she failed in some duty. If not aiding the process of transition, then what?

I want people to mind their own business and exercise the very basic and reasonable courtesy of not challenging people on what sex they are.

Using pronouns which match a student's actual sex is not challenging that student on what sex they are. If anything, it is acknowledging something true which might be difficult to face.

"I think my student, Shelly, has or had a penis at some point!" is an idea they can keep to themselves, or gossip with to someone else. It's certainly not appropriate, acceptable, or welcome for them to express that to Shelly or her classmates and start a fight about it.

Read the first post; it clearly wasn't about guessing someone's original sex but rather failing to affirm their preferred sex.

 

[mumblethrax]

Someone keeps pointing out someone else's religion in a situation where that is clearly irrelevant and inappropriate, and you think that tells us something about people who use pronouns to denote sex rather than gender. Okay.

What makes it inappropriate? Don't rely on lawyerly words like 'clearly' when answering this.

Someone's sex is irrelevant in basically every case where we refer to them with pronouns, and we know this because there are languages where they don't have gendered pronouns at all. We use gendered pronouns because it's a grammatical necessity, and for no other reason (even if it incidentally communicates information). In general, it works the other way around--someone is presented to me as a woman, I refer to them with she and her. I'm not trying to communicate anything, just punching the clock grammatically.

 

[d4m10n]

What makes it inappropriate?

The way you phrased your hypothetical seemed clearly and obviously anti-Semitic. Was that not your intent?

 

[mumblethrax]

The way you phrased your hypothetical seemed clearly and obviously anti-Semitic. Was that not your intent?

That's not what I asked you. What makes it inappropriate, or, if you prefer, what makes it anti-Semitic?

And I did ask you not to use words like 'clearly' and 'obviously'.

 

[d4m10n]

And I did ask you not to use words like 'clearly' and 'obviously'.

Do you have some authority over how I phrase my answers beyond the usual recourse to the mods for infractions?

What makes it inappropriate, or, if you prefer, what makes it anti-Semitic?

Do we actually disagree about whether it was phrased in a way to convey anti-Semitism? If so, then I will make the argument. If not, I don't see why I should.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Using the pronouns which one used at the beginning of the school year isn't making an argument, it is (merely?) a failure to comply with a policy of performing social transition while at school.

If you believe the teacher from post #1 ought to have been sacked, then you believe she failed in some duty. If not aiding the process of transition, then what?

Again, basic courtesy is to not challenge someone's stated sex. Even if they made a different statement earlier. Because -- this will amaze you -- it's not anyone's place to launch and win an argument over someone else's pronouns. " 'She', you said? Aha! On October 11, 2019 you said 'he'! CONTRADICTION!! I WIN!!!!" It's not a game, it's not a legal fight in court, it's not an argument on a messageboard. You don't score points by quoting a past post. Basic courtesy doesn't require being right. Not scientifically, not legally, not philosophically.

The duty of the teacher includes professionalism, which requires basic courtesy. Most jobs do.

Using pronouns which match a student's actual sex is not challenging that student on what sex they are. If anything, it is acknowledging something true which might be difficult to face.

Mortality is difficult to face. It's not your place to run around the nursing home telling the residents "you're going to DIE!" Restraining yourself from pointing out to them that they're going to die isn't committing an offence against holy truth, it's not participating in a delusion of immortality, it's not conspiring to deceive anybody into thinking death won't occur.

Read the first post; it clearly wasn't about guessing someone's original sex but rather failing to affirm their preferred sex.

A failing in basic courtesy. "I'm rude but I have good reasons! Philosophical ones, about immutability of particular collections of molecules which I find significant!" I don't fancy their chances in a wrongful dismissal suit. "I genuinely believe a particular thing, therefore I must be rude to people!" isn't a defence against dismissal when your job requires courtesy.

 

[mumblethrax]

Do you have some authority over how I phrase my answers beyond the usual recourse to the mods for infractions?

No, I'm asking you not to use manipulative words as a matter of intellectual integrity.

Feel free not to if you have no interest in being honest.

Do we actually disagree about whether it was phrased in a way to convey anti-Semitism? If so, then I will make the argument. If not, I don't see why I should.

Because you will go into the finest, most ridiculous detail about pronouns, but you won't even venture an answer here. That should maybe concern you a little. How do you know you're not doing something as bad as anti-Semitic harassment if you won't even examine what constitutes anti-Semitic harassment?

 

[lobosrul5]

It depends a whole lot on the situation and the person. If I perceive Alex to be female, based on the wealth of visual indicators available to me... but it's obvious that they're trying really, really, really hard to pass as male, I'm probably going to be courteous when I'm interacting with them or with someone close to them. If they're being a pushy prat about it, I'm a lot less inclined to be courteous - I don't respond well to being forced to be "nice" to someone who is not being nice in the first place. Reciprocity is a valuable element of human interaction when it comes to respect, courtesy, and politeness.

On the other hand... I genuinely have no qualms at all referring to Elliot Page as "she". I don't know them personally, I'm not interacting with people who know them, and I'm a nobody to them. The fact that I - a complete stranger - do not perceive her as male should not have any impact on her at all.

At the end of the day, some people's behavior does not incentivize me to make special accommodations for them.




I recall once that this happened, but I wasn't overly embarrassed. Since I was very young, it's been hammered into my head that you don't talk about people when they're present.

Thanks for being honest. If you had answered that you were genuinely offended or hurt to call someone the opposite pronoun that you perceived them to be, I'd have to question your sincerity. It'd be a totally alien concept to me, just as transgenderism is actually. But I have to accept that someone MIGHT be deeply offended by being misgendered and it costs me nothing to be polite.

I agree 100% that there has to be reciprocity with politeness. If someone demanded you call them "she" and referred to you as a breeder bitch or some such, I'd have absolutely no sympathy for them.

Not sure what Elliot Page has to do with anything. Being polite or not to someone you aren't interacting with is pretty much meaningless. I think in the context of this thread, we're discussing people with whom you interact with.

 

[d4m10n]

No, I'm asking you not to use manipulative words as a matter of intellectual integrity.

When I say "clearly" I mean to imply that we both look at your hypothetical and can immediately see that antisemitism is in play, with all its murderous historical baggage and implications. Am I wrong to conclude that you've deliberately loaded your hypothetical in this way? Am I seeing something which you did not actually intend your readers to see? As a matter of your own intellectual integrity, can you just tell us whether you meant to invoke the specter of antisemitism?

If yes, do you think that doing so might count as using manipulative language?

If not, well, then I'll happily make the counterargument.

 

[mumblethrax]

When I say "clearly" I mean to imply that we both look at your hypothetical and can immediately see that antisemitism is in play, with all its murderous historical baggage and implications. Am I wrong to conclude that you've deliberately loaded your hypothetical in this way? Am I seeing something which you did not actually intend your readers to see? As a matter of your own intellectual integrity, can you just tell us whether you meant to invoke the specter of antisemitism?

Of course I meant to. The palpable wrongness of saying something that happens to be true is the point. I'm asking you what makes this behavior wrong, which isn't clear, given that the defense of misgendering people has generally been "It's true that they're male/female". Why should my free speech be curtailed here?

If yes, do you think that doing so might count as using manipulative language?

No.

If not, well, then I'll happily make the counterargument.

Go ahead.

 

[d4m10n]

Of course I meant to. I'm asking you what makes this behavior wrong.

To be clear, you seem to be asking me why it is wrong to (subtly) promote the idea that Jews are nefarious and ought to be kept apart from proper Christian or Muslim folk. I do have an answer for this, but it relies on a certain amount of background knowledge about the history of Jewish people in Europe and/or the Middle East.

Why should my free speech be curtailed here?

A briefer answer would be that there is no need to bring up someone's religion at work, unless they happen to be the base chaplain.

 

[mumblethrax]

To be clear, you seem to be asking me why it is wrong to (subtly) promote the idea that Jews are nefarious and ought to be kept apart from proper Christian or Muslim folk. I do have an answer for this, but it relies on a certain amount of background knowledge about the history of Jewish people in Europe and/or the Middle East.

Well, I have a certain amount of background knowledge about how people have used misgendering to single out and discriminate against trans people throughout history. Does that mean my job is done?

A briefer answer would be that there is no need to bring up someone's religion at work, unless they happen to be the base chaplain.

So if I ask a co-worker "You're Jewish, right? Can I ask you a question about Sukkot?" I'm guilty of harassment? There's no need to do a lot of ****. That's a terrible basis on which to limit speech.

And if this is the case, isn't bringing up someone's sex (by using pronouns you imagine refer to sex) also strictly unnecessary?

 

[LondonJohn]

To be clear, you seem to be asking me why it is wrong to (subtly) promote the idea that Jews are nefarious and ought to be kept apart from proper Christian or Muslim folk. I do have an answer for this, but it relies on a certain amount of background knowledge about the history of Jewish people in Europe and/or the Middle East.

Since you continue to appear not to understand the point here (whether through pretence or genuine ignorance), why don't we switch horses at this point to something with less opportunity for ducking and weaving:

Imagine that Bob's co-worker Tony is a cosplayer most weekends. Now, that's a perfectly reasonable and inoffensive (if unusual, statistically) pastime - I think most people would agree.

But Bob has just found out about Tony's cosplaying pastime in a chance conversation while waiting at the coffee machine. Bob finds cosplaying to be both amusing and sad. Bob starts using the "cosplayer" appellation universally to refer to Tony: "Could you pass the stapler, cosplayer?" "See if cosplayer wants to come down for lunch" "Have you met our cosplayer? Cosplayer, this is Janice from Accounts."

Are you saying that you can't conceive of how Tony might be at least irritated, and at most offended & hurt, by Bob's behaviour towards him in this respect?