Fined for calling a Transgender person by the wrong pronoun

Mystery Egg

Mystery Egg wrote: »

This is, in itself, a strongly held belief, largely the product of neoliberal capitalism, and is both impossible and self-defeating. :pac:

Thing is, though, that a business more or less wouldn't be able to operate if they were to fulfill the wishes of every religion, personal, or ideological belief. So the other option is to cherrypick which ones you believe in, thus oppressing others, going for all of them, or just not allowing any of them to operate.

Outlaw Pete

In the UK last week schools were told not to refer to girls as 'girls' any longer. Or, heaven forbid.. 'young ladies'.

Don't calls girls 'girls' or 'young women' in case it offends pupils questioning their gender identity, schools are told

Teachers at Britain's leading girls' schools have been told not to call pupils 'girls' or 'young women' in case it offends any questioning their gender identity.

Head teachers belonging to the Girls' Schools Association were instructed to use gender-neutral words like 'pupils' or 'students' to avoid discrimination.

Caroline Jordan, President of the GSA and headmistress of £33,000-a-year Headington School in Oxfordshire, backed the advice saying it affects an increasing number of young people questioning their identity.

Children should be taught to respect other children's differences and perhaps even have a once a month class on gender identity in schools but to treat all children differently, expect them (and those around them) to adopt different ways of addressing each other, just because a tiny percentage of them might be having gender identity issues, is completely absurd.

Personally, I see all this as really being about control and people need to wake up to it. Certain minorities have the ear of society right now and they have quite a bit of power as a result. It's never been as politically incorrect not to be 100% right on all of the time as it is right now and they absolutely know it and are of course using it as leverage to manipulate society into behaving precisely how they want them to behave. Which would be fine if it was needed but much of it absolutely is not.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Thing is, though, that a business more or less wouldn't be able to operate if they were to fulfill the wishes of every religion, personal, or ideological belief. So the other option is to cherrypick which ones you believe in, thus oppressing others, going for all of them, or just not allowing any of them to operate.

Sure...but that in itself is an ideological belief!

So, you believe that your ideological belief is the 'neutral' one, and should be upheld. I am not saying I disagree. I am just pointing out that your belief is ideological by nature; secondly that it is a product of your neoliberal environment (driven by and for capitalism) and thirdly that there is nothing neutral about it. :pac:

selastich2

Ze smiled,” “I met zir,” “Zir bike” and “Ze is zirself.”




:pac: Is this a plan to have us all speaking dutch?

Zubeneschamali

Shield wrote: »

I'm just going by the heading, and the body of the article does say co-workers as well as employers. I take your point about it being Washington DC.

You were just going by the heading and jumping to the conclusion that it is political correctness gone mad. Like most examples of political correctness gone mad, it turns out to be nothing at all.

Employers must ensure that employees are not harassing other employees, or the employer may face a harassment lawsuit.

Just like an employer cannot allow male employees to sexually harass female ones, female ones to hrass male ones, male ones to hrass each other etc. etc.

There is, as I said, not one word about criminal anything or fines for employees.

Shield

This is very relevant.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Personally I see all this are really being about control and people need to wake up to it. Certain minorities have the ear of society right now and they have quite a bit of power as a result. It's never been as politically incorrect not to be 100% right on all of the time as it is right now and they absolutely know it and are of course using it as leverage to manipulate society into behaving precisely how they want them to behave.

I'm astonished by some of the replies on this thread indicating that those who follow their religious beliefs in the given scenario are nothing more than than dicks, pricks, and so on. I don't imagine we're going to hear from anyone who may have the religious beliefs I have described now that we can how they've already been pre-labelled with the unnecessary name-calling.

I have family members, friends, and colleagues who aren't on board with the transgender agenda, and I know some of those mentioned (in particular, the olders ones) would be wholly against using pronouns that do not match the biological sex of the person being discussed. The best way to alienate these people is start calling them names. It's not going to educate them. It's not going to open up their minds to new ideas or things they may not have considered. All it's going to do make them dig their heels in further, and solidify their already-hardened opinion.

And as I've seen here, if their opinions don't match those of some of the posters on this thread, they get called names.. just for having a different opinion.

Very disappointing.

Zubeneschamali

Shield wrote: »

I have family members, friends, and colleagues who aren't on board with the transgender agenda, and I know some of those mentioned (in particular, the olders ones) would be wholly against using pronouns that do not match the biological sex of the person being discussed. The best way to alienate these people is start calling them names.

Getting them fired might teach them manners.

Shield

Shield wrote: »

This is very relevant.


I'm astonished by some of the replies on this thread indicating that those who follow their religious beliefs in the given scenario are nothing more than than dicks, pricks, and so on. I don't imagine we're going to hear from anyone who may have the religious beliefs I have described now that we can how they've already been pre-labelled with the unnecessary name-calling.

I have family members, friends, and colleagues who aren't on board with the transgender agenda, and I know some of those mentioned (in particular, the olders ones) would be wholly against using pronouns that do not match the biological sex of the person being discussed. The best way to alienate these people is start calling them names. It's not going to educate them. It's not going to open up their minds to new ideas or things they may not have considered. All it's going to do make them dig their heels in further, and solidify their already-hardened opinion.

And as I've seen here, if their opinions don't match those of some of the posters on this thread, they get called names.. just for having a different opinion.

Very disappointing.

So you believe that a pharmacist should be allowed to not sell condoms or any contraceptive items because they might be Catholic? Or that a doctor can refuse to give a possible life saving abortion, because of their religious beliefs? Or a doctor/paramedic that happens to be a Jehova's Witness and refuses to give a blood transfusion?

The point I'm making is that you can't oppress or discriminate against people, just because you might belong to a specific ideology.

DEFTLEFTHAND

I hope you're not being serious with that post Zuben.

ohnonotgmail

Shield wrote: »

This is very relevant.


I'm astonished by some of the replies on this thread indicating that those who follow their religious beliefs in the given scenario are nothing more than than dicks, pricks, and so on. I don't imagine we're going to hear from anyone who may have the religious beliefs I have described now that we can how they've already been pre-labelled with the unnecessary name-calling.

I have family members, friends, and colleagues who aren't on board with the transgender agenda, and I know some of those mentioned (in particular, the olders ones) would be wholly against using pronouns that do not match the biological sex of the person being discussed. The best way to alienate these people is start calling them names. It's not going to educate them. It's not going to open up their minds to new ideas or things they may not have considered. All it's going to do make them dig their heels in further, and solidify their already-hardened opinion.

And as I've seen here, if their opinions don't match those of some of the posters on this thread, they get called names.. just for having a different opinion.

Very disappointing.

Or how about they just show some respect for other people? Is that not a central tenet of most religions?

Sleepy

Shield wrote: »

What happens when sincere religious beliefs clash with the wishes of a transgender person when it comes to referring to them be the pronouns matching their biological sex, as opposed to the pronouns they have requested to be used?

The same thing that happens when sincere racist beliefs clash with the wishes of a black person to be treated the same as a white person.

The same thing that happens when sincerely held misandrist / misogynistic beliefs clash with equality.

We tell them to **** off. In the modern western world, prejudice isn't acceptable no matter what it's foundation. It utterly amazes me that people can regard ridiculous beliefs or prejudices as being somehow acceptable or above reproach simply because a given number of people share it. Just how many people have to be involved in a group delusion before it's elevated to the status of a religion?

SEPT 23 1989

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

In the UK last week schools were told not to refer to girls as 'girls' any loner or, heaven forbid, 'young ladies'.



Children should be taught to respect other children's differences and perhaps even have a once a month class on gender identity in schools but to treat all children differently, expect them (and those around them) to adopt different ways of addressing each other, just because a tiny percentage of them might be having gender identity issues, is completely absurd.

Personally I see all this are really being about control and people need to wake up to it. Certain minorities have the ear of society right now and they have quite a bit of power as a result. It's never been as politically incorrect not to be 100% right on all of the time as it is right now and they absolutely know it and are of course using it as leverage to manipulate society into behaving precisely how they want them to behave. Which would be fine if it was needed but much of it absolutely is not.

Until I inform these headcases differently i want my son to be referred to as a boy and my daughter as a girl

ohnonotgmail

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

I hope you're not being serious with that post Zuben.

was a post deleted?

jmayo

Shield wrote: »

We spoke about this in the job a while ago, and now it seems to be happening in Washington.

Apparently, Washington State employees who call a transgender person by the wrong pronoun are now legally prohibited from doing so, and face a criminal record and fine for said transgression.

The point that we were discussing was whether a person's religious beliefs could be invoked as a defence for refusing to use the preferred pronouns of a transgender person? I'm not too sure if we'll see this being made a criminal offence over here any time soon, but it does raise the question - What happens when sincere religious beliefs clash with the wishes of a transgender person when it comes to referring to them be the pronouns matching their biological sex, as opposed to the pronouns they have requested to be used?

In such an impasse, does anyone out there have a viable solution that could work without causing offence to either community?

I am interested in your thoughts, as this is likely to be something we'll see in the future at some point.

Ahh that's what you get for a society and working environments where people say to the likes of customers "Good morning Sir how can I help you" or "have a nice day mam". :rolleyes:

It is getting to be a bloody minefield.
What if some guy is just a cross dresser and someone in the workplace doesn't know them from adam or mavis and is just following some company policy laid down by some joker in HR and calls the cross dresser Mam or Ms ?

Jayop wrote: »

Anyone purposely calling someone who identifies as a woman 'he' is being a dick and probably deserves to be fined for bullying in the workplace.

Where or when does the identification start ?
Is it when the person in question officially states it or when they first turn up dressed as a woman ?

Lyaiera

Shield wrote: »

God made the two, and God doesn't make mistakes, so the problem must be with the Transgender person supposing they are something that they really aren't, and can never be.

Something like that.

There's far more evidence that trans people are real than god is real.

Shield wrote: »

I have family members, friends, and colleagues who aren't on board with the transgender agenda, and I know some of those mentioned (in particular, the olders ones) would be wholly against using pronouns that do not match the biological sex of the person being discussed. The best way to alienate these people is start calling them names. It's not going to educate them.

Well, calling it an "agenda" isn't going to win them around either. Try calling it things like "science" or "law" or "medicine" much more solid terms.

Mystery Egg wrote: »

It is not just the devoutly religious who oppose transgender people by the way. I have come across far left views that hold it to be a gross indulgence, as well as radical feminism, which rejects the idea that a man can ever become a woman, no matter what surgical interventions take place.

That's a misrepresentation of the principles of radical feminism, although due to the diversity of opinion and application of the principles within radical feminism it's an easy mistake to make.

Radical feminism at it's core says that gender is a construct, created over millenia via oppression of women, and forcing them into a lessor role based on their sex. Gender is how someone is raised according to their sex at birth and people are raised into the role as a means of oppression, and the experience of oppression further pushes them into that gendered role (whether intentional or not doesn't really matter.)

Many early radfems roundly rejected transsexual people, and pretty much all the main, influential figures from the original popular rise of radical feminism worked hard against transsexual people. Some radfems still stick to that, others don't.

However as a broad rule radfems reject the umbrella category of transgender, which includes transsexual people, but which also includes genderfluid people, non-binary people, genderqueer people, some people who identify as entirely on one side of the binary and view themselves as "transgender," but not transsexual, in some cases crossdressers are included under transgender whether it be fetish/kink based crossdressing, emotional crossdressing, or crossdressing as a simple statement or fashion, and in even more broadly applied meanings of transgender drag queens, who are artists playing a character are included under the trangender umbrella. The problem a lot of radfems have with these cases isn't that these people exist, but that they reinforce an identity based the promotion of the real and natural existence of an intrinsic gender, and rather than viewing it as an expression of the self, it's an expression of a gender identity. And that's problematic because for radical feminism gender is a means of oppression, not an identity.

If someone is claiming their particular gender (genderqueer, non-binary) is a specific instance of a gender, it goes against radfem thought that gender is a means of oppression and a method of raising someone through oppression, and that person's reaction to oppression, because it validates gender as an identity rather than a cause of and reaction to oppression. The ultimate goal of radical feminists is that people are raised according to their abilities, and needs, and without construing aspects of their sex as defining them beyond pure functions of sex.

I've talked to a few radfems, read more radfem theory than I got from my talks, and I'm good friends with one radfem. Most of them have strong connections to the original popular rise of radical feminism. While they reject ideas of transgender as distinct identities, they view expression of what would be considered "gender variant traits" i.e. transgressing lines of gender expression and norms as something there would be more of if there was less policing of both sexes. So boys playing with dolls, and girls playing with trucks is perfectly normal for children, but this normality is rejected by raising children to fill certain rolls (and thus implementing the ideas of gender underlying oppression.)

These radfems are open to ideas behind people being transsexual. The idea being that it's not your gender that's the issue, it's your sex. And sex is real. They accept that these trans people have issues with their sex, and wish to change their sex. It's viewed as a medical issue, rather than an issue of identity, especially as science has been progressing and there's more evidence coming out for there being biological signs that highlight transsexualism, along a sex based axis. Although there is debate of whether there are at birth neurological sex based differences, some say there is, some say the instant application of gender to extremely young babies taints the tests done at early ages, and no result can ever be clear, and some say there is no neurological difference and any differences down the road are because of how someone is raised.

The problem with transgender people, transsexual people, and radical feminists interacting is partly historical, partly the complexity of theories at play, partly identity politics, partly sheer intolerance (from every side), and partly the refusal of pretty much every side to tone down their language and in some cases aggression. I've seen a radfem present the most calm, reasoned, dispassionate, toned and understanding case for radical feminist beliefs, and how they relate to transsexual people and transgender people in an understanding manner. She was hounded away, despite the fact that the transsexual people talking to her were literally the most understanding of what she was saying. The problem was that what she was presenting was a radical feminist idea, and it followed radical feminist logic, which unless you give it serious thought and consideration without prejudice it is very easy to see conclusions and arguments in the line of reasoning that don't exist at all, purely because that is how the interactions and arguments between transsexual people, transgender people and radical feminists is portrayed by the extremes, who tend to be the loudest and least tolerant of challenging ideas. Of course it also doesn't help that there's plenty of internet heroes who have absolutely no idea of the intricacies of any part of anyone's argument who will use some trans ideology one minute to bash feminism, and some radfem belief the next to bash trans people. These heroes goal is to be aggressive and antagonistic and nothing else. They don't believe in radfem theories, and they don't believe in trans theories, they just want to use them to cause trouble. They're angry, ignorant twerps basically.

Anyone my whole point of this is that saying radical feminism is inherently opposed to trans people is wrong, just as it's equally wrong wrong to say trans people are inherently opposed to radical feminist beliefs. The reality is some radfems reject transsexual people, but the idea that all radfems is based on decades old theory and belief. Equally it's wrong to say trans people view radfems as their natural enemy. Some do, many do, but not all.

There's obviously far, far more to the basic ideas I'm talking about here. And that's without even going into what I think (which is always evolving.) But I don't think I've ever seen a discussion of this type of stuff anywhere on boards, and anything I have seen is either so wide of the mark, or so reductivist that there's rarely a point in getting engaged. And generally, I don't think boards is even capable of having a discussion about this.

And mostly my point is that people bring these statements about radical feminists not believing/accepting transsexualism, without even a basic understanding of the actual ideas supporting radical feminism. And then the next week they'll be calling radical feminists the extremists that wants to destroy men. The problem with both of those cases is the same, radical feminists and transsexual people are being used.

ohnonotgmail

jmayo wrote: »

Ahh that's what you get for a society and working environments where people say to the likes of customers "Good morning Sir how can I help you" or "have a nice day mam". :rolleyes:

It is getting to be a bloody minefield.
What if some guy is just a cross dresser and someone in the workplace doesn't know them from adam or mavis and is just following some company policy laid down by some joker in HR and calls the cross dresser Mam or Ms ?




Where or when does the identification start ?
Is it when the person in question officially states it or when they first turn up dressed as a woman ?

this has already been clarified. If the person has already specified a gender then you use the appropriate pronoun or use a neutral pronoun. this is about deliberately using the incorrect pronoun because it upsets your sensibilities in some way.

osarusan

WTF? Clicking on 'go to first unread post' takes me to a thread in another forum about quitting smoking - same for anybody else?

ohnonotgmail

osarusan wrote: »

WTF? Clicking on 'go to first unread post' takes me to a thread in another forum about quitting smoking - same for anybody else?

definitely something funny going on with the thread. posts keep disappearing and then appearing again.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

They're still a dick. "It's my belief" isn't a get-out-of-jail card for being a prick.

What if you're a biological man but "it's your belief" that you're a she-goat named Clarissa?

Should you be referred-to as "she", or "it", be let graze on the rooftop garden, and piss all over your cubicle with impunity?

Eponymous

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

What if you're a biological man but "it's your belief" that you're a she-goat named Clarissa?

Should you be referred-to as "she", or "it", be let graze on the rooftop garden, and piss all over your cubicle with impunity?

Man??? Check your privilege!

HardenendMan

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

this has already been clarified. If the person has already specified a gender then you use the appropriate pronoun or use a neutral pronoun. this is about deliberately using the incorrect pronoun because it upsets your sensibilities in some way.

Beyond ridiculous. If someone corrected my use of a inappropriate pronoun I would not talk to them again. Talk about generation snowflake.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

HardenendMan wrote: »

Beyond ridiculous. If someone corrected my use of a inappropriate pronoun I would not talk to them again. Talk about generation snowflake.

A grown woman like you should know better

RWCNT

HardenendMan wrote: »

Beyond ridiculous. If someone corrected my use of a inappropriate pronoun I would not talk to them again. Talk about generation snowflake.

If anything you're the snowflake for deciding to not speak to someone again for correcting you on something like that. Not a very "hardenend" man at all.

ohnonotgmail

HardenendMan wrote: »

Beyond ridiculous. If someone corrected my use of a inappropriate pronoun I would not talk to them again. Talk about generation snowflake.

and that person would probably consider themselves very lucky.

Jayop

HardenendMan wrote: »

Beyond ridiculous. If someone corrected my use of a inappropriate pronoun I would not talk to them again. Talk about generation snowflake.

I made a post in the snowflake thread about the irony of people who use that term being lost on them. This is a perfect example.

HardenendMan

Jayop wrote: »

I made a post in the snowflake thread about the irony of people who use that term being lost on them. This is a perfect example.

The difference is that my "feelings" are not hurt. I wouldn't talk to them because I couldn't be bothered wasting the energy. They won't talk to me because they are delicate. A win win I guess.

Irish Guitarist

The term 'human rights' has lost all meaning.

Jayop

HardenendMan wrote: »

The difference is that my "feelings" are not hurt. I wouldn't talk to them because I couldn't be bothered wasting the energy. They won't talk to me because they are delicate. A win win I guess.

Delicate? You'd be deliberately insulting them. You don't think someone would be within their rights to be offended after being deliberately insulted?

Yeah I'm sure you not talking to them would be a win for them too.

Grayson

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

The term 'human rights' has lost all meaning.

How dare they apply human rights to humans.

Zubeneschamali

Grayson wrote: »

How dare they apply human rights to humans.

Those are the wrong humans!

HardenendMan

Jayop wrote: »

Delicate? You'd be deliberately insulting them. You don't think someone would be within their rights to be offended after being deliberately insulted?

Yeah I'm sure you not talking to them would be a win for them too.

Hang on, I never said I would do it deliberately. I have never seen a transgender person, I could get it wrong. But my point is that if they corrected me I would find it very annoying.

RWCNT

HardenendMan wrote: »

The difference is that my "feelings" are not hurt. I wouldn't talk to them because I couldn't be bothered wasting the energy. They won't talk to me because they are delicate. A win win I guess.

Who said anything about anyone's feelings being hurt? You simply said if someone corrected you for using the wrong pronoun you wouldn't speak to them again. I've ****ed up on pronouns when speaking to a trans person before, they corrected me but they were incredibly polite about it and didn't try to make me feel bad at all. Don't fall in to the trap of believing that everyone is some screeching offence merchant.

Grayson

HardenendMan wrote: »

Beyond ridiculous. If someone corrected my use of a inappropriate pronoun I would not talk to them again. Talk about generation snowflake.

Is that because you're a little girl? Not a hardenendman at all but a little girly. aww....

See, that's someone deliberately mistaking your gender. It's also making assumptions based on gender. If someone in work always refered to you as little girl, I'm pretty certain you'd be raising it with HR.

Call Me Jimmy

With this ze thing though, the person is (in some cases) "neither male nor female", what does that mean?

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

HardenendMan wrote: »

Hang on, I never said I would do it deliberately. I have never seen a transgender person, I could get it wrong. But my point is that if they corrected me I would find it very annoying.

Well the policy in question is about people doing it deliberately.

And OK, imagine your name is Sean, someone in work keeps calling you Tom, you correct them and they stop talking to you. Is your reading of that situation that your feelings were all hurt so you corrected them, they very reasonably got annoyed at that and couldn't be bothered talking to you? Because this is a similar situation

Grayson

HardenendMan wrote: »

Hang on, I never said I would do it deliberately. I have never seen a transgender person, I could get it wrong. But my point is that if they corrected me I would find it very annoying.

I have a female friend who looks quite like a guy. She once got chatted up by a gay guy who thought she was a guy. That night ended in tears.

If you were talking to her and you thought she was a guy, she corrected you and said she was female, you'd never talk to her again?

Strange because you'd imagine that she was the one would should normally feel offended. At the very least it shouldn't be offensive to you if she said "er sorry, I'm a girl".

Jayop

Grayson wrote: »

I have a female friend who looks quite like a guy. She once got chatted up by a gay guy who thought she was a guy. That night ended in tears.

If you were talking to her and you thought she was a guy, she corrected you and said she was female, you'd never talk to her again?

Strange because you'd imagine that she was the one would should normally feel offended. At the very least it shouldn't be offensive to you if she said "er sorry, I'm a girl".

Nah it can only be that she's a "snowflake" according to those who rage against political correctness.

Renegade Mechanic

Jayop wrote: »

Delicate? You'd be deliberately insulting them. You don't think someone would be within their rights to be offended after being deliberately insulted?

Yeah I'm sure you not talking to them would be a win for them too.

Ah here now. I could hardly go two hours in my last place of work without being called a baldy bastard. There was nothing I could do about being a baldy bastard, thanks to muh genetics.
What was I going to do, take the whole outfit to court????
I just gave it back in spades.


At some point, we're going to have to stop bending over backwards - because we're going to run out of spinal flex! - and start... you know.. toughening up. Just a little..

Jayop

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

Ah here now. I could hardly go two hours in my last place of work without being called a baldy bastard. What was I going to do, take the whole outfit to court? I just gave it back in spades.

At some point, we're going to have to stop bending over backwards - because we're going to run out of spinal flex! - and start... you know.. toughening up. Just a little..

There's a world of difference and you know it. That was "banter" especially if you were someone who could give it back. If it's a trans person who can equally engage in the bantz then I'm sure there would be no issue. In some cases though it would be deliberate bullying and that's a massive issue in a lot of work places.

Also, with respect to baldy bastards, you've not really been treated like ****, attacked, denied rights afforded to others, been seen as second class citizens, had forced chemical castrations or any of the other things that LGBT people have faced.

B.A._Baracus

ze?! seriously? :pac:
Hey look i'm all for equal rights and all that jazz but things are getting a bit much in recent times. There is so much talk about sexuality and it's bloody stupid :pac: That person is non-binary, gender-netural, asexual, homesexual, bisexual etc.
Who cares live your own life.

Jayop

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

ze?! seriously? :pac:
Hey look i'm all for equal rights and all that jazz but things are getting a bit much in recent times. There is so much talk about sexuality and it's bloody stupid :pac: That person is non-binary, gender-netural, asexual, homesexual, bisexual etc.

But the whole thing is there would be no talk at all about it if people would just live and let live. This wouldn't be a story if it wasn't for people going out of their way to deliberately be obtuse.

Lyaiera

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

Ah here now. I could hardly go two hours in my last place of work without being called a baldy bastard. There was nothing I could do about being a baldy bastard, thanks to muh genetics.
What was I going to do, take the whole outfit to court????
I just gave it back in spades.

#madbantz

orubiru

The chart includes example phrases using the gender-neutral pronoun, such as “Ze smiled,” “I met zir,” “Zir bike” and “Ze is zirself.”

I'm not sure I really understand this part. Surely you would only be using these pronouns if you were talking about someone when they aren't there?

I can't really think of a time when someone has been talking to me directly and has used "he" or "him" instead of "you". Maybe if the person didn't speak English fluently then OK but it would be a bit unusual to me if someone said "Hi Orubiru, did he watch the match last night?" What? Or "Hi Oribiru, would he like to go for a pint after work". What?

So realistically you'd only be using "he/she/ze" or "him/her/zir" when talking about someone, not when talking to them. Ha "them", see what I did there?

Wouldn't the pronoun choices be he, she and they? Or him, her and them?

Who is going to insist that other people use Ze or Zir or whatever, instead of the already gender neutral "they" or "them", when other people are talking about THEM?

Shield

Going back to my OP, I recall Pope Benedict speaking about transgender issues some years ago, and he was quite clear in his message to the faithful.

Observing this teaching, if a devout Catholic refuses to acknowledge a transgender person as being the gender the person in question identifies with (and, by extension, refuses to use the preferred pronouns), to what degree could this then be considered bullying even though there is no intent to cause distress or offence?

Lyaiera

Shield wrote: »

Going back to my OP, I recall Pope Benedict speaking about transgender issues some years ago, and he was quite clear in his message to the faithful.

Observing this teaching, if a devout Catholic refuses to acknowledge a transgender person as being the gender the person in question identifies with (and, by extension, refuses to use the preferred pronouns), to what degree could this then be considered bullying even though there is no intent to cause distress or offence?

The only following orders defense didn't work for the Nazis.

Zubeneschamali

Shield wrote: »

Going back to my OP, I recall Pope Benedict speaking about transgender issues some years ago, and he was quite clear in his message to the faithful.

He was indeed: Catholics are called to treat all—including all within the LGBT community—with compassion.

He went on to tell Catholics not to transition, that it is wrong, but he did not instruct catholics, when they meet a trans person, to be a dick about it.

Its dead Jim

And some men think that women should be at home minding children and not at work. They are free to think that but should be expected to work with them or leave.

If you are working with the public you should speak to them in a respectful manner. If you are unable to speak to people in such a manner then you and incapable of doing the job.

davedanon

Shield wrote: »

We spoke about this in the job a while ago, and now it seems to be happening in Washington.

Apparently, Washington State employees who call a transgender person by the wrong pronoun are now legally prohibited from doing so, and face a criminal record and fine for said transgression.

The point that we were discussing was whether a person's religious beliefs could be invoked as a defence for refusing to use the preferred pronouns of a transgender person? I'm not too sure if we'll see this being made a criminal offence over here any time soon, but it does raise the question - What happens when sincere religious beliefs clash with the wishes of a transgender person when it comes to referring to them be the pronouns matching their biological sex, as opposed to the pronouns they have requested to be used?

In such an impasse, does anyone out there have a viable solution that could work without causing offence to either community?

I am interested in your thoughts, as this is likely to be something we'll see in the future at some point.

Why does the 'sincerity' of the views matter? If they were insincere, would that invalidate them?

Can I be openly racist as long as I profess to hold those views sincerely?

Renegade Mechanic

Jayop wrote: »

There's a world of difference and you know it. That was "banter" especially if you were someone who could give it back. If it's a trans person who can equally engage in the bantz then I'm sure there would be no issue. In some cases though it would be deliberate bullying and that's a massive issue in a lot of work places.

Also, with respect to baldy bastards, you've not really been treated like ****, attacked, denied rights afforded to others, been seen as second class citizens, had forced chemical castrations or any of the other things that LGBT people have faced.

This baldy bastard has. Quite often. Minus the forced castrations however, I'll grant you, which isn't exactly a pressing issue in this country anyway.

Furthermore this baldy bastard knows other similarly follicularly challenged folk born outside of wedlock that make my life look like a total walk in the park. If they can get through life without demanding any concessions from people, so can you. So can anyone!

What's the worst that can happen? Someone beats you up? The odds of gay/trans being murdered in this country specifically for being just that aren't an incredible amount higher than other people.
I've lost count of the times I had my head kicked in. Be grand

Noodleworm

Entirely depends on context.
Accidentally sipping up pronoun. No, that's normal.

But if you are actively refusing to use the correct pronoun and repeatedly using it to make a point, only calling them by their old name. You are essentially just bullying and humiliating your colleague. And should be treated appropriately.