Oxford Students Encouraged to Now Use "Ze" Instead of "He or She" To Avoid Offen

20Cent

SterlingArcher wrote: »

Evidence? He expressed his own personal experience? Where is your evidence on it not being so?

"Feelings" aren't evidence.
If this "madness" is happening in Irish universities then there would surely be some stories about it.

pumpkin4life

20Cent wrote: »

"Feelings" aren't evidence.
If this "madness" is happening in Irish universities then there would surely be some stories about it.

Consent classes in Trinners.

Fabricated stories on Ag Science lads being made out to be a bunch of rapists in UCD.

Christian societies on campus being shut down for being discriminatory.

UCD students trying to ban Milo from speaking at UCD.

Four stories off the top of my head. Want more centie?

SterlingArcher

RayCun wrote: »

That seems pretty clear. He is not in trouble now. He may be in trouble in future if he does what he says he plans to do, but he is not yet.

What exactly is the point you are making? People are questioning the rationale. And you are essentially saying. Relax Shut up they are only making moves towards it. We are not there yet?

RayCun

pumpkin4life wrote: »

Consent classes in Trinners.

Fabricated stories on Ag Science lads being made out to be a bunch of rapists in UCD.

Christian societies on campus being shut down for being discriminatory.

UCD students trying to ban Milo from speaking at UCD.

What do any of these have to do with transexual identity?

pumpkin4life

RayCun wrote: »

What do any of these have to do with transexual identity?

Was talking more about this flat out retarded SJW ****. But if you want a transsexual identity one:

http://www.thejournal.ie/gender-neutral-bathroom-nuig-2850821-Jun2016/

Pac1Man

Can't get the heat into me at all today hai.

HensVassal

Richard Hillman wrote: »

I actually do think there should be a neutral pronoun created. I hate having to say he/she when using a hypothetical example.

These are doing it for the wrong reasons

What's whrong with "they" when gender is indeterminate?

pumpkin4life

Mods: Am I allowed post on why I disagree with transsexualism?

RayCun

SterlingArcher wrote: »

What exactly is the point you are making? People are questioning the rationale. And you are essentially saying. Relax Shut up they are only making moves towards it. We are not there yet?

My point is the level of exaggeration on show is reaching "war on christmas" levels.

Canada is making it illegal to discriminate against transgendered people (along with the other people it is illegal to discriminate against).
Is that a bad thing? Do you think it should be legal to discriminate against transgendered people?

One way in which it could be possible to express that discrimination is to use the wrong pronoun to refer to someone. That doesn't mean using the wrong pronoun is always illegal, but that it could be illegal, depending on the circumstances.

For example, if you were talking about a male-to-female transgendered person, and said "he was born a he, so I'm going to keep calling him he, and if he doesn't like it he can bugger off". The intent is clearly discriminatory.

If you have a student who asks to be referred to as "ze" and you say, "No, I'm going to keep referring to you as "he", so tough luck", that is going to be a problem. Just as it would be if you kept using "coloured", or "boy", or "******" to refer to people who have said they don't like that word.

If you don't like the word "ze" so you use "they" instead, that's not going to cause any problems.

SterlingArcher

HensVassal wrote: »

What's whrong with "they" when gender is indeterminate?

Nothing really. But I guess one could argue "they" implies two people.

Ok silly example but hell what the hey.

burning building " quick Mr fireman they are still trapped in there"

Firman looksfor two finds "they" where is the other person . "They" I don't know" fireman continues looking for the other person. ..

Special Circumstances

RayCun wrote: »

Try restating.
In a form that makes sense.

Poor quality posting zhir, poor quality posting.

RayCun

pumpkin4life wrote: »

Was talking more about this flat out retarded SJW ****. But if you want a transsexual identity one:

http://www.thejournal.ie/gender-neutral-bathroom-nuig-2850821-Jun2016/

And this is a problem for you because...?

You aren't able to use toilets that don't say "FOR MEN ONLY" on the outside?

Or is it just that you go looking for things to be offended by?

The Wolverine

RayCun wrote: »

They say that they support his right to freedom of expression, and his right to criticise the law and university policies, but they also expect him to uphold the law.
If, in future, a student asks to be addressed as "ze" and he doesn't, then he could be in trouble


That seems pretty clear. He is not in trouble now. He may be in trouble in future if he does what he says he plans to do, but he is not yet.

So in other words it's ok cause he's not in trouble this minute for not using a nut case term but it will be fine if it's made into a law

RayCun

The Wolverine wrote: »

So in other words it's ok cause he's not in trouble this minute for not using a nut case term but it will be fine if it's made into a law

So in other words, despite all the people running around like the SJWs have just set their hair on fire, nobody has gotten into trouble for not using the word "ze".

The Wolverine

RayCun wrote: »

My point is the level of exaggeration on show is reaching "war on christmas" levels.

Canada is making it illegal to discriminate against transgendered people (along with the other people it is illegal to discriminate against).
Is that a bad thing? Do you think it should be legal to discriminate against transgendered people?

One way in which it could be possible to express that discrimination is to use the wrong pronoun to refer to someone. That doesn't mean using the wrong pronoun is always illegal, but that it could be illegal, depending on the circumstances.

For example, if you were talking about a male-to-female transgendered person, and said "he was born a he, so I'm going to keep calling him he, and if he doesn't like it he can bugger off". The intent is clearly discriminatory.

If you have a student who asks to be referred to as "ze" and you say, "No, I'm going to keep referring to you as "he", so tough luck", that is going to be a problem. Just as it would be if you kept using "coloured", or "boy", or "******" to refer to people who have said they don't like that word.

If you don't like the word "ze" so you use "they" instead, that's not going to cause any problems.

So hold on if a person now wants to be referred to as ze and people disagree it's the same as agreeing with calling a black person a ****** and it needs to be punished by law?

You are genuinely unwell, seriously I won't bother even replying to anymore of your posts your just nuts.

osarusan

SterlingArcher wrote: »

burning building " quick Mr fireman they are still trapped in there"

Firman looksfor two finds "they" where is the other person . "They" I don't know" fireman continues looking for the other person. ..

If it was one person, but we didn't know whether they were male or female, that's exactly what we'd say anyway.

'They' would work just fine, and I think people would be far more likely to use it than a made-up word, and it would attract much less derision than a made-up word.

RayCun

The Wolverine wrote: »

So hold on if a person now wants to be referred to as ze and people disagree it's the same as agreeing with calling a black person a ****** and it needs to be punished by law?

No, if a person asks not to be referred to using a particular word, and you say "I don't care what you think, I will decide which words to use to refer to you", chances are you're being a prick. And sometimes being a prick has legal consequences.

If you decide that you don't like "ze" but use a different gender-neutral word instead, there's no problem.

robindch

The Wolverine wrote: »

So oxford student union wants students to stop using the words he or she and instead use ze as a gender neutral term to avoid offence, they even want it to make its way to lectures eventually

What the actual **** goes on in these people's heads?

Students Union in "Let's Annoy Conservatives" Shocker!

Dravokivich

Grayson wrote: »

or in one case mentally ill (every single one of you that clicked like on that comment should be disgusted with yourselves).

Are people here being a bit quick to jump the gun? The Analyst stated they had been suffering anxiety issues. Is that not a mental health issue? Could it not be that the other guy who got banned was not challenging them that we shouldn't all have to skirt around something, because a few fools choose to insult them and they found it difficult to deal with due to the apparent regularity of it.

I genuinely don't know whether or not that was the case and there is no opportunity to discuss it with him on a discussion forum of all places because he was banned. It was my assumption on his comment and I'd take it that went for those who thanked his post too.

dav3

pumpkin4life wrote: »

I'm only out of the university system a couple of years and this kind of madness is happening in Irish campuses. It's gotten worse since then.

How about getting on with your life and not worrying your little head over what's happening in campuses around Ireland. Nobody gives a ****.

wes

I don't see the issue with people wanting to be called by there preferred pro-noun. It does me no harm, and if it makes someone feel more comfortable, then I see no reason not to do if asked.

Seems to me, that some people want to get offended by minor things.

SterlingArcher

RayCun wrote: »

No, if a person asks not to be referred to using a particular word, and you say "I don't care what you think, I will decide which words to use to refer to you", chances are you're being a prick. And sometimes being a prick has legal consequences.

If you decide that you don't like "ze" but use a different gender-neutral word instead, there's no problem.

Ah so you are for making it illegal.

Who says there's no problem? what if they want you to call them a night crawler. And don't accept they or the neutral. And get irate.

you think that makes you any less a prick?

valoren

If you're going to create something like that then why not just call it e

He/She/e

That it's 'ze' that is being considered here will no doubt provoke anguish that the letter z was used.
The implication being that z is the last letter of the alphabet and this indicates that trans people are seen as an afterthought, not a priority. Or some other such bull****.

SterlingArcher

dav3 wrote: »

How about getting on with your life and not worrying your little head over what's happening in campuses around Ireland. Nobody gives a ****.

If nobody gives a **** why are you posting here. Shouldn't you be busy not giving a ****.

pumpkin4life

RayCun wrote: »

No, if a person asks not to be referred to using a particular word, and you say "I don't care what you think, I will decide which words to use to refer to you", chances are you're being a prick. And sometimes being a prick has legal consequences.

If you decide that you don't like "ze" but use a different gender-neutral word instead, there's no problem.

I demand to be called a ****ing gas man cùnt and if you don't call me a fùcking gas man cùnt then I'm going to sue your ass.

pumpkin4life

dav3 wrote: »

How about getting on with your life and not worrying your little head over what's happening in campuses around Ireland. Nobody gives a ****.

dav3

SterlingArcher wrote: »

If nobody gives a **** why are you posting here. Shouldn't you be busy not giving a ****.

And let the hysterical daily mail readers have all the fun? Where's the entertainment in that?

Why don't you tell us all again how outraged you are.

SterlingArcher

dav3 wrote: »

And let the hysterical daily mail readers have all the fun? Where's the entertainment in that?

Why don't you tell us all again how outraged you are.

What ever made you think I'm outraged?

I don't read the daily mail. Perhaps you should go there on the comments section. Get right to the source of your entertainment.

Special Circumstances

RayCun wrote: »

sometimes being a prick has legal consequences.

I thought you said there wasn't, isn't and won't ever be consequences?

When it suited you of course.

Jimoslimos

I'm in favour of scrapping gender-specific pronouns and replacing them with sex-specific ones instead.

Say for example
XX pronounced she/her
XY pronounced he/his

RayCun

pumpkin4life wrote: »

I demand to be called a ****ing gas man cùnt and if you don't call me a fùcking gas man cùnt then I'm going to sue your ass.

Sue away, see how far you get

Special Circumstances

On that note, is it

Zee like zee zee top?

Ze like in "zetor is better"

Zay like tay?

Or are regional variations in keeping with local accents acceptable?

Does zay like tay does zay?

Special Circumstances

RayCun wrote: »

Sue away, see how far you get

And why isn't pumpkin special enough for you to acknowledge his preferred for of address?

Where do you draw the line?

RayCun

Special Circumstances wrote: »

I thought you said there wasn't, isn't and won't ever be consequences?

No, I said that nobody has gotten into trouble for refusing to say "ze". And I was right.
won't ever be...?

SterlingArcher wrote: »

Ah so you are for making it illegal.

I'm not in favour of making the use of the word "ze" mandatory.

I am in favour of the law recognising that, sometimes, the words you use to refer to people can be discriminatory. "Paddy", "******", "******" - all words that in some circumstances can and should get you into trouble.

In none of those cases is there a particular word that you must use instead, and there isn't in this case either. But if you deliberately cause offence to people, sometimes you'll face legal consequences.

SterlingArcher

Special Circumstances wrote: »

And why isn't pumpkin special enough for you to acknowledge his preferred for of address?

Where do you draw the line?

Ha two steps forward....

RayCun

Special Circumstances wrote: »

And why isn't pumpkin special enough for you to acknowledge his preferred for of address?

Where do you draw the line?

The law doesn't say that people have to be addressed by their chosen form of address. There is no positive obligation to use a particular form of words.

If I'm his teacher and I keep referring to him as "that stupid fat wanker", guess what will happen?

SterlingArcher

RayCun wrote: »

No, I said that nobody has gotten into trouble for refusing to say "ze". And I was right.
won't ever be...?



I'm not in favour of making the use of the word "ze" mandatory.

I am in favour of the law recognising that, sometimes, the words you use to refer to people can be discriminatory. "Paddy", "******", "******" - all words that in some circumstances can and should get you into trouble.

In none of those cases is there a particular word that you must use instead, and there isn't in this case either. But if you deliberately cause offence to people, sometimes you'll face legal consequences.

Ah so you just want to make offending people a crime. Cool cool. Thats not hysterical at all.

RayCun

SterlingArcher wrote: »

Ah so you just want to make offending people a crime. Cool cool. Thats not hysterical at all.

Discrimination is already a crime.

SterlingArcher

RayCun wrote: »

Discrimination is already a crime.

But you just said no legal action has been taking for not using ze. And nobodys in trouble. So no need to worry.

RayCun

SterlingArcher wrote: »

But you just said no legal action has been taking for not using ze.

Which is absolutely correct

SterlingArcher wrote: »

And nobodys in trouble.

Which is also absolutely correct!

SterlingArcher wrote: »

So no need to worry.

and no need to worry that you will be forced to use the word "ze", because you won't be.

Are you the kind of arse that will discriminate against trans people, perhaps by deliberately using gendered words that don't apply to them? Then maybe you should be worried that you will no longer be able to get away with **** behaviour. People who aren't arses have no need to worry.

Special Circumstances

RayCun wrote: »

The law doesn't say that people have to be addressed by their chosen form of address. There is no positive obligation to use a particular form of words.

It was "only a suggestion" while ago, and we were all far too precious for worrying that it might become part of law.

Now even you're referring to it as law and saying there could be consequences for not abiding by this law?

There really is a month python buzz to this makey uppy stuff. Is the ze thing going to be set in stone or will it be a matter of fashion what we should use as the simulaneous none and all gender this spring?

"Oh knights who say Zee we have brought you your shrubbery, have you been appeased"

"We are no longer the Knights who say Zee we are now the Knights who say quee and we shall not be appeased until you cut down a tree with a herring"

Special Circumstances

SterlingArcher wrote: »

But you just said no legal action has been taking for not using ze. And nobodys in trouble. So no need to worry.

Apparently carbon based life forms (apologies if I have made anyone here feel excluded) can pick and choose which anti-discrimination rules and regulations zay choose to follow without fear of being marginalised within your profession etc.

If you believe raycun at least.

RayCun

Special Circumstances wrote: »

It was "only a suggestion" while ago, and we were all far too precious for worrying that it might become part of law.

It was a suggestion in Oxford.

There is a related law in Canada. That law does not make it a requirement to use the word "ze", or any other word in particular. It does make it an offence to discriminate against transgendered people, and in some cases, the words you use to refer to someone could be actionable discrimination.

But it is still not a law, in Oxford or anywhere else, that you have to use the word "ze", nor is that ever likely to become law.

Special Circumstances

RayCun wrote: »

It was a suggestion in Oxford.

There is a related law in Canada. That law does not make it a requirement to use the word "ze", or any other word in particular. It does make it an offence to discriminate against transgendered people, and in some cases, the words you use to refer to someone could be actionable discrimination.

But it is still not a law, in Oxford or anywhere else, that you have to use the word "ze", nor is that ever likely to become law.

How many times would a carbon based life form of the species homo sapiens and considered towards the upper range of the species average lifetime be allowed to make a slip in using he-she-ze before ze could be pilloried?

Maximus Alexander

There is a need for a singular gender neutral pronoun in English. 'They' is plural and can lead to ambiguity. I don't understand how the language managed to evolve for so many hundreds of years without such a pronoun tbh. That said, it sounds like they're not doing this for grammatical reasons and are instead trying to eliminate the use of gendered pronouns altogether, which is hilarious nonsense.

benjamin d wrote: »

THEY. THEY. THEY.
It's always been there.
But to use it wouldn't be contrarian so it's unacceptable to the snowflakes.

And yes, I know how the word snowflake irritates people. IDGAF.

In fairness, you're the snowflake in this instance. Getting all triggered and stuff by the words some group of people in another country use.

RayCun

Special Circumstances wrote: »

How many times would a carbon based life form of the species homo sapiens and considered towards the upper range of the species average lifetime be allowed to make a slip in using he-she-ze before ze could be pilloried?

In Canada?

There is no requirement to use "ze".

As with any other anti-discrimination case, there is no x number of times where it is okay to use a word, and x+1 number where it is not allowed. If someone refers to a black person as "coloured", it could be a slip or it could be an insult. Context is important.

You do understand how racial discrimination works, right? And how language use can be a part of that?

SterlingArcher

RayCun wrote: »

Which is absolutely correct



Which is also absolutely correct!



and no need to worry that you will be forced to use the word "ze", because you won't be.

but if the person asks me to use ze and are adamant . And I refuse . Does that not fall under discrimination. you said so yourself. And that's a crime.

What makes a person who wants to be called ze, night crawler, piss puddler, any less important than a trans gender person. Because from your post it seems I'd be going to jail for not saying the correct thing to a trans gender. But able to laugh off a star fox unicorn person.

RayCun

SterlingArcher wrote: »

but if the person asks me to use ze and are adamant . And I refuse . Does that not fall under discrimination. you said so yourself. And that's a crime.

No, it doesn't.
If you use another gender-neutral term, such as "they", then you are not applying a gender term that they don't identify with.
If you say "all students must do x", you are not calling out anyone's pronouns.

For example, suppose you say
"Every student must collect this form, and he or she must return it at the start of the next class", you might get a student who says they don't identify with he or she, they prefer xe.
If you then say
"All students must collect this form, and they must return it at the start of the next class" not a problem.

If it is six months after the conversation with the student, you forget, and you again say
"Every student must collect this form, and he or she must return it at the start of the next class" it's not going to be a problem.

If the next day in class you say
"Every student must collect this form, and he or she must return it at the start of the next class", while looking directly at the trans student, then there is a problem.

Which is not very hard to figure out for yourself.

Special Circumstances

RayCun wrote: »

In Canada?

There is no requirement to use "ze".

As with any other anti-discrimination case, there is no x number of times where it is okay to use a word, and x+1 number where it is not allowed. If someone refers to a black person as "coloured", it could be a slip or it could be an insult. Context is important.

You do understand how racial discrimination works, right? And how language use can be a part of that?

Do you understand how being a prick works?

You said earlier that it has legal consequences.

Where is that line? Is an older person who just can't undo a lifetime of he/she being perfectly acceptable a prick? Is somebody who firmly believes that scientifically zun is one or the other a prick? Is etc etc etc...

Surely we'd only need a "don't be a prick" law if that was sufficient? It's obviously not so there must be a definition somewhere of under what circumstances you would or wouldn't be a prick to a black person, a Chinese person, an LGBTQ++?

Are you saying that the misuse of pronouns act would be regarded as a lesser act to other acts dealing with discrimination? If you had the choice of how to implement it?

RayCun

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Do you understand how being a prick works?

You said earlier that it has legal consequences.

You do realise that there are already anti-discrimination laws on the books in Canada, and that all of these questions could equally be asked (and have generally been answered in case law) about any kind of anti-discrimination law?

What happens to the older person who has a lifetime of thinking its okay to call people negroes?
What happens to someone who firmly believes that science shows black people are inferior?