Here's one: I don't believe that gender identity is a valid concept. Does that make for a hostile work environment or "deny the existence" of anyone? I submit to you that the answer is no, except for die-hard adherents of the new ideology. Well, that simply isn't my religion, and I resent attempts to force it on me.
> Here's one: I don't believe that gender identity is a valid concept. Does that make for a hostile work environment or "deny the existence" of anyone? I submit to you that the answer is no, except for die-hard adherents of the new ideology. Well, that simply isn't my religion, and I resent attempts to force it on me.
Here's the question:
Are you tolerant of people who do? Or do you make the lives of those people (who viscerally feel their gender identity to be true) more difficult than those who share your belief?
The latter is a fairly broad concept with multiple shades and blurry lines within. Which is why people with good intentions can still disagree badly on whether something someone did was okay or not.
Has GP crossed the line merely by expressing his/her/their opinion? This probably depends on his/her/their social status as well. The CEO of a company saying something in an official meeting carries a different weight for all employees than some random employee saying the same thing.
Or does GP need to say or do something personal to someone in order to be considered to have crossed the line? Be careful there: add too many constraints and we will end up giving a free pass to people who genuinely offend and cause serious discomfort to those around them.
These are the kinds of issues about which we as a society need to have reasonable discussions and make consensus-building efforts, but it all descends into name-calling too soon.
It does not really matter what your stance on that topic is. If your co-workers don't what to be called a certain way, just respect that. E.g. I don't want to be called by my full first name but rather a short version of it. If you deliberately disrespect my request that is simply hostile.
I think my point is more that there are tons of various requirements that people have that are at best unreasonable and as a society we don't indulge every request that people make. One day someone comes in and says I must now refer to them as xe or emself after years of knowing them without mistake is not reasonable. I still refer to lots of women as their maiden names because that how I remember them. It isnt out of meanness or vitriol. That is just the label my brain still applies to them because I knew them for many years as that.
I dont care if you are male or female or whatever you want to be. I just want everyone to be happy to the extent they can be, but be tolerant of those who remember you as you were to them as well. It isnt just a switch you can turn off instantly.
> One day someone comes in and says I must now refer to them as xe or emself after years of knowing them without mistake is not reasonable.
This seems to be a common fear, but it’s not rooted in reality. As long as you make a good faith effort, no one is going to get mad at you for messing up their pronouns. You might get corrected; just apologize and move on. It’s not a big deal.
If someone suspects you’re messing up in bad faith, they might be harsher with you. Which is, I think, entirely reasonable.
Maybe you have friends who wrongly assume bad faith when you mess up. I’ve never seen that happen, but that’s not to say it doesn’t! You could have some shitty friends who don’t give you the benefit of the doubt. But comments like that “your highness” hypothetical really aren’t doing you any favors.
(People on Twitter probably assume drive-by repliers are speaking in bad faith by default; that is, unfortunately, just a feature of the Internet)
I have taken to referring to everyone as "they". It's much easier than trying to remember individual pronouns for everyone. It doesn't really seem reasonable to me for people to be bothered by this. Your view is that people must refer to your gender when speaking about you?
It doesn’t seem reasonable to me for people to get offended if I use the pronouns that best match the gender presentation I see. This is what English speakers have been doing since there have been English speakers.
But there are people out there that tell me it is bothersome. Out of respect, I modify how I speak and write. Why shouldn’t I get the same courtesy?
>> I have taken to referring to everyone as "they". It's much easier than trying to remember individual pronouns for everyone. It doesn't really seem reasonable to me for people to be bothered by this. Your view is that people must refer to your gender when speaking about you?
What is the point of specifying pronouns then? Isn't this just a lazy form of misgendering?
Instead of using someone's name you could just refer to everyone as "Hey You", but that seems discourteous and disrespectful. Why not just use their preferred name and pronouns?
When used as a singular it’s the pronoun for people that identify as non binary. You are absolutely misgendering people but you get a free pass because contra fosefx this whole pronoun thing is about power and who has it, rather than universal respect.
But I am not an unknown person. If you know who I am and you’ve had an opportunity to see my preferred pronouns but choose to disregard those preferences you’ve misgendered me the same as if you’d referred to a transwomen as he.
> you’ve misgendered me the same as if you’d referred to a transwomen as he.
I think it's more analogous to referring to a transwoman as "they", which I also do. "They" does not gender you at all, so it can't misgender you. I don't think you (or anyone else be they cisgender or transgender) have a right be referred to by your gender, whether you prefer it or not. I think that's different to be referred to by a gender you consider worng. In that case someone is actively labelling you as a gender. By calling you "they" I'm saying I think you're genderless, whereas by calling someone "he" I think you are saying you think they're male.
If you had a strong preference to be referred to by your gender then I probably would make an effort to do that, but I don't think you are owed that (to be honest I wish trans people weren't so hung up on pronouns too - I think it's silly to be so fussy about language - but I have seen cases where they're used maliciously so I can somewhat understand why they are).
I'm saying I think you're genderless, whereas by calling someone "he" I think you are saying you think they're male.
Right. As it turns out, I identify as male not genderless. But this is not something you are obligated to honor under threat of being fired for some reason.
>> this whole pronoun thing is about power and who has it, rather than universal respect.
That is my point.
If I provide my name and preferred pronouns, if you respect me and my wishes, why not use my name and preferred pronouns when addressing me or referring to me?
Using "they" when I don't want it as a pronoun is misgendering.
transphobic people transphobic people would bring up to support their ideology
No one has said anything about trans people, we were talking Gen z butchering the English language. Also, is it a disorder (“phobic”) or an ideology? Or do you not understand that distinction either?
So, your new colleague says their name is Richard. You decide it’s hilarious to call him “dick” and refuse to stop even after he’s asked you multiple times.
Pronouns aren’t any different - if you had a masculine looking female coworker at work - say she was into bodybuilding - and you keeping calling her “he” as a “joke”… persisting when you were asked not to, by your boss, by hr perhaps even. What kind of person are you being here?
You can not believe in gender identity, I don’t care. But be respectful to your colleagues at work. Is that so much to ask for? To literally not be as asshole? Is that what you’re defending - your right to be a flaming asshole to your coworkers without any consequence??
You've picked the worst interpretation of the above. Addressing people how they'd like to be addressed is basic decency. Demands for affirmation beyond this is how I read the comment you're replying to.
The poster perhaps should have noted how they intended on treating their coworkers. Instead we are left to infer that their intent was to lean into their ideology against basic decency.
And in the end this is what the “culture wars” are about: the right to not be decent to certain people.
I think the problem is more in people automatically assuming the worst possible interpretation of any remark as soon as it is about race/religion/gender.
I know people who thinks like you, but they don't shut the fuck about these things, and take every possible the opportunity to proselytise about it.
I've seen it happening in workplaces, for example. But also parties, random people on the street.
Not shutting the fuck about it is fucking annoying and if it's in the workplace I'll be complaining the fuck about it until you stop and/or looking for another job.
Now, I'm a 100% neutral part on this, and even me don't wanna hear about your bullshit. Imagine now if you were to use this to actively hurt people.
what do you do when you are asked to respect someone else's choice of gender identity? do you go along with it, while quietly keeping your own opinion? or do you complain and purposefully ignore their request? or maybe do something else entirely? how do you keep a friendly work environment when the mere questioning of someones gender identity can be considered hostile?
you ask that your rejection of the idea is considered not hostile, yet you consider the enforcement of rules of interaction as something hostile.
you wouldn't consider it "positive affirmation" of most people to simply accept the name and gender they provide, it is simply the bare minimum for normal interaction.
why do you consider it beyond reasonable accommodation for some people? do you think you know some deeper truth about these other people than they know about themselves? why do you think you can reliably identify that case? couldn't you simply leave them alone, and not make a big deal out of it?
if you think it doesn't matter, prove it. refuse to recognize anyone's identity. start misgendering and misnaming people you wouldn't do that to before. see how far that gets you.
> do you think you know some deeper truth about these other people than they know about themselves? why do you think you can reliably identify that case?
I think the debate is less about what someone's inner life is like, and more about whether gender words (like man, woman etc) refer to inner feelings or to someone's physical sex. Historically they have been used to refer to both, and many people. use their own gender label to refer to their physical sex rather than any inner feelings.
In many normal circumstances, I am entitled to disagree with people about who or what they are.
Someone might think they're charming, and I might find them a great bore.
It's obvious in this example that equivocating that with deciding for that person, anything at all, is asinine.
Most social settings, and all professional ones, require that I be more polite to this "charming" person than I would otherwise be inclined to, given my own feelings on that subject.
> You don't get to decide for other people who or what they are.
Yeah, but neither do they. There is such a thing as objective truth. I have no right to be treated as four-legged, because I do not have four legs. Neither can I claim a right to be treated as the Queen of Englang, because I am not the queen of England. Nor do I have a right to be treated as a member of the opposite sex because I am not in fact a member of the opposite sex.
I agree with this, but I do think that there is a genuine debate to had about:
1. Whether people of different sexes ever ought to be treated differently (and if so, in which circumstances).
2. Whether people of different gender identities ever ought to be treated differently (and if so, in which circumstances).
My own view is that in the vast majority of cases we shouldn't be treating people differently on the basis of either sex or gender identity, and that identity-based gender and sex-based gender are about as bad as each other!
> Here's one: I don't believe that gender identity is a valid concept
One funny thing I learned from studying high demand religions: you don't have to believe something for it to be true. It's existence is entirely orthogonal to a person's opinion.
Often you can see the religion, or at least the outward sign. This is the basis for laws about large-scale religious display such as head scarves, turbans, ... It seems that groups of people don't like seeing differences no matter what they are.
