5 ms·

You're not? Is the fed going to throw you in prison for doing so? Of course you're free to call someone at work a jerk. Your boss is also free to fire you. Fre

You're not? Is the fed going to throw you in prison for doing so? Of course you're free to call someone at work a jerk. Your boss is also free to fire you. Freedom of speech is a concept that applies to our government, not private entities. That said, we can still discuss whether or not specific limitatations on speech by private entities are a good or bad thing. In this case, I believe it's a bad thing to codify. Rules which apply to harassment, which almost every forum has in place, still apply. The question is how far do we go? Are we really going to force people to use gender neutral ponouns at all times as a matter of course in order to protect some small portion of an estimated 0.6% of the population's feelings?

damnyou 7y ago
Yes, you are technically free to call people jerks as long as you are OK with the consequences, which may include getting fired. The government cannot put filters in front of people's mouths, thankfully. Repeated and intentional misgendering is similar to racial or ethnic slurs, which also don't belong in professional settings and will ideally also get you fired. Personally I think the Catholic Church is a great force of evil, but I keep those opinions to myself at work out of respect for my Catholic coworkers. You are free to believe whatever you want about how nonbinary people are just seeking attention or whatever, but you shouldn't misgender people at work. Who's forcing folks to use gender neutral pronouns "at all times"? You only have to use them for people who have requested it. The 0.6% number is commonly quoted but is very dubious, since it doesn't account for people who may not be out due to social stigmatization. The real number of people who would be happier with a non-cis identity is probably much higher, somewhere around 5-10% by my estimate.
- EpicEng 7y ago
  >Who's forcing folks to use gender neutral pronouns "at all times"? You only have to use them for people who have requested it. An excerpt from Monica's side of things: >Under some pressure I said I don't use singular they or words like chairwoman but solve the problem other ways (with examples)." She said the moderator linked to her question and called her a bigot. From what I have been able to gather, it would have been very difficult to comply with the proposed CoC without literally asking someone what their ponouns are or risk a villation. Whether or not the latter would have been actually enforced I can't say, but it all sounds rather half baked and would have led to a very vague definition of how one person is allowed to address another. I also don't agree at all with the set of new nonsense pronouns like ze and xi. It's not useful as a language construct and I'm not ready to hand over the linquistic reins to a tiny minority. >The real number of people who would be happier with a non-cis identity is probably much higher, somewhere around 5-10% by my estimate. I can see why you doubt the 0.6% number (many people won't admit it), and that's fair, but your number sounds completely fictional. 10%?! C'mon. That requires some backing up.
  - damnyou 7y ago
    I think the CoC was badly structured and agree that Monica isn't at fault, for context. I think that it was quite appropriate to fire some other moderators though, like the one for the Christianity SE who point blank refused to gender people correctly. I know a lot of nonbinary people — many use neopronouns but they are all reasonable people. I don't know anyone who wouldn't also be ok with they/them. https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/in-the-news/27-percent-california-teens-gender-nonconforming/ https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/in-the-news/27-... GNC is not the same as trans, but the high numbers do suggest a much greater number of people are happier outside strict gender roles. It wouldn't be too much of an extension to say that this may apply to the pronouns they are happiest with as well.
    - EpicEng 7y ago
      Agreed, if someone asks me to use she instead of he, or they instead of <whatever>, I'm good with it. Anything else is actual bigotry as there's just no other reasonable reason to not comply. I also think we get worked up about things that live on the edges. Extreme viewpoints either way which are battled out on the internet, but don't represent the opinions of most people. The new pronouns though... I don't know, that may take me a while.
      - damnyou 7y ago
        Sure, that sounds reasonable to me.

damnyou 7y ago

Yes, you are technically free to call people jerks as long as you are OK with the consequences, which may include getting fired. The government cannot put filters in front of people's mouths, thankfully. Repeated and intentional misgendering is similar to racial or ethnic slurs, which also don't belong in professional settings and will ideally also get you fired. Personally I think the Catholic Church is a great force of evil, but I keep those opinions to myself at work out of respect for my Catholic coworkers. You are free to believe whatever you want about how nonbinary people are just seeking attention or whatever, but you shouldn't misgender people at work. Who's forcing folks to use gender neutral pronouns "at all times"? You only have to use them for people who have requested it. The 0.6% number is commonly quoted but is very dubious, since it doesn't account for people who may not be out due to social stigmatization. The real number of people who would be happier with a non-cis identity is probably much higher, somewhere around 5-10% by my estimate.

EpicEng 7y ago
>Who's forcing folks to use gender neutral pronouns "at all times"? You only have to use them for people who have requested it. An excerpt from Monica's side of things: >Under some pressure I said I don't use singular they or words like chairwoman but solve the problem other ways (with examples)." She said the moderator linked to her question and called her a bigot. From what I have been able to gather, it would have been very difficult to comply with the proposed CoC without literally asking someone what their ponouns are or risk a villation. Whether or not the latter would have been actually enforced I can't say, but it all sounds rather half baked and would have led to a very vague definition of how one person is allowed to address another. I also don't agree at all with the set of new nonsense pronouns like ze and xi. It's not useful as a language construct and I'm not ready to hand over the linquistic reins to a tiny minority. >The real number of people who would be happier with a non-cis identity is probably much higher, somewhere around 5-10% by my estimate. I can see why you doubt the 0.6% number (many people won't admit it), and that's fair, but your number sounds completely fictional. 10%?! C'mon. That requires some backing up.
- damnyou 7y ago
  I think the CoC was badly structured and agree that Monica isn't at fault, for context. I think that it was quite appropriate to fire some other moderators though, like the one for the Christianity SE who point blank refused to gender people correctly. I know a lot of nonbinary people — many use neopronouns but they are all reasonable people. I don't know anyone who wouldn't also be ok with they/them. https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/in-the-news/27-percent-california-teens-gender-nonconforming/ https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/in-the-news/27-... GNC is not the same as trans, but the high numbers do suggest a much greater number of people are happier outside strict gender roles. It wouldn't be too much of an extension to say that this may apply to the pronouns they are happiest with as well.
  - EpicEng 7y ago
    Agreed, if someone asks me to use she instead of he, or they instead of <whatever>, I'm good with it. Anything else is actual bigotry as there's just no other reasonable reason to not comply. I also think we get worked up about things that live on the edges. Extreme viewpoints either way which are battled out on the internet, but don't represent the opinions of most people. The new pronouns though... I don't know, that may take me a while.
    - damnyou 7y ago
      Sure, that sounds reasonable to me.