4 ms·

What if you insist on calling that person by the wrong name even though you know it's not what they prefer? That seems like a pretty good example of creating a

What if you insist on calling that person by the wrong name even though you know it's not what they prefer? That seems like a pretty good example of creating a toxic work environment and you should be fired over it.

RealStickman_ 5y ago
That's called being an asshole
golemiprague 5y ago
Name has no factual meaning, it is an ID, referring to someone as male or female indicates a fact, the way you see the world. It is like demanding saying about someone that he is tall even though he is short factually. So I don't think it is a good comparison. Sometimes people sugarcoat reality, especially women when they compliment other women's kids in social media, but that's out of their own will and reasons, not because someone is demanding it from them.
omginternets 5y ago
It would depend on the specifics. There is a difference between harassing someone and not deferring to their request on the basis that you don't agree with it (however misguided you may be). Conflating these two things is precisely why there's a backlash against CRT et al. from otherwise left-leaning individuals.
- mike00632 5y ago
  You missed the point that trans people aren't creating the burden here. It's pretty clear that it's a simple request and we regularly make similar adjustments, like with nicknames. You're hitting the nail in the head that the problem is with the anti-trans person making a stink about it. That is where the real burden is, and that is who is to blame for the toxic work environment. The bully is the problem, not their target.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - omginternets 5y ago
    Let’s get specific. Here is a hypothetical scenario. It is not meant to be representative, merely plausible. It could happen at least once. Imagine a Mr. Jones who does not agree with the basic premise of gender theory, and believes — say — that transgendered folk are suffering from a mental illness. Mr. Jones has a transgendered colleague with whom he is generally cordial, though not particularly warm. One day, said colleague learns about Mr. Jones opinion, and decides she will assert herself and “call out” Mr. Jones if she is ever offended by his behavior or speech. One day, Mr. Jones refers passingly to this colleague as ‘he’. For the sake of argument, let us assume this was not meant to be disrespectful, but that this utterance is instead the result of being distracted, and that the colleague has some masculine features. In other words, it was uttered unthinkingly — an honest mistake. Offended, Mr. Jones’ colleague confronts him publicly and berates him for his behavior. She demands to be called ‘she’, proceeds to shame him on social media, and demands a public apology. Mr. Jones feels this is an unfair and disproportionate response. Moreover, he now believes her demands to be retaliatory. He firmly but politely refuses. The conflict is referred to HR, and Mr. Jones is ordered to use his colleague’s preferred pronoun. Mr. Jones’ ethics preclude compelled speech. He refuses and is fired. My questions for you are simple: 1. Do you think it is appropriate that Mr. Jones be fired? 2. Should the law hold him accountable? 3. Should Mr. Jones’ colleague be able to sue her employer if Mr. Jones is not fired? 4. Should she be able to sue Mr. Jones? The fact that I’ve depicted Mr. Jones as cordial and well-intentioned (despite holding a potentially distasteful opinion) and his colleague as bellicose and vengeful is no accident. This situation will necessarily arise, unless you somehow believe people can’t both be kind and disagree with you on gender-theory. At any rate, you will find that many (most?) people object to CRT and the likes because they worry that it gives spiteful people the means to dispose of unsavory (though not necessarily bad) people like Mr. Jones. From there, they worry that they might be next. I submit that this should worry all of us, even you.
    - mike00632 5y ago
      1. I'm not talking about "honest mistakes". Nobody is putting cisgendered people in jail for a slip of the tongue. 2. Your simplistic theories about how people ought to be should go out the window when you meet and interact with a real person who is different from you. Think of it as avoiding making a bad impression on someone who has just as valid a reason to be who they are. Yeah, maybe this is new and uncomfortable for you, but that is how meeting anyone is.
- iaml 5y ago
  Difference between the two is very subtle, and in my opinion comes down to bad faith. If the person in question is any good at deception, it would be extremely difficult to do anything about it without some kind of authority. I don't think it's possible to stop the conflation without discovering a way to detect bad faith or making all people respect each other.
  - omginternets 5y ago
    Indeed it is very subtle. This is precisely why many people — myself included — are terrified at the prospect of laws of company policies that attempt to regulate such speech.
    - iaml 5y ago
      There are many companies out there and I very much doubt all of them would be doing it. At the end of the day, it's company's choice on what policies to enforce and you are free to pick one that is more compatible with your beliefs.
- CRConrad 5y ago
  > There is a difference between harassing someone and not deferring to their request on the basis that you don't agree with it (however misguided you may be). There is? What is it? In a couple of child comments you agree with some other commenter that it's “very subtle”... I'd argue that of course it is; most non-existent things are. Before rejoicing in your sophisticated ability to detect oh-so-subtle differences, please make sure there is something to detect in the first place. One of the best ways to make sure one has got something right is to explain it to others. So: What difference?
raxxorrax 5y ago
The toxic work environment argument mostly comes from people creating such environments to be honest. As long as people let others disagree, nobody should be fired. If that isn't possible, politics will again be banned as a topic in workplaces.

RealStickman_ 5y ago

That's called being an asshole

golemiprague 5y ago

Name has no factual meaning, it is an ID, referring to someone as male or female indicates a fact, the way you see the world. It is like demanding saying about someone that he is tall even though he is short factually. So I don't think it is a good comparison. Sometimes people sugarcoat reality, especially women when they compliment other women's kids in social media, but that's out of their own will and reasons, not because someone is demanding it from them.

omginternets 5y ago

It would depend on the specifics. There is a difference between harassing someone and not deferring to their request on the basis that you don't agree with it (however misguided you may be). Conflating these two things is precisely why there's a backlash against CRT et al. from otherwise left-leaning individuals.

mike00632 5y ago
You missed the point that trans people aren't creating the burden here. It's pretty clear that it's a simple request and we regularly make similar adjustments, like with nicknames. You're hitting the nail in the head that the problem is with the anti-trans person making a stink about it. That is where the real burden is, and that is who is to blame for the toxic work environment. The bully is the problem, not their target.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- omginternets 5y ago
  Let’s get specific. Here is a hypothetical scenario. It is not meant to be representative, merely plausible. It could happen at least once. Imagine a Mr. Jones who does not agree with the basic premise of gender theory, and believes — say — that transgendered folk are suffering from a mental illness. Mr. Jones has a transgendered colleague with whom he is generally cordial, though not particularly warm. One day, said colleague learns about Mr. Jones opinion, and decides she will assert herself and “call out” Mr. Jones if she is ever offended by his behavior or speech. One day, Mr. Jones refers passingly to this colleague as ‘he’. For the sake of argument, let us assume this was not meant to be disrespectful, but that this utterance is instead the result of being distracted, and that the colleague has some masculine features. In other words, it was uttered unthinkingly — an honest mistake. Offended, Mr. Jones’ colleague confronts him publicly and berates him for his behavior. She demands to be called ‘she’, proceeds to shame him on social media, and demands a public apology. Mr. Jones feels this is an unfair and disproportionate response. Moreover, he now believes her demands to be retaliatory. He firmly but politely refuses. The conflict is referred to HR, and Mr. Jones is ordered to use his colleague’s preferred pronoun. Mr. Jones’ ethics preclude compelled speech. He refuses and is fired. My questions for you are simple: 1. Do you think it is appropriate that Mr. Jones be fired? 2. Should the law hold him accountable? 3. Should Mr. Jones’ colleague be able to sue her employer if Mr. Jones is not fired? 4. Should she be able to sue Mr. Jones? The fact that I’ve depicted Mr. Jones as cordial and well-intentioned (despite holding a potentially distasteful opinion) and his colleague as bellicose and vengeful is no accident. This situation will necessarily arise, unless you somehow believe people can’t both be kind and disagree with you on gender-theory. At any rate, you will find that many (most?) people object to CRT and the likes because they worry that it gives spiteful people the means to dispose of unsavory (though not necessarily bad) people like Mr. Jones. From there, they worry that they might be next. I submit that this should worry all of us, even you.
  - mike00632 5y ago
    1. I'm not talking about "honest mistakes". Nobody is putting cisgendered people in jail for a slip of the tongue. 2. Your simplistic theories about how people ought to be should go out the window when you meet and interact with a real person who is different from you. Think of it as avoiding making a bad impression on someone who has just as valid a reason to be who they are. Yeah, maybe this is new and uncomfortable for you, but that is how meeting anyone is.
iaml 5y ago
Difference between the two is very subtle, and in my opinion comes down to bad faith. If the person in question is any good at deception, it would be extremely difficult to do anything about it without some kind of authority. I don't think it's possible to stop the conflation without discovering a way to detect bad faith or making all people respect each other.
- omginternets 5y ago
  Indeed it is very subtle. This is precisely why many people — myself included — are terrified at the prospect of laws of company policies that attempt to regulate such speech.
  - iaml 5y ago
    There are many companies out there and I very much doubt all of them would be doing it. At the end of the day, it's company's choice on what policies to enforce and you are free to pick one that is more compatible with your beliefs.
CRConrad 5y ago
> There is a difference between harassing someone and not deferring to their request on the basis that you don't agree with it (however misguided you may be). There is? What is it? In a couple of child comments you agree with some other commenter that it's “very subtle”... I'd argue that of course it is; most non-existent things are. Before rejoicing in your sophisticated ability to detect oh-so-subtle differences, please make sure there is something to detect in the first place. One of the best ways to make sure one has got something right is to explain it to others. So: What difference?

raxxorrax 5y ago

The toxic work environment argument mostly comes from people creating such environments to be honest. As long as people let others disagree, nobody should be fired. If that isn't possible, politics will again be banned as a topic in workplaces.