3 ms·

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,

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.
  - omginternets 5y ago
    >1. I'm not talking about "honest mistakes". But I am talking about honest mistakes. I am worried that people such as yourself are incapable or unwilling to distinguish them from actual bona fide harassment. >Nobody is putting cisgendered people in jail for a slip of the tongue. People are already being fired and cancelled for such things. This is precisely why we're having this debate.
- CRConrad 5y ago
  > 1. Do you think it is appropriate that Mr. Jones be fired? Sure. Not for originally misspeaking, but for intentionally harassing her afterwards. > 2. Should the law hold him accountable? Of course, just like the above. > 3. Should Mr. Jones’ colleague be able to sue her employer if Mr. Jones is not fired? This one's hard to say -- but only in the exact same way all “how responsible is an employer for the actions of an employee?” matters are. Which has nothing to do with whether the employee in your example was in the wrong, because he obviously was. > 4. Should she be able to sue Mr. Jones? Of course. All in all: What a hilariously silly, contrived, and wrong-headed example. How could you not notice, while typing it in, that all it shows is how ludicrously wrong your position is?
  - omginternets 5y ago
    >Sure. Not for originally misspeaking, but for intentionally harassing her afterwards. The point in this example is that the harasser-harassee relationship is exactly reversed. It's revealing that you find the act of using the wrong pronoun to be harassment, but public shaming at the workplace and on social media to be acceptable. I see we fundamentally disagree, which is fine. I do hope, however, that you can see why many of us disagree with you, and don't want your sociological theories enshrined into law.

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.
- omginternets 5y ago
  >1. I'm not talking about "honest mistakes". But I am talking about honest mistakes. I am worried that people such as yourself are incapable or unwilling to distinguish them from actual bona fide harassment. >Nobody is putting cisgendered people in jail for a slip of the tongue. People are already being fired and cancelled for such things. This is precisely why we're having this debate.
CRConrad 5y ago
> 1. Do you think it is appropriate that Mr. Jones be fired? Sure. Not for originally misspeaking, but for intentionally harassing her afterwards. > 2. Should the law hold him accountable? Of course, just like the above. > 3. Should Mr. Jones’ colleague be able to sue her employer if Mr. Jones is not fired? This one's hard to say -- but only in the exact same way all “how responsible is an employer for the actions of an employee?” matters are. Which has nothing to do with whether the employee in your example was in the wrong, because he obviously was. > 4. Should she be able to sue Mr. Jones? Of course. All in all: What a hilariously silly, contrived, and wrong-headed example. How could you not notice, while typing it in, that all it shows is how ludicrously wrong your position is?
- omginternets 5y ago
  >Sure. Not for originally misspeaking, but for intentionally harassing her afterwards. The point in this example is that the harasser-harassee relationship is exactly reversed. It's revealing that you find the act of using the wrong pronoun to be harassment, but public shaming at the workplace and on social media to be acceptable. I see we fundamentally disagree, which is fine. I do hope, however, that you can see why many of us disagree with you, and don't want your sociological theories enshrined into law.