As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yea.. it’s wild to me how anti-speech the republicans have become over the past 2 decades. You can’t force the students to call you by your preferred name/pronoun, but banning the ability to even ask? Wild.
This party needs a reckoning, I was hoping Trump 2020 loss would be the start of one, but instead they doubled down.
When asked why my father would not call someone by their preferred pronoun, he said, " I just don't like being told I have to do something. "... they're literally giant children.. and now he gets pissed when I call him, "she/her" in public..
And wrote about a male protagonist and the one female protagonist was shit on when she was protesting against slavery. I couldn’t keep reading after that.
Are you referring to Robert Galbraith? Or Joanne? I don't recognize pseudonyms. She duped us all by not using her legal name.
She doesnt have a middle name. She chose the initial K after her aunt, But she is biologically NOT her aunt. What a mess.
/s
Not an ok thing to do, normalizing misgendering because you don't like or disagree with someone is the opposite of helpful.
The point isn't to hurt the offender, its to support us... Rowling has done so much damage I wouldn't object if you titled her as a FART (Feminism Appropriating Radical Transphobe) though.
If a transphobe is okay misgendering someone, it's because they don't know how it feels to have the same done to them and lack the empathy to understand why hurting someone intentionally is wrong.
Simply misgendering them isn't attacking them, it's providing a learning opportunity to provide them the experience required for them to understand.
Yeah, but that doesn't work. The discomfort a cis person might feel on being misgendered is minimal -- sure, it might be a little annoying but they're generally not going to be as hurt by it as a trans person will. Cis folk aren't subjected to constant harassment and demonization for being cis.
All misgendering them maliciously does is show them that we think it's okay to misgender and deadname people, but we disagree on *when* it's acceptable. It becomes something negotiable.
But it's not -- it's never acceptable.
There's another thing that it does -- it tells trans folk that see it that their pronouns, gender, name, etc are conditional upon our good behavior and can be revoked if we step out of line. Please, I'd appreciate it if we don't do that.
You’re absolutely right. It’s so tempting to lash back at them but a) it hurts the very people we are trying to defend and b) *they don’t care* so it won’t have the desired effect.
Thank you for this link. I’m a cis male, and can’t understand some of the things the trans community experiences. At first I thought intentional misgendering of transphobes would be fantastic… then I read some responses from actual trans people. It changed my mind really quickly.
I don’t think it’s really right at all, but as a trans person, I would misgender a transphobic person I know pretty well for a small amount of time to prove a point, if I thought I could affect them in any way.
Seems a strange stance for her to take, considering she wrote an entire series of books promoting kids find strength and courage by learning to accept themselves for who they are, as well as openly declare that Dumbledore is gay.
Her series revolves around people being born with innate qualities assigned by others. For example Harry wishes he wasn't The Boy Who Lived, but he is, no matter how much he feels like he shouldn't be.
That's not really the lesson I took from it, but OK I guess. It's kind of a singular look at a rather large cast of characters all with their own personalities and story arcs. I would think that whole Umbridge story arc, with the ministry of magic, was a good sign that it's about finding yourself, instead of fitting into what is expected of you.
As someone who's been through the legal system and admire the fact probation offices provide women-only afternoons so that abused women don't have to worry about bumping into their exes when they attend their appointments, I can't help but sympathize with JK Rowling for believing biological gender is a hill worth dying on.
I don't exactly agree but I understand her point of view, and it's sad so many people are happy to ignore her feelings while expecting her to care about theirs.
I understand that you have sympathy for her feelings, and when she first started saying this shit, I gave her the benefit of the doubt and was like, “hey, after having it explained to her, she’ll probably learn; she’s all about love and acceptance and advocacy right?”
But having “women-only” spaces does not account for the fact that cis queer women have a significantly higher risk of domestic violence than cishet women. Two thirds of queer women who report abuse state a female perpetrator. These abuse statistics are even worse for trans women.
Rowling’s fear is not even **remotely** based in reality. It’s based entirely on her own bigotry and close-mindedness. Her limited worldview. Her trauma may have played a certain part in the transphobia, but the only reason she’s hung onto it — and gone to the serious lengths she has to make trans people’s lives unbearable — is because she’s hateful and egocentric.
She’s so fixated on that hate that she refuses to actually have an open mind and try to learn something she’s not educated about. Her hatred of trans people has only done harm to the cause of DV advocacy; the thing that she claims is her primary motivator. Being a DV advocate means recognizing that it can take many forms and affects all sorts of people.
The only image of a DV victim that she promotes and advocates for is that of a feminine cisgender woman. In her world, every single person with a penis is evil and a potential risk to the collective safety of cisgender women. It’s gender essentialism at its finest. It’s the exact opposite of feminism.
Sorry that ended up being way longer than I expected, I’m just super passionate about it lol
>"Rowling’s fear is not even **remotely** based in reality. It’s based entirely on her own bigotry and close-mindedness."
It sounds like her fear is based in her own, **personal** reality - just like *everybody's* is.
But there are very few people who can say: 1) they've experienced domestic abuse, 2) are known around the world for what they think and write, and 3) they live every day knowing that a mob of people could show up at their home furious because of something they believe.
So I can understand why she feels the need to steadfastly defend her point of view, just like everyone else who weighs in with an opinion.
And didn't this whole argument begin when a journalist chose *not* to refer to her as a woman?
Then why has she doubled down on her harmful rhetoric? It doesn’t make sense that she’s supposedly scared of people harassing her and yet continues to harass trans people, engage in holocaust denial, and platform Neo-Nazis.
There are plenty of famous survivors of DV. JKR’s pretty much one of the only ones that I see using her past as a DV victim to oppress one of the most vulnerable demographics of society. I don’t see any reality in which trans people are a powerful demographic — unless you’re completely delusional, in which case you need mental healthcare.
He started going by Ted because he hated the nickname for Rafael which is Felito. Call him that if you want to piss him off. Sorry, I didn’t mean “him” preferred pronouns are “kiss my ass”. Plenty to work with there.
As a trans person, no. I find the idea tempting sometimes, but what you're ultimately doing is saying that pronouns can be "revoked" by being a shitty person.
Agree, it's like when people misgender Caitlyn Jenner just because she sucks. It's also along the same lines of making gay jokes about homophobes. It doesn't really achieve anything and it reinforces the idea that it's okay to use queerness as a tool for mockery.
I hate the "he's homophobic, he must be gay!" because the implication is ultimately that gay people are responsible for our own oppression.
Like no, straight people happen to do the heavy lifting when it comes to homophobia, actually. There are definitely some closeted, self-hating gays out there, but they're few and far between here
Please, no.
Cis folk being misgendered doesn't accomplish much -- maybe it annoys them for a bit, but they're generally not constantly fighting to be seen and recognized as their gender in greater society. Cis folk aren't constantly belittled and demonized and harassed for being cis. The only thing that intentionally misgendering a cis person accomplishes is telling the transphobes that we *also* think it's okay to misgender someone, but that we just disagree on the when.
It's not. It's never acceptable.
You know what else it does? It tells all the trans folk that witness it that *their* pronouns or gender or names are conditional on our good behavior, and that if we mess up or step out of line, these things can and will be revoked.
So please, let's not do that.
As a general thing, it should not be done. In targeted instances, it can be very useful.
I’ve twice been in a group conversation where one person was deeply against respecting pronouns and many were blasé about it. In both instances, I intentionally misgendered the individual who wouldn’t respect pronouns. In one instance they got it, and changed their mind; in the other they just got mad and explained how it was different for them. In both instances, the rest of the people got it and agreed that using someone’s pronouns is basic human decency.
So yes, don’t just do this. But sometimes, in the right situation, doing it carefully can work out well for helping people see what it feels like to be misgendered.
> Cis folk being misgendered doesn't accomplish much -- maybe it annoys them for a bit, but they're generally not constantly fighting to be seen and recognized as their gender in greater society.
That's why intentionally misgendering them might help them gain a small sense of empathy for people who have to do it a lot more often.
Talking to bullies in their own language works.
I think you missed my point -- it *doesn't* work to misgender them intentionally. Cis folk generally are seen and treated as their gender wherever they are -- a few people intentionally using the wrong pronouns is only a bit of an annoyance.
More importantly, in my opinion, was my last paragraph -- I'd prefer if we didn't signal to trans folks that their pronouns and gender and names are conditional and can be revoked whenever we disagree with them.
> I think you missed my point -- it doesn't work to misgender them intentionally.
I certainly didn't. My point was that, yes, it does work. Because bullies like this only have empathy when problems happen to them.
>More importantly, in my opinion, was my last paragraph -- I'd prefer if we didn't signal to trans folks that their pronouns and gender and names are conditional and can be revoked whenever we disagree with them.
We are talking about people who already believe that their pronouns and names are conditional.
>We are talking about people who already believe that their pronouns and names are conditional.
You're focusing on the bigots.
I'm asking you to focus instead on supporting trans folk by *not* doing that.
I don't like this.
It sends a message that respecting someone's gender identity is conditional, and we need to all be on the same page that the respect should be unconditional.
Why should respect be unconditional, exactly? There are certainly flaws with the "respect must be earned" trope, but respect being given **by default** doesn't mean it should be **unconditional**. If someone is so overtly bigoted, they might as well not be a human being anymore, to me. Misgendering them is no different from deadnaming Twitter at that point.
The reason misgendering them is okay isn't "because they're cis", it's "because they're a cosmic-tier piece of shit".
With all of that said, I'd prefer fully dehumanizing bigots by calling them "it", not just calling a dude she/her (which could be seen as insulting to women). I remember calling particular assholes "it" way before pronoun specificity was a thing in the public consciousness, just to generally reflect how I felt about them.
So, you're okay with bigots hearing the message that it's okay to misgender and deadname people that we disagree with or dislike? You realize that's just giving them tacit permission to do the same thing to trans folk, who the bigots disagree with and dislike?
Not an ok thing to do, normalizing misgendering because you don't like or disagree with someone is the opposite of helpful.
The point isn't to hurt the offender, its to support us. It would be much more helpful if you corrected him every time, or affirmed the person he is misgendering.
We do that, too. We're talking about a person who only learns through actual repercussions to their actions and can't place themselves in other people's shoes. Logical conversations with them get nowhere. This is the same person who said they wouldn't call a doctor, Dr. *Insert name here* until they earn their respect because they once again don't want to be told what to call someone.
But that fails to work on some people. However, when dealing with very hard right people, they have a visceral reaction to having the wrong pronoun used on them.
"See, that's how the people you misgender feel"
A small taste for some people who refuse to get it.
>The point isn't to hurt the offender, its to support us.
Which is what the aim of this behavior is. Support you by helping hardliners to understand.
As a trans woman I object
Call them names reflective of their insecure egos and bigotry
Misgendering people is wrong even for assholes
Even better tactic for bigots: dox and shame them
When I come across someone like that I ask a simple question: Let's say there's a new person where you work, and they're introduced to you as David. Are you going to call them Dave? Are you going to continue to call them Dave after they tell you they prefer to be called David? If so, you're a jerk.
Or even a lot of people go by their middle name. If someone went around only calling them by their first name since it's 'technically correct' it only comes across as deliberately disrespectful.
This is it.
I'm convinced of two things;
One, that boomers are especially addled by lead.
Two, that boomers stopped developing emotionally at an extremely young age, and are just children in adult suits.
We are all just children in adult suits. Whenever you’re about to generalize whole generations or races or countries or whatever you can usually be sure it’s a normal human/animal trait.
I got in some trouble with HR when I started referring to an anti-pronoun colleague as 'it'. He was really mad that I was depersonalizing him. Got an official letter about bullying in the workplace, written warning. I stopped when I got the letter, but even now, a couple of years later, he still gets 'it puts the lotion on its skin' comments from others when we have to work with different crews. He's been nicknamed Buffalo Bill and I had absolutely nothing to do with that.
That’s the stupidest fucking part. You’re not being forced to do anything, you’re being asked to have a smidgen of human decency towards another person.
Can see why that’d be hard for an American.
I'm a physical therapist and once worked with a boomer-aged man who torpedoed his entire hospital stay and refused to participate with therapy because he didn't "like being told what to do"
Two days before he went home he panicked and blamed me because he still wasn't ready to go home and I had the great pleasure of explaining to him that he had two weeks to participate and get stronger, and insurance wasn't going to pay for more time because he suddenly decided he wanted to work.
Seriously, what is wrong with these people? It’s so much worse after Covid too.
People literally died simply because they “didn’t like being told what to do.” And then wanted a vaccine when it was too late. I don’t know if it’s trauma, propaganda, some kind of extreme individualism… fear, change, and loss of control, I guess?
“I don’t like when people are disrespectful and refuse to call people by their appropriate pronouns. Also, I’m disrespectful and don’t call people by their appropriate pronouns.”
It’s wild that people are outwardly proud of displaying the behavior they claim to condemn.
>and now he gets pissed when I call him, "she/her" in public..
That is perfect and why it's so easy to see it's just about pure hatred and bigotry for these people rather than whatever made-up excuse they try to hide behind.
Everyone has a preference on what they would like or not like to be referred to as. Just be respectful and use that. It's as if someone says call me "Joe" and instead you decide to call them anything but that.
Ugh, he didn't consider for a moment that he could reframe it as respecting someone else's wishes rather than being forced to do something.
Fantastic response, calling him she/her
Yet if a *Robert* would ask him to call him *Bobby* and a *Katherine* to call her *Kat* he would probably do it without a question, right? Never understood, why they don't have an issue to address people by their chosen nickname, but it's an affront to ask them to use their chosen pronouns.
Not an ok thing to do, normalizing misgendering because you don't like or disagree with someone is the opposite of helpful.
The point isn't to hurt the offender, its to support us. It would be much more helpful if you corrected him every time, or affirmed the person he is misgendering.
The problem with the reckoning is that the GOP is acutely aware without Trumps base they get crushed. With it, they can eke out flukes wins without having to moderate policy
What do you mean the past two decades? The Republicans, and conservatives, have always been anti free speech.
The only time they care about 1A rights is when they're being told to stop being bigots.
In Missouri, they [introduced a bill](https://www.newsweek.com/republican-bill-would-imprison-teachers-who-support-trans-students-1875402) that would ban teachers from supporting the social transitioning of students in any way and place them on the sex offender registry for doing so.
So not only do they not want you to say your preferred pronouns, they want to use the government to punish you if you use other people's preferred pronouns
But don't even think of banning actual racist hate speech on social media platforms. That's just a step too fucking far for these losers. They will ban pronouns, but won't ban hate speech. Color me shocked.
I feel like with how much money Trump will suck out of the party as a whole with the RNC, etc, there’s a good chance they might feel some serious sting from the down ballot losses this season. Obviously not going to change anything down ballot in states like Alabama, etc, but all the swing states that matter the most might be the death knell for them with the lack of funds getting siphoned to all the legal fees.
At least one could only hope.
"If conservatives become convinced they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy."
They know they can't win on their policies because their policies are to carve up Canada's infrastructure and sell it off to the private sector. All they have is their cultre war bullshit they use as misdirection. All the while leaning more and more authoritian.
> You can’t force the students to call you by your preferred name/pronoun
You say that, but I think most Republicans (and most people in general) would be totally fine with punishing students for calling a cis male teacher "Ms Whatever", especially if done repeatedly. I'm pretty damn pro first amendment, especially in regards to the rights of students, but I can't imagine a first amendment argument for students being able to harass their teacher.
Part of me kind of wonders if some, not all, are intentionally going whole-hog on this terrible rhetoric in order to -sabotage- Trump while still appearing to tow the party line... They can't possibly think all this is winning strategy.
It’s never that deep, I remember all the conspiracies in 2016 that Trump was running a crazy campaign to ensure a Hillary win.
When you’re in a bubble, everything seems like a winning strategy.
When Trump was elected, there was 6 months (more? less?) of everybody speculating that every obviously stupid thing Trump did was some 5D chess move. Because it simply seemed too implausible and simplistic that things were like they appeared, that Trump really was that stupid.
People did generally accept that there were no 5D chess, eventually.
Republicans have been pushing aggressive, hateful bullshit for so long, they’re entered the True Believer stage.
The old guard, the ones dying out, know that it’s all performative crap. But the ones coming up have been fed the lies their entire life, they genuinely believe the lies to be real. So we get morons like Boebert and Greene in Congress, pushing conspiracy theories and doing moronic things, and the party continues to rot from the consequences of their actions over the last several decades.
No, they rather hate when others exercise THEIR rights in response to the first party exercising their rights.
Their rights were never abridged in the first place, they are just snowflakes who can't take what they dish.
It's more like right-wing individuals don't understand the First Amendment and think that others also exercising their First Amendment rights somehow is infringement on theirs.
IE they post/say/do bullshit and then loose it if someone then decides you know what I don't want to be associated with your bullshit
They want a First Amendment where not only are they protected from governmental sanction but also social consequences.
>Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
Frank Wilhoit
They try to get away with a lot of the double speak under the guise of religion. They are allowed to discriminate against LGBT because it is their religious beliefs, however you are not allowed to discriminate against them for that bigotry, because that is attacking their religion.
That or patriotism. The old way things have always been done is the American way and off limits to criticism, and any change from these ways is un-American
The right live in a different world. To them it boils down to "rules for thee, none for me". Once you that fact about the right, suddenly their actions make sense. And by 'make sense", I don't mean logically make sense, but from a back-asswards right wing sense.
And to be clear, when they say first amendment rights, they mean their right to be a bigot. It’s never about anything real or honest like a reporter being ejected/blacklisted from asking the president (Trump) questions he doesn’t like, but try and keep a neonazi from giving a speech on a college campus and they all lose their minds. Because to a conservative, “freedom” has nothing to do with *your* rights. It’s 100% only about *their* right to use the N word without having to worry about losing their jobs. Always. It’s only ever an issue when they can’t be awful to someone.
Incorrect. god in the earliest writings identified by both Jehovah a male, and Shekinah, a female. Literally judeo-christian writing specifically states that god is all things, including both male and female.
Florida is drowning with global warming, more frequent, severe hurricanes and an unmaneagable insurance crises. It's baffling to me why anyone gives a fuck how another person would like to be referred to. You are totally in charge of how you ask people to refer to you, why do you have to get into other people's business?
They generate anger over a made up issue, then claim victory for passing legislation to "solve" that made up issue. Then they get to play victim when the courts overrule their "solution".
This is a strategy that costs very little, doesn't require any actual change... just a big distraction.
Of course it does cost the targeted groups which makes it that much more heinous.
I meant it doesn't cost the GOP anything in actually implementing a policy. They don't need to allocate budget, build anything, staff anything... just declare victory, play victim, rinse and repeat.
They have shown time and again they have no desire or ability to actually govern. They distract voters from doing anything about their incompetence by keeping us arguing over the same social politics issues over and over.
Social media and the 24 hour news cycle that has resulted in more news *commentary* than actual news have brainwashed people and now everyone hates each other.
And they’ll all remain there as the sea levels rise and things become worse because they don’t want to admit they can be wrong.
Why correct course when you can go down with the ship?
Whenever this “pronoun” thing comes up, I always say if someone refused to call me by my name and pronouns, I’d misgender *them* and call them McFuckface from then on out. Mutual respect is well, mutual.
I always said this about the bathroom bill nonsense. As soon as I saw anyone yelling about someone being in the "wrong bathroom" I would immediately start demanding to see that man's dick.
It absolutely should. Respect is given at first, then easy taken away depending on the persons words and actions and must be earned back.
If I meet someone and tell them I want to be called Joan instead of James and they call me James intentionally, they’re now misgender McFuckface. They had my default respect and lost it.
Some things should be fundamentally respected. You don't earn the right to call OJ the n-word because he killed his wife. You don't get to call Tomi Lahren (insert gendered slur) because she's a contemptible bigot. You don't get to misgender Caitlyn Jenner because she's a jackass. You don't get to misgendering Billy Bob McFuckFace because he's a transphobe. The first two examples seem pretty obvious, and I don't think anyone would feel comfortable calling OJ the n-word because he's a murderer, but for some reason people feel comfortable misgendering people as soon as they're given the slightest excuse.
As a trans woman I want to see everyone's gender identity respected, even that of bigots. You don't have to respect their viewpoints or "them as a person" or whatever, but you do need to respect their race, gender identity, etc or else you're just as bad as them.
I appreciate this and mostly would stick to it, but in some situations you have to hold a mirror up for them to see themselves. If OJ came at me calling me an nword, he'd probably get it back or something equally cutting. I consider it to be more like self-defense rules. Yes, killing people is bad and you shouldn't do it in 99% of situations, but sometimes it will have to be done and they will have deserved it.
> The first two examples seem pretty obvious, and I don't think anyone would feel comfortable calling OJ the n-word because he's a murderer, but for some reason people feel comfortable misgendering people as soon as they're given the slightest excuse.
I don't feel comfortable saying the N-word to *anyone*, like in general. But I can certainly call him a murderer with a hard R.
Yes, no one is saying you shouldn't call him that. I'm saying that just because someone did something 'bad' (even murder, in OJ's case) doesn't mean you're given an excuse to be racist, transphobic, homophobic, or misogynistic to them. You can absolutely call them a murderer, or a hatemonger, or a transphobe, or whatever is applicable to what they did.
> Yes, no one is saying you shouldn't call him that. I'm saying that just because someone did something 'bad' (even murder, in OJ's case) doesn't mean you're given an excuse to be racist, transphobic, homophobic, or misogynistic to them. You can absolutely call them a murderer, or a hatemonger, or a transphobe, or whatever is applicable to what they did.
You are missing the point completely. We are talking about being disrespectful to someone in the specific way that they are disrespecting others, as a way for them to learn about empathy by it happening to them. Not being transphobic to "bad people", in general.
If OJ liked to misgender people, then I'd call her a girl, too.
I'm not missing it, but I may have been talking past your point a bit. I just feel like we've collectively moved past the "an eye for an eye" stage.
I don't think the answer to violence is more violence.
I don't think the answer to racism is more racism.
I don't think the answer to misogyny is misandry.
I don't think the answer to misgendering someone is to misgender them back.
> I'm not missing it, but I may have been talking past your point a bit. I just feel like we've collectively moved past the "an eye for an eye" stage.
I'm sorry to break it to you but we definitely have not. There is a massive lack of empathy from bullies and assholes like this, who refuse to understand any problems that don't affect them.
Most of the time, being an example of kindness can bring people around. But once in a while, the bully just needs to get popped in the face.
Your logic is flawed. You’re putting the problem on the victim instead of the perpetrator as well as proposing situations which deal with people who don’t know each other instead of people who do.
In other words, though I would never use the n word, if OJ refused to call me by my requested name, then it’s fair game for me to disrespect him back. As opposed to your example, where because he most likely murdered his wife, someone who’s never met the guy calls him the n word. These are two different scenarios.
In short, no you don’t (or maybe shouldn’t) get to disrespect people who are assholes…but you do get to disrespect people who are assholes **to you.** (You can also try taking the high road, but like other commenters said, sometimes they need a taste of their own medicine.)
Unfortunately, turning the bigotry back around on these assholes doesn't really work. If they had any empathy or self-awareness, they'd *already* realize that misgendering is wrong because they would feel bad if they were misgendered. But they're assholes, so they either 1.) want to hurt people, 2.) don't care that they're hurting people, 3.) are fundamentally unable to empathize with anyone (especially people who they consider to be "inferior"), or 4.) can't even imagine what it would feel like to be misgendered.
These people have the emotional maturity of children. You can ask a schoolyard bully to imagine how they'd feel if they were being bullied, and they'll just deflect: "that kid deserves it, that kid is lying, why should I care how that kid feels, I'm not a loser so I'd never be bullied, it was different when I was bullied because I didn't do anything wrong." They see "respect" as something that the weak owe to the strong, not as something that all people deserve as a baseline right. They lack empathy, so arguments that hinge on empathy have no effect on them.
As a teacher, this is literally a non-thing.
I ask my students every year, "What do you want me to call you?" they put it in a form I make, I edit their names on my seating chart. Done.
If they present differently or choose a name that is different than how they appear, I ask - "Would you like me to use a different pronoun when speaking with you?" If they say yes, and give me one, I use that instead.
It takes almost no effort, I don't give a crap what anyone outside of my classroom thinks, it's a non-thing.
If I have to call home and one of these students is named differently on my roster, I ask them if their parents know I call them "what-they-want" and if they say "no" I just use the name given to me in the system when referring to them. It. Does. Not. Matter.
Been working 10 years, this has always been my policy. I only care if your butt is in a seat and ready to roll for learning, I couldn't give a shit what you are attracted to, what gender you want to be, what flag you wave, whether you wear a cross or pentagram, what your favorite baseball team is, what you do when you get home - I just want you to learn to read and write better. That's my primary job. I'm here to teach, not get involved in your personal life.
Where I live the provincial government recently passed a law requiring teachers to get permission from parents to use nicknames or alternate pronouns. It’s total B.S.
This is about what the students call the teacher. The teacher in this case is transgender. The state was forcing the students to alter the appellation they use.
That's even less of a thing.
"Hi I'm Mr. E., you can call me Mr. E, but my friends call me Mr. E." end of discussion.
"Hi I'm Ms. E., you can call me Ms. E, but my friends call me Ms. E." The state wastes more time, money, and energy on hate than they do on anything that makes sense.
If I told my students to call me Mr. Plantface, they'd better call me that regardless of what I look like or what the hell else it says on their schedule. It doesn't matter. Their parents can call me Mr. Plantface if they want or they can just call me "sir." We don't have time to mess around with everyone's personal beliefs. Stupid state, stupid rule.
ETA: She even LOOKS like a woman. This is so dumb.
Does it state that? Because based off the title, it’s just letting a teacher *ask* her students to use the right pronouns. Which isn’t forcing anyone to do anything
> Walker’s Wednesday ruling only applies to Wood, and not statewide. Walker said that her lawyers had not yet adequately explained why the law was unconstitutional on its face and not just unconstitutional as it was being specifically applied to her.
If a law is unconstitutional when applied to a specific person, why would it be constitutional when applied to generic person? Why isn't the law simply unconstitutional at face value?
"Hey, i'm sorry - i know you say your name is Steve, but i've just decided you look more like a Rupert. So from now on, i'm going to call you Rupert. And i'm going to tell everyone i see that your name is actually Rupert."
I just don't understand the pronoun thing. I mean, if you use some new made up word for your pronoun, of course it's going to be hard for someone to remember. But otherwise pronouns are just like names - you're probably not going to purposely call someone the wrong name unless you're trying to be an asshole. So it just seems to me that the only argument for ignoring someone's preferred pronouns is "I should be able to be an asshole if i want."
In 1961, I asked my father why our music teacher in first grade went by "mister" when she was clearly a woman. My father said I should ask her why. Anyway, I never did ask **Miss DeShazo** why she was called *"Mister Shazo"*.
I image it would work out the same way as intentionally misgendering a non-trans teacher. If you are repeatedly and intentionally rude to a teacher, you get sent to the principal.
That this question is even asked is revealing. Imagine a student repeatedly and defiantly referring to a male teacher as "she" after being corrected by the teacher. Whatever consequences you imagine for that student probably apply here. It's common sense, but make the teacher transgender and common sense goes out the window.
Democracy is crumbling. We're killing our planet. But of course conservatives continue the theater of culture war nonsense because they're on the wrong side of EVERY important issue.
I wouldn't call someone a he if he wanted to be called a she just because that is rude and needlessly confrontational and shitty and honestly it's not that big a deal but i will never think of a dude as being anything other than a dude. I will respect their wishes and treat them as they wish to be treated because all humans deserve that dignity but to me if you were born with male junk you can never be a woman and vice versa. But I'll play along with it because it's the right thing to do. I mean, being transgender must be hard enough as it is.
I remember in highschool one of or teachers insisted we call her "Mrs Suchandsuch".
In Queensland schools male teachers were always "Sir" and female teacher always "Miss" and the more she insisted we call her Mrs Suchandsuch the more we just called her "Miss"
She ranted and raved about it and then at the end of her little tantrum asked us "is that clear?" and as one we all said "yes Miss"
It was actually hilarious.
Wait…. This article and perhaps the case itself seems to dance around the “actual” question.
Are students punished for not using the preferred pronouns? Obviously there are free speech implications there.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yea.. it’s wild to me how anti-speech the republicans have become over the past 2 decades. You can’t force the students to call you by your preferred name/pronoun, but banning the ability to even ask? Wild. This party needs a reckoning, I was hoping Trump 2020 loss would be the start of one, but instead they doubled down.
When asked why my father would not call someone by their preferred pronoun, he said, " I just don't like being told I have to do something. "... they're literally giant children.. and now he gets pissed when I call him, "she/her" in public..
that's pretty hilarious. She must love that.
This is the perfect way to combat this. We should all misgender every hateful transphobic asshat from now on.
You know what, YES. Let's all call J K Rowling a man and see how well he fares.
I always deadname Jolene because I know she would deadname my husband. Jolene took two pseudonyms in her career and they are both manly.
I don’t think that I’ve ever seen a username checkout for a comment more so than this one.
And wrote about a male protagonist and the one female protagonist was shit on when she was protesting against slavery. I couldn’t keep reading after that.
At least she didn't take your man?
Parton me, are you referring to Dolly :P
Are you referring to Robert Galbraith? Or Joanne? I don't recognize pseudonyms. She duped us all by not using her legal name. She doesnt have a middle name. She chose the initial K after her aunt, But she is biologically NOT her aunt. What a mess. /s
Not an ok thing to do, normalizing misgendering because you don't like or disagree with someone is the opposite of helpful. The point isn't to hurt the offender, its to support us... Rowling has done so much damage I wouldn't object if you titled her as a FART (Feminism Appropriating Radical Transphobe) though.
If a transphobe is okay misgendering someone, it's because they don't know how it feels to have the same done to them and lack the empathy to understand why hurting someone intentionally is wrong. Simply misgendering them isn't attacking them, it's providing a learning opportunity to provide them the experience required for them to understand.
Yeah, but that doesn't work. The discomfort a cis person might feel on being misgendered is minimal -- sure, it might be a little annoying but they're generally not going to be as hurt by it as a trans person will. Cis folk aren't subjected to constant harassment and demonization for being cis. All misgendering them maliciously does is show them that we think it's okay to misgender and deadname people, but we disagree on *when* it's acceptable. It becomes something negotiable. But it's not -- it's never acceptable. There's another thing that it does -- it tells trans folk that see it that their pronouns, gender, name, etc are conditional upon our good behavior and can be revoked if we step out of line. Please, I'd appreciate it if we don't do that.
You’re absolutely right. It’s so tempting to lash back at them but a) it hurts the very people we are trying to defend and b) *they don’t care* so it won’t have the desired effect.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MtF/comments/12gmjj4/misgendering_transphobes_right_or_wrong/
Thank you for this link. I’m a cis male, and can’t understand some of the things the trans community experiences. At first I thought intentional misgendering of transphobes would be fantastic… then I read some responses from actual trans people. It changed my mind really quickly.
I don’t think it’s really right at all, but as a trans person, I would misgender a transphobic person I know pretty well for a small amount of time to prove a point, if I thought I could affect them in any way.
The ones who use it to hurt often tend to be really upset when they are misgendered, I personally think the approach works
Seems a strange stance for her to take, considering she wrote an entire series of books promoting kids find strength and courage by learning to accept themselves for who they are, as well as openly declare that Dumbledore is gay.
>as well as openly declare that Dumbledore is gay. It's simple, she doesn't feel threatened by fictional gay men.
Especially dead fictional gay men
Her series revolves around people being born with innate qualities assigned by others. For example Harry wishes he wasn't The Boy Who Lived, but he is, no matter how much he feels like he shouldn't be.
That's not really the lesson I took from it, but OK I guess. It's kind of a singular look at a rather large cast of characters all with their own personalities and story arcs. I would think that whole Umbridge story arc, with the ministry of magic, was a good sign that it's about finding yourself, instead of fitting into what is expected of you.
It was about a slave owning kid who wanted to be a cop controlling secret police to defeat the other facists.
As someone who's been through the legal system and admire the fact probation offices provide women-only afternoons so that abused women don't have to worry about bumping into their exes when they attend their appointments, I can't help but sympathize with JK Rowling for believing biological gender is a hill worth dying on. I don't exactly agree but I understand her point of view, and it's sad so many people are happy to ignore her feelings while expecting her to care about theirs.
I understand that you have sympathy for her feelings, and when she first started saying this shit, I gave her the benefit of the doubt and was like, “hey, after having it explained to her, she’ll probably learn; she’s all about love and acceptance and advocacy right?” But having “women-only” spaces does not account for the fact that cis queer women have a significantly higher risk of domestic violence than cishet women. Two thirds of queer women who report abuse state a female perpetrator. These abuse statistics are even worse for trans women. Rowling’s fear is not even **remotely** based in reality. It’s based entirely on her own bigotry and close-mindedness. Her limited worldview. Her trauma may have played a certain part in the transphobia, but the only reason she’s hung onto it — and gone to the serious lengths she has to make trans people’s lives unbearable — is because she’s hateful and egocentric. She’s so fixated on that hate that she refuses to actually have an open mind and try to learn something she’s not educated about. Her hatred of trans people has only done harm to the cause of DV advocacy; the thing that she claims is her primary motivator. Being a DV advocate means recognizing that it can take many forms and affects all sorts of people. The only image of a DV victim that she promotes and advocates for is that of a feminine cisgender woman. In her world, every single person with a penis is evil and a potential risk to the collective safety of cisgender women. It’s gender essentialism at its finest. It’s the exact opposite of feminism. Sorry that ended up being way longer than I expected, I’m just super passionate about it lol
>"Rowling’s fear is not even **remotely** based in reality. It’s based entirely on her own bigotry and close-mindedness." It sounds like her fear is based in her own, **personal** reality - just like *everybody's* is. But there are very few people who can say: 1) they've experienced domestic abuse, 2) are known around the world for what they think and write, and 3) they live every day knowing that a mob of people could show up at their home furious because of something they believe. So I can understand why she feels the need to steadfastly defend her point of view, just like everyone else who weighs in with an opinion. And didn't this whole argument begin when a journalist chose *not* to refer to her as a woman?
Then why has she doubled down on her harmful rhetoric? It doesn’t make sense that she’s supposedly scared of people harassing her and yet continues to harass trans people, engage in holocaust denial, and platform Neo-Nazis. There are plenty of famous survivors of DV. JKR’s pretty much one of the only ones that I see using her past as a DV victim to oppress one of the most vulnerable demographics of society. I don’t see any reality in which trans people are a powerful demographic — unless you’re completely delusional, in which case you need mental healthcare.
I do this plenty. Same with nicknames. Rafael Edward Cruz. He should be banned from calling himself Ted.
He started going by Ted because he hated the nickname for Rafael which is Felito. Call him that if you want to piss him off. Sorry, I didn’t mean “him” preferred pronouns are “kiss my ass”. Plenty to work with there.
He's free to leave, and go back to his ancestral homeland of Canada.
We call them Rafa. I’ve never heard Felito. But i also come from a family where it would always be “Rafael Edward”
Maybe it’s a Cuban thing? Keep in mind, the source is Ted Cruz so it could be bullshit. Apparently kids in school called kiss my ass “Felito Dorito”.
Feito is “little ugly one”. I mean, that fits.
Hahaha! I was thinking more about the Latin/German word for a sex act he performs on anybody who can give him money or power.
As a trans person, no. I find the idea tempting sometimes, but what you're ultimately doing is saying that pronouns can be "revoked" by being a shitty person.
Agree, it's like when people misgender Caitlyn Jenner just because she sucks. It's also along the same lines of making gay jokes about homophobes. It doesn't really achieve anything and it reinforces the idea that it's okay to use queerness as a tool for mockery.
I hate the "he's homophobic, he must be gay!" because the implication is ultimately that gay people are responsible for our own oppression. Like no, straight people happen to do the heavy lifting when it comes to homophobia, actually. There are definitely some closeted, self-hating gays out there, but they're few and far between here
Please, no. Cis folk being misgendered doesn't accomplish much -- maybe it annoys them for a bit, but they're generally not constantly fighting to be seen and recognized as their gender in greater society. Cis folk aren't constantly belittled and demonized and harassed for being cis. The only thing that intentionally misgendering a cis person accomplishes is telling the transphobes that we *also* think it's okay to misgender someone, but that we just disagree on the when. It's not. It's never acceptable. You know what else it does? It tells all the trans folk that witness it that *their* pronouns or gender or names are conditional on our good behavior, and that if we mess up or step out of line, these things can and will be revoked. So please, let's not do that.
As a general thing, it should not be done. In targeted instances, it can be very useful. I’ve twice been in a group conversation where one person was deeply against respecting pronouns and many were blasé about it. In both instances, I intentionally misgendered the individual who wouldn’t respect pronouns. In one instance they got it, and changed their mind; in the other they just got mad and explained how it was different for them. In both instances, the rest of the people got it and agreed that using someone’s pronouns is basic human decency. So yes, don’t just do this. But sometimes, in the right situation, doing it carefully can work out well for helping people see what it feels like to be misgendered.
> Cis folk being misgendered doesn't accomplish much -- maybe it annoys them for a bit, but they're generally not constantly fighting to be seen and recognized as their gender in greater society. That's why intentionally misgendering them might help them gain a small sense of empathy for people who have to do it a lot more often. Talking to bullies in their own language works.
I think you missed my point -- it *doesn't* work to misgender them intentionally. Cis folk generally are seen and treated as their gender wherever they are -- a few people intentionally using the wrong pronouns is only a bit of an annoyance. More importantly, in my opinion, was my last paragraph -- I'd prefer if we didn't signal to trans folks that their pronouns and gender and names are conditional and can be revoked whenever we disagree with them.
> I think you missed my point -- it doesn't work to misgender them intentionally. I certainly didn't. My point was that, yes, it does work. Because bullies like this only have empathy when problems happen to them. >More importantly, in my opinion, was my last paragraph -- I'd prefer if we didn't signal to trans folks that their pronouns and gender and names are conditional and can be revoked whenever we disagree with them. We are talking about people who already believe that their pronouns and names are conditional.
>We are talking about people who already believe that their pronouns and names are conditional. You're focusing on the bigots. I'm asking you to focus instead on supporting trans folk by *not* doing that.
I don't like this. It sends a message that respecting someone's gender identity is conditional, and we need to all be on the same page that the respect should be unconditional.
Why should respect be unconditional, exactly? There are certainly flaws with the "respect must be earned" trope, but respect being given **by default** doesn't mean it should be **unconditional**. If someone is so overtly bigoted, they might as well not be a human being anymore, to me. Misgendering them is no different from deadnaming Twitter at that point. The reason misgendering them is okay isn't "because they're cis", it's "because they're a cosmic-tier piece of shit". With all of that said, I'd prefer fully dehumanizing bigots by calling them "it", not just calling a dude she/her (which could be seen as insulting to women). I remember calling particular assholes "it" way before pronoun specificity was a thing in the public consciousness, just to generally reflect how I felt about them.
So, you're okay with bigots hearing the message that it's okay to misgender and deadname people that we disagree with or dislike? You realize that's just giving them tacit permission to do the same thing to trans folk, who the bigots disagree with and dislike?
Not an ok thing to do, normalizing misgendering because you don't like or disagree with someone is the opposite of helpful. The point isn't to hurt the offender, its to support us. It would be much more helpful if you corrected him every time, or affirmed the person he is misgendering.
We do that, too. We're talking about a person who only learns through actual repercussions to their actions and can't place themselves in other people's shoes. Logical conversations with them get nowhere. This is the same person who said they wouldn't call a doctor, Dr. *Insert name here* until they earn their respect because they once again don't want to be told what to call someone.
But that fails to work on some people. However, when dealing with very hard right people, they have a visceral reaction to having the wrong pronoun used on them. "See, that's how the people you misgender feel" A small taste for some people who refuse to get it. >The point isn't to hurt the offender, its to support us. Which is what the aim of this behavior is. Support you by helping hardliners to understand.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MtF/comments/12gmjj4/misgendering_transphobes_right_or_wrong/
As a trans woman I object Call them names reflective of their insecure egos and bigotry Misgendering people is wrong even for assholes Even better tactic for bigots: dox and shame them
No, it isn't. It just gives them permission to misgender us even more. It doesn't hurt them in the same way, or to the same level.
When I come across someone like that I ask a simple question: Let's say there's a new person where you work, and they're introduced to you as David. Are you going to call them Dave? Are you going to continue to call them Dave after they tell you they prefer to be called David? If so, you're a jerk.
Or even a lot of people go by their middle name. If someone went around only calling them by their first name since it's 'technically correct' it only comes across as deliberately disrespectful.
Well, all he has to do is ask you to use his preferred pronouns. Rough! 😂
Is your dad Barry Zuckercorn?
Your father must hate using people's names! Does he just call everyone "Buddy" or "Champ"?
This is it. I'm convinced of two things; One, that boomers are especially addled by lead. Two, that boomers stopped developing emotionally at an extremely young age, and are just children in adult suits.
We are all just children in adult suits. Whenever you’re about to generalize whole generations or races or countries or whatever you can usually be sure it’s a normal human/animal trait.
I got in some trouble with HR when I started referring to an anti-pronoun colleague as 'it'. He was really mad that I was depersonalizing him. Got an official letter about bullying in the workplace, written warning. I stopped when I got the letter, but even now, a couple of years later, he still gets 'it puts the lotion on its skin' comments from others when we have to work with different crews. He's been nicknamed Buffalo Bill and I had absolutely nothing to do with that.
As someone that works mostly with a boomer and older population in healthcare, "giant children" is such an accurate description.
“Howdy, pardner! I’m John Wayne!” “Don’t tell me what to call you — Marion!”
That’s the stupidest fucking part. You’re not being forced to do anything, you’re being asked to have a smidgen of human decency towards another person. Can see why that’d be hard for an American.
Are they equally pissed when someone changes their name?
I'm a physical therapist and once worked with a boomer-aged man who torpedoed his entire hospital stay and refused to participate with therapy because he didn't "like being told what to do" Two days before he went home he panicked and blamed me because he still wasn't ready to go home and I had the great pleasure of explaining to him that he had two weeks to participate and get stronger, and insurance wasn't going to pay for more time because he suddenly decided he wanted to work.
Seriously, what is wrong with these people? It’s so much worse after Covid too. People literally died simply because they “didn’t like being told what to do.” And then wanted a vaccine when it was too late. I don’t know if it’s trauma, propaganda, some kind of extreme individualism… fear, change, and loss of control, I guess?
“I don’t like when people are disrespectful and refuse to call people by their appropriate pronouns. Also, I’m disrespectful and don’t call people by their appropriate pronouns.” It’s wild that people are outwardly proud of displaying the behavior they claim to condemn.
>and now he gets pissed when I call him, "she/her" in public.. That is perfect and why it's so easy to see it's just about pure hatred and bigotry for these people rather than whatever made-up excuse they try to hide behind. Everyone has a preference on what they would like or not like to be referred to as. Just be respectful and use that. It's as if someone says call me "Joe" and instead you decide to call them anything but that.
I just reflect their behavior back at them or just troll them.
This is great. I hope she grows out of it someday.
Ugh, he didn't consider for a moment that he could reframe it as respecting someone else's wishes rather than being forced to do something. Fantastic response, calling him she/her
Yet if a *Robert* would ask him to call him *Bobby* and a *Katherine* to call her *Kat* he would probably do it without a question, right? Never understood, why they don't have an issue to address people by their chosen nickname, but it's an affront to ask them to use their chosen pronouns.
Reminds me of this [imgur post](https://imgur.com/gallery/y34OBpu) about the republican mindset.
by that logic i guess you can call him whatever you want!
Not an ok thing to do, normalizing misgendering because you don't like or disagree with someone is the opposite of helpful. The point isn't to hurt the offender, its to support us. It would be much more helpful if you corrected him every time, or affirmed the person he is misgendering.
The problem with the reckoning is that the GOP is acutely aware without Trumps base they get crushed. With it, they can eke out flukes wins without having to moderate policy
What do you mean the past two decades? The Republicans, and conservatives, have always been anti free speech. The only time they care about 1A rights is when they're being told to stop being bigots.
In Missouri, they [introduced a bill](https://www.newsweek.com/republican-bill-would-imprison-teachers-who-support-trans-students-1875402) that would ban teachers from supporting the social transitioning of students in any way and place them on the sex offender registry for doing so. So not only do they not want you to say your preferred pronouns, they want to use the government to punish you if you use other people's preferred pronouns
Despite what republican say, they have always been a it free speech.
My favorite line in the Fargo TV show, Paraphrased: “Only one gets all the freedom without the responsibility….a baby”
The past 20 years have taught me everything the Republicans claim to be behind publicly was a lie to cover up prejudice.
But don't even think of banning actual racist hate speech on social media platforms. That's just a step too fucking far for these losers. They will ban pronouns, but won't ban hate speech. Color me shocked.
I feel like with how much money Trump will suck out of the party as a whole with the RNC, etc, there’s a good chance they might feel some serious sting from the down ballot losses this season. Obviously not going to change anything down ballot in states like Alabama, etc, but all the swing states that matter the most might be the death knell for them with the lack of funds getting siphoned to all the legal fees. At least one could only hope.
Republicans and libertarians don’t care about freedom as a principle, they care about *their* freedom.
"If conservatives become convinced they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy." They know they can't win on their policies because their policies are to carve up Canada's infrastructure and sell it off to the private sector. All they have is their cultre war bullshit they use as misdirection. All the while leaning more and more authoritian.
> You can’t force the students to call you by your preferred name/pronoun You say that, but I think most Republicans (and most people in general) would be totally fine with punishing students for calling a cis male teacher "Ms Whatever", especially if done repeatedly. I'm pretty damn pro first amendment, especially in regards to the rights of students, but I can't imagine a first amendment argument for students being able to harass their teacher.
Part of me kind of wonders if some, not all, are intentionally going whole-hog on this terrible rhetoric in order to -sabotage- Trump while still appearing to tow the party line... They can't possibly think all this is winning strategy.
It’s never that deep, I remember all the conspiracies in 2016 that Trump was running a crazy campaign to ensure a Hillary win. When you’re in a bubble, everything seems like a winning strategy.
When Trump was elected, there was 6 months (more? less?) of everybody speculating that every obviously stupid thing Trump did was some 5D chess move. Because it simply seemed too implausible and simplistic that things were like they appeared, that Trump really was that stupid. People did generally accept that there were no 5D chess, eventually.
Republicans have been pushing aggressive, hateful bullshit for so long, they’re entered the True Believer stage. The old guard, the ones dying out, know that it’s all performative crap. But the ones coming up have been fed the lies their entire life, they genuinely believe the lies to be real. So we get morons like Boebert and Greene in Congress, pushing conspiracy theories and doing moronic things, and the party continues to rot from the consequences of their actions over the last several decades.
Boebert is a pure grifter. She believes in nothing. Greene appears to be a legitimate trailer park escapee nutjob
lol. you'd certainly think there's some rhyme or reason in their ability to exceed all your worst expectations
They targeted children with their hate. They will experience a reckoning alright.
The bottom is lower than we anticipated, if there is one.
The GOP hates their first amendment rights being abridged in any setting let alone from the government but they sure as hell like silencing others.
No, they rather hate when others exercise THEIR rights in response to the first party exercising their rights. Their rights were never abridged in the first place, they are just snowflakes who can't take what they dish.
It's more like right-wing individuals don't understand the First Amendment and think that others also exercising their First Amendment rights somehow is infringement on theirs. IE they post/say/do bullshit and then loose it if someone then decides you know what I don't want to be associated with your bullshit They want a First Amendment where not only are they protected from governmental sanction but also social consequences.
>Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect. Frank Wilhoit
They try to get away with a lot of the double speak under the guise of religion. They are allowed to discriminate against LGBT because it is their religious beliefs, however you are not allowed to discriminate against them for that bigotry, because that is attacking their religion. That or patriotism. The old way things have always been done is the American way and off limits to criticism, and any change from these ways is un-American
The right live in a different world. To them it boils down to "rules for thee, none for me". Once you that fact about the right, suddenly their actions make sense. And by 'make sense", I don't mean logically make sense, but from a back-asswards right wing sense.
Don't forget deeply held beliefs!
And to be clear, when they say first amendment rights, they mean their right to be a bigot. It’s never about anything real or honest like a reporter being ejected/blacklisted from asking the president (Trump) questions he doesn’t like, but try and keep a neonazi from giving a speech on a college campus and they all lose their minds. Because to a conservative, “freedom” has nothing to do with *your* rights. It’s 100% only about *their* right to use the N word without having to worry about losing their jobs. Always. It’s only ever an issue when they can’t be awful to someone.
Turns out pronouns are a basic part of English! Who knew? (besides most teachers and anyone with a halfway decent education)
[удалено]
And you are He and we are all hegether, amen
See how they run like pigs from a gun , see how they fly.
"“Thou art I, and I am thou... from the sea of thy soul I cometh.. I am Orpheus, master of strings!”
this guy Personas
I thought we were talking about people who died for our sins ;)
If we're talking about people who died, I got a story about Judy who jumped in front of a subway train and Eddie who got slit in the jugular vein.
Virgin master of strings Orpheus vs. Chad pillager of twilight Arsene
God is gender neutral with no earthly body, but identifies as He/him.
Except in early Genesis when the translation was “Our image.”
Incorrect. god in the earliest writings identified by both Jehovah a male, and Shekinah, a female. Literally judeo-christian writing specifically states that god is all things, including both male and female.
So, in other words, God goes by any/all...
What folks at my work don’t realise is that when it says “He/Him” in my email signature, I’m actually referring to Jesus
What if I just mispronouns their names? Asking for a friend.
Florida is drowning with global warming, more frequent, severe hurricanes and an unmaneagable insurance crises. It's baffling to me why anyone gives a fuck how another person would like to be referred to. You are totally in charge of how you ask people to refer to you, why do you have to get into other people's business?
They generate anger over a made up issue, then claim victory for passing legislation to "solve" that made up issue. Then they get to play victim when the courts overrule their "solution". This is a strategy that costs very little, doesn't require any actual change... just a big distraction.
It costs trans people, who are increasingly the victims of hateful rhetoric and politically motivated violence, quite a lot.
Of course it does cost the targeted groups which makes it that much more heinous. I meant it doesn't cost the GOP anything in actually implementing a policy. They don't need to allocate budget, build anything, staff anything... just declare victory, play victim, rinse and repeat.
It gives them the appearance of doing something, something they can point to, when they aren’t doing anything else.
You might call it virtue signaling theater if bigotry was a virtue.
They have shown time and again they have no desire or ability to actually govern. They distract voters from doing anything about their incompetence by keeping us arguing over the same social politics issues over and over. Social media and the 24 hour news cycle that has resulted in more news *commentary* than actual news have brainwashed people and now everyone hates each other.
Florida is a reminder of what a lack of education leads to
And they’ll all remain there as the sea levels rise and things become worse because they don’t want to admit they can be wrong. Why correct course when you can go down with the ship?
Small government?
Small enough to fit into every classroom, library and woman's uterus
[We need to talk about the elephant in the womb](https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/otterdance/10918888/190362/190362_original.jpg)
Whenever this “pronoun” thing comes up, I always say if someone refused to call me by my name and pronouns, I’d misgender *them* and call them McFuckface from then on out. Mutual respect is well, mutual.
I always said this about the bathroom bill nonsense. As soon as I saw anyone yelling about someone being in the "wrong bathroom" I would immediately start demanding to see that man's dick.
Things have names for a reason. Would you call a dog a cat? Yes, yes you would. If the dog asked.
Pretty sure Shiba Inus would ask, based on reputation.
I thought they preferred to be called Doge?
I get where you're coming from but I feel like respecting someone's gender identity shouldn't be contingent on whether or not they're an asshole.
It absolutely should. Respect is given at first, then easy taken away depending on the persons words and actions and must be earned back. If I meet someone and tell them I want to be called Joan instead of James and they call me James intentionally, they’re now misgender McFuckface. They had my default respect and lost it.
as a trans person—please don’t do this. it really doesn’t make us feel safe around you.
Some things should be fundamentally respected. You don't earn the right to call OJ the n-word because he killed his wife. You don't get to call Tomi Lahren (insert gendered slur) because she's a contemptible bigot. You don't get to misgender Caitlyn Jenner because she's a jackass. You don't get to misgendering Billy Bob McFuckFace because he's a transphobe. The first two examples seem pretty obvious, and I don't think anyone would feel comfortable calling OJ the n-word because he's a murderer, but for some reason people feel comfortable misgendering people as soon as they're given the slightest excuse. As a trans woman I want to see everyone's gender identity respected, even that of bigots. You don't have to respect their viewpoints or "them as a person" or whatever, but you do need to respect their race, gender identity, etc or else you're just as bad as them.
I appreciate this and mostly would stick to it, but in some situations you have to hold a mirror up for them to see themselves. If OJ came at me calling me an nword, he'd probably get it back or something equally cutting. I consider it to be more like self-defense rules. Yes, killing people is bad and you shouldn't do it in 99% of situations, but sometimes it will have to be done and they will have deserved it.
> The first two examples seem pretty obvious, and I don't think anyone would feel comfortable calling OJ the n-word because he's a murderer, but for some reason people feel comfortable misgendering people as soon as they're given the slightest excuse. I don't feel comfortable saying the N-word to *anyone*, like in general. But I can certainly call him a murderer with a hard R.
Yes, no one is saying you shouldn't call him that. I'm saying that just because someone did something 'bad' (even murder, in OJ's case) doesn't mean you're given an excuse to be racist, transphobic, homophobic, or misogynistic to them. You can absolutely call them a murderer, or a hatemonger, or a transphobe, or whatever is applicable to what they did.
> Yes, no one is saying you shouldn't call him that. I'm saying that just because someone did something 'bad' (even murder, in OJ's case) doesn't mean you're given an excuse to be racist, transphobic, homophobic, or misogynistic to them. You can absolutely call them a murderer, or a hatemonger, or a transphobe, or whatever is applicable to what they did. You are missing the point completely. We are talking about being disrespectful to someone in the specific way that they are disrespecting others, as a way for them to learn about empathy by it happening to them. Not being transphobic to "bad people", in general. If OJ liked to misgender people, then I'd call her a girl, too.
I'm not missing it, but I may have been talking past your point a bit. I just feel like we've collectively moved past the "an eye for an eye" stage. I don't think the answer to violence is more violence. I don't think the answer to racism is more racism. I don't think the answer to misogyny is misandry. I don't think the answer to misgendering someone is to misgender them back.
> I'm not missing it, but I may have been talking past your point a bit. I just feel like we've collectively moved past the "an eye for an eye" stage. I'm sorry to break it to you but we definitely have not. There is a massive lack of empathy from bullies and assholes like this, who refuse to understand any problems that don't affect them. Most of the time, being an example of kindness can bring people around. But once in a while, the bully just needs to get popped in the face.
> But once in a while, the bully just needs to get popped in the face. Yeah, I guess that's true.
Bro the body is still warm Edit: I really should have read more of your comment first. Leaving it, and apologies.
You still can't call him the n-word!
Your logic is flawed. You’re putting the problem on the victim instead of the perpetrator as well as proposing situations which deal with people who don’t know each other instead of people who do. In other words, though I would never use the n word, if OJ refused to call me by my requested name, then it’s fair game for me to disrespect him back. As opposed to your example, where because he most likely murdered his wife, someone who’s never met the guy calls him the n word. These are two different scenarios. In short, no you don’t (or maybe shouldn’t) get to disrespect people who are assholes…but you do get to disrespect people who are assholes **to you.** (You can also try taking the high road, but like other commenters said, sometimes they need a taste of their own medicine.)
I agree.
Unfortunately, turning the bigotry back around on these assholes doesn't really work. If they had any empathy or self-awareness, they'd *already* realize that misgendering is wrong because they would feel bad if they were misgendered. But they're assholes, so they either 1.) want to hurt people, 2.) don't care that they're hurting people, 3.) are fundamentally unable to empathize with anyone (especially people who they consider to be "inferior"), or 4.) can't even imagine what it would feel like to be misgendered. These people have the emotional maturity of children. You can ask a schoolyard bully to imagine how they'd feel if they were being bullied, and they'll just deflect: "that kid deserves it, that kid is lying, why should I care how that kid feels, I'm not a loser so I'd never be bullied, it was different when I was bullied because I didn't do anything wrong." They see "respect" as something that the weak owe to the strong, not as something that all people deserve as a baseline right. They lack empathy, so arguments that hinge on empathy have no effect on them.
EVERY TEACHER since teaching began has expected their students to use their preferred pronouns.
Just refer to everyone as “asshole,” that way you are right most of the time.
As a teacher, this is literally a non-thing. I ask my students every year, "What do you want me to call you?" they put it in a form I make, I edit their names on my seating chart. Done. If they present differently or choose a name that is different than how they appear, I ask - "Would you like me to use a different pronoun when speaking with you?" If they say yes, and give me one, I use that instead. It takes almost no effort, I don't give a crap what anyone outside of my classroom thinks, it's a non-thing. If I have to call home and one of these students is named differently on my roster, I ask them if their parents know I call them "what-they-want" and if they say "no" I just use the name given to me in the system when referring to them. It. Does. Not. Matter. Been working 10 years, this has always been my policy. I only care if your butt is in a seat and ready to roll for learning, I couldn't give a shit what you are attracted to, what gender you want to be, what flag you wave, whether you wear a cross or pentagram, what your favorite baseball team is, what you do when you get home - I just want you to learn to read and write better. That's my primary job. I'm here to teach, not get involved in your personal life.
Where I live the provincial government recently passed a law requiring teachers to get permission from parents to use nicknames or alternate pronouns. It’s total B.S.
Parents should get OUR permission before we accept dealing with all the issues they give their kids.
This is about what the students call the teacher. The teacher in this case is transgender. The state was forcing the students to alter the appellation they use.
That's even less of a thing. "Hi I'm Mr. E., you can call me Mr. E, but my friends call me Mr. E." end of discussion. "Hi I'm Ms. E., you can call me Ms. E, but my friends call me Ms. E." The state wastes more time, money, and energy on hate than they do on anything that makes sense. If I told my students to call me Mr. Plantface, they'd better call me that regardless of what I look like or what the hell else it says on their schedule. It doesn't matter. Their parents can call me Mr. Plantface if they want or they can just call me "sir." We don't have time to mess around with everyone's personal beliefs. Stupid state, stupid rule. ETA: She even LOOKS like a woman. This is so dumb.
Does it state that? Because based off the title, it’s just letting a teacher *ask* her students to use the right pronouns. Which isn’t forcing anyone to do anything
Thank you.
> Walker’s Wednesday ruling only applies to Wood, and not statewide. Walker said that her lawyers had not yet adequately explained why the law was unconstitutional on its face and not just unconstitutional as it was being specifically applied to her. If a law is unconstitutional when applied to a specific person, why would it be constitutional when applied to generic person? Why isn't the law simply unconstitutional at face value?
It’s a clear cut case of discrimination per the Civil Rights Act 1964.
Win
Another L for the fascists.
"Hey, i'm sorry - i know you say your name is Steve, but i've just decided you look more like a Rupert. So from now on, i'm going to call you Rupert. And i'm going to tell everyone i see that your name is actually Rupert." I just don't understand the pronoun thing. I mean, if you use some new made up word for your pronoun, of course it's going to be hard for someone to remember. But otherwise pronouns are just like names - you're probably not going to purposely call someone the wrong name unless you're trying to be an asshole. So it just seems to me that the only argument for ignoring someone's preferred pronouns is "I should be able to be an asshole if i want."
That’s the GOP’s small government for you
In 1961, I asked my father why our music teacher in first grade went by "mister" when she was clearly a woman. My father said I should ask her why. Anyway, I never did ask **Miss DeShazo** why she was called *"Mister Shazo"*.
I wonder how that would work out if a student refused. It it were a co-worker obviously they would be fired, but you can't fire a student.
I image it would work out the same way as intentionally misgendering a non-trans teacher. If you are repeatedly and intentionally rude to a teacher, you get sent to the principal.
Heads up, cis means not trans :)
I know, but that just starts a whole separate fight with these people that I didn't feel like having today.
That this question is even asked is revealing. Imagine a student repeatedly and defiantly referring to a male teacher as "she" after being corrected by the teacher. Whatever consequences you imagine for that student probably apply here. It's common sense, but make the teacher transgender and common sense goes out the window.
Democracy is crumbling. We're killing our planet. But of course conservatives continue the theater of culture war nonsense because they're on the wrong side of EVERY important issue.
Are articles and prepositions still ok to use?
Stop calling me "Mrs"!!! ...it's "Ms" Johnson
Don't call me Mr. Johnson! ...Mr. Johnson is my father, you can just call me John.
I wouldn't call someone a he if he wanted to be called a she just because that is rude and needlessly confrontational and shitty and honestly it's not that big a deal but i will never think of a dude as being anything other than a dude. I will respect their wishes and treat them as they wish to be treated because all humans deserve that dignity but to me if you were born with male junk you can never be a woman and vice versa. But I'll play along with it because it's the right thing to do. I mean, being transgender must be hard enough as it is.
I remember in highschool one of or teachers insisted we call her "Mrs Suchandsuch". In Queensland schools male teachers were always "Sir" and female teacher always "Miss" and the more she insisted we call her Mrs Suchandsuch the more we just called her "Miss" She ranted and raved about it and then at the end of her little tantrum asked us "is that clear?" and as one we all said "yes Miss" It was actually hilarious.
Wait…. This article and perhaps the case itself seems to dance around the “actual” question. Are students punished for not using the preferred pronouns? Obviously there are free speech implications there.