Doing it respectfully would include having some awareness of how others feel about it. And I contest that the situation would always get you fired- it very well could, I don't think it definitely would.
Maybe things are different in Australia, but there is no way that would fly here in the US.
Doing it respectfully would include having some awareness of how others feel about it. And I contest that the situation would always get you fired- it very well could, I don't think it definitely would.
Maybe things are different in Australia, but there is no way that would fly here in the US.
Yeah, pretty much the only way you can do that in the US is in a scholarly/historical context. Not actually using it to refer to someone you're talking to/about.
Doing it respectfully would include having some awareness of how others feel about it. And I contest that the situation would always get you fired- it very well could, I don't think it definitely would.
Maybe things are different in Australia, but there is no way that would fly here in the US.
So you say, but it would be a private decision no? There is no law prohibiting saying it.
Doing it respectfully would include having some awareness of how others feel about it. And I contest that the situation would always get you fired- it very well could, I don't think it definitely would.
Maybe things are different in Australia, but there is no way that would fly here in the US.
So you say, but it would be a private decision no? There is no law prohibiting saying it.
There is definitely no law on this because at my workplace, government run no less, you can't go a whole hour without one person being referred to by the 'n-word', though it may be fine because it is used only by other African-Americans. But this goes to show that we don't limit the actual words allowed, but we do have means for dealing with people saying things others aren't OK with and it isn't automatically harassment.
If your specific work place has such a culture that using the 'n-word' even once would get you fired then you have the responsibility to recognize that that type of culture has filled your work place and to act accordingly, this is all covered under the 'doing it respectfully' part of DJK's argument.
So you say, but it would be a private decision no? There is no law prohibiting saying it.
There's no law that says "You can't say the n-word", but there is a law that says you can't create a hostile work environment, and that includes "unwelcome conduct that is based on race", which this would surely fall under.
The fact that both sides are capable of violence is also irrelevant. One side's objective does not require violence to achieve it, so prohibiting that side from using violence is meaningless.
*looks at the amount of violence committed against trans people*
Are you sure that's the argument you want to go with?
I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. What acts are both sides performing? It seems to me that there is one act - the speech.
Both sides are engaging in speech. The trans people are using one set of pronouns, and their opponents are using another. The trans people are requesting that others use their preferred set of pronouns, and their opponents are declining. This is not a one-way street.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
*looks at the amount of violence committed against trans people*
Are you sure that's the argument you want to go with?
I'm a bit confused by this reply. What does this have to do with the question of what pronouns people should use? You don't need to use violence to be able to say the pronoun you want. No one is beating up trans people so that they can call them by a different pronoun, that doesn't even make sense.
Both sides are engaging in speech. The trans people are using one set of pronouns, and their opponents are using another. The trans people are requesting that others use their preferred set of pronouns, and their opponents are declining. This is not a one-way street.
I also don't understand what you're getting at here. The trans people want to be referred to by one set of pronouns, and their opponents want to use another. Using a pronoun is speech. Being referred to by a pronoun is not speech.
I'm a bit confused by this reply. What does this have to do with the question of what pronouns people should use? You don't need to use violence to be able to say the pronoun you want. No one is beating up trans people so that they can call them by a different pronoun, that doesn't even make sense.
Transphobia doesn't make sense, but yeah, I'm pretty damn sure people are beating up trans people for exactly that reason.
I also don't understand what you're getting at here. The trans people want to be referred to by one set of pronouns, and their opponents want to use another. Using a pronoun is speech. Being referred to by a pronoun is not speech.
I don't know how to put it any more plainly: "Please refer to me as 'she' " is speech. Gender presentation is self-expression. Personal identity is protected by freedom of conscience and freedom of association.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Anyone mind giving the layman's cribnotes on identity? An example, in particular, would be useful. Here it seems to be separated from both (biological) sex and (cultural) expression and so I'm not sure what's left. I do have an example below but that is more mental illness than anything IMO.
So I could be biologically a male, dress and act in a feminine way and 'identify' as some other thing? What would be my impetus for doing so? Can I wake up one day and just 'identify' as a Lord Admiral and make up some definition of that and then insist that everyone refer to me as a Lord Admiral under penalty of law? By no means am I suggesting that such a silly example represents all or even most of those who have another identity that they hold deeply to, but I suppose that's the question: what is a legitimate identity that needs to be recognized, what's not and how do you determine the difference?
When I was in my teens, there was this guy that showed up to play MTG with us one night. I'm not sure where he came from or who invited him but this guy was, as far as I could tell, genuinely convinced that he was a Werewolf. I mean genuinely convinced, not joking around or trolling or anything. Being the immature jerks that we were at the time, we really let him have it behind his back. I'm not proud of that because clearly he had a mental illness and probably wasn't responsible for his weird behavior. Again, I recognize that this is a wacky example but I'm curious as to whether this law would have actually required us to acknowledge his Werewolf-ness. It was definitely part of who he thought he was as a being, both physically and culturally/socially.
Now I'm not sure about, in that above example, what the correct attitude is in dealing with such people. Maybe it's best to just pretend that they are a Werewolf and just go along to get along. But I could also see the point of view of someone who suggested not feeding into his delusions. And, either way, it certainly seems like an area around which there is legitimate room for disagreement and discussion (i.e., not a question for the law.)
Transphobia doesn't make sense, but yeah, I'm pretty damn sure people are beating up trans people for exactly that reason.
If I want to refer to someone as "he", I can just say "he" - there's no forcing involved. If I'm beating them up, it's for another reason - for example to force them to appear differently, or force them to refer to themselves differently.
I don't know how to put it any more plainly: "Please refer to me as 'she' " is speech. Gender presentation is self-expression. Personal identity is protected by freedom of conscience and freedom of association.
But we're not talking about being able to say "Please refer to me as 'she'", nor are we talking about freedom of gender presentation, or personal identity. Those are separate issues.
If Bob wants to call Alice "he" and Alice wants to be called "she", the only speech that's relevant to that outcome is Bob's speech. Yes, Alice might also want to engage in a bunch of other expression related to gender identity, but none of that impacts what pronoun Bob ultimately chooses to use.
Anyone mind giving the layman's cribnotes on identity? An example, in particular, would be useful. Here it seems to be separated from both (biological) sex and (cultural) expression and so I'm not sure what's left. I do have an example below but that is more mental illness than anything IMO.
So I could be biologically a male, dress and act in a feminine way and 'identify' as some other thing? What would be my impetus for doing so? Can I wake up one day and just 'identify' as a Lord Admiral and make up some definition of that and then insist that everyone refer to me as a Lord Admiral under penalty of law? By no means am I suggesting that such a silly example represents all or even most of those who have another identity that they hold deeply to, but I suppose that's the question: what is a legitimate identity that needs to be recognized, what's not and how do you determine the difference?
When I was in my teens, there was this guy that showed up to play MTG with us one night. I'm not sure where he came from or who invited him but this guy was, as far as I could tell, genuinely convinced that he was a Werewolf. I mean genuinely convinced, not joking around or trolling or anything. Being the immature jerks that we were at the time, we really let him have it behind his back. I'm not proud of that because clearly he had a mental illness and probably wasn't responsible for his weird behavior. Again, I recognize that this is a wacky example but I'm curious as to whether this law would have actually required us to acknowledge his Werewolf-ness. It was definitely part of who he thought he was as a being, both physically and culturally/socially.
Now I'm not sure about, in that above example, what the correct attitude is in dealing with such people. Maybe it's best to just pretend that they are a Werewolf and just go along to get along. But I could also see the point of view of someone who suggested not feeding into his delusions. And, either way, it certainly seems like an area around which there is legitimate room for disagreement and discussion (i.e., not a question for the law.)
Basically, after a botched circumcision, he was left without a *****. The doctors at the time suggested simply doing a gender-reassignment surgery, and raising him as a girl. Despite the surgery and being raised as female, Reimer ended up identifying as male and transitioned to living as a man. If there were no internal gender identity (as the doctors who performed the experiment believed), then this wouldn't really make sense. Gender identity is the thing that internally tells you what gender you are. Most of us don't even notice it, because we naturally feel as though we are the gender that everyone perceives us to be, and so it can be difficult to imagine what it would feel like to have a mismatch.
If Bob wants to call Alice "he" and Alice wants to be called "she", the only speech that's relevant to that outcome is Bob's speech.
...plus Alice's desire to be called that. If Alice didn't mind being called "he", there would be no problem. This is a question of her conscience, which is a First Amendment issue per se. And for this situation to become a dispute, then Alice needs to express that desire, which is speech in the ordinary sense of the term.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
If Bob wants to call Alice "he" and Alice wants to be called "she", the only speech that's relevant to that outcome is Bob's speech.
...plus Alice's desire to be called that. If Alice didn't mind being called "he", there would be no problem. This is a question of her conscience, which is a First Amendment issue per se. And for this situation to become a dispute, then Alice needs to express that desire, which is speech in the ordinary sense of the term.
Sure, but Bob doesn't care whether Alice expresses that desire. Bob's objective here is not "prevent Alice from asking me to say "she"". The only speech which is in dispute is Bob's.
The question of legislating acceptance is a fascinating and complex issue, and I won't pretend to be able to answer that definitively. However, there is a more fundamental (and infuriating) mistake being made in this debate - the idea that pronouns represent some sort of political or scientific 'ideology'.
The problem with this issue is that gender identity is purely subjective experience. To someone who has never reconsidered or thought about their gender, the difference between gender and sex is utterly immaterial in their experiences. Thus, When someone like Peterson hears someone say 'I'm a femmeboi and my pronouns are they/them/their', that makes no sense to him because gender identity is so subjective. But to the femmeboi person, this difference is a defining attribute about them, and to call that ideology is like calling someone's skin color or family tree 'ideology'.
One might say, however, 'You can't say that without scientific proof'. But in order to prove this, we'd have to peer into people's consciousness, which is only possible if consciousness is observable and thus material; this conclusion, while very possible, is by no means certain. If it were, philosophy would be light-years ahead of where it is and we'd probably be resolving the religion question before the end of the year. But we can't do that, and thus we don't know if consciousness is material (and thus scientifically observable) or fundamentally dualist/immaterial (and thus inaccessible by science). Thus, bringing science into the equation will, at least until we answer the question of consciousness, drag this argument further away from its own resolution.
In light of this inherent subjectivity, and in light of the fact that there is an entire section of psychology dealing with gender identity and many thousands of people discussing it in academic and social contexts every day, for someone like Peterson to go around saying that 'using the correct pronouns represents a political ideology' is utterly arrogant. To use the wrong pronouns is to say 'I don't recognize or accept your identity/subjective experience' and at the end of the day, how are we supposed to debate that? The debate devolves, every time, into people saying 'this is my experience' and others saying 'your experience is wrong' and that's an unwinnable debate. For Peterson to act like he can peer into a transgender person's head and dictate how 'correct' their identity is arrogant and offensive on so many levels - and I'm 100% cis.
Gender identity is not always defined as such a loose, subjective, and open ended thing. If it were just thought of as that, Peterson's objections would be different (he has referenced this conflict between gender identity as something more biological versus this cultural sort of thing).
Also, something being a subjective thing of the mind does not mean we cannot test it- we have a whole discipline of psychology to play with here. It only limits our ability to test it, it doesn't mean we have no way of knowing.
In most current fields of science; gender most likely isn't a biological thing. The APA defines it as 'socially constructed roles... that society deems appropriate', and even among biologists,The notion that gender is a binary is under question. And in addition to these studies, we have the subjective of thousands of people online and on campuses and in the world, who tell us that they don't identify with that binary. Peterson isn't discussing an ideology, but instead he's forcing these people to somehow prove the validity of their own identity to other people.
You do make a good point about psychology, but the problem is that psychology, like all sciences operating under the scientific method, can only document observable things and must infer the causes. To prove the existence of gender identity, psychology would have to link the gender spectrum to some observable behavior and infer that it is not only a possible cause, but the only cause. For someone who can't comprehend the notion of gender identity at all, this kind of proof will probably never be accepted. Even if it is possible, the wait is far too long to continue denying people's identity until some sort of definite proof is found.
The question of legislating acceptance is a fascinating and complex issue, and I won't pretend to be able to answer that definitively. However, there is a more fundamental (and infuriating) mistake being made in this debate - the idea that pronouns represent some sort of political or scientific 'ideology'.
The problem with this issue is that gender identity is purely subjective experience. To someone who has never reconsidered or thought about their gender, the difference between gender and sex is utterly immaterial in their experiences. Thus, When someone like Peterson hears someone say 'I'm a femmeboi and my pronouns are they/them/their', that makes no sense to him because gender identity is so subjective. But to the femmeboi person, this difference is a defining attribute about them, and to call that ideology is like calling someone's skin color or family tree 'ideology'.
One might say, however, 'You can't say that without scientific proof'. But in order to prove this, we'd have to peer into people's consciousness, which is only possible if consciousness is observable and thus material; this conclusion, while very possible, is by no means certain. If it were, philosophy would be light-years ahead of where it is and we'd probably be resolving the religion question before the end of the year. But we can't do that, and thus we don't know if consciousness is material (and thus scientifically observable) or fundamentally dualist/immaterial (and thus inaccessible by science). Thus, bringing science into the equation will, at least until we answer the question of consciousness, drag this argument further away from its own resolution.
In light of this inherent subjectivity, and in light of the fact that there is an entire section of psychology dealing with gender identity and many thousands of people discussing it in academic and social contexts every day, for someone like Peterson to go around saying that 'using the correct pronouns represents a political ideology' is utterly arrogant. To use the wrong pronouns is to say 'I don't recognize or accept your identity/subjective experience' and at the end of the day, how are we supposed to debate that? The debate devolves, every time, into people saying 'this is my experience' and others saying 'your experience is wrong' and that's an unwinnable debate. For Peterson to act like he can peer into a transgender person's head and dictate how 'correct' their identity is arrogant and offensive on so many levels - and I'm 100% cis.
The problem isn't what is the correct pronoun, it's that certain groups of people get to decide what correct means in any given context and force you to abide by it. That's not a power that should be taken lightly.
What exactly are you afraid they'll do? Make you use a really long annoying word to refer to them? This isn't just a word; it's their identity, and any person has the right to decide their own identity. Saying someone can't choose pronouns isn't far off from saying they can't trust themselves to determine their identity.
So you say, but it would be a private decision no? There is no law prohibiting saying it.
There's no law that says "You can't say the n-word", but there is a law that says you can't create a hostile work environment, and that includes "unwelcome conduct that is based on race", which this would surely fall under.
Again, so you say. I think it would depend, certainly with regards to whether you get actually fired. 'Unwelcome conduct' surely does not mean 'anything even that could be taken to be even slightly disparaging'.
Also again,
doing it respectfully would include having some awareness of how others feel about it.
Again, so you say. I think it would depend, certainly with regards to whether you get actually fired. 'Unwelcome conduct' surely does not mean 'anything even that could be taken to be even slightly disparaging'.
Also again,
doing it respectfully would include having some awareness of how others feel about it.
I'm not suggesting it means "anything even that could be taken to be even slightly disparaging", and I'm not suggesting there can't be extenuating circumstances. But fundamentally, if I go to work and start calling my co-workers the n-word, and they complain about, I either have to stop doing it, or I'm going to get fired. If neither happens, the government is going to step in.
Perhaps it'd be helpful here to look at some case law:
First, Western-Southern argues that the district court committed clear error in finding that Mann's use of the word "n****r" contributed to a hostile work environment. In support of this argument, Western-Southern asks this court to consider the context in which that word was used. The record indicates that Mann used the word twice in Rodgers presence, though Rodgers could not recall the precise context in which it was used. The record also indicates that black employees, including Thomas and Rodgers himself, also used this word in the workplace. We find Western-Southern's argument unpersuasive. Perhaps no single act can more quickly "alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment," Meritor, 477 U.S. at 67, 106 S.Ct. at 2405, than the use of an unambiguously racial epithet such as "n****r" by a supervisor in the presence of his subordinates. See Bailey v. Binyon, 583 F.Supp. 923, 927 (N.D.Ill.1984) ("The use of the word 'n****r' automatically separates the person addressed from every non-black person; this is discrimination per se."). The fact that black employees also may have spoken the term "n****r" does not mitigate the harm caused by Mann's use of that epithet; a supervisor's use of the term impacts the work environment far more severely than use by co-equals.
Isn't that a case of the government telling me how I can address other people? And further a case where the people I'm addressing have a say in how I'm allowed to address them? If they didn't complain, or didn't feel it was offensive or hostile, then there wouldn't be an issue. Isn't that in conflict with what how you've said about things should work?
Sure, but Bob doesn't care whether Alice expresses that desire. Bob's objective here is not "prevent Alice from asking me to say "she"". The only speech which is in dispute is Bob's.
If Alice doesn't express that desire, whether verbally or through presentation, then Bob is blameless in using male pronouns to refer to a person apparently presenting as male. We all use male pronouns to refer to apparent men, all the time. And most of the time, those apparent men are in fact men, and have no desire to be referred to in any other way. Call me "he", and I'm certainly not going to object to it. So Alice's desire and her expression of that desire are critical components of this dispute. If Alice doesn't have the desire, there is no dispute. If Alice doesn't express the desire, there is no dispute. A state without the First Amendment could try to resolve the dispute by punishing Alice for having or expressing the desire, just as it could try to resolve it by punishing Bob for using the undesired pronouns. The First Amendment says that state isn't going to try for either resolution. Which is neutrality.
Beyond that, in practice, I think Bob cares a lot about whether Alice expresses that desire, and his objective probably is to "prevent Alice from asking me to say 'she' ", and then some. Transphobia is about hostility towards nonconformity. In the big picture, what Bob wants is for Alice to "act normal", given his own definition of "normal": he wants Alice to use "he", to change her name back to "Al", to wear pants, and so on. Ignoring that big picture, and focusing on the single narrow slice of the dispute that is Bob's pronoun usage, is going to be misleading. It's like looking at a single action in the Great Hypothetical Anglo-French War where the Britons are assaulting a French position and concluding that Switzerland's neutrality is pro-English because they're letting them do that one thing.
What exactly are you afraid they'll do? Make you use a really long annoying word to refer to them? This isn't just a word; it's their identity, and any person has the right to decide their own identity. Saying someone can't choose pronouns isn't far off from saying they can't trust themselves to determine their identity.
It's a little trickier than that. Some people are narcissistic or delusional. The guy who thinks he's Napoleon Bonaparte? He doesn't need us to trust him; he needs us to help him. Drawing the line between "legitimate" identities and "pathological" ones can be a challenge.
Again, so you say. I think it would depend, certainly with regards to whether you get actually fired. 'Unwelcome conduct' surely does not mean 'anything even that could be taken to be even slightly disparaging'.
Maybe you don't get this as an Australian, but in America the N-word is more than just "slightly disparaging".
Isn't that a case of the government telling me how I can address other people? And further a case where the people I'm addressing have a say in how I'm allowed to address them?
Again, so you say. I think it would depend, certainly with regards to whether you get actually fired. 'Unwelcome conduct' surely does not mean 'anything even that could be taken to be even slightly disparaging'.
Also again,
doing it respectfully would include having some awareness of how others feel about it.
I'm not suggesting it means "anything even that could be taken to be even slightly disparaging", and I'm not suggesting there can't be extenuating circumstances. But fundamentally, if I go to work and start calling my co-workers the n-word, and they complain about, I either have to stop doing it, or I'm going to get fired. If neither happens, the government is going to step in.
You're changing the circumstance. Now you are talking about persisting beyond the point of complaints being made. The point is about usage no matter the circumstances.
First, Western-Southern argues that the district court committed clear error in finding that Mann's use of the word "n****r" contributed to a hostile work environment. In support of this argument, Western-Southern asks this court to consider the context in which that word was used. The record indicates that Mann used the word twice in Rodgers presence, though Rodgers could not recall the precise context in which it was used. The record also indicates that black employees, including Thomas and Rodgers himself, also used this word in the workplace. We find Western-Southern's argument unpersuasive. Perhaps no single act can more quickly "alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment," Meritor, 477 U.S. at 67, 106 S.Ct. at 2405, than the use of an unambiguously racial epithet such as "n****r" by a supervisor in the presence of his subordinates. See Bailey v. Binyon, 583 F.Supp. 923, 927 (N.D.Ill.1984) ("The use of the word 'n****r' automatically separates the person addressed from every non-black person; this is discrimination per se."). The fact that black employees also may have spoken the term "n****r" does not mitigate the harm caused by Mann's use of that epithet; a supervisor's use of the term impacts the work environment far more severely than use by co-equals.
Isn't that a case of the government telling me how I can address other people? And further a case where the people I'm addressing have a say in how I'm allowed to address them? If they didn't complain, or didn't feel it was offensive or hostile, then there wouldn't be an issue. Isn't that in conflict with what how you've said about things should work?
I said that I don't think it would always get you fired.
My point has always been that preferred pronoun use should not be generally mandated, not that there people should be protected against any consequences. Context and intent are essential
If Alice doesn't express that desire, whether verbally or through presentation, then Bob is blameless in using male pronouns to refer to a person apparently presenting as male. We all use male pronouns to refer to apparent men, all the time. And most of the time, those apparent men are in fact men, and have no desire to be referred to in any other way. Call me "he", and I'm certainly not going to object to it. So Alice's desire and her expression of that desire are critical components of this dispute. If Alice doesn't have the desire, there is no dispute. If Alice doesn't express the desire, there is no dispute. A state without the First Amendment could try to resolve the dispute by punishing Alice for having or expressing the desire, just as it could try to resolve it by punishing Bob for using the undesired pronouns. The First Amendment says that state isn't going to try for either resolution. Which is neutrality.
What you're describing is neutrality with respect to Alice and Bob - the government is not going to favor Alice over Bob or Bob over Alice. If the government comes down on the side of free pronoun use, then both Alice and Bob are free to use whatever pronouns they want. It is -not- neutrality with respect to free pronoun usage vs. selection of one's own pronouns. It's taking the side of free pronoun usage by following the principle of free expression. The fact that it also takes the side of free preference expression does not make it neutral, it's just another instance of non-neutrality, this time in favor of Alice's expression.
Beyond that, in practice, I think Bob cares a lot about whether Alice expresses that desire, and his objective probably is to "prevent Alice from asking me to say 'she' ", and then some. Transphobia is about hostility towards nonconformity. In the big picture, what Bob wants is for Alice to "act normal", given his own definition of "normal": he wants Alice to use "he", to change her name back to "Al", to wear pants, and so on. Ignoring that big picture, and focusing on the single narrow slice of the dispute that is Bob's pronoun usage, is going to be misleading. It's like looking at a single action in the Great Hypothetical Anglo-French War where the Britons are assaulting a French position and concluding that Switzerland's neutrality is pro-English because they're letting them do that one thing.
No, I think looking at a bigger picture only serves to muddy the waters. You're trying to invent a different scenario in which Bob has different desires to make one option seem more "neutral". The value of the simple scenario is that it lets us cut to the heart of what a neutral policy is. We have one very simple axis of dispute, where two parties want opposite and mutually exclusive things. The government then has to decide which of those things is more valuable - Bob's right to speak freely, or Alice's right to select the manner by which she is referred.
You're changing the circumstance. Now you are talking about persisting beyond the point of complaints being made. The point is about usage no matter the circumstances.
That's always been the circumstance! Look back at when I first layed out my hypothetical.
Suppose one of my male coworkers is a bit on the effeminate side. I decide to exclusively refer to him using female pronouns, even after he corrects me and asks me to stop. I get fired for workplace harassment. Is that fair?
I said that I don't think it would always get you fired.
My point has always been that preferred pronoun use should not be generally mandated, not that there people should be protected against any consequences. Context and intent are essential
The case in question says that even a single use of the n-word is sufficient to establish a hostile work environment, even when the context and intent are explicitly unknown ("though Rodgers could not recall the precise context in which it was used.")
What exactly are you afraid they'll do? Make you use a really long annoying word to refer to them? This isn't just a word; it's their identity, and any person has the right to decide their own identity. Saying someone can't choose pronouns isn't far off from saying they can't trust themselves to determine their identity.
For the sake of the argument, let's assume that people do have the right to decide their own identity (For the record, I am ambivalent on this).
Now, why does this mean that anyone else has to accept whatever identity that person chose?
You're changing the circumstance. Now you are talking about persisting beyond the point of complaints being made. The point is about usage no matter the circumstances.
That's always been the circumstance! Look back at when I first layed out my hypothetical.
Suppose one of my male coworkers is a bit on the effeminate side. I decide to exclusively refer to him using female pronouns, even after he corrects me and asks me to stop. I get fired for workplace harassment. Is that fair?
We weren't talking about that example, we were talking about a racial issues comparison
The case in question says that even a single use of the n-word is sufficient to establish a hostile work environment, even when the context and intent are explicitly unknown ("though Rodgers could not recall the precise context in which it was used.")
It seems to reference a broader context, in the relationship of the people involved
than the use of an unambiguously racial epithet such as "n****r" by a supervisor in the presence of his subordinates
a supervisor's use of the term impacts the work environment far more severely than use by co-equals.
And let's also note all the context of how the person was using the word and the personal relationships involved:
It is undisputed that Mann and the Associate Sales Managers had a difficult working relationship. In fact, Western-Southern concedes that Mann regularly resorted to profanity and personal insults in trying to motivate his subordinates. Many of Mann's insults, at least on their face, were race-neutral. For example, Mann routinely referred to the Sales Managers as "knobheads," "knuckleheads," "dunderheads," and "goons." When Mann wished to summon Rodgers to his office, Mann referred to Rodgers by his nickname, Rabbit, apparently to the amusement of the other agents. Mann also admonished Rodgers on one occasion with the statement: "You must think you're back in Arkansas chasing jackrabbits." The parties dispute whether this last statement, though neutral on its face, has racial overtones. The district court found that Rodgers "not unreasonably construed [this remark] as a racial slur intended to malign his black, southern heritage and to suggest that he should not have become an insurance agent." Finally, in addition to verbal abuse, on one occasion Mann emptied the contents of Rodgers' desk drawers onto Rodgers' desktop because he was unable to find something in the desk.
Oh, and this:
About six months before Rodgers quit, Mann stated in a bold, demanding tone: "You black guys are too ******* dumb to be insurance agents."
So it all seems like pretty clear that Mann wasn't just using the word n****r.
And also, it's not really important what the law is as to what the should be. Even if it's true that any use of n*****r by a nonwhite is considered discriminatory in the law, then all that changes is I have something else to disagree with because I don't think that's fair either. Uttering a single word- especially one that is perceived inconsistently with regards to offence- is such a trivial act it cannot be taken so dramatically as to constitute a serious offence in-and-of-itself.
Again, so you say. I think it would depend, certainly with regards to whether you get actually fired. 'Unwelcome conduct' surely does not mean 'anything even that could be taken to be even slightly disparaging'.
Maybe you don't get this as an Australian, but in America the N-word is more than just "slightly disparaging".
It depends on what you mean by 'slightly disparaging'- those aren't exactly the clearest words. My point is that word is far from being considered always offensive by everybody. It's not exactly an inherently racist remark, it just has a very strong association with racism- people do use it differently.
Update on Peterson's views on the pronoun issue:
Looking at more videos, the argument about gender neutral pronouns being connected to political ideology seems to be significantly based on the idea that these terms are being 'forced', not 'evolving naturally'.
(Just to clarify this because I feel some people may have assumed otherwise, I agree with Peterson's general point, I don't share every single one of his exact perspectives on the issue. I do find all of his perspectives respectable though.)
Maybe things are different in Australia, but there is no way that would fly here in the US.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
So you say, but it would be a private decision no? There is no law prohibiting saying it.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
If your specific work place has such a culture that using the 'n-word' even once would get you fired then you have the responsibility to recognize that that type of culture has filled your work place and to act accordingly, this is all covered under the 'doing it respectfully' part of DJK's argument.
There's no law that says "You can't say the n-word", but there is a law that says you can't create a hostile work environment, and that includes "unwelcome conduct that is based on race", which this would surely fall under.
Are you sure that's the argument you want to go with?
Both sides are engaging in speech. The trans people are using one set of pronouns, and their opponents are using another. The trans people are requesting that others use their preferred set of pronouns, and their opponents are declining. This is not a one-way street.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I'm a bit confused by this reply. What does this have to do with the question of what pronouns people should use? You don't need to use violence to be able to say the pronoun you want. No one is beating up trans people so that they can call them by a different pronoun, that doesn't even make sense.
I also don't understand what you're getting at here. The trans people want to be referred to by one set of pronouns, and their opponents want to use another. Using a pronoun is speech. Being referred to by a pronoun is not speech.
I don't know how to put it any more plainly: "Please refer to me as 'she' " is speech. Gender presentation is self-expression. Personal identity is protected by freedom of conscience and freedom of association.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
So I could be biologically a male, dress and act in a feminine way and 'identify' as some other thing? What would be my impetus for doing so? Can I wake up one day and just 'identify' as a Lord Admiral and make up some definition of that and then insist that everyone refer to me as a Lord Admiral under penalty of law? By no means am I suggesting that such a silly example represents all or even most of those who have another identity that they hold deeply to, but I suppose that's the question: what is a legitimate identity that needs to be recognized, what's not and how do you determine the difference?
When I was in my teens, there was this guy that showed up to play MTG with us one night. I'm not sure where he came from or who invited him but this guy was, as far as I could tell, genuinely convinced that he was a Werewolf. I mean genuinely convinced, not joking around or trolling or anything. Being the immature jerks that we were at the time, we really let him have it behind his back. I'm not proud of that because clearly he had a mental illness and probably wasn't responsible for his weird behavior. Again, I recognize that this is a wacky example but I'm curious as to whether this law would have actually required us to acknowledge his Werewolf-ness. It was definitely part of who he thought he was as a being, both physically and culturally/socially.
Now I'm not sure about, in that above example, what the correct attitude is in dealing with such people. Maybe it's best to just pretend that they are a Werewolf and just go along to get along. But I could also see the point of view of someone who suggested not feeding into his delusions. And, either way, it certainly seems like an area around which there is legitimate room for disagreement and discussion (i.e., not a question for the law.)
If I want to refer to someone as "he", I can just say "he" - there's no forcing involved. If I'm beating them up, it's for another reason - for example to force them to appear differently, or force them to refer to themselves differently.
But we're not talking about being able to say "Please refer to me as 'she'", nor are we talking about freedom of gender presentation, or personal identity. Those are separate issues.
If Bob wants to call Alice "he" and Alice wants to be called "she", the only speech that's relevant to that outcome is Bob's speech. Yes, Alice might also want to engage in a bunch of other expression related to gender identity, but none of that impacts what pronoun Bob ultimately chooses to use.
I think a good way to understand what gender identity is is the case of David Reimer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer
Basically, after a botched circumcision, he was left without a *****. The doctors at the time suggested simply doing a gender-reassignment surgery, and raising him as a girl. Despite the surgery and being raised as female, Reimer ended up identifying as male and transitioned to living as a man. If there were no internal gender identity (as the doctors who performed the experiment believed), then this wouldn't really make sense. Gender identity is the thing that internally tells you what gender you are. Most of us don't even notice it, because we naturally feel as though we are the gender that everyone perceives us to be, and so it can be difficult to imagine what it would feel like to have a mismatch.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Sure, but Bob doesn't care whether Alice expresses that desire. Bob's objective here is not "prevent Alice from asking me to say "she"". The only speech which is in dispute is Bob's.
In most current fields of science; gender most likely isn't a biological thing. The APA defines it as 'socially constructed roles... that society deems appropriate', and even among biologists,The notion that gender is a binary is under question. And in addition to these studies, we have the subjective of thousands of people online and on campuses and in the world, who tell us that they don't identify with that binary. Peterson isn't discussing an ideology, but instead he's forcing these people to somehow prove the validity of their own identity to other people.
You do make a good point about psychology, but the problem is that psychology, like all sciences operating under the scientific method, can only document observable things and must infer the causes. To prove the existence of gender identity, psychology would have to link the gender spectrum to some observable behavior and infer that it is not only a possible cause, but the only cause. For someone who can't comprehend the notion of gender identity at all, this kind of proof will probably never be accepted. Even if it is possible, the wait is far too long to continue denying people's identity until some sort of definite proof is found.
What exactly are you afraid they'll do? Make you use a really long annoying word to refer to them? This isn't just a word; it's their identity, and any person has the right to decide their own identity. Saying someone can't choose pronouns isn't far off from saying they can't trust themselves to determine their identity.
Again, so you say. I think it would depend, certainly with regards to whether you get actually fired. 'Unwelcome conduct' surely does not mean 'anything even that could be taken to be even slightly disparaging'.
Also again,
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
I'm not suggesting it means "anything even that could be taken to be even slightly disparaging", and I'm not suggesting there can't be extenuating circumstances. But fundamentally, if I go to work and start calling my co-workers the n-word, and they complain about, I either have to stop doing it, or I'm going to get fired. If neither happens, the government is going to step in.
Perhaps it'd be helpful here to look at some case law:
http://openjurist.org/12/f3d/668/rodgers-v-western-southern-life-insurance-company
Isn't that a case of the government telling me how I can address other people? And further a case where the people I'm addressing have a say in how I'm allowed to address them? If they didn't complain, or didn't feel it was offensive or hostile, then there wouldn't be an issue. Isn't that in conflict with what how you've said about things should work?
Beyond that, in practice, I think Bob cares a lot about whether Alice expresses that desire, and his objective probably is to "prevent Alice from asking me to say 'she' ", and then some. Transphobia is about hostility towards nonconformity. In the big picture, what Bob wants is for Alice to "act normal", given his own definition of "normal": he wants Alice to use "he", to change her name back to "Al", to wear pants, and so on. Ignoring that big picture, and focusing on the single narrow slice of the dispute that is Bob's pronoun usage, is going to be misleading. It's like looking at a single action in the Great Hypothetical Anglo-French War where the Britons are assaulting a French position and concluding that Switzerland's neutrality is pro-English because they're letting them do that one thing.
It's a little trickier than that. Some people are narcissistic or delusional. The guy who thinks he's Napoleon Bonaparte? He doesn't need us to trust him; he needs us to help him. Drawing the line between "legitimate" identities and "pathological" ones can be a challenge.
Maybe you don't get this as an Australian, but in America the N-word is more than just "slightly disparaging".
The government is walking a very fine line here.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
You're changing the circumstance. Now you are talking about persisting beyond the point of complaints being made. The point is about usage no matter the circumstances.
I said that I don't think it would always get you fired.
My point has always been that preferred pronoun use should not be generally mandated, not that there people should be protected against any consequences. Context and intent are essential
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
What you're describing is neutrality with respect to Alice and Bob - the government is not going to favor Alice over Bob or Bob over Alice. If the government comes down on the side of free pronoun use, then both Alice and Bob are free to use whatever pronouns they want. It is -not- neutrality with respect to free pronoun usage vs. selection of one's own pronouns. It's taking the side of free pronoun usage by following the principle of free expression. The fact that it also takes the side of free preference expression does not make it neutral, it's just another instance of non-neutrality, this time in favor of Alice's expression.
No, I think looking at a bigger picture only serves to muddy the waters. You're trying to invent a different scenario in which Bob has different desires to make one option seem more "neutral". The value of the simple scenario is that it lets us cut to the heart of what a neutral policy is. We have one very simple axis of dispute, where two parties want opposite and mutually exclusive things. The government then has to decide which of those things is more valuable - Bob's right to speak freely, or Alice's right to select the manner by which she is referred.
That's always been the circumstance! Look back at when I first layed out my hypothetical.
The case in question says that even a single use of the n-word is sufficient to establish a hostile work environment, even when the context and intent are explicitly unknown ("though Rodgers could not recall the precise context in which it was used.")
For the sake of the argument, let's assume that people do have the right to decide their own identity (For the record, I am ambivalent on this).
Now, why does this mean that anyone else has to accept whatever identity that person chose?
We weren't talking about that example, we were talking about a racial issues comparison
It seems to reference a broader context, in the relationship of the people involved
And let's also note all the context of how the person was using the word and the personal relationships involved:
Oh, and this:
So it all seems like pretty clear that Mann wasn't just using the word n****r.
And also, it's not really important what the law is as to what the should be. Even if it's true that any use of n*****r by a nonwhite is considered discriminatory in the law, then all that changes is I have something else to disagree with because I don't think that's fair either. Uttering a single word- especially one that is perceived inconsistently with regards to offence- is such a trivial act it cannot be taken so dramatically as to constitute a serious offence in-and-of-itself.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
It depends on what you mean by 'slightly disparaging'- those aren't exactly the clearest words. My point is that word is far from being considered always offensive by everybody. It's not exactly an inherently racist remark, it just has a very strong association with racism- people do use it differently.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Looking at more videos, the argument about gender neutral pronouns being connected to political ideology seems to be significantly based on the idea that these terms are being 'forced', not 'evolving naturally'.
(Just to clarify this because I feel some people may have assumed otherwise, I agree with Peterson's general point, I don't share every single one of his exact perspectives on the issue. I do find all of his perspectives respectable though.)
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice