Fined for calling a Transgender person by the wrong pronoun

Shield

We spoke about this in the job a while ago, and now it seems to be happening in Washington.

Apparently, Washington State employees who call a transgender person by the wrong pronoun are now legally prohibited from doing so, and face a criminal record and fine for said transgression.

The point that we were discussing was whether a person's religious beliefs could be invoked as a defence for refusing to use the preferred pronouns of a transgender person? I'm not too sure if we'll see this being made a criminal offence over here any time soon, but it does raise the question - What happens when sincere religious beliefs clash with the wishes of a transgender person when it comes to referring to them be the pronouns matching their biological sex, as opposed to the pronouns they have requested to be used?

In such an impasse, does anyone out there have a viable solution that could work without causing offence to either community?

I am interested in your thoughts, as this is likely to be something we'll see in the future at some point.

smash

Shield wrote: »

In such an impasse, does anyone out there have a viable solution that could work without causing offence to either community?

I propose a bit of cop on!

silverharp

is it a bit of an overblown issue? when you are talking to someone directly you tend not to use gendered pronouns. it will be "you" need to fill in this form yada yada

osarusan

Here's one part:

One of the listed prohibited behaviors is: “Deliberately misusing a person’s preferred name or pronoun.”

Deliberately doing it is just being a prick.

“Transgender employees should at all times be able to use the restroom and other gender-segregated facilities (such as locker rooms) that they are most comfortable with,” the guide states.

No problem with that either.


Here's another part:

The “best practices” guide featues a chart on “gender and gender-neutral pronouns” that includes the gender-neutral pronoun “ze.” The chart includes example phrases using the gender-neutral pronoun, such as “Ze smiled,” “I met zir,” “Zir bike” and “Ze is zirself.”

This is just so so stupid. I don't even see what it achieves anyway.

Jayop

Anyone purposely calling someone who identifies as a woman 'he' is being a dick and probably deserves to be fined for bullying in the workplace.

Renegade Mechanic

osarusan wrote: »

Here's one part:


Deliberately doing it is just being a prick.





This is just so so stupid.

See the bottom part. Then see the top for just how insanely easily someone who just doesn't like you can easily get you booted out of yer job

Zubeneschamali

Shield wrote: »

We spoke about this in the job a while ago, and now it seems to be happening in Washington.

Apparently, Washington State employees who call a transgender person by the wrong pronoun are now legally prohibited from doing so, and face a criminal record and fine for said transgression.

That is not at all what the linked article says.

It says that employERs need to make sure that people in their workplace don't harass their employees, or the employER may face a harassment suit.

There is not one word about criminal anything or fines for employees.

Oh, and it's Washington DC, not Washington State.

LorMal

Shield wrote: »

We spoke about this in the job a while ago, and now it seems to be happening in Washington.

Apparently, Washington State employees who call a transgender person by the wrong pronoun are now legally prohibited from doing so, and face a criminal record and fine for said transgression.

The point that we were discussing was whether a person's religious beliefs could be invoked as a defence for refusing to use the preferred pronouns of a transgender person? I'm not too sure if we'll see this being made a criminal offence over here any time soon, but it does raise the question - What happens when sincere religious beliefs clash with the wishes of a transgender person when it comes to referring to them be the pronouns matching their biological sex, as opposed to the pronouns they have requested to be used?

In such an impasse, does anyone out there have a viable solution that could work without causing offence to either community?

I am interested in your thoughts, as this is likely to be something we'll see in the future at some point.

I am bored rigid by transgender issues being highlighted on a seemingly daily basis in the media and on social media.
This focus on a tiny proportion of the population is way out of proportion. I assume this is just a fashion.
LGBTQ+2A.......yawn.

seamus

Both the thread title and the article title are wonderfully sensationalist and inaccurate.

I see no issue whatsoever with an employer sanctioning employees who deliberately go out of their way to upset and harass other employees.

If your co-worker prefers being called "Richard" but you go out of your way to call him "Dick" all the time, then you indeed are the dick and if I employed someone who engaged in that kind of nonsense I'd sanction them.

Refusing to refer to someone by their gender is a step up from that again. It would be on a par with a religious employee refusing to speak directly to women or referring to a woman as "it" instead of "she".

Why shouldn't they be slapped down for it.

The gender neutral stuff is hilarious though. Reminds me of "shklee, shklim, shlker" from futurama. There's being smart and then there's bending backwards to avoid offence. I don't see how using gender neutral pronouns does anything for anyone.

Just for reference, the bit about the law and criminal records is thusly;

The following behaviors by supervisors or coworkers may be considered
unlawful harassment or a hostile work environment:
• Deliberately misusing a person’s preferred name or pronoun;
• Asking personal questions about an individual’s body, gender
identity or expression or transition;
• Causing distress to an individual by outing a transgender person
against their will; or
• Posting offensive pictures or sending offensive communications.
The District uses the probable cause standard in determining whether
the above constitute harassment or a hostile work environment.

Seems reasonable to me.

The_Valeyard

'Ze'


Ze can f*ck off with your Orwellian double speak.


Plays like an evil German villain in my head.

Shield

I understand why people would take this view, but what if the person using the 'offensive' pronoun is following their deeply-held religious beliefs?

osarusan wrote: »

Here's one part:
Deliberately doing it is just being a prick.

Jayop wrote: »

Anyone purposely calling someone who identifies as a woman 'he' is being a dick...

seamus

Shield wrote: »

I understand why people would take this view, but what if the person using the 'offensive' pronoun is following their deeply-held religious beliefs?

They're still a dick. "It's my belief" isn't a get-out-of-jail card for being a prick.

If following your religion makes you act like a prick, then you're a prick.

cowboyBuilder

More snowflakes being offended :rolleyes:

Shield

I'm just going by the heading, and the body of the article does say co-workers as well as employers. I take your point about it being Washington DC.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

That is not at all what the linked article says.

It says that employERs need to make sure that people in their workplace don't harass their employees, or the employER may face a harassment suit.

There is not one word about criminal anything or fines for employees.

Oh, and it's Washington DC, not Washington State.

riffmongous

osarusan wrote: »

Here's another part:


This is just so so stupid.

That must be a joke, you can just use 3rd person plural anyway already

I'm completely against this revolt against pronouns, but tbh if you're working in a public office like that, you need to be respectful of everyone's religion, race, gender, and, sadly, pronouns. I wouldn't want any state employee to be offensive of these things. And if you're purposefully doing it, then you're not doing your job correctly (in my opinion) and maybe you should be fined for doing it.

Misunderstood, thought this was referring to Washington DC State employees and didn't realize the OP was referencing Washington State as opposed to DC.

Point still remains - you should be respectful of people's opinions when you're in a business setting.

Jayop

Shield wrote: »

I understand why people would take this view, but what if the person using the 'offensive' pronoun is following their deeply-held religious beliefs?

Still a dick. Probably even more of a dick hiding their rudeness behind religion.

sbsquarepants

Shield wrote: »

In such an impasse, does anyone out there have a viable solution that could work without causing offence to either community?

I am interested in your thoughts, as this is likely to be something we'll see in the future at some point.

I've an idea.

If someone tells me their name is Jack - I call them Jack. If they tell me their name is Jacqui - I call them Jacqui. I'm happy to call them whatever they want, makes very little difference to me.

I suggest others do the same.

Lyaiera

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I've an idea.

If someone tells me their name is Jack - I call them Jack. If they tell me their name is Jacqui - I call them Jacqui. I'm happy to call them whatever they want, makes very little difference to me.

I suggest others do the same.

Is your name pronounced sbs quare pants? Or sb square pants?

Shield

I can think of a few religions who would refuse point blank to acknowledge a transgender person as being the gender they identify with, and would, therefore, refuse to use the respective pronouns. Would it be your position that those following their religious beliefs are dicks and pricks for following the teachings of their religion?

seamus wrote: »

They're still a dick. "It's my belief" isn't a get-out-of-jail card for being a prick.

If following your religion makes you act like a prick, then you're a prick.

ohnonotgmail

Shield wrote: »

I can think of a few religions who would refuse point blank to acknowledge a transgender person as being the gender they identify with, and would, therefore, refuse to use the respective pronouns. Would it be your position that those following their religious beliefs are dicks and pricks for following the teachings of their religion?

is there anything in their religion that stops them using gender neutral pronouns?

sbsquarepants

Lyaiera wrote: »

Is your name pronounced sbs quare pants? Or sb square pants?

No need for formality, we're all friends here - call me bob:D

Jayop

Shield wrote: »

I can think of a few religions who would refuse point blank to acknowledge a transgender person as being the gender they identify with, and would, therefore, refuse to use the respective pronouns. Would it be your position that those following their religious beliefs are dicks and pricks for following the teachings of their religion?

Very much so.

seamus

Shield wrote: »

I can think of a few religions who would refuse point blank to acknowledge a transgender person as being the gender they identify with, and would, therefore, refuse to use the respective pronouns. Would it be your position that those following their religious beliefs are dicks and pricks for following the teachings of their religion?

Yes.

The rights and dignity of other humans overrides any wish that someone may have to practice their religion in public.

By all means one has a right to hold a belief and practice it in private. But where the practice of that belief conflicts with the rights of another individual, religious beliefs must yield.

RWCNT

riffmongous wrote: »

That must be a joke, you can just use 3rd person plural anyway already

You can't beat a good singular "they". I use that all the time even when people are clearly male or female. Bloody love a good singular "they".

beach_walker

RWCNT wrote: »

You can't beat a good singular "they". I use that all the time even when people are clearly male or female. Bloody love a good singular "they".

Aye. Otherwise you'll have to subscribe to the latest updates from "gender fluid" people on their preference day to day. I get enough spam as is.

Shield

Shield wrote: »

I can think of a few religions who would refuse point blank to acknowledge a transgender person as being the gender they identify with, and would, therefore, refuse to use the respective pronouns. Would it be your position that those following their religious beliefs are dicks and pricks for following the teachings of their religion?

Yes, I would. If you are working in a country, such as America, and you use your religion to oppress or discriminate someone else, then you shouldn't have the position you're currently in. Why do you think in other countries they ban the wearing of religious items of clothing in workinglife?

beach_walker

Shield wrote: »

I can think of a few religions who would refuse point blank to acknowledge a transgender person as being the gender they identify with, and would, therefore, refuse to use the respective pronouns.

I'd disagree with that. Just because you don't acknowledge their new gender, doesn't mean you can't use their preferred pronouns. One does not follow t'other.

Shield

I can see a few problems with this approach in real-world scenarios. Firstly, I can see the likes of Ben Shapiro refusing to acknowledge that this would be a 'right' at all. I also invisage him claiming he's just being factual (as he did with Zoey Tur here) when he referred to Zoey as "Sir", and trotting out his favourite line "Facts don't care about your feelings" when defending his position.

seamus wrote: »

Yes.

The rights and dignity of other humans overrides any wish that someone may have to practice their religion in public.

By all means one has a right to hold a belief and practice it in private. But where the practice of that belief conflicts with the rights of another individual, religious beliefs must yield.

Renegade Mechanic

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

is there anything in their religion that stops them using gender neutral pronouns?

There's little in said religions/beliefs that stops them beating up or even killing them, so I doubt it's ever gotten that far

Shield

From what I see happening, the opposite of this is true. There was a recent study on potentially allowing the wearing of a Turban in place of a standard Garda hat, and a huge amount of UK police forces now permit the wearing of the hijab as part of the uniform if desired. It's quite possible that the countries you are referring to are outside of the EU?

Deleted User wrote: »

Why do you think in other countries they ban the wearing of religious items of clothing in workinglife?

mahoganygas

Could somebody explain to me why religious beliefs are inconsistent with recognising genders?

Genuine question. Not baiting.

beach_walker

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

There's little in said religions/beliefs that stops them beating up or even killing them, so I doubt it's ever gotten that far

Which ones?

Antar Bolaeisk

osarusan wrote: »

Here's another part:

Quote:
The “best practices” guide featues a chart on “gender and gender-neutral pronouns” that includes the gender-neutral pronoun “ze.” The chart includes example phrases using the gender-neutral pronoun, such as “Ze smiled,” “I met zir,” “Zir bike” and “Ze is zirself.”

This is just so so stupid. I don't even see what it achieves anyway.

I don't mean to be an ass but what's wrong with They/Them/Their/Themselves which is perfectly gender neutral already, in common usage and doesn't require one to use a word which could be misheard as either he or she.

Shield

My understanding from listening to Ben Shapiro's argument is that it is a black and white issue; there are two sexes - male and female. You were born either male or female, and you are what you are, and if you feel that your gender is different to that of your biological sex, it's mental delusion, and you're not well, and that's it.

mahoganygas wrote: »

Could somebody explain to me why religious beliefs are inconsistent with recognising genders?

Genuine question. Not baiting.

suicide_circus

In a world of gender fluidity, it's a potential FINEfield

blue note

Shield wrote: »

The point that we were discussing was whether a person's religious beliefs could be invoked as a defence for refusing to use the preferred pronouns of a transgender person? I'm not too sure if we'll see this being made a criminal offence over here any time soon, but it does raise the question - What happens when sincere religious beliefs clash with the wishes of a transgender person when it comes to referring to them be the pronouns matching their biological sex, as opposed to the pronouns they have requested to be used?

It's a bit of an unstoppable force meeting an immovable object scenario. Under no circumstances can you infringe on someone's religious freedom to do whatever they want (sure they even teach creationism as part of the school curriculum in some places) but you also have to be so careful around the whole gender issue (so much so that putting men's and women's on bathrooms can be offensive).

It's actually an interesting conundrum.

ohnonotgmail

Shield wrote: »

My understanding from listening to Ben Shapiro's argument is that it is a black and white issue; there are two sexes - male and female. You were born either male or female, and you are what you are, and if you feel that your gender is different to that of your biological sex, it's mental delusion, and you're not well, and that's it.

is that his considered medical opinion based on the best available research? Or is it just what he feels is true?

Shield

Shield wrote: »

From what I see happening, the opposite of this is true. There was a recent study on potentially allowing the wearing of a Turban in place of a standard Garda hat, and a huge amount of UK police forces now permit the wearing of the hijab as part of the uniform if desired. It's quite possible that the countries you are referring to are outside of the EU?

France has banned the wearing of any religious items when working in public offices. There was a case recently where a social worker was fired for refusing to remove her headscarf, took it to the European Court of Human Rights, and lost her appeal.

Religion or religious affiliations doesn't give someone a pass for being a dick.

mahoganygas

Shield wrote:

My understanding from listening to Ben Shapiro's argument is that it is a black and white issue; there are two sexes - male and female. You were born either male or female, and you are what you are, and if you feel that your gender is different to that of your biological sex, it's mental delusion, and you're not well, and that's it.

Thank you.

I get all that, and understand this opinion. But what has that got to do with religion? I'm genuinely struggling to see the connection between the two.

mickstupp

Shield wrote: »

You were born either male or female, and you are what you are, and if you feel that your gender is different to that of your biological sex, it's mental delusion, and you're not well, and that's it.

But that's an interpretation. It doesn't actually say those words in religious texts, or words like them. So this is on the level of humans being dicks and hiding behind religion without taking personal responsibility for their deep lack of respect for other human beings. That's how I see it anyway.

Shield

God made the two, and God doesn't make mistakes, so the problem must be with the Transgender person supposing they are something that they really aren't, and can never be.

Something like that.

mahoganygas wrote: »

Thank you.

I get all that, and understand this opinion. But what has that got to do with religion? I'm genuinely struggling to see the connection between the two.

mahoganygas

mahoganygas wrote: »

Could somebody explain to me why religious beliefs are inconsistent with recognising genders?

Genuine question. Not baiting.

The issue, as it is currently conceived, is really very new, so technically religious groups are, or should be, working out how to care for trans people in their communities at present. At a guess I would say that where theistic religions are concerned that it could be considered a rejection of God to reject the body as given, and a mutilation of the body to surgically alter the genitals and use hormone therapy. Theistic religions also tend to hold very strong views on gender and gender roles within their cultures, although in the case of Christianity at least, a close reading of the scriptures actually overturns many tightly held societal norms.

It would be possible to simultaneously disagree with someone's decision to alter their body to reflect their chosen gender, keep this view to oneself, and offer dignity and respect to such a person, in particular by honouring their chosen pronoun.

Any religious person has to also live in a pluralist society and unless they wish to pursue a monastic lifestyle they have a responsibility to respect those who make alternative choices, if only on a basic human level. Purposely calling someone by a pronoun that causes them distress, no matter how 'right' someone feels they might be, is just being a complete a$$hole tbh.

It is not just the devoutly religious who oppose transgender people by the way. I have come across far left views that hold it to be a gross indulgence, as well as radical feminism, which rejects the idea that a man can ever become a woman, no matter what surgical interventions take place.

ohnonotgmail

Shield wrote: »

God made the two, and God doesn't make mistakes, so the problem must be with the Transgender person supposing they are something that they really aren't, and can never be.

Something like that.

well, as he says himself

"Facts don't care about your feelings"

when he introduces some facts i'll take some notice of what he says.

sbsquarepants

Shield wrote: »

God made the two, and God doesn't make mistakes, so the problem must be with the Transgender person supposing they are something that they really aren't, and can never be.

Something like that.

Except when he makes gays of course - that's a mistake. Or is it the divil that makes dem durty fúckers, I forget:D

osarusan

Shield wrote: »

I understand why people would take this view, but what if the person using the 'offensive' pronoun is following their deeply-held religious beliefs?

What you are asking is whether something that would otherwise be considered discriminatory is exempt from discrimination laws because it is the result of a religious belief?

In the US at least, tolerance for that argument varies from state to state.

There was that publicity recently about the controversial Mississippi law that allows businesses to refuse service to people who are gay, and that also said gender was determined at birth, but there was also the case of Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk who refused 'under God's authority' to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples, and went to prison for contempt of court after to refusing to obey the court order telling her to issue the licenses.

I don't have any idea if Washington DC law has been tested in this way.

To an extent it reminds me of the 'gay cake' case in NI, where rights to religious freedom clashed with discrimination laws.

mickstupp

Shield wrote: »

God made the two, and God doesn't make mistakes, so the problem must be with the Transgender person supposing they are something that they really aren't, and can never be.

Something like that.

That's another interpretation, though. By humans. Who think they understand the reasoning and fallibility or lack thereof of their chosen god. Chosen. All of this is coming from a human point of view. If religious people are assuming they have the capacity to understand and correctly interpret their chosen god's actions, they're arrogant and delusional, and forcing their personal beliefs (not their religious beliefs) on others, by insisting on being disrespectful to other human beings.

And if they couldn't be fired or reprimanded for being dicks, I'd be trying to find some way to fire or reprimand them for not doing their jobs properly.

Regardless of anything else, I've always believed that once you enter a place of business you should leave your personal, ideological, or religious beliefs at home. If you're incapable of doing this, then you shouldn't be in the current position. Refusing to call someone by their chosen gender/pronoun because of a religious belief fits in with this.

seamus

Shield wrote: »

My understanding from listening to Ben Shapiro's argument is that it is a black and white issue; there are two sexes - male and female. You were born either male or female, and you are what you are, and if you feel that your gender is different to that of your biological sex, it's mental delusion, and you're not well, and that's it.

Which is fine, until you realise that it applies to practically everything.

Everyone is athiest at birth, therefore religious belief is a mental delusion, and religious people aren't well, and that's it.

In reality the vast bulk of of what we discuss are social constructs - names, pronouns, religions, even gender identities. They're emergent properties of the human mind.

To write things off as "mental illness" because they don't suit a person's own sensibilities is what we've been doing for centuries.

It would be a stupid person to argue against the biological facts of male -v- female DNA. But that's not the argument. The argument is about assignment of gender-based pronouns, which has only a passing link to biology - we use gender pronouns when referring to all manner of things, biological, non-biological and even fictional.

And we have for thousands of years. So it would be incorrect to draw some hard link between gender identity and composition of DNA because that link has never existed in the past.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Regardless of anything else, I've always believed that once you enter a place of business you should leave your personal, ideological, or religious beliefs at home. If you're incapable of doing this, then you shouldn't be in the current position.

This is, in itself, a strongly held belief, largely the product of neoliberal capitalism, and is both impossible and self-defeating. :pac:

mahoganygas

Shield wrote:

God made the two, and God doesn't make mistakes, so the problem must be with the Transgender person supposing they are something that they really aren't, and can never be.

I see.
But isn't this just semantics?
How is it different to somebody correcting a person for pronouncing their name wrong?

If God doesn't make mistakes, then you can either believe that the person's gender is different or believe that the person is delusional. Either must be true. But both are opinions.

If god doesn't make mistakes then what if God intended to make transgender people? How do we know what he intended? Adam and Eve were male and female. How do we know which was which? Maybe both were male but physiologically were different.
The Bible tells us Adam was a man and eve was a woman.
Or did it? Was it just semantics? The Bible has been translated, transcribed, redacted, and re-written countless times.
I certainly struggled with applying the correct gender pronoun to German words in my leaving cert. What if a Bible translator made a mistake? On purpose or accidently.

Again, I really am struggling to understand why religion is used as an argument for refusing to recognise gender. Isn't it just an opinion?
What was God's opinion? Nobody really knows for sure.