Oxford Students Encouraged to Now Use "Ze" Instead of "He or She" To Avoid Offen

Special Circumstances

RayCun wrote: »

The law doesn't say that people have to be addressed by their chosen form of address. There is no positive obligation to use a particular form of words.

It was "only a suggestion" while ago, and we were all far too precious for worrying that it might become part of law.

Now even you're referring to it as law and saying there could be consequences for not abiding by this law?

There really is a month python buzz to this makey uppy stuff. Is the ze thing going to be set in stone or will it be a matter of fashion what we should use as the simulaneous none and all gender this spring?

"Oh knights who say Zee we have brought you your shrubbery, have you been appeased"

"We are no longer the Knights who say Zee we are now the Knights who say quee and we shall not be appeased until you cut down a tree with a herring"

Special Circumstances

SterlingArcher wrote: »

But you just said no legal action has been taking for not using ze. And nobodys in trouble. So no need to worry.

Apparently carbon based life forms (apologies if I have made anyone here feel excluded) can pick and choose which anti-discrimination rules and regulations zay choose to follow without fear of being marginalised within your profession etc.

If you believe raycun at least.

RayCun

Special Circumstances wrote: »

It was "only a suggestion" while ago, and we were all far too precious for worrying that it might become part of law.

It was a suggestion in Oxford.

There is a related law in Canada. That law does not make it a requirement to use the word "ze", or any other word in particular. It does make it an offence to discriminate against transgendered people, and in some cases, the words you use to refer to someone could be actionable discrimination.

But it is still not a law, in Oxford or anywhere else, that you have to use the word "ze", nor is that ever likely to become law.

Special Circumstances

RayCun wrote: »

It was a suggestion in Oxford.

There is a related law in Canada. That law does not make it a requirement to use the word "ze", or any other word in particular. It does make it an offence to discriminate against transgendered people, and in some cases, the words you use to refer to someone could be actionable discrimination.

But it is still not a law, in Oxford or anywhere else, that you have to use the word "ze", nor is that ever likely to become law.

How many times would a carbon based life form of the species homo sapiens and considered towards the upper range of the species average lifetime be allowed to make a slip in using he-she-ze before ze could be pilloried?

Maximus Alexander

There is a need for a singular gender neutral pronoun in English. 'They' is plural and can lead to ambiguity. I don't understand how the language managed to evolve for so many hundreds of years without such a pronoun tbh. That said, it sounds like they're not doing this for grammatical reasons and are instead trying to eliminate the use of gendered pronouns altogether, which is hilarious nonsense.

benjamin d wrote: »

THEY. THEY. THEY.
It's always been there.
But to use it wouldn't be contrarian so it's unacceptable to the snowflakes.

And yes, I know how the word snowflake irritates people. IDGAF.

In fairness, you're the snowflake in this instance. Getting all triggered and stuff by the words some group of people in another country use.

RayCun

Special Circumstances wrote: »

How many times would a carbon based life form of the species homo sapiens and considered towards the upper range of the species average lifetime be allowed to make a slip in using he-she-ze before ze could be pilloried?

In Canada?

There is no requirement to use "ze".

As with any other anti-discrimination case, there is no x number of times where it is okay to use a word, and x+1 number where it is not allowed. If someone refers to a black person as "coloured", it could be a slip or it could be an insult. Context is important.

You do understand how racial discrimination works, right? And how language use can be a part of that?

SterlingArcher

RayCun wrote: »

Which is absolutely correct



Which is also absolutely correct!



and no need to worry that you will be forced to use the word "ze", because you won't be.

but if the person asks me to use ze and are adamant . And I refuse . Does that not fall under discrimination. you said so yourself. And that's a crime.

What makes a person who wants to be called ze, night crawler, piss puddler, any less important than a trans gender person. Because from your post it seems I'd be going to jail for not saying the correct thing to a trans gender. But able to laugh off a star fox unicorn person.

RayCun

SterlingArcher wrote: »

but if the person asks me to use ze and are adamant . And I refuse . Does that not fall under discrimination. you said so yourself. And that's a crime.

No, it doesn't.
If you use another gender-neutral term, such as "they", then you are not applying a gender term that they don't identify with.
If you say "all students must do x", you are not calling out anyone's pronouns.

For example, suppose you say
"Every student must collect this form, and he or she must return it at the start of the next class", you might get a student who says they don't identify with he or she, they prefer xe.
If you then say
"All students must collect this form, and they must return it at the start of the next class" not a problem.

If it is six months after the conversation with the student, you forget, and you again say
"Every student must collect this form, and he or she must return it at the start of the next class" it's not going to be a problem.

If the next day in class you say
"Every student must collect this form, and he or she must return it at the start of the next class", while looking directly at the trans student, then there is a problem.

Which is not very hard to figure out for yourself.

Special Circumstances

RayCun wrote: »

In Canada?

There is no requirement to use "ze".

As with any other anti-discrimination case, there is no x number of times where it is okay to use a word, and x+1 number where it is not allowed. If someone refers to a black person as "coloured", it could be a slip or it could be an insult. Context is important.

You do understand how racial discrimination works, right? And how language use can be a part of that?

Do you understand how being a prick works?

You said earlier that it has legal consequences.

Where is that line? Is an older person who just can't undo a lifetime of he/she being perfectly acceptable a prick? Is somebody who firmly believes that scientifically zun is one or the other a prick? Is etc etc etc...

Surely we'd only need a "don't be a prick" law if that was sufficient? It's obviously not so there must be a definition somewhere of under what circumstances you would or wouldn't be a prick to a black person, a Chinese person, an LGBTQ++?

Are you saying that the misuse of pronouns act would be regarded as a lesser act to other acts dealing with discrimination? If you had the choice of how to implement it?

RayCun

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Do you understand how being a prick works?

You said earlier that it has legal consequences.

You do realise that there are already anti-discrimination laws on the books in Canada, and that all of these questions could equally be asked (and have generally been answered in case law) about any kind of anti-discrimination law?

What happens to the older person who has a lifetime of thinking its okay to call people negroes?
What happens to someone who firmly believes that science shows black people are inferior?

LLMMLL

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

There is a need for a singular gender neutral pronoun in English. 'They' is plural and can lead to ambiguity. I don't understand how the language managed to evolve for so many hundreds of years without such a pronoun tbh.

Doesn't really lead to ambiguity. The work is done by the previous sentence in which you named one person. As in "my friend went to the beach. Then they went swimming". You've only mentioned one person so no ambiguity.

TheDoc

The sooner the world realises "offence" is an opinion, individual and different between everyone, we can all get back on track and stop turning civilisation into dribble.

Special Circumstances

RayCun wrote: »

You do realise that there are already anti-discrimination laws on the books in Canada, and that all of these questions could equally be asked (and have generally been answered in case law) about any kind of anti-discrimination law?

What happens to the older person who has a lifetime of thinking its okay to call people negroes?
What happens to someone who firmly believes that science shows black people are inferior?

I thought you said this wouldn't have the same legal footing as the other examples, and that there wouldn't be any consequences of it?

RayCun

Special Circumstances wrote: »

I thought you said this wouldn't have the same legal footing as the other examples, and that there wouldn't be any consequences of it?

No, I didn't.

I said

Let's see the evidence that someone got in trouble for not saying "ze"
And by trouble I mean legal trouble, censured at work, etc, not criticism.

But I would also argue that the law (in Canada, not Oxford) still doesn't require you to say "ze", and you can continue to not use the word without any legal consequences - just like there are no legal consequences for not saying "African-American".

SterlingArcher

RayCun wrote: »

No, I didn't.

I said



But I would also argue that the law (in Canada, not Oxford) still doesn't require you to say "ze", and you can continue to not use the word without any legal consequences - just like there are no legal consequences for not saying "African-American".

And do you think that is appropriate.

Special Circumstances

RayCun wrote: »

No, I didn't.

I said



But I would also argue that the law (in Canada, not Oxford) still doesn't require you to say "ze", and you can continue to not use the word without any legal consequences - just like there are no legal consequences for not saying "African-American".

Ok so are you sure this time that this is more than "just a suggestion, don't be getting upset".

You're accepting that this is real, this is happening elsewhere and could happen here and that this is worthy of debate?

padd b1975

darkpagandeath wrote: »

What happens when they go to a place with a language with Mescaline and feminine ?

Like Ireland for example.

Call Me Jimmy

Let's be more ambiguous in our language about 99% of people so 1% can be described ambiguously, have I got it right?

RayCun

SterlingArcher wrote: »

And do you think that is appropriate.

Special Circumstances wrote: »

You're accepting that this is real, this is happening elsewhere and could happen here and that this is worthy of debate?

Appropriate that people recognise that discrimination against transgendered people is a thing, sure. Transgendered people could be added to the list of groups protected by anti-discrimination laws in Ireland, sure.

People being forced to use the word "ze" is not a real thing, any more than people being forced to say "Happy Holidays" is a real thing.

Worthy of debate with people capable of distinguishing their fevered dreams of oppression from reality, sure.

RayCun

Special Circumstances wrote: »

You're saying that people haven't got into trouble in Canada, new York etc for resisting this?

this is not real

Special Circumstances

padd b1975 wrote: »

Like Ireland for example.

We'd probably have to outlaw irish altogether tbh.

Liom leat leis lei lze linn
Fum fut faoi fuithi fuizzii
Romham romhat roimhe roimpi rizzeee
Dom duit do di dizzee
Etc etc

Special Circumstances

RayCun wrote: »

People being forced to use the word "ze" is not a real thing, any more than people being forced to say "Happy Holidays" is a real thing.

Worthy of debate with people capable of distinguishing their fevered dreams of oppression from reality, sure.

But the question I asked you way way back was if people had got themselves in trouble for resisting the implementation of the whole "ze" thing. Not the refusing to use it.

And you spent how long trying to insult, insinuate etc anyone here who wouldn't just automatically accept implementing it.

Would you say that Canadian professor is seen as a hero or a villain by the university policy makers? An outlier, a square peg, a troublemaker? A non conformist? Or would you say he's a shoo in for next Dean of whatever

RayCun

Special Circumstances wrote: »

But the question I asked you way way back was if people had got themselves in trouble for resisting the implementation of the whole "ze" thing. Not the refusing to use it.

and the answer is still no!

The letter from the college, which I linked to upthread, explicitly says that he is free to criticise the law and university policy as much as he likes.

He might get into trouble in future for breaking the law, or breaking policy, but that is a different matter.

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Would you say that Canadian professor is seen as a hero or a villain by the university policy makers? An outlier, a square peg, a troublemaker? A non conformist? Or would you say he's a shoo in for next Dean of whatever

Yeah, I've just checked my calendar, and the amount of time I have pencilled in for "worrying about how a Canadian professor is regarded by his peers" is zero, sorry!

PatPierces

There are only two genders. He and she.

Atari Jaguar

PatPierces wrote: »

There are only two genders. He and she.

He and she aren't genders they're gender specific pronouns.

shedweller

RayCun wrote: »

No, I didn't.

I said



But I would also argue that the law (in Canada, not Oxford) still doesn't require you to say "ze", and you can continue to not use the word without any legal consequences - just like there are no legal consequences for not saying "African-American".

Aaah i understand you now! That took a while.
Ok, so you are saying that nobody has gotten into trouble for this. And there are no legal implications for using the incorrect pronouns.

Correct? Or do i need more coffee?

RayCun

shedweller wrote: »

Aaah i understand you now! That took a while.
Ok, so you are saying that nobody has gotten into trouble for this.

Correct!

shedweller wrote: »

And there are no legal implications for using the incorrect pronouns.

Also correct.

If/when the Canadian act to amend the Human Rights act passes, discrimination against people on the basis of gender identity or expression will have the same legal implications as discrimination on the basis of religion, race, etc etc.

At that point, it is conceivable that someone (in Canada) could run into legal trouble for using the incorrect pronouns, just as they can currently get into trouble for using the incorrect nouns.

That doesn't mean that there will be a list of pronouns that are on a banned list, and another that is on a mandatory list. But, in some circumstances, the use of certain words could be discriminatory behaviour.

shedweller

Great. Now, if in the future i accidently call a very feminine looking human a she and this human has had a bad day and the straw breaks the proverbial back, and decides to take legal action. Is it conceivable i'll end up needing a solicitor?

RayCun

shedweller wrote: »

Great. Now, if in the future i accidently call a very feminine looking human a she and this human has had a bad day and the straw breaks the proverbial back, and decides to take legal action. Is it conceivable i'll end up needing a solicitor?

Of course not.

First, this doesn't even have anything to do with transgendered people. Some women have short hair, some men have long hair and no facial hair, people make mistakes.

Second, even if it were to do with transgendered people, this is not Canada.

Third, even if it were to do with transgendered people, and this was Canada, accidentally getting someone's gender wrong is not the same as discriminating against them. If you call someone a she, and they say "I'm not a she, I'm a he", or "I'm a xe", and you ignore that and persist in calling them "she", while making it clear that you hear what they're saying but are ignoring it because you don't recognise the gender they prefer and as far as you are concerned anyone who looks feminine is a she, etc etc then you could get into trouble.

That's not making a mistake, that's being an arsehole. And sometimes being an arsehole has legal consequences.

(with the caveat that people can sue you for anything, including things that will get laughed out of court, and you might want to hire a solicitor even for a nuisance case)

shedweller

What kind of people is it about then?