Fined for calling a Transgender person by the wrong pronoun

Shield · 30-06-2016 09:12AM #1

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 · 30-06-2016 09:15AM

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 · 30-06-2016 09:18AM

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 · 30-06-2016 09:18AM

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 · 30-06-2016 09:21AM

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 · 30-06-2016 09:22AM

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 · 30-06-2016 09:23AM

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 · 30-06-2016 09:25AM

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 · 30-06-2016 09:25AM

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 · 30-06-2016 09:25AM

'Ze'

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

Plays like an evil German villain in my head.

Shield · 30-06-2016 09:27AM

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 · 30-06-2016 09:29AM

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 · 30-06-2016 09:30AM

More snowflakes being offended :rolleyes:

Shield · 30-06-2016 09:31AM

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.

30-06-2016 09:31AM

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

30-06-2016 09:34AM

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 · 30-06-2016 09:34AM

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 · 30-06-2016 09:35AM

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 · 30-06-2016 09:39AM

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 · 30-06-2016 09:39AM

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 · 30-06-2016 09:41AM

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 · 30-06-2016 09:41AM

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 · 30-06-2016 09:44AM

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 · 30-06-2016 09:47AM

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 · 30-06-2016 09:48AM

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 · 30-06-2016 09:57AM

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.

30-06-2016 09:57AM

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 · 30-06-2016 09:59AM

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 · 30-06-2016 10:09AM

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 · 30-06-2016 10:09AM

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 · 30-06-2016 10:18AM

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?

Fined for calling a Transgender person by the wrong pronoun

Comments