nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

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?

[Deleted User]

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.

[Deleted User]

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.

[Deleted User]

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.

[Deleted User]

Mystery Egg wrote: »

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

Thing is, though, that a business more or less wouldn't be able to operate if they were to fulfill the wishes of every religion, personal, or ideological belief. So the other option is to cherrypick which ones you believe in, thus oppressing others, going for all of them, or just not allowing any of them to operate.

Outlaw Pete

In the UK last week schools were told not to refer to girls as 'girls' any longer. Or, heaven forbid.. 'young ladies'.

Don't calls girls 'girls' or 'young women' in case it offends pupils questioning their gender identity, schools are told

Teachers at Britain's leading girls' schools have been told not to call pupils 'girls' or 'young women' in case it offends any questioning their gender identity.

Head teachers belonging to the Girls' Schools Association were instructed to use gender-neutral words like 'pupils' or 'students' to avoid discrimination.

Caroline Jordan, President of the GSA and headmistress of £33,000-a-year Headington School in Oxfordshire, backed the advice saying it affects an increasing number of young people questioning their identity.

Children should be taught to respect other children's differences and perhaps even have a once a month class on gender identity in schools but to treat all children differently, expect them (and those around them) to adopt different ways of addressing each other, just because a tiny percentage of them might be having gender identity issues, is completely absurd.

Personally, I see all this as really being about control and people need to wake up to it. Certain minorities have the ear of society right now and they have quite a bit of power as a result. It's never been as politically incorrect not to be 100% right on all of the time as it is right now and they absolutely know it and are of course using it as leverage to manipulate society into behaving precisely how they want them to behave. Which would be fine if it was needed but much of it absolutely is not.

[Deleted User]

Deleted User wrote: »

Thing is, though, that a business more or less wouldn't be able to operate if they were to fulfill the wishes of every religion, personal, or ideological belief. So the other option is to cherrypick which ones you believe in, thus oppressing others, going for all of them, or just not allowing any of them to operate.

Sure...but that in itself is an ideological belief!

So, you believe that your ideological belief is the 'neutral' one, and should be upheld. I am not saying I disagree. I am just pointing out that your belief is ideological by nature; secondly that it is a product of your neoliberal environment (driven by and for capitalism) and thirdly that there is nothing neutral about it. :pac:

selastich2

Ze smiled,” “I met zir,” “Zir bike” and “Ze is zirself.”

:pac: Is this a plan to have us all speaking dutch?

Zubeneschamali

Shield wrote: »

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.

You were just going by the heading and jumping to the conclusion that it is political correctness gone mad. Like most examples of political correctness gone mad, it turns out to be nothing at all.

Employers must ensure that employees are not harassing other employees, or the employer may face a harassment lawsuit.

Just like an employer cannot allow male employees to sexually harass female ones, female ones to hrass male ones, male ones to hrass each other etc. etc.

There is, as I said, not one word about criminal anything or fines for employees.

Shield

This is very relevant.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Personally I see all this are really being about control and people need to wake up to it. Certain minorities have the ear of society right now and they have quite a bit of power as a result. It's never been as politically incorrect not to be 100% right on all of the time as it is right now and they absolutely know it and are of course using it as leverage to manipulate society into behaving precisely how they want them to behave.

I'm astonished by some of the replies on this thread indicating that those who follow their religious beliefs in the given scenario are nothing more than than dicks, pricks, and so on. I don't imagine we're going to hear from anyone who may have the religious beliefs I have described now that we can how they've already been pre-labelled with the unnecessary name-calling.

I have family members, friends, and colleagues who aren't on board with the transgender agenda, and I know some of those mentioned (in particular, the olders ones) would be wholly against using pronouns that do not match the biological sex of the person being discussed. The best way to alienate these people is start calling them names. It's not going to educate them. It's not going to open up their minds to new ideas or things they may not have considered. All it's going to do make them dig their heels in further, and solidify their already-hardened opinion.

And as I've seen here, if their opinions don't match those of some of the posters on this thread, they get called names.. just for having a different opinion.

Very disappointing.

Zubeneschamali

Shield wrote: »

I have family members, friends, and colleagues who aren't on board with the transgender agenda, and I know some of those mentioned (in particular, the olders ones) would be wholly against using pronouns that do not match the biological sex of the person being discussed. The best way to alienate these people is start calling them names.

Getting them fired might teach them manners.

[Deleted User]

Shield wrote: »

This is very relevant.

I'm astonished by some of the replies on this thread indicating that those who follow their religious beliefs in the given scenario are nothing more than than dicks, pricks, and so on. I don't imagine we're going to hear from anyone who may have the religious beliefs I have described now that we can how they've already been pre-labelled with the unnecessary name-calling.

I have family members, friends, and colleagues who aren't on board with the transgender agenda, and I know some of those mentioned (in particular, the olders ones) would be wholly against using pronouns that do not match the biological sex of the person being discussed. The best way to alienate these people is start calling them names. It's not going to educate them. It's not going to open up their minds to new ideas or things they may not have considered. All it's going to do make them dig their heels in further, and solidify their already-hardened opinion.

And as I've seen here, if their opinions don't match those of some of the posters on this thread, they get called names.. just for having a different opinion.

Very disappointing.

So you believe that a pharmacist should be allowed to not sell condoms or any contraceptive items because they might be Catholic? Or that a doctor can refuse to give a possible life saving abortion, because of their religious beliefs? Or a doctor/paramedic that happens to be a Jehova's Witness and refuses to give a blood transfusion?

The point I'm making is that you can't oppress or discriminate against people, just because you might belong to a specific ideology.

DEFTLEFTHAND

I hope you're not being serious with that post Zuben.

ohnonotgmail

Shield wrote: »

This is very relevant.

I'm astonished by some of the replies on this thread indicating that those who follow their religious beliefs in the given scenario are nothing more than than dicks, pricks, and so on. I don't imagine we're going to hear from anyone who may have the religious beliefs I have described now that we can how they've already been pre-labelled with the unnecessary name-calling.

I have family members, friends, and colleagues who aren't on board with the transgender agenda, and I know some of those mentioned (in particular, the olders ones) would be wholly against using pronouns that do not match the biological sex of the person being discussed. The best way to alienate these people is start calling them names. It's not going to educate them. It's not going to open up their minds to new ideas or things they may not have considered. All it's going to do make them dig their heels in further, and solidify their already-hardened opinion.

And as I've seen here, if their opinions don't match those of some of the posters on this thread, they get called names.. just for having a different opinion.

Very disappointing.

Or how about they just show some respect for other people? Is that not a central tenet of most religions?