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

LLMMLL · 12-12-2016 1:49pm

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 · 12-12-2016 1:49pm

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 · 12-12-2016 1:52pm

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 · 12-12-2016 2:09pm

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 · 12-12-2016 2:16pm

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 · 12-12-2016 2:16pm

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 · 12-12-2016 2:17pm

darkpagandeath wrote: »

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

Like Ireland for example.

Call Me Jimmy · 12-12-2016 2:23pm

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

RayCun · 12-12-2016 2:23pm

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 · 12-12-2016 2:28pm

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 · 12-12-2016 2:30pm

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 · 12-12-2016 2:42pm

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 · 12-12-2016 2:47pm

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 · 12-12-2016 3:09pm

There are only two genders. He and she.

Atari Jaguar · 12-12-2016 3:11pm

PatPierces wrote: »

There are only two genders. He and she.

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

shedweller · 12-12-2016 3:47pm

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 · 12-12-2016 3:58pm

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 · 12-12-2016 4:08pm

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 · 12-12-2016 4:18pm

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 · 12-12-2016 4:54pm

What kind of people is it about then?

Special Circumstances · 13-12-2016 7:41am

Ze played zes zum for Ze, za zum zum zum zum
Ze played zes zest for Ze, za zum zum zum zum,
Zum zum zum zum, zum zum zum zum,
Then ze smiled at ze, za zum zum zum zum
Ze and zes zum.

Altogether now!!

JRant · 13-12-2016 10:12am

RayCun wrote: »

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)

So you are basically advocating that people can demand that you call them a certain pronoun on pain of legal punishment?

That is a whole different ball game to banning certain words such as n*****. You can most certainly ask not to be called a certain pronoun but you have absolutely no right to demand that they use a term of your choosing.

There are more and more of these crackpots appearing every day from gender fluid to otherkin. New York already has a protected list of over 30 gender pronouns that must be used when addressing these morons, including (i kid you not) Elf kin.

As much as not using someones preferred non-binary nomenclature may be construed as being an asshole so to is demanding other people use terms that they don't want to.

RayCun · 13-12-2016 10:20am

RayCun wrote: »

That is not the same as a law making it legally required for everyone to say "ze".

RayCun wrote: »

If you don't like the word "ze" so you use "they" instead, that's not going to cause any problems.

RayCun wrote: »

If you decide that you don't like "ze" but use a different gender-neutral word instead, there's no problem.

RayCun wrote: »

I'm not in favour of making the use of the word "ze" mandatory.

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.

RayCun wrote: »

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

RayCun wrote: »

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.

RayCun wrote: »

There is no requirement to use "ze".

RayCun wrote: »

If you use another gender-neutral term, such as "they", then you are not applying a gender term that they don't identify with.

RayCun wrote: »

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".

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.

RayCun wrote: »

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.

JRant wrote: »

So you are basically advocating that people can demand that you call them a certain pronoun on pain of legal punishment?

10/10 for reading comprehension

osarusan · 13-12-2016 10:22am

RayCun wrote: »

10/10 for reading comprehension

At this stage maybe you need to consider the idea that they just don't want to get the point?

RayCun · 13-12-2016 10:24am

osarusan wrote: »

At this stage maybe you need to consider the idea that they just don't want to get the point?

The world inside their heads is so much more validating than the one outside

PistolsAtDawn · 13-12-2016 10:28am

If you were born with something dangling between your legs your a 'he', otherwise your a 'she'.

If you don't want to assume your gender thats fine, just don't expect others to fall over themselves trying to accomodate you.

JRant · 13-12-2016 10:52am

RayCun wrote: »

10/10 for reading comprehension

10/10 for missing the whole point of this entire argument. Now I appreciate this may be tough on you as basic comprehension seems to be supplanted by a need to be so right on that it blinds you to all around but I'll try again.

In places like New York, you MUST address people by their preferred makey uppy pronouns.

That is a completely different argument to banning certain pejorative terms.

If you fail to see even this basic difference then there is zero point in having a conversation on this issue.

RayCun · 13-12-2016 11:06am

You said

JRant wrote: »

So you are basically advocating that people can demand that you call them a certain pronoun on pain of legal punishment?

when on multiple occasions, quoted above, I said the exact opposite. I know it's more fun to argue with the SJWs in your head - you win every time! - but if you're going to try arguing with real people you might find they have an annoying habit of referring to the real world.

JRant wrote: »

In places like New York, you MUST address people by their preferred makey uppy pronouns.

Yeah, I'm going to call bollocks on that.

Bob24 · 13-12-2016 11:16am

Some aspects of modern Western societies are more and more looking like soviet communism to me: you don't like facts or realities, just name them differently or pretend they don't exist to create some kind of godless mythology and religion which makes the world acceptable to you.
I think like communism the fog of altered naming and selected truths is very efficient at making masses believe in a certain ideology or seeing their country/environment in a way that suits them, but there could also similarly be a difficult awakening when people are so engrained in this mental construct that they forget about reality, which will always come and remind them of its existence one day or another.

pumpkin4life · 13-12-2016 11:25am

PistolsAtDawn wrote: »

If you were born with something dangling between your legs your a 'he', otherwise your a 'she'.

If you don't want to assume your gender thats fine, just don't expect others to fall over themselves trying to accomodate you.

Exactly.

Nothing against transsexuals whatsoever, but to call a man a woman and a woman a man is pure 1984 shìte.

You're a man, a he, not a ze or whatever crap.

Bob24 · 13-12-2016 11:41am

pumpkin4life wrote: »

pure 1984 shìte.

Exactly what I think as well. And it is scary (though not necessarily surprising) to think this newspeak is coming from what are meant to be world leading universities.

JRant · 13-12-2016 11:55am

RayCun wrote: »

You said

when on multiple occasions, quoted above, I said the exact opposite. I know it's more fun to argue with the SJWs in your head - you win every time! - but if you're going to try arguing with real people you might find they have an annoying habit of referring to the real world.

Yeah, I'm going to call bollocks on that.

You haven't a clue what you're arguing for at this stage. One minute it's legal to use whatever words you like and the next it's against discrimination legislation. Nonsense posting of the highest calibre.

Yeah well you may call it bollox but the Washington Post says you are wrong again

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/05/17/you-can-be-fined-for-not-calling-people-ze-or-hir-if-thats-the-pronoun-they-demand-that-you-use/

midnight city · 13-12-2016 12:04pm

It is a difficult one its much like abortion and where does life begin. The simple view is that if you are born a man them you are always a man and vise versa. If an effeminate man decides he really should be a woman and starts to dress as a woman or even transition. Are they now a woman. For me no they are not really a woman. Same for a masculine woman that decides she would prefer to be a man. If we go down the road of forcing people to view each as whatever they choose then it will get really messy.

As we know the push from the equality movement will continue as far as it can go. It will end up with he and she becoming unacceptable to use anywhere official, or in entertainment or in the business world. The left will bully it out of common use. Do we really want society to go down that road, after all how many truly don't want to be identified as he or she. Is it 1 in 1000, 10,000, 100,000 or less.

RayCun · 13-12-2016 12:17pm

JRant wrote: »

You haven't a clue what you're arguing for at this stage. One minute it's legal to use whatever words you like and the next it's against discrimination legislation.

Ha, says the guy with the reading comprehension failure.:rolleyes:

JRant wrote: »

Yeah well you may call it bollox but the Washington Post says you are wrong again

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/05/17/you-can-be-fined-for-not-calling-people-ze-or-hir-if-thats-the-pronoun-they-demand-that-you-use/

Always go to the source, not the opinion columns :rolleyes:

Examples of Violations
Intentional or repeated refusal to use an individual’s preferred name, pronoun or title. For example, repeatedly calling a transgender woman “him” or “Mr.” after she has made clear which pronouns and title she uses.

Refusal to use an individual’s preferred name, pronoun, or title because they do not conform to gender stereotypes. For example, calling a woman “Mr.” because her appearance is aligned with traditional gender-based stereotypes of masculinity.

Conditioning an individual’s use of their preferred name on obtaining a court-ordered name change or providing identification in that name. For example, a covered entity may not refuse to call a transgender woman her preferred name, Jane, because her identification says that her first name is John. 11

Requiring an individual to provide information about their medical history or proof of having undergone particular medical procedures in order to use their preferred name, pronoun, or title.

Clearly another situation where a problem may arise if you deliberately call people by names, or address them with pronouns, that they said don't apply. Which is not the same as being forced to use any particular pronoun to address people, and is not the same as

New York already has a protected list of over 30 gender pronouns that must be used when addressing these morons

RayCun · 13-12-2016 12:24pm

midnight city wrote: »

It will end up with he and she becoming unacceptable to use anywhere official, or in entertainment or in the business world.

Yeah, that's definitely what will happen.

JRant · 13-12-2016 1:42pm

RayCun wrote: »

Ha, says the guy with the reading comprehension failure.:rolleyes:

Always go to the source, not the opinion columns :rolleyes:

Clearly another situation where a problem may arise if you deliberately call people by names, or address them with pronouns, that they said don't apply. Which is not the same as being forced to use any particular pronoun to address people, and is not the same as

Sweet suffering, it says right there that if you do not use a persons preferred pronoun then you can be done for discrimination. It's there is black and white yet you still bang on about others being wrong.

RayCun · 13-12-2016 1:51pm

JRant wrote: »

Sweet suffering, it says right there that if you do not use a persons preferred pronoun then you can be done for discrimination. It's there is black and white yet you still bang on about others being wrong.

Because the examples they give of what discrimination looks like are very clear.

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

Comments