Society/Culture Do you understand and accept the importance of neopronouns?

[hiking]

Why is it "ideal" that everyone accepts self ID?

If it's a reasonable pronoun, then common sense?

You're probably knowing of more complicated situations which may have more specific impacts, like enroling in a male or female sporting team for example. But I think if it's just male/female/trans, he/she/them etc. Then ideally you should (IMO) show that respect as it's not asking much. And yes, even if you disagree with the terms.

But like I originally said, it's still a choice if you refuse to acknowledge the self ID if you really can't bring yourself to doing it.

 

[Roobs321]

Intentional misgendering across simple binary lines in 2021 is clearly not on. It has nothing to do with you, and doesn't reflect on you either, and if you still have an issue with it then work around it in more general or name terms.

I can't speak for zoomers and fluidity and 'neopronouns', as a trans person I can say that 'non-binary' and expanded gender options wasn't really even a thing a decade ago and anyone very specifically on the spectrum with an individualised cafe-karen moniker is obviously a bit of a w***er, but intentionally calling a transman a woman in 2021 is clearly a prickish act and if they choose that instance to draw a line in the sand you'll get your just desserts. It's just basic common decency.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Intentional misgendering across simple binary lines in 2021 is clearly not on. It has nothing to do with you, and doesn't reflect on you either, and if you still have an issue with it then work around it in more general or name terms.

I can't speak for zoomers and fluidity and 'neopronouns', as a trans person I can say that 'non-binary' and expanded gender options wasn't really even a thing a decade ago and anyone very specifically on the spectrum with an individualised cafe-karen moniker is obviously a bit of a w***er, but intentionally calling a transman a woman in 2021 is clearly a prickish act and if they choose that instance to draw a line in the sand you'll get your just desserts. It's just basic common decency.

We can agree it reflects a lack of courtesy.

But is it "vilification"? Is it "hate speech"?

Should it be illegal?

 

[Suspense]

Or at face to face you could just "Hi I'm a sicko what's your name?"

This is what I was hoping to get around to, we shouldn't need to go around asking mates or work colleagues or even worse tip toe around the subject of how to address someone for fear of reprisal.

At my work place or even in public I'll address someone, including strangers by "hey mate", there is no intent to offend. And even though .00000000000000000000001% of the population would be offended, that does not validate any punishment just because I addressed someone with no ill intent.

IF one day I happen to run into this person who takes offence, I'll know my conscience is clear and fk that person! I'll call out the absurdity it is.

I sometimes refer to friends/colleagues that I know as mate/mates - regardless of their gender, but I'd never call a woman that I didn't know 'mate'.

 

[hiking]

We can agree it reflects a lack of courtesy.

But is it "vilification"? Is it "hate speech"?

Should it be illegal?

Illegal?

If such a law existed then surely the perpetrator would enjoy the attention and making a dramatic scene over staying true to their "traditions". I think if somebody were to continue to incorrectly use pronouns in a specifically malicious way, then they would get their punishment in other ways I reckon, without the need for any laws.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Illegal?

If such a law existed then surely the perpetrator would enjoy the attention and making a dramatic scene over staying true to their "traditions". I think if somebody were to continue to incorrectly use pronouns in a specifically malicious way, then they would get their punishment in other ways I reckon, without the need for any laws.

Well, is it vilification? Is it hate speech?

We have laws against those, to varying degrees.

 

[Carringbush2010]

I sometimes refer to friends/colleagues that I know as mate/mates - regardless of their gender, but I'd never call a woman that I didn't know 'mate'.

Ok

 

[hiking]

Well, is it vilification? Is it hate speech?

I guess you could argue it as "hate speech" if you tried hard enough.

But how would it be judged? Like, if we're just going on pronouns of he/she/they, and somebody innocently uses the wrong one, then that's alright. But after being clearly imformed (and how many times?) they still call the trans man a "she" for example, is that when you think there should be a law?

Personally, I don't know to be honest.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I guess you could argue it as "hate speech" if you tried hard enough.

But how would it be judged? Like, if we're just going on pronouns of he/she/they, and somebody innocently uses the wrong one, then that's alright. But after being clearly imformed (and how many times?) they still call the trans man a "she" for example, is that when you think there should be a law?

Personally, I don't know to be honest.

I'm asking. Should misgendering be deemed hate speech, and therefore be subject to the relevant laws?

 

[Carringbush2010]

I guess you could argue it as "hate speech" if you tried hard enough.

But how would it be judged? Like, if we're just going on pronouns of he/she/they, and somebody innocently uses the wrong one, then that's alright. But after being clearly imformed (and how many times?) they still call the trans man a "she" for example, is that when you think there should be a law?

Personally, I don't know to be honest.

There is law already against 'vilification' or 'discrimination' or 'hate speech'. The problem is it's up to a courtroom to decide, if it gets there.

'Like, if we're just going on pronouns of he/she/they, and somebody innocently uses the wrong one, then that's alright.'

Is it? Some would argue it's not, and that's why there's opposition to compelling the 'use' of neopronouns. As some would wish, do we wanna end up like Canada? I wouldn't view that as ideal.

Yeah we're talking about a minuscule number of people, just like there's a minuscule number of people that are intent on offence.

So I'll ask you a question again, if someone who finds it absurd to address someone other than what that someone prefers, do you think there should be a consequence? And what severity?

 

[Carringbush2010]

I'm asking. Should intended misgendering be deemed hate speech, and therefore be subject to the relevant laws?

Is this your question?

 

[hiking]

'Like, if we're just going on pronouns of he/she/they, and somebody innocently uses the wrong one, then that's alright.'

Is it? Some would argue it's not, and that's why there's opposition to compelling the 'use' of neopronouns.

Yeah, I think it's alright to misgender innocently as a one off, until being informed. Otherwise you're basically saying to never assume.

Clearly when it's purposefully done (intended) in a malicious way then that's like many other forms of "name calling" and should be addressed.

I'm asking. Should misgendering be deemed hate speech, and therefore be subject to the relevant laws?

Put it like this. If it came in as a law, I probably wouldn't even think about it. Just like I've never really given thought to other "hate crimes".

But personally, I wouldn't push for it being a law.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Clearly when it's purposefully done (intended) in a malicious way then that's like many other forms of "name calling" and should be addressed.

Yes we know your position, so I'll ask again, what it the severity of the 'address' you think should be?

Put it like this. If it came in as a law, I probably wouldn't even think about it. Just like I've never really given thought to other "hate crimes".

But personally, I wouldn't push for it being a law.

The law already exists.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Put it like this. If it came in as a law, I probably wouldn't even think about it. Just like I've never really given thought to other "hate crimes".

But personally, I wouldn't push for it being a law.

That doesn't answer the question.

 

[hiking]

Yes we know your position, so I'll ask again, what it the severity of the 'address' you think should be?

Just informing them of the pronoun they prefer and telling them clearly and politely they used one they don't accept. That should be enough, no?

 

[hiking]

That doesn't answer the question.

Well, apparently it already exists, if it works, great.

But the exact question you asked?

I'm asking. Should misgendering be deemed hate speech, and therefore be subject to the relevant laws?

No.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Just informing them of the pronoun they prefer and telling them clearly and politely they used one they don't accept. That should be enough, no?

Well I think so, but what about the hardcore activist who's judgement is clouded by bias / chip on the shoulder? They do exist remember, what about what they want? They'd want anything from a heavy fine to a prison sentence to capitol punishment, no? Depending on how angered they are.

Do we appease these types to 'include everyone'? Or do we go the practical route, like the current legislation (which btw would be up for debate if it is 'practical')

 

[Maddhew]

Never had an issue with mate, guys, folks.

Some at our work have spoke about the potential for 'guys' to offend a mixed group.

My thoughts are the terms had evolved into a perfect gender neutral way to address a group, apparently not.

 

[Maddhew]

Aussies do naturally use plurals a lot in the place of a singular.

"Give us a chip mate"
"They are so hammered last night"
"Yeah, well they're a bloody idiot then"

 

[hiking]

Well I think so, but what about the hardcore activist who's judgement is clouded by bias / chip on the shoulder? They do exist remember, what about what they want? They'd want anything from a heavy fine to a prison sentence to capitol punishment, no? Depending on how angered they are.

They may want it, and I'm sure on the other end of the spectrum some very much right wing people would like some of their own laws introduced. But I don't agree with anything more than just informing and correcting the person and that's it, as educating the person in a respectful way is going to work a lot better than an extreme method.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

But the exact question you asked?

No.

Why not?

 

[Carringbush2010]

They may want it, and I'm sure on the other end of the spectrum some very much right wing people would like some of their own laws introduced. But I don't agree with anything more than just informing and correcting the person and that's it, as educating the person in a respectful way is going to work a lot better than an extreme method.

Of course I agree with you, but you have to accept the extreme ends of the spectrum, they're people too remember? We have to include everyone remember?

This is where the whole 'progressive' ideal falls down, the ideal to include 'everyone' so no one is 'hurt' or 'disadvantaged' is sold as possible - when in reality that is impossible.

Progressive but not practical.

 

[hiking]

Why not?

Because, and some may not agree, I think you can innocently use the wrong pronoun. As straightforward as if I ordered a coffee and said "she gave me the wrong order" to another staff member, as I assumed it was a woman (let's say it was a trans man). Sure, I could say "they", and probably should be aware of that these days. But it wouldn't have been in an insulting/malicious way, so they can choose to just ignore it, or inform me of the pronoun that's preferred. I'd understand then if in the same situation again.

I couldn't care what pronoun was used towards me to be honest, but knowing that it matters a lot to others and especially trans people, then I can see why making an effort is courteous and I'd hope expected.

But no, just misgendering somebody without inyention shouldn't be illegal at all IMO.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Sure, I could say "they", and probably should be aware of that these days

Well therein lies the crux, 'these day', yeah I gather societal norms have shifted and continue to do so.

'These days' however do have a propensity to attempt to accommodate 'everyone'.

Think it's a little bit to burdenous to expect majority to tip toe around egg shells for every minority group on the planet.

I think practical perspective is pushed to the wayside (or wish to) by a noisy minority that are intent on a witch hunt or a reason to find one.

 

[hiking]

Well therein lies the crux, 'these day', yeah I gather societal norms have shifted and continue to do so.

'These days' however do have a propensity to attempt to accommodate 'everyone'.

Think it's a little bit to burdenous to expect majority to tip toe around egg shells for every minority group on the planet.

I think practical perspective is pushed to the wayside (or wish to) by a noisy minority that are intent on a witch hunt or a reason to find one.

Don't disagree with any of that.

I guess just personally I'm more aware of how assuming gender can sometimes cause unintended offence, so whilst not perfect, or even go out of my way, the societel awareness "these days" has probably changed my approach without me realising.