Trans

Transgender Pronoun Policing Leads to Government-Mandated Speech

Will a requirement, by law, to refer to an individual as 'they,' hold up?

|

Bathrooms
Source: Pixabay

Sexual harassment workplace policies tend to revolve around telling people not to do things. Don't use sexist language when talking to people, don't post pictures of swimsuit models in your cubicle, don't smack people on the ass, don't tell a subordinate he or she has to put out in order to get a raise, et cetera, et cetera.

But as we move further into the realm of using federal and state laws to punish harassment against transgender people in the work environment, we are seeing government officials attempting to enforce demands that employers and workers must say certain things. Specifically, refusing to refer to a transgender person by the pronoun "he" or "she"—or other terms we're about to get into—can be considered harassment.

Elizabeth Nolan Brown wrote in December how New York City was ordering employers to make certain transgender employees are accommodated by the use of whatever pronoun they prefer upon the threat of fines for even isolated incidents. And to be clear, the pronoun choice doesn't have to consist of the typical "he" or "she," meaning that a transgender employee can demand to be called "ze" or other non-standard pronouns that could be confusing to even the most accommodating of employers and co-workers. So now anti-harassment enforcement may involve policing and requiring people to say certain things.

The consequences are now playing out at the Gresham-Barlow School District in Gresham, Oregon. The district has agreed to a $60,000 settlement over the way a transgender teacher, Leo Soell, has been treated. The Oregonian explains:

Soell identifies as neither male nor female and uses the pronoun they instead of he or she. But, Soell wrote, coworkers continuously called Soell "she," "lady" or "Miss Soell." Someone smeared Vaseline on Soell's cabinets, the complaint said, and another yelled insults in the school hallway. Others conspired to prevent Soell from using the school's lone gender-neutral bathroom, the complaint said.

A district investigation, which officials have declined to release, found no proof of harassment.

But Gresham-Barlow officials agreed to a settlement this month that compensates Soell for emotional damages. District leaders also agreed to add gender-neutral bathrooms to all schools, create clear policies about transgender teachers and host mandatory trainings for all Gresham principals, as well as Hall staff.

There are elements of what can be clearly identified as workplace harassment, if what Soell claims to have happened is true, and there is what appears to be hostility toward Soell in the workplace. But it's also clearly a situation that would confuse just about anybody. Soell doesn't identify as either gender, but after getting a mastectomy as a result of breast cancer decided to keep what appeared to be a masculine chest and legally change the name to Leo. This all suggests a desire to be referred to as a male, but Soell wanted to be called "they." Why change the name to Leo if Soell doesn't identify as male or female? Why change the name at all?

Maybe Soell just likes the name "Leo." Hey, if that's what Soell wants to do with Soell's body, more power to … them? Nope, I don't think I can do it. Pronoun agreement has nothing to do with gender identity. This example ends up becoming less and less about respecting Soell's personal life choices versus the need to keep language as a tool to help communicate with each other and not a field of metaphorical bear traps designed to trigger pain and punishment upon the unwary. It also creates a different sort of problem in an elementary school environment that is supposed to be teaching children correct grammar, including pronoun use. Can editors request a secular version of a religious exemption here?

Eugene Volokh wrote about the case over at the Washington Post today and considers the First Amendment implications. There is an implicit component of gender politics in Soell demanding not be referred to as either male or female, because Soell complains that language is not "inclusive" enough. If the government requires workers and employers to refer to Soell as "they," doesn't it potentially follow that they are being forced to carry forward an ideological message? Volokh argues:

[T]rying to force people to endorse a particular view on these questions by requiring them to use this highly conspicuous, nonstandard usage, I think, violates basic First Amendment principles. Drivers, the Supreme Court held in Wooley v. Maynard (1978), are entitled not to display "Live Free or Die" on their license plates — not to be "in effect require[d] … [to] use their private property as a 'mobile billboard' for the State's ideological message." They would likewise be free not to display "Language Should Be More Inclusive." And they should be free not to use words that "set[] off grammar alarms" that signal such an ideological message.

When it comes to the government acting as employer, dictating what employees may say at work, the First Amendment question necessarily becomes more complicated. Perhaps a government employer might be able to require employees on the job to use "they" or "ze" or "thee" or "dude" or "human" or "comrade" or whatever a co-worker prefers.

But Soell's complaint alleged that failure to use the terms was "harassment" and discrimination, which is forbidden in privately owned workplaces as well as governmental ones. The New York City guidance likewise applies to such privately owned workplaces. And when the government is acting as sovereign, telling us what we must or must not say on pain of coercively imposed legal liability, the First Amendment is at full force. That force, I think, should preclude government commands that we start using new words — or radical grammatical modifications of old, familiar words — that convey government-favored messages about gender identity or anything else.

If nothing else, this is a good reason it's a problem for the Department of Justice to stomp in and start ordering schools to treat transgender students in any one particular way. I suspect that even as culture grows more and more friendly toward transgender acceptance, this kind of mandated pronoun policing is going to prove to be untenable.

It will be a lawsuit generator, certainly. The Oregonian notes that part of the settlement was to pay Soell's out-of-pocket costs for the cancer treatment, allegedly because Soell's health insurance rejected it because Soell is transgender. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense, unless Soell decided on a double mastectomy to treat the cancer, but one wasn't truly medically necessary.

As we've seen, though, previously in the case of the gay couple who sought punishment against bakers who declined to make them a wedding cake, the way our justice systems approach "damages" heavily encourages massive exaggerations about the harms done in order to increase the size of settlements (one woman in that couple said being declined as a customer "made her feel as if God made a mistake when He made her"). That the use of a wrong pronoun could possibly set off a legal bomb is going to be a serious problem.

Advertisement

NEXT: Riots Reveal True Face of Sanders Movement

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Ae, xe, and yt?

    1. Is the plural “yeti”?

      1. Yttrium or Yttria, depending on your isotope-identity

  2. Perhaps a government employer might be able to require employees on the job to use “they” or “ze” or “thee” or “dude” or “human” or “comrade” or whatever a co-worker prefers.

    The bums will always lose!

  3. And so the war on tranny employment continues apace.

    1. Yeah. If I was an employer, I’d be finding lots of unrelated excuses not to hire any of them. Even if I was the most progressive and accommodating employer around, the financial risk is too massive.

      Always remember to thank progressives for breeding discrimination even where there previously was none.

      1. They’ll just get it mandated, added to the affirmative action, 1 out of 10 of your employees will have to be transgendered and have their own bathroom.

        1. simple. Since “gender identiy” is fluid and changeable, simply have one in ten of your best employees agree to assign the requisite gender to themselves when the paperwork indicates you need more of such folk. What, is the Oregon Department of Labor and Industries gonna come round thd begin poking inside people’s panties on a monthly basis? I know some would like to, but I doulbt they’ll manage that any time soon. Even Kate Brown might get a bit “gun shy” on that one.

      2. Then they will sue.

        This is happening right now to Valve (the company behind Steam and formerly the Half-Life series).

    2. well most of them are automatic these days anyway so…

    3. What Soell wants to find in the penumbras of the Constitution is the Right To Be A Pain In The Ass. Then they wants the courts to legislate that they will still be popular, and treated like people who aren’t pains in the ass.

      Cognitive disconnect.

  4. As noted, “they” is third-person plural, for fuck’s sake.

    Also, isn’t the term supposed to be dehumanizing, as in “those people,” etc.?

    1. “They” is also the singular pronoun used when gender is unknown or unspecified.

      1. Admittedly, language changes, but those of us who respect language recommend dragging our feet on radically different interpretations like this.

        1. It’s been a common usage for my whole life. I fought it for a long time, but I think the ship has sailed on that one. I think it’s good to try to slow changes to language like that. But eventually you have to accept some changes or be perpetually annoyed and annoying.

          1. There are two spaces after every sentence. Two.

            *runs away sobbing*

            1. There are when I type. And a paragraph indent should be 5 spaces (I gave up on that one a long time ago).

            2. Not with the character limit here!

            3. Only with monospace / fixed width typeface or font, as used in old-school typewriters. It’s been the standard for decades now to use only one space between sentences if a proportional font or typeface is used.

              1. But that’s where it’s needed most!

          2. sort of along the same lines as saying “I was like ______” then describing what the speaker had said in a conversation. Sorry, it may be “popular” but certainly not correct.

        2. Dude, singular They has been around since the fourteenth fucking century.

          You’ve… you’ve been dragging your feet awfully long, haven’t ya??

      2. No, it is not. The word you’re looking for is “he”. “They” was only invented for this usage because sexism.

        1. Thank you. I was taught long ago that if you don’t know, the singluar is “he.” Nothing sexist about it, it’s just a default. They is colloquial and technically wrong.

        2. Actually the singular “they” has been in common use – and considered correct – for hundreds of years. The works of Chaucer, Shakespeare, and Jane Austen are good examples of its use. It’s only in the last century that a few influential grammar “experts” tried to teach everyone otherwise. However, the American Dialect Society (who knew, right?) voted it their 2015 “word of the year” to try to educate people that it is indeed grammatically correct.

    2. Exactly. If an entity has no sexual identity, it is simply refered to as it in the English language. So it, it is. In Latin Romance languages, which hundreds of millions of people on this planet speak, every single word is either masculine or feminine, even inanimate objects, a rock, a she, everything. So I guess we have to outlaw Spanish in the USA because it’s offensive.

      1. Better yet, we could agree never to use a pronoun when referring to Leo Soell, always just one or both of Leo Soell’s names.

        1. Or just refer to Leo Soell as “Bob Dole”.

        1. As in other Romance languages, it is traditional [in Spanish] to use the masculine form of nouns and pronouns when referring to males and females.

          I’m well aware of this. Masculine always takes precedent in these situations. So if I’m referring to a group of people in Portuguese, in which exists both males and females, I wouldn’t use ‘eles’, the plural form for ‘ele’ or he, never elas.

          replace -o or -a, especially in radical political writing

          Ordinary people don’t talk or write like that though and they don’t give a fuck.

          1. We’re not talking about ordinary people now, are we?

            1. Not according to the patriarchy.

          2. precedence, not precedent, duh

        2. Good lord. They’re actually doing Newspeak in Spanish too….

      2. Everybody should speak Hungarian: there’s no gender in the language. The singular third person pronoun is “?”, which carries no information about the sex of the referent (person). There’s simply no way to be offensive about using the pronoun. Of course there’s a price to be paid, i.e. the missing information; which has to be either known to the listener (by having personal knowledge of the referent person), surmised from context (for example if the speaker previously made clear that s/he is speaking about his/her mother or sister or father or brother), or has to be explicitly asked for (“is the parent/sibling you’re talking about your mother/sister or father/brother?”)

        1. Likewise in Turkish: “o”.

          1. Yeah, apparently there’s a bunch of languages without grammatical gender. I used Hungarian only because it is my mother tongue.

            1. I’m just a language geek.

        2. Let’s say that everyone starts speaking a gender neutral language today. Do you think these agitators will be satisfied with that? No, they will just some up with the next crazy shit that they will force upon you, ad infinitum.

          1. Like “firefighter” or “chairperson”…

            1. Actually, they just use “Chair” now. That’s right, the head of a committee is now referred to as piece of furniture.

              1. any head of a committee that is female and bothered about being referenced as “chairman” deserves being referred to as “the chair”, as SHE will have about as much brains as the said article of furniture.

                What the dummies don’t “get” is that the term “chairman” refers to the position and function, not to the individual performing the function.

                Its all about bossing other folks about.. telling me what words I must use, what meanings are when they are often other, how I MUST refer to one or another person or item or position….. best is to continue on as if the loonies are not in charge of the assylum. Because they are not. Unless we bow down and scrape and grovel before them…. the which I refuse to do.

            2. Placed an ad for a Journeyman Electrician. Ad came out “Journeyperson”. I hit the fuckikng roof, pulled the relevant EEOC rulings (amazingly pro “Journeyman” as a title)and demanded the progtard clerk change it. She did.

              Why not just use “progtard” as the pronoun for any of these proggie bastards … it is gender neutral, yet stingingly accurate.

        3. Better yet, Chinese, which I’m told has no pronouns for people at all. The referent is implicit.

          1. Sure it has pronouns. Someone told you wrong 🙂

            The words for he or she, though, are pronounced the same but written differently.

          2. Incorrect. Mandarin Chinese has the standard three pronouns.

            He = ? “ta”
            She = ? “ta”
            It = ? “ta”

            So… I could say “ta jiao Leo” and mean
            1) “He is called Leo” or
            2) “She is called Leo” or
            3) “It is called Leo”

            When speaking, the reference may be implicit, but usually is tied to some other part of the sentence. So you would say “Zhe shi wo de ba ba. Ta jiao Leo” This is my father. He is called (his name is) Leo.

    3. Also, isn’t the term supposed to be dehumanizing, as in “those people,” etc.?

      That sort of thing is the crux of the matter for ordinary people simply trying to navigate their day-to-day lives. You try to fit the latest PC edict into the existing framework of workplace rules, but more and more the new rules don’t logically fit with the existing rules and sometimes openly contradict them. It’s almost as if employees nationwide must take a Kobayashi Maru test.

      1. The only way to win is to cheat. By avoiding transgenders at all costs.

        1. This is the lesson.

    4. Fucking hell. You guys are TERRIBLE grammar nazis!!

      They has been third-person SINGULAR for close to SIX HUNDRED YEARS. It is most commonly used to refer to a singular individual of an unknown identity.

      Have an example.

      Which is more proper??

      “The owner of the blue Toyota has left their lights on.”

      OR

      “The owner of the blue Toyota has left its lights on.”

      Which sentence would you be more likely to hear?? You guys know nothing of proper English. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they

  5. Yeah, I’ve been saying that. (ENB reported long before Volokh.)

    This is also an element of the bathroom wars. Compelled association. Compelled speech.

    1. But this stuff is a distraction that is not worth opposing.

      1. Not worth opposing until you get fined $150,000 for not saying “Ni!”

    2. It’s a backdoor assault on free speech, for one thing. Soon enough they’ll just walk through the front door and tell you what you can say and what you can’t. Freedom to post on this blog or anywhere else online without signing up on a government site to get a state approved license to post, using your real name, and all posts stored in a database for mindless bureaucrats at the new ‘Ministry of Speech’ to scrutinize, will be long gone.

    3. Yep. Libertarians have been thoroughly routed.

  6. What’s presented to us as the easiest solution, and presumably what will happen frequently in the future, is that Americans need to submit to random pronouns under force of law.

    They couldn’t… oh, I dunno… get a different job where people aren’t such assholes?

    1. whaddya mean “THEY”? Perv!!!!!!

  7. Maybe Soell just likes the name “Leo.” Hey, if that’s what Soell wants to do with Soell’s body, more power to ? them? Nope, I don’t think I can do it. Pronoun agreement has nothing to do with gender identity. This example ends up becoming less and less about respecting Soell’s personal life choices versus the need to keep language as a tool to help communicate with each other and not a field of metaphorical bear traps designed to trigger pain and punishment upon the unwary.

    Obviously this. There’s a big difference between me not giving a damn what you decide you are and how you identify and forcing me to join you in your delusional bullshit. I’ll just call you “dipshit” from now on, mmmk?

  8. An appropriate grammatically proper singular pronoun would be “it.” Dehumanizing? Yep! if that’s they way it wants things.

  9. I can’t help but wonder what all this is meant to distract us from noticing.

    1. The economy. It usually determines the election.

      1. Maybe ISIS? The casualties in Iraq? The Ben Rhodes expose? Hillary’s criminal investigation?

        Oh, there are just so many to choose from…

    1. This video contains content from BandaiChannel, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds.

      It’s not even my country.

      1. Of course niconico is down for maintenance.

        1. Creepy, HM. Creepy that you know this.

          1. Where else am I going to get my fix of utattemita versions of Vocaloid songs?

  10. We tell them what to do, what to think. Don’t run, don’t walk. We’re in their homes and in their heads and we haven’t the right. We’re meddlesome.

    1. 🙂

  11. This is pretty much a straight-line extrapolation of privileged/protected classes enjoying positive rights, and very hard to distinguish, in principle from the prohibitions listed above. Positive rights always, always end with mandates to do something, not just prohibitions against doing something.

    Mandated association, I think we’re all familiar with. Why not mandated speech as well? We’ve already crossed the Rubicon for positive rights and mandates, haven’t we?

    For the life of me, I can’t see much of a principled difference between the State prohibiting me from speaking in a certain way and requiring me to speak in a certain way.

    Seriously, did anyone think the lunatic drive for equality over liberty was going to end any other way?

    1. Seriously, did anyone think the lunatic drive for equality over liberty was going to end any other way?

      Nope. And they’re just getting started.

      I identify as King of Andromeda. From now on I demand I be referred to as ‘His holy celestial highness and sovereign ruler of all matter in the galaxy Andromeda’. And yes, you have to say the whole thing, or I’ll sue. Snap to it peasants!

    2. For the life of me, I can’t see much of a principled difference between the State prohibiting me from speaking in a certain way and requiring me to speak in a certain way.

      It’s not that there’s much of a difference, there IS no difference. If a State can force you to say certain words, there’s no precedent barring the state from forcing you to sing its praises, or even campaign in favor of its diktats.

      The positive rights, aka privileges are central driving force towards an Orwellian future.

    3. For the life of me, I can’t see much of a principled difference between the State prohibiting me from speaking in a certain way and requiring me to speak in a certain way.

      Exactly, the State already gets away with prohibiting speech it disapproves of under sexual harassment laws, so the precedent is already set regarding any illusion of free speech in the workplace.

    4. And after this drive for “equality” ends up creating more inequality via unemployment, we’ll just have to equality harder. It never ends.

      1. Employment for the handicapped went down sharply after the ADA passed and people started suing. Not worth trying to help out the blind when you could get your ass handed to you for something inadvertent.

    5. Seriously, did anyone think the lunatic drive for equality over liberty was going to end any other way?

      This is very important, and not very well understood by certain groups of libertarians. Equality is not on par with liberty. Unless libertarians begin to understand this, we will have plenty more “compromises” that promote “equality” over liberty.

      1. Its not just that they’re not the same though, they’re kinda mutually exclusive

  12. If Soell thinks he’s a they he needs treatment, not coddling. Why should people around this guy who have sense be required to indulge his ridiculous fantasy?

    1. Well, Soell started out female, not male. So he’s a she, not a them or a him.

    2. It’s just an early symptom of the left starting yet another reign of terror on this planet. If the person doesn’t have a sex, according to the standard rules of English, the person must be referred to as the singular form of an object with no gender, ‘it’.

      1. “Must”? I hate to say it, but “they” as a gender neutral, singular, personal pronoun has become standard American English. Languages change according to how people use them, not according to the demands of grammarians and pedants.

        1. Yes, that’ true, but it’s incorrect. They is plural, he or she is the singular. But if the entity you’re referring to has no gender, then it’s it or those. Slang is one thing. Of course we all do this, or most of us anyway. Mandating it by law is quite another thing, and impossible to enforce, except randomly. Which is the way most laws are enforced now anyway.

          1. I’m not saying I like it, but if we all use “they” that way, then that is what it means. The language is what people use, not what it says in the dictionary.

            And according to m-w.com, “they” was used as a singular by Shakespeare, Shaw and other important authors.

        2. “they” as a gender neutral, singular, personal pronoun has become standard American English

          I wouldn’t go that far. It’s acceptable, if odd, in speech.

          In writing I deem it totally unacceptable.

          1. I try not to use it in writing.

            But if it’s not standard now, I’m afraid it will be soon. I certainly don’t see it becoming less common.

            1. I have no problem with it gradually becoming a standard. I don’t expect it to be complete in my lifetime though.

          2. Yeah, it’s slangy. I think everyone slips and does it, or they do it all the time because they don’t speak really great English. I mean I lived in the midwest for more than a decade and I still struggle with saying things like ‘I seen it’, and other misuses like that. Just because everyone in Indiana says ‘warsh’ when they mean ‘wash’, or they pronounce roof like ‘ruff’ doesn’t make it right.

            1. I think that’s kind of an odd way to look at it. Regional variations in usage and pronunciation aren’t wrong, they are just variations. You can call it slang or colloquialism if you want. But if it is consistently used that way, it’s just a different standard.

              I like to bust people’s balls about usage and grammar as much as anyone. And it’s good to have a standard for formal communication so everyone knows what you are talking about. But when you get down to it, it is hard to justify the notion that there is a universal “correct” way to speak the language. Before mass communication and mass literacy, there were far bigger variations in how people spoke. That doesn’t mean everyone was wrong.

              That’s my take. If I’m horribly mistaken, maybe HM will come correct me.

              1. No, I agree with you. That “everyone in Indiana says….” is exactly what makes it right, in Indiana at least.

    3. Well, if you’re looking for a serious answer…

      My upbringing had a heavy focus on Baptist Respectability. Hard work, keeping the front lawn neatly mowed, and manners. When Grandma had all the old biddies over for Bible study, if Mrs Rotherham wanted you to call her Mrs Rotherham, then four-year-old you did your damndest because nothing less than Mrs Rotherham would suffice. Conversely, if she said, “Call me Boopsie, dearie, everyone does” then Boopsie she was and would forever be, regardless of your opinions on the subject.

      I don’t give a fuck what people want to call themselves. It’s not my business. You’re a girl? Fine. I should call you Sprout? I’ve heard worse. You’re a cat? Whatevs. Shine on, broheim.

      I draw the line at “require”. This is a manners issue*. It’s fucking rude to say, “Fuck you, Grandma’s friend! Your name is Sara! You don’t even look like a Boopsie! Who the fuck over the age of four would?”

      And you can’t legislate away assholes. Can’t be done. We’ll destroy the world trying.

      *In my opinion. I could be wrong.

      1. I draw the line at “require”. This is a manners issue*.

        That’s the thing. Progressives have been trying to legislate manners for more than a century now.

      2. I completely agree with that. You call people what they want to be called because it’s a nice and polite thing to do. But if you want to be rude, that’s your problem and you shouldn’t be fined for it.

      3. I draw the line at “require”. This is a manners issue*. It’s fucking rude to say, “Fuck you, Grandma’s friend! Your name is Sara! You don’t even look like a Boopsie! Who the fuck over the age of four would?”

        I think there’s a serious question of manners versus entertaining a delusion. It’s one thing to call somebody by a nickname or a formal name, but if Grandma’s friend wants you to call her Mao Zedong, she’s either fucking with you or mentally unstable. Is it better to feed into Boopsie’s delusion, or to refuse to call her Great Leader? There is no single answer, as it’s highly fact dependent. Obviously, calling her Steve falls somewhere between Boopsie and Mao, but it’s a gray area.

        My mother in law interacts with a bunch of transgender and other gender dissociative folks at work. It’s very interesting to hear her stories about how much of a pain in the ass they can be, even at a place that specifically caters to them. God forbid you fuck up a pronoun or call them by the name they were called last time. She loves the work that she does, but she says that one of the more stressful parts of her job is dealing with the special snowflakes that take a different gender for a ride each time they come in and visit.

        1. People who define their happiness by how other people think about and treat them are guaranteed to be fucking miserable. The rest of us get over it and get on with our lives.

          I rarely get offended, because it requires me to be convinced that the act was deliberately intended to offend.

      4. If your lawn looks better than mine, that’s an act of aggression. Apologize and get a shitty looking lawn, now!

      5. And you can’t legislate away assholes

        No, but you can create a lot more of them in the process of trying. But leftists do not understand this, they don’t understand human nature. Social engineering is a very important part of who they are. They can’t bring utopia until they’ve created the perfect citizen.

        1. But leftists do not understand this, they don’t understand human nature. Social engineering is a very important part of who they are. They can’t bring utopia until they’ve created the perfect citizen.

          What they really don’t understand is that people get angry and violent once they’ve been “social engineered” out of the mainstream. The big difference between the US today and most of the socialist/communist shitholes of the 20th century is that we still have guns.

  13. “ze”

    Can someone give me a phonetic on how this is pronounced?

    Is it “zee” or the more chinese “szhee”?

    1. z = “Oh Fuck m”

      e = e

  14. “made her feel as if God made a mistake when He made her”

    NO WAY! I’m just now reading this?! Damn You, Christian deity. Damn You to a lulz-barren hell of Your own making.

    1. “He”? “HE”?!

      Just wait until God picks up on this stuff. It, or whatever, ain’t gonna be pretty.

  15. “Comrade” is neutral and is pretty friendly. Maybe we can amend Title IX to say that any schools not using the word “comrade” in place of pronouns (or whatever) will no longer receive federal funding. Problem solved!

    1. I think there was a historical precedent for this. Wonder how it worked out.

      1. I seem to recall hearing about it in one of my patriarchy classes.

  16. Others conspired to prevent Soell from using the school’s lone gender-neutral bathroom, the complaint said.

    There’s always a third option.

  17. I’ve never really felt like my identity was properly recognized by the “normal” pronouns so I’m glad I can be as comfortable as everyone else takes for granted by an insistence everybody refer to me by my preferred “heilhitler”. Have you met my partner, “niggerfagcunt”?

    1. You win. Everyone else go home.

    2. Call me Ishmyballs.

    3. The fun really ensues when you pick a name gets you put on a government list.

      I think I’ll name the next broodling to come along ‘ANFO the White House’.

  18. They should have gone with “Leto” instead of “Leo” if they wanted to be called “they”.

  19. Soell doesn’t identify as either gender, but after getting a mastectomy as a result of breast cancer decided to keep what appeared to be a masculine chest and legally change the name to Leo.

    “The” works. I’ll use “the” as my catch-all pronoun. Thanks, Scott!

  20. The first step of knowledge is to call a sweet cock by anything twice as sweet.

    -Confusciouspeare.

  21. There is a dude that knows whats going on. WOw.

    http://www.Total-Privacy.tk

    1. It’s not dude you cisgendered shitlord. I think. I mean, you’re a bot, I’m just making assumptions here. Aw fuck, I’m so confused.

      1. Stop othering the spambot, Mustang!

        1. I was trying to educate xer and now I’m caught up in my own inquisition. I don’t know what’s real anymore!

          *runs away sobbing*

  22. “Non-standard pronouns”?

    I think the phrase you are looking for is “made-up words.”

    1. Don’t fight it, DOM. Let it wash over you. Enjoy the new reality that has been created in the name of inclusion and diversity.

  23. The problem goes even deeper than the article suggests. Consider Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner: If Jenner wants to change his name to “Caitlyn,” no one should have a problem with that (it’s what he chooses to call himself). The problem arises when he insists that all others join in (and approve of) his fantasy preference. Jenner is a surgically altered male; nothing can change that. If I choose to call him “Caitlyn” (because I should) but also choose to call him “he” (because it’s true), then where is the “discrimination”?

    Truth always has been a defense to libel; what we now are being told by a gang of tail-wag-the-dog extremists is that truth can be suppressed by libel — when truth hurts.

    That’s a very dangerous road to walk down.

    1. I’m never sure how to refer to Jenner’s past accomplishments. It doesn’t seem accurate to say that Caitlyn, a woman, won the gold medal in men’s whatever it was in the Olympics. She was definitely Bruce at the time. Bruce Jenner did that. And if this gender-identity business is an immutable part of Jenner and she was always a woman, shouldn’t she have been banned from participating in the men’s Olympic events? Or have her medals retroactively rescinded? Would then-Bruce have been allowed to compete in the women’s events?

      It’s all very confusing.

      1. Changing his name is not a big deal. Sports figures have done that in the past. Everyone knows Casious Claw won a gold medal at the 1960 Olympics but went on to be heavy weight champion under the name of Muhammad Ali. Same thing here.

        1. Casious Claw

          Don’t ever change, John.

      2. That’s how Deirdre McCloskey became responsible for 90% of female economists’ output.

    2. I’m just glad Dr. McCloskey kept the same 1st initial, so we can refer to hir as “Dee”.

  24. I actually have to be careful about this, because sometimes a client will email me and say something like so and so is having issues with the application and they’re in wherever the fuck on the planet, and I can’t figure it out. And the email will be a forward from one of their users, and I won’t recognize the name as either male or female. So I’ll just say ‘Did the person, or does the person, or whatever’. Just so as not to accidentally offend someone and feel like an idiot.

    Most people are polite and have no intentions of offending anyone, especially when in a workplace. But this shit is ridiculous, the person who cannot figure out if they are male or female, that’s their responsibility to live with. Everyone else on the planet should not have to bend existing social norms to satisfy the silly whims of one mixed up person.

    1. Nobody else on the planet will bend to satisfy those whims outside of first world countries, and not even most of those. The rest of the planet is too busy dealing with real life to give a fuck about it’s feelings.

      1. Does that mean that when the Left’s wet dream of turning us back into a third-world country is complete, we can forget all this culture war silliness?

        Sign me up?

    2. I’ve made the mistake of referring to a male or female contact the wrong way in the past, usually the person has an Indian or other non-European name. It should be the source of embarrassment and, as you say, most polite people do not want to offend anyway (particularly bosses, co-workers, or clients). It should not be a crime.

  25. The courts have ruled for decades that requiring government employees to only speak English in the workplace was a violation of the 1st Amendment. Given that precedent, there is no way in hell the courts are going to or should uphold a law that tells private businesses what pronouns they must use. If the Progs want to play this game, that works for me. If the state can tell businesses they have to call employees and customers “they”, then the state can tell businesses other things, like that they must only speak English in the work place. I don’t think progs are going to like that very much.

    These laws are the most totalitarian thing the US government has done perhaps in its history. The government is mandating how people talk to each other and effectively how they think. It is disturbing to say the least. I am optimistic however that these laws don’t stand a chance in hell before the courts.

    1. LOL @ expectations of logical consistency from proggies

      1. Yeah, were those rulings about English and the 1A before or after DOMA was wildly popular and then wildly unpopular?

  26. Is it illegal discrimination and/or othering yet to not want to have sex with women who have a penis? I know we’ll get there soon.

    1. Jezebel as already argued that no straight male should object to having sex with a post-op transwoman because there is no difference whatsoever between post-op and naturally born women.

      1. I’ve seen articles that argue the same about transgender persons who are pre-op.

      2. I should have known I could count on Jezebel. Constantly pushing the limits of how much derp can fit in a single internet.

        1. Here’s it.

          If Smart is inappropriately pursuing women who happen to be transgender (and only he and Lopez get to decide the boundaries for their relationship, not us, and certainly not the tabloids), he is still pursuing women. And last time I checked, when a man is only sexually interested in women, that’s straight. Totally, completely, one hundred percent heterosexual. When questioning Smart’s sexuality based on the alleged pursuit of trans women, what you are really questioning is the reality of the sexual orientation and gender identity of the trans women in question. You are invalidating them at the same time as you invalidate Smart’s potential for continued heterosexuality after such pursuit.

          1. If you specifically pursue trans women, “gay” might not be the word, but I don’t think “straight” is either. NTTAWWT.

            1. Straight men are the only people not allowed to define what straight means.

              1. Hell, they’re not even allowed to define what being a “real man” is.

                1. “He had nowhere to properly dispose of his tampon.”

          2. Scary to think that actually makes sense to some people.

    2. I’m too afraid to search for a link, but we’re already there. It’s been suggested by more than one person.

    3. It’s also discrimination to not date a woman who weighs over 400 lbs and can no longer bathe. I’m sure that sounds logical to Jezebel also since it probably describes about 90% of their readers.

  27. So, would I have been able to sue when as a long-haired teenager people sometimes mistook me for a woman?

    1. In all seriousness Zeb, if 20 years ago I had told you the old Kinks song Lola would some day be seen as an expression of bigotry, how crazy would you have thought I was?

      The world has gone insane.

      1. Or, if 40 yrs. ago, you’d told the Five Man Electric Band that you’d seen the sign and that long-haired freaky people would be ‘The Man’ oppressing business owners and bending them to their will.

  28. Serious question for libertarians who believe in transgenderism. How do you square that with the view that there is an objective truth that is knowable through observation and reason?

    It seems to me that if you say someone is whatever sex they think they are rather than what their body objectively is, you are embracing the idea that truth is just an internal construct. I understand why Marxists would buy that but I am a bit puzzled how anyone who thinks of themselves as a classical liberal would do so. If the truth about your sex is whatever you say it is, then why isn’t the truth about anything else about you also determined by what you say it is and not by observation and reason?

    1. Mostly because, like other aspects of sexuality, it’s something that’s ingrained rather than a choice. There’s a wealth of evidence to this extent. Differences in the brains of transgender vs cisgender individuals, for example.

      Unfortunately, like other aspects of sexuality, it’s beginning to be used as a club against those who disagree. For decades it’s gone on and people mostly haven’t cared. You’ve seen transgender people around without noticing or caring. You’ve almost assuredly used a bathroom at the same time as a transgender person without noticing or caring. Now, due to social signaling, it’s THE ISSUE and if you disagree you’re a monster.

      1. We all know SJWs ruin everything. The recent wave of manufactured outrage has done more to hurt transgendered people than occasionally getting weird looks in the bathroom ever did.

      2. All sorts of mental delusions are ingrained and not by choice. That doesn’t mean people should indulge those delusions.

      3. Mostly because, like other aspects of sexuality, it’s something that’s ingrained rather than a choice. There’s a wealth of evidence to this extent. Differences in the brains of transgender vs cisgender individuals, for example.

        This is where the divergence is for me. If the difference is in the brain of the transgender person, that seems to lend itself to the idea that transgenderism is a mental disorder. After all, if one’s body is objectively and observably one sex, it seems really odd to say that the subjective feelings of somebody with “different” brain anatomy/chemistry should win out over the objective and observable body characteristics. Why not just dose the transgender person with massive amounts of their birth sex hormones rather than opposite sex hormones?

        Also, on a tangent, it’s not entirely clear (to me) whether the brain differences of a transgender person are cause or consequence of the sex change. It wouldn’t surprise me at all to hear that exposing one’s self to high doses of the opposite sex’s hormones would have consequences on the anatomy and chemistry of one’s brain.

      4. Differences in the brains of transgender vs cisgender individuals, for example.

        And that is complete junk science. No one has ever explained why the differences that have been found are significant, how those differences are supposed to translate into different behavior or even found the differences to be universal.

        More importantly, even if the science were good, it still would just beg the question., All the science does is explain how it is people come to think they are the opposite sex. That doesn’t change what their body actually is. So the question remains, what makes the truth, what the person thinks they are or what their body actually is.

        Suppose we found differences in the brains of people who thought they were wolves from people who didn’t. By your logic that would mean they are actually wolves, DNA be damned.

        Libertarians have somehow talked themselves into the idea that if someone claims that hteir behavior is “ingrained”, whatever that means, whatever their internal reality is must be the actual reality. That is complete and dangerous nonsense. And Libertarians should know better but don’t because some of them will literally believe anything if it is associated with the GAYZ.

        1. No shit, the brains of schizophrenics are different too, that doesn’t make their delusions real.

      5. You’ve almost assuredly used a bathroom at the same time as a transgender person without noticing or caring.

        I think you’re either being phenomenally liberal with the term ‘transgender’, are grossly unaware of the bathroom habits of the average person, are bad at math, or some combination of three.

        I’d say that both the average person and the non-average person have exercised a modicum of discretion and self-selection about using the restroom and the odds are pretty even that they may not have had a transgender person in the restroom with them ever.

        I suspect you’re doing it deliberately to bolster your personal position but, admittedly, I have no proof. You could be doing it completely subconsciously and it could be actual fact that 20% of women who attend college are sexually assaulted which restroom people use and with whom are strictly dictated by a normal distribution.

        1. Unless ‘a bathroom at the same time’ doesn’t carry the connotation of co-location. Then, I suppose, you may be right.

      6. It always bothers me how these people “know” they are the other sex, there is literally no fucking way they can actually know how the other sex thinks because they are biologically not the other sex.

        It is literally impossible for a transgender to know the things they claim to know.

        That is why transgenderism is actually a mental illness.

    2. If the truth about your sex is whatever you say it is, then why isn’t the truth about anything else about you also determined by what you say it is and not by observation and reason?

      It all depends on who’s getting their pony, and whose ox is being gored.

    3. Gender, not sex, blah blah blah.

      I certainly don’t know any libertarians that say a person born with XY chromosomes does not have XY chromosomes because that person says so.

      1. If they don’t believe that, then why is my refusal to call them by the other sex “bigotry”? Scott is very clear in saying that anyone who rejects a transperson’s claim of being the other sex is a bigot.

        1. Once again, control+F shows that you are the only person to use the word you quote, in this case bigot. Regardless, I am not Scott, nor are most libertarians, nor does it have anything to do with your initial complaint.

          1. Bullshit. Go back and read what Scott says. He has said over and over again the government should accommodate Trans. If objecting isn’t bigotry, why does the government owe them accommodation?

            1. I’m confused. Are you now admitting that he did not use the b-word?

              Poor form putting it in quotes, then.

      2. Gender, not sex, blah blah blah.

        This argument always perplexes me. Any argument that gender is a pure social construct not even partially informed by biological sex seems just as ridiculous as saying that one’s chromosomes change with their gender identity. Gender seems tightly linked to biological sex.

        1. There are those who say it is purely social, but that’s not the only argument. I’d say of course it’s heavily tied to biology. I’m not sure I’m fully convinced by the gender/sex distinction in the first place, but it is the argument that is put forth, especially if we’re talking about discussions here. My point is that, surprise-surprise, John is arguing against a strawman.

          1. My point is that, surprise-surprise, John is arguing against a strawman.

            Fair enough

          2. Have ye never heard this old chestnut? “Nouns have gender. People have sex.” But that’s horribly “prescriptivist” and old-fashioned.

            I am disgusted by the attempt to legislate forms of etiquette. Etiquette is a form of non-coercive, distributed rule making. In that way, it is very libertarian. To the extent that it facilitates social interactions, it is useful. You can’t demand these changes. “Ms” filled a need that 3/4 of the country didn’t feel until it was pointed out in the 1970s. (People in the south always did say “Miz” a lot.) There was resistance, but eventually, it was adopted, and not by any Academie Americaine, either. People just decided to use it.

      3. That’s why I don’t think it’s best described as “delusion”. I know a few trans people and they don’t believe that they are actually, literally men. They believe that their minds and bodies don’t match up in some way. Which isn’t a delusion, it’s a description of their mental state.

        1. You spelled illness wrong.

          When someone thinks they are 4 different people we get them treatment. When they think they’re the opposite sex we clap and call them stunning and brave. What the fuck is wrong with society!

    4. I “believe” in transgenderism. But by that I mean that I am convinced that there are people who innately feel as if they ought to be the other sex and are more comfortable presenting themselves as other than their genetics would tell you. It’s not that some people really are the other sex. That makes no sense. But it still is an objectively real phenomenon, even if some people want to present it as something other than what it really is.

      I have no idea if it is best treated as a mental health issue, or by transitioning, or something else. But it is a real thing.

      1. If you look at it as a mental disorder or some strange mutation, that is not unreasonable. The question then becomes, do you think other people are obligated or should go along with their delusion? If it is just a mental disorder, why should anyone go along with it much less be called a bigot, which Scott does every chance he can, for not doing so?

        1. I think it’s polite to go along with it if it seems reasonably harmless. But I agree that things are getting ridiculous. I’m just amazed how quickly this has become the new issue that everyone must care about.

          1. Disabled and elderly rights and rights for ugly short people were already taken, so we had to rush straight to the next sexuality-related minority.

        2. I lack the scientific background to say categorically what the core issue is or what the appropriate treatment is, and my understanding is that doctors are split on this one. I think the high suicide rate of people who have transitioned should, if nothing else, give us pause. I think feeling like your body doesn’t match who you are in such a fundamental way must be a terrible way to go through life, and I think basic etiquette dictates that you address people as they prefer to be addressed. I also think that SJWs and the like need to have a less militant attitude about all of this. Most people, it turns out, aren’t trying to offend you; calm the fuck down if someone calls you “he” if you are now going by “Susan.”

          1. I think it would be horrible. I certainly don’t think anyone should be cruel to transgendered. At the same time, they don’t owe them accommodation and I am not in any way convinced giving them accommodation is even the right thing to do. I think it is likely that accommodating them just makes things worse for them over the long run. I think society would be better off if its attitude was that such people should learn to accept their body as it is rather than spending their lives trying to make it into something it isn’t and will never be.

            1. Part of where I take issue on this whole debate is that it’s at odds with how I’ve always conceptualized the “sex” vs. “gender” distinction. I’ve mentioned this on these forums before. When we refer to “gender,” (at least, in recent decades; for a while, I believe the words were used interchangeably), I always understood it to refer to the qualities a given society typically associates with a given sex. In America, for instance, little boys play with trucks and toy guns, have short hair, are made of puppy-dog tails, etc., while girls wear dresses, do more domestic activities, etc. The idea being that gender is a “social construct” and there is nothing inherently “male” about, say, playing football. This is in contrast to one’s biological sex, male or female. A person does not have a sex and a gender. They are male or female, but a free society should not require that they participate in the socially construct gender things. A girl can cut her hair short, enjoy Batman comics and hockey; a boy can grow his hair long. That doesn’t make you a boy or girl, respectively.

            2. I think society would be better off if its attitude was that such people should learn to accept their body as it is rather than spending their lives trying to make it into something it isn’t and will never be.

              1. This argument probably won’t go great with individualists.

              2. You need to do a more exhaustive google image search, if you think appearing and being treated as a person of the opposite sex is something that “will never be.”

              1. You need to take genetics learn to be less of a moron. I don’t care how pretty you are, your body and your genes are what they are.

                And you can do whatever you like regarding them. That doesn’t mean no one can question what is the best way to treat trans. It is kind of astounding to think that you are so simple minded that you actually think that “maybe it would be better not to indulge them” means that we need some kind of a law or societal mandate requiring such or in any way impinges on your freedom to disagree.

                You really have a hard time with reasoning don’t you?

                1. Hmm, you may need to see a doctor yourself. The voices in your head make you look crazier than that wacko Deirdre McCloskey.

                  Their goal is not to change their genes. It is to appear and be treated as the other sex. That is often achievable. I’ll stop repeating this now.

                  “its attitude was that such people should learn to accept their body as it is” sure does sound like a social mandate. I didn’t say anything about a law, and nothing at all about disagreeing. If you can believe it, my interest is not in a straight person’s freedom to talk about this topic, but in respecting the autonomy and freedom of these Freaks to alter their bodies in icky ways!

              2. 1. This argument probably won’t go great with individualists

                Right because individualism=validating as true whatever some individual wants, fantasizes or deludes themselves about, and then citing bigotry when other individuals disagree.

                1. Individualism=not using social pressure to ensure conformity from the weirdos out there. John’s not talking about forcing broader acceptance, he’s talking about the transgendered being discouraged from seeking treatment at all, while justifying it as being good for their own sake. This is basic, John Stuart Mill Individualism we’re talking about here.

                  FFS, FS.

                  1. I think John’s point is that gender identity problems don’t, as of yet, have a default solution whereby people with this disorder should necessarily transition to the other gender and that they certainly have no right to demand acceptance from those that disagree or refuse to recognize this person’s internal desire as a thing that actually exists in reality.

                  2. John is suggesting that ‘treatment’ may need to be something other than extreme body modification. And that it should not be seen as evil to suggest such.

                    Because, despite what you think, if a person is truly a female in a male body then they most definitely want more than a plastic surgeons carved approximation of femaleness. They want a procedure that ends with them being XX.

                    And they know that we can’t do that.

          2. and my understanding is that doctors are split on this one.

            And my understanding is that the AMA and it’s affiliated sub-groups heavily lean left. It’s seems to me a simple denial of reality to not classify the various trannyisms as some kind of dysphoria or mental illness.

            1. Isn’t “gender dysphoria” the medical/psychiatric term? Or is that bad now?

              1. It probably is. I’m just trying to put the condition into what I think is the proper context. I’m sure that it’s “totally not cool brah” to characterize transgenders as having any kind of disorder,condition, malady or defect. We’re supposed to pretend that humans evolved to be sex changing creatures like some fish and frogs do and that being a tranny is perfectly normal. I mean who wouldn’t want to have a kid with this perfectly acceptable disorder or erm… choice….oh shit… I just realized there’s no proper way to term it other than “trans”. This kind of indicates that there’s a lot of denial of reality regarding this topic.

              2. It used to be a disorder which indicated it was more of a mental illness. Disphoria is the milder term.

    5. I will say that biological classifications allow for some wiggle room. A horse born with two heads is still a horse even though he doesn’t fit the normal criteria to fit neatly into the “horse” category. There are legitimate instances where a person is biologically, or rather physiologically, ambiguous regarding their sex. The number of individuals that actually do fit into this sub-group is vanishingly small and it would seem that this teacher, Mr Vagina Haver is either bilogically male or female, or whatever his or her’s goal gender is or isn’t. But that’s irrelevant. The point is that Mr Vagina Haver has no right to impose his or her preferred norms of nomenclature onto others. Mr Vagina Havers problems are it’s own problems and these problems grant it no right to demand privileges or even acceptance that doesn’t come voluntarily from others.

      1. For people who are actually physically not either sex, then that makes sense. I of course am talking about people who are physically one sex but claim to be the other and expect to be treated so.

        1. I of course am talking about people who are physically one sex but claim to be the other and expect to be treated so.

          Acceptance at the point of a gun is something that rapists and extortionists demand. How these people can demand to be called X, Y or Z and then want to sue, form shaming mobs or call for the wrath of a civil rights complaint when they don’t get their way, is crazy to me. I owe you nothing but non-aggression, and not playing along with your delusion is not aggression. (in the general sense of ‘you’)

  29. It is a trick question that you will always get wrong. It is playing three card monte in the alley. You can Bill he or him in the morning and he comes out of the bathroom and feels like a lady, call him Ms. Kitty or go to jail.

  30. I suspect that even as culture grows more and more friendly toward transgender acceptance, this kind of mandated pronoun policing is going to prove to be untenable.

    Shit like this isn’t going to make it happen. I’ve come to see the LGTBQ activist movement as a bunch of petty tyrants imposing their fantasies and delusions on others in every possible facet of their lives. Be a transgender if that’s your thing. But I refuse to be your slave and I refuse to be told what language I’m allowed to use when addressing my Oppressed Superiors.

    1. The transgender movement is completely different than the gay rights movement. Outside of the more radical edges, the gay rights movement was about telling society they could no longer condemn or exclude gays because they didn’t approve of their behavior. The gay rights movement was about forcing people to change their judgemet of something or at least keep it to themselves.

      The transgender movement is about forcing people to adopt a different view of reality. It is not enough to say “do what you want”. The transgender movement demands that people change their view of reality to conform to the government mandated view. Whatever you think of the gay rights movement, the transgender movement is something totally different and authoritarian.

      Gays are complete fools for associating gay rights with transgender rights.

      1. Gays are complete fools for associating gay rights with transgender rights.

        I have long argued that each club has to fight its own battles, and down in the trenches that it largely what goes on. Hell, even lesbians and gay men don’t see eye to eye on very much. Obviously I lost that argument.

        But. It was never going to be any different to the general public – everything not “normal” was always going to be lumped into one category regardless. That’s just human nature.

        1. Hell, even lesbians and gay men don’t see eye to eye on very much.

          How strange that women whose dating scene is entirely women disagree with men whose dating scene is only men.

          It’s almost like there are actual differences between the sexes/genders/whatevers.

      2. I believe you are correct. The gay rights movement wanted to be accepted because they engaged in consensual behavior that many considered immoral and, later, the same legal protections for their life-partner that the government offers to hetero couples. You can disagree about the merits of that last bit or how it was achieved, of course, but it was about ending condemnation and exclusion.

        This is a different beast altogether, demanding that we humor the delusions of mentally ill individuals in a way that, as Shackford rightly points out, transforms language into a trap for the unwary and weapon to be wielded against all enemies, real or perceived.

        I think it’s probably noteworthy that gay men are being pushed out of “the movement.”

    1. SERENITY NOW!

  31. Elizabeth Nolan Brown wrote in December how New York City was ordering employers to make certain transgender employees are accommodate

    Her first reaction to the laws =

    I want to let my thoughts on the New York City rules ruminate before commenting on any particular aspects

    Did the rumination ever complete itself? I’d love to hear the “pro-liberty” spin on pronoun-mandates.

    1. The better question is what exactly is there to ruminate on? It is not a complex issue. I find it hard to believe that anyone on either side would need much thought to formulate a position.

      If some city in Georgia started requiring every business to begin its day with the Lord’s Prayer, would Elizabeth and Scott have to ruminate on their position on that? I doubt it.

  32. We identify as plural. Don’t mis-number us. (Don’t mister-number us either.)

    1. Actually there is a case of conjoined partial twins (2 heads & necks, bifurcated respiratory & upper GI tracts) that want to make sure they’re thought of as 2 joined persons rather than as one with 2 heads.

  33. My preferred pronoun is Tikki Tikki Tembo-no Sa Rembo-chari Bari Ruchi-pip Peri Pembo.

  34. So, this pronoun thing. What the hell?

    If I’m talking to you, I’ll refer to you as ‘you’ as in ‘do you like this?’ or what are you doing tomorrow?’ or ‘where’s your hand?’

    Right?

    Why do I need ‘he’ or ‘xe’ or ‘hir’ or anything like that? I’m talking to you, not writing a book.

    And if, later, I’m talking about having seen you with someone else, what business is it of yours what pronouns I use?

    Is someone gonna snitch?

    Is that what this whole thing is about/ so one person can snitch to another? “OMG, Rayhevenn, ze called you ‘bler’ instead of ‘xir-ish’–that’s actionable!!!!!!111!!1!!”

    1. And if, later, I’m talking about having seen you with someone else, what business is it of yours what pronouns I use?

      Who are you to just *take* liberty with *my* identity, huh?

  35. When referring to others I prefer the gender neutral term, “idiot”.

  36. When “Ms” was introduced, it allowed one to introduce “Ms Smith” to someone else. Of course 40 yrs later (more or less) people still don’t get this right, especially since “Ms” is pronounced “Mizz” which just sounds odd. But “ze” is not like that, it is a third person pronoun like “he”. You only say “he” when he is not there, to refer to someone absent. They keep talking about pronouns when what they need is a term of address like Mr, Mrs, Ms, Miss so you can say “I would like you to meet Mr. Jones”. So they are really screwing this up, language wise.
    There are also practical difficulties. In a company of 1000 people or university of 40,000, very few might even know that person X is trans and what their pronoun is. They don’t even know X’s name. How is this supposed to work? Will there be a big “coming out” party? Won’t that make their life worse?
    And then to make draconian penalties like in NYC for something only a few people have even heard of…

    1. Also, pronouncing it “Miz” makes you sound like some Walt Kelly character.

  37. Silly ol’ Gresham Oregon. The article does not say, and I”m too lazy to check, but from this vantage point I’d lay pretty high stakes and rather long odds the same Oregon gummint administrative law court that demands $135K from the bakers who declined to participate in a sodomite celebration are the ones awarding this misfit an indecent amount of money because some “hurt its woddow feewings”.

    “they” is a third person PLURAL pronoun. This individual, regardless of perferred gender, requires the use of a SINGULAR third person pronoun. And this creature is entructed to teach our little ones? and WHY are the taxpayers in Gresham and the State now on the hook for medical treatment that preceded all this charade, anyway?

    Seems like the whole world is moving toward coddling and enabling the sexually confused.

    1. “They” is a third person SINGULAR pronoun as well. I get where you’re coming from, but if you’re gonna grammar nazi, do it RIGHT. The fact of the matter is that singular they is linguistically accepted as proper English and has been since the 14th century.

      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they

  38. Only if her name is “Eve”.

  39. “Seriously, did anyone think the lunatic drive for equality over liberty was going to end any other way?” R. C. Dean

    I’m having this genius quote sewn into a sampler.

    Does anyone think the lunatic drive for equality ever had any other purpose than to have government exercise more and more control of our lives?

    The whole country’s in the same shitter, problem solved.

  40. Someone smeared Vaseline on Soell’s cabinets,

    ???

    Does that act have some symbolic meaning? Or is “smearing vaseline on your cabinets” some hip new sexual euphemism?

  41. “My pronouns are ‘me’, ‘my’, and ‘myself’.”

    No better sentence in the whole world if you are looking for a sentence that will make members of the social justice crowd sound even stupider.

  42. The only thing to enjoy this application is to download showbox apk and select the movies and programs you like to have fun watching all day long. You can watch unlimited movies, TV Programs, Serials, Cartoons and programs from online, live streaming of Cricket matches etc.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.