Of course it isnt over. But sanity did at least poke it’s head up briefly, and let us all know it does still exist.
I’d disagree. I’d almost argue that forcing someone to use pronouns that directly contradict their long-standing scientifically-based definition is what amounts to workplace harassment. Especially since what your “preference” is based on could literally change daily. In a workplace, your preferences have no priority over my own. I consider this pronoun garbage to be no different than me demanding my co-workers always refer to me as “Your Royal Highness” - and I think most everyone would agree that I’d [rightfully] be laughed out of the office for having that expectation.
Meriwether did offer to call the student by any name requested, but the student did not accept the offer.
I think that was a reasonable offer and the “student” was just trying to force his views on the professor. I can see why the university decided to settle.
That is the usual accommodation recommended to employers as well. I think the student just wanted to get the professor in trouble by not tolerating anything short of what they wanted. It’s not difficult to think in these terms though considering students are customers at universities.
Anyway, I still don’t see why the university settled when a prior case was ruled in their favor by another court. Settling does not resolve the problem in the long run. Now they open themselves to gender discrimination lawsuit by the student, and this situation is likely to repeat itself in months to come (with different professor and/or student). Will they settle every time or decide a court needs to rule on the issue so that they know what to do next time to be on the right side of the law?
Seems to me like you have not read the law much on this or have to face the situation. Mistakes in use of correct pronouns will not be ground for workplace harassment especially if employee is undergoing transition. There will be people used to address someone via one pronoun who will lose track. That’s not consistently and intentionally using the wrong pronoun. Intention is key in harassment case. Making an honest mistake or being forgetful is not enough by a long shot.
As far as requesting preferred pronouns, it’s not that absurd as insisting on being called something farcical like Your Royal Highness (which is not a pronoun but a title and not a gender-specific one at that so not a great example btw). Besides, royalty is not a protected class. Gender identity is. You should not misconstrue preferred pronoun/title accommodation for freedom to request being referred to by anything you’d like.
In practice, it’s much simpler because there are relatively few commonly accepted preferred pronouns although it’s true that the gender-specific ones are both more commonly known/agreed upon that the gender-neutral ones. I wish we’d settle on a couple of gender-neutral ones but I guess it’s growing pains. Anyway, if an employee constantly changed between preferred pronouns, it’d be acceptable - although a pain in the ass - but they’d have a hard case to make that any misuse of their preferred pronoun (of the day/week/month) was intentional and not simply down to confusion.
I’m not following the law here, but didn’t they just make up “gender identity” as separate from “gender” in the last few years? Just because gender is protected, maybe your own imaginary gender identity isn’t?
No, its not. I am 100% Caucasian - and until I can claim discrimination for me being black, a dude cannot claim discrimination for being a girl.
Seems to me you’ve just bought into the line of BS the rabblerousers are trying to force on everyone. The opposing argument is that there is no validity behind the whole concept of “transitioning”, there is no “preference” to be accomodated, and no “honest mistakes” to be made.
Insisting that a man be called “she” is equally farcical. That was the point.
The SCOTUS ruled in 2020 on this in s 6-3 decision with Justice Gorsuch basically writing the majority decision holding that “because of sex” in the 1964 act also applied to the LGBT community.
“The Court based its holding on the plain language of the Title VII forbidding discrimination “because of sex”. Simply put, if two individuals are materially identical in all respects, except for being a man and woman, the employer discriminates against a male employee if it decides to fire the male employee if the male employee is attracted to men, but does not fire female employees who are attracted to men. Thus, the employer is discriminating on the basis of sex by firing the employee for his or her sexual attraction. In the case of a transgender employee, if an employer fires an employee whose sex was assigned at birth as male but identifies as female, but retains an employee whose sex was assigned as female at birth and continues to identify as female, the employer also discriminates on the basis of sex. In both cases, the employer is discriminating because of sex.” short explanation of the ruling
Which is why that part of Title VII now is clarified as: “Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it unlawful to discriminate against someone on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, and gender identity) or religion. The Act also makes it unlawful to retaliate against a person because the person complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit.”
Dude, we get it. You’re anti-LGBT and you’re totally allowed to be.
But employers or businesses are not allowed to discriminate like you can as a private citizen in your personal beliefs. At least as of current law.
Whether I agree or not with the SCOTUS decision does not make it any less the law and not my employer or myself any less responsible if I or they discriminate against transgender people.
there was no official discrimination in the Ohio university case as specified in the Scotus decision As glitch mentions, you don’t get to say that you’re black and then claim you’re being discriminated against if you are white. And the professor did not discriminate against the student in his official capacity by giving him, for example, bad grades.
The student is carrying out the well-known Marxist tactic to control society by forcing people to admit nonsensical things to break down their resistance to the Marxist regime. It has even made his way into literature. Recall the novel 1984 by George Orwell. In the book, the Marxist regime forces people to accept that Oceania was always allied with eastAsia even though they were previously enemies.
These gender benders fulfill a dual purpose for the left by attacking the traditional family, the primary bourgeois institution that they despise.
This is not just a confused young man-- it is part of a very sinister plot.
Why you gotta drag the poor lesbians into this, anyways? All I’m “anti” anything is anti forcing your personal whims onto others. I’m all for breaking down gender norms and stereotypes, go ahead and argue there shouldn’t be men’s/women’s sports or men’s/women’s bathrooms. The black guy didn’t insist that he be called white so that he could use the whites only drinking fountain. Yet that’s the exact fallacy being perpetrated today - the perceived discrimination is fine, even embraced, as long as you get to choose which side of it your on.
I don’t see how you are connecting these dots? Sure, if a person can do the job, they can do the job, and they can’t be fired based on gender because it’s irrelevant to them doing the job (in general, it doesn’t matter what gender you are or claim to be or are accepted to be).
That is pretty unrelated to your claim that using a anatomically/biologically accurate pronoun in reference to a person somehow creates an illegal hostile work environment.
For being from the party of law and order, you guys have a pretty peculiar way to pick and choose which laws to enforce and which not to when it’s not convenient.
Not sure if this is official enough coming from the EEOC:
For the short of attention span, here’s spelled out the part you do not want to acknowledge:
“Although accidental misuse of a transgender employee’s preferred name and pronouns does not violate Title VII, intentionally and repeatedly using the wrong name and pronouns to refer to a transgender employee could contribute to an unlawful hostile work environment.”
What are you guys bringing race into this? I don’t see how relevant it is since there are no pronouns or titles based on race.
All this said, you guys feel free to not follow the law by refusing to use preferred pronouns in the workplace. I don’t care if you’re fired or your company gets sued. In fact, I’d actually welcome more cases to be ruled on (with any outcome) so the jurisprudence is clearer on it. But to be safe, personally I know which side I’ll be on in terms of using preferred pronouns, even if these gender-neutral pronouns are a pain to remember.
In other words, he was incompetent and could not appoint his own people given 3.5 years in office. That’s so much better than the alternative explanation indeed.
But anyway, I don’t care what you guys do to take into account (or likely ignore) the SCOTUS decision to extend Title VII of the civil rights act to LGBT people. I don’t know either how your HR departments decide on their policies but mine made it clear that we had to adapt ours regardless of where managers stood on the issue. And for that reason, it’s definitely not worth my time debating it more once the anti-LGBT group on here has made it’s position abundantly clear.
You didnt bold the relevant part. Again, the case being referenced was regarding firing an employee solely because of their gender, be it actual gender or claimed gender. The rest, which you highlighted, is speculative commentary, not law.
Because he/she is as unambiguous as black/white. Even less so, actually, since blended race is common while a blended gender is a very rare genetic abnormaility.
The swamp was, and it remains, a vicious place. Trump needed more time. And suburban women like sh*****l made certain, with their votes, that he would not receive that time. Far wiser men, more focused on policy than on offensive (but innocuous) tweets and personality, did their best to save America. We failed. The women won. And it is they who must shoulder responsibility for the ensuing, and ongoing, catastrophe.
To be clear, since someone will jump all over you for it - yes, we know there were plenty of idiotic men also being idiots, and plenty of wiser women also trying to prevent the idiocy. The polling data shows a general leaning for each group, but the positions aren’t mutually exclusive.
Catalog of whiners who aren’t banned on Twitter and like it that those who disagree with them are.
News Thursday morning that the outspoken serial tech entrepreneur Elon Musk has offered to buy Twitter and take it private has surfaced widespread anxieties within the knowledge-class industries that free speech and even societal peace will be jeopardized if the Tesla CEO lifts content restrictions from journalists’ favorite social media platform.
“I am frightened by the impact on society and politics if Elon Musk acquires Twitter,” wrote Max Boot, columnist for The (Jeff Bezos–owned) Washington Post , on Twitter. “He seems to believe that on social media anything goes. For democracy to survive, we need more content moderation, not less.”
Sure, I can grant the premise of the article you linked – poor people were oppressed via redlining. But, as it states, blacks were disproportionately poor, therefore redlining affected them disproportionately.
