Rishi Sunak wades into debate over trans people, declaring no one can change sex
Rishi Sunak wades into debate over trans people, declaring no one can change sex
Transgender rights has been raised by several cabinet ministers
All the news on his speech seems to be about HS2 but I think that this is important too.
You're viewing part of a thread.
I never said people should be punished for thinking that. If people aren’t harassing or bullying people they aren’t being assholes.
Also consequences doesn’t just mean punishment. If someone is being an asshole by constantly misgendering a trans person on purpose and people don’t want to hang out with them anymore because of that behavior that’s a consequence but not a punishment.
So you're OK with that? Not personally associating with people that use pronouns to refer to biological sex, but let them be themselves and do their thing and associate with who they want?
Yes I’m ok with that, like I said being an asshole is not illegal.
Well that's good, I 100% agree with you. But judging by the votes I'm getting for asking this question, I don't think most people that support the transgender movement do.
I don't think people who downvote you think being an asshole should be illegal. They just think you're an asshole.
Why would they think I'm an asshole? I have not misgendered someone, I have not even stated my opinion on that. I'm just asking, if that's the compromise would you all be OK with it.
Permanently Deleted
You do realize that this is the situation that already exists?
Yeah, but it's not without contention. Some people believe it should be illegal to use pronouns in reference to someone's biological sex. I'm just asking people if they're OK with it, if they like that, to distinguish from people who do that and people who harass and berate transgender people. When someone says "they just want to be left alone" I'm trying to get whether they view that distinction as valid or not.
You're conflating a number of issues.
Edit: This is from a US perspective despite the article.
Should a teacher be required to call a child by their preferred pronoun? Of course; the child has no choice in the matter of attending school, and forcing a child to endure constant humiliation at the hands of their steward is an insane thing to require.
Should it be illegal to misgender someone on the street? No, we have the freedom to speak our mind in this country. If one puts themselves out there as a bigot though, they need to be prepared for the social repercussions of that speech.
Should it be illegal to misgender a coworker? Consider a situation where you start a new job. Your coworker starts calling you "cuck" over and over again. You tell him that you're not a cuck, but he says that you look like a cuck, so that's what he's going to call you. You go to your boss, and tell them that your coworker is being disrespectful, but he says that he's not going to get between the two of you about personal identity issues. There is a case for a lawsuit for creating a hostile work environment, and it's a civil matter at that point.
The most concerning question is: why is it so important to you to be an asshole to other people?
I'm not am asshole to other people.
The interesting thing about pronouns is that the only pronoun used to directly address someone is not gendered, it's "you". So it is not actually possible to directly misgender someone.
The words "he" and "she" aren't slurs. Comparison to the word "cuck" don't make any sense. Should a job require someone to use preferred pronouns? Well I go back to what I was discussing about free association, if they want to sure, if they don't that's OK too, but going after a workplace without such a requirement takes things a bit farther than just wanting to be left alone.
And as far as teachers, I actually don't think kids should be forced to go to school, so that would really be a different issue. If they're old enough to determine their gender they're certainly old enough to educate themselves or determine if they even want an education.
I'm not am asshole to other people.
If you are intentionally misgendering people, then yes. Yes, you are. You're actively doing something that somebody asked you not to. You're making their identity about you. It's ridiculously self-absorbed.
The interesting thing about pronouns is that the only pronoun used to directly address someone is not gendered, it's "you". So it is not actually possible to directly misgender someone.
Another thing you're wrong about. "Them" is a pronoun. "He" and "she" are pronouns that directly address someone if you're talking to a third party with the person in the room; this is really not that hard.
The words "he" and "she" aren't slurs. Comparison to the word "cuck" don't make any sense. Should a job require someone to use preferred pronouns? Well I go back to what I was discussing about free association, if they want to sure, if they don't that's OK too, but going after a workplace without such a requirement takes things a bit farther than just wanting to be left alone.
Pretend that the coworker was misgendering you as a cis person instead. The argument still stands. Are they creating a hostile work environment? We have laws about that.
Why is it important to protect the bigot's livelihood but not that of the person being misgendered?
And as far as teachers, I actually don't think kids should be forced to go to school, so that would really be a different issue. If they're old enough to determine their gender they're certainly old enough to educate themselves or determine if they even want an education.
Fortunately we still educate kids in this country, so I don't understand the relevance here.
The only people making it illegal to use certain pronouns are conservatives. You're making the worst kind of straw man argument.