None of those options capture the nuances of treating people like a human being with decency. The fact is we just might not be able to have defined rules for transgender individuals, and actually having these rules just de-humanizes them anyways. I just don't think we are in a place as a society where we need to drastically change societal or governmental rules one way or another other than some exceptional accommodations if they are reasonably requested. I think the primary place where this would be addressed if it was to become a widespread issue is at the local school principal, superintendent, and ultimately school board level. These school boards are the primary politically driven identity here (from outside political actors meddling in) making a mountain out of a molehill, and looking for a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Trans athlete or accommodations IMO don't really exist beyond high school from what I see. Starbucks etc. have unisex bathrooms, or family bathrooms are offered pretty much everywhere. Dwight Howard hasn't yet transitioned and tried to sign in the NBA. Its mostly a Junior high and high school conversation so it lies at the discretion of the school principles first and foremost who are the ones who the teachers and coaches lean on for sensitive situations, and who can have a empathetic conversation with parents, and then the school board who can intervene when there is a situation that happens that needs to be debated at a higher level. At the Federal level, they should just follow the normal discrimination laws that protect everyone. Workplace protections, harassment, etc. all should apply just as they do for everyone.
I hope it goes without saying that we hopefully all agree on that, no matter what skin color, preference or anything else anyone has.
it's not bigotry to suggest people with penises should not be allowed in people with vagina's locker rooms.
honest question about the use of pronouns: when is the last time you referred to anyone in the 3rd person in their presence?
I do it all the time. When I am addressing a judge or jury, I refer to witnesses, opposing counsel, the defendant, or my investigating officer in the third person when talking about them.
Yes, that is generally when you refer to someone in the third person. Why is that a distinction you are drawing? Do you think people don't care what pronouns you use to talk about them if you are not speaking to them, only about them?
I don't, but I accept that perhaps other people do. I'm just trying to understand the practical ramifications of what seems like a fairly limited use case that has nonetheless instigated much "discussion" on all sides of this particular debate. and you may refer to me by my pronouns, which are: Spoiler b****/please
I am not a fan of compelled speech. But I personally have no issue with using someone's preferred pronoun. I think it would be best, in a practical sense, if we all just agreed to he/she/non-binary, or something like that, rather than making up words to serve as a pronoun. But that's just coming from a practical, and possibly lazy, perspective. As for competing in sports, that can be trickier. A private sports org should be allowed to do whatever they want. When it comes to public schools, I don't know a way to make everyone happy. But I'm not sure if it's actually an issue at this point so I'm not too concerned. I had to re-read this sentence 3 times before I realized the first word you wrote was "Bigotry" and not "Biology." I was sitting back and thinking, "how does biology turn people into toilets pretending to be human? Is that incoherent to say or is it so smart that I just can't comprehend it?"
Yes why should something that is a fairly limited use case be such a large issue of discussion? Could it be that this issue is being inflated for political rhetoric to rile people up rather than being an actual serious problem?
there are two sides to that argument. by forcing the issue on those who are uncomfortable with it, and describing them as bigots (surely there are other, valid, concerns than pure bigotry) who force people to respond in the most extreme manner.
How many times in American history has a transgender person called someone a bigot for accidently and not maliciously misgendering someone? Right wing news media does this all the time with these type of topics when it comes to LGBTQ people, Muslims, Jews, Black people, migrants etc. Just spam anecdotes over and over and over and over and over till their is a false perception of the prevalence of the perceived problem.
Except you note that it's of limited use so how many people is this really being forced on? As far as bigotry it's certainly understandable when someone makes an honest mistake or acts ignorantly out of habit but if insisting that you're not going to address someone by what they would prefer to and insisting on it because you find their lifestyle unacceptable and immoral. Further getting angry that you can't call someone the way you want to I would call that bigotry.
I can't speak to your work but in simply reviewing the terms of the contract you would use the third person. For example: "The client (the person I'm addressing) will give in writing seven days notice before termination of the contract to The Architect (me)" If we're changing the terms of the contract in the meeting yes we will use the third person because the language is all important for the contract so we want to make sure we're discussing it in terms of the contract.
There are many schools in this country that are directing students on transgenderism. This impacts many, many people, especially youth. I think that warrants discussion. You don't have to participate if you don't want to.
What do you mean by directing students? As in teaching them not to harras them and telling them they are humans deserving of basic dignity?
