"Taking a page from Orwell, the Big Apple actually requires speakers to use the invented gender-free pronoun “ze,” a word that does not appear in five different dictionaries I checked. A future version of this regime could potentially outlaw gendered pronouns altogether, so as to accommodate gender-fluid individuals. Taken to its natural conclusion, this effort to promote tolerance is frighteningly intolerant."
This is a perfect example of the oppressor complaining that they're the oppressed (kind of like this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7hHQ7hydsI&feature=youtu.be). Yes, transpeople have been excluded from our vernacular since the beginning of the human race and that is not okay. Altering our exclusive language to include all gender identities is, by definition, inclusive.
Should the government fine anyone using gendered pronouns? Probably not because of how normalized it is. However, anti-inclusive language, e.g. 'she/he', should be negatively stigmatized. We should be more accountable for the way we talk and how it oppresses our friends, families, neighbors, peers.
Also, when I said 'she/he' should be stigmatized, I meant it in the context to referring to an arbitrary individual without knowing their preferred pronoun. For example,
'was she/he upset that you asked a personal question?'
can be re-stated
'was zhe upset that you asked a personal question?'
Once one is aware of another's gender identity and preferred pronouns, it's important to welcome and respect that.
I think that's a great point. Who am I to say what should / should not be stigmatized? Many of my trans friends also prefer gendered pronouns. I want to reiterate that inaccurately calling you out wasn't appropriate nor productive nor accurate.
What I meant by that statement is that if we can agree than gender identity, sexual preferences and sexual activity levels exists on a continuum, then is it possible that there's something fundamentally wrong with speaking in binaries at all? I think that normalizing gender-neutral pronouns has the potential to offer a new paradigm for gender identity.
I prefer 'he/him' but only because I had to choose one and that fits best. My question to anyone willing to engage is 'don't we all to some extent?' While it's particularly exclusive and limiting for the trans population, I'm in the camp that it's limiting for non-trans identifying people too and that a new model could benefit everyone.
Should the government fine anyone using gendered pronouns? Probably not because of how normalized it is.
So you are suggesting that the government should have the power and the obligation to compel the use of specific language if that language is not, in your opinion, sufficiently “normalized”?
However, anti-inclusive language, e.g. 'she/he', should be negatively stigmatized.
Did you mean to say that insisting on using such "anti-inclusive" language to refer to a non-binary individual should be negatively stigmatized or do you think that gender-neutral pronouns should be used exclusively in all contexts?
So you are suggesting that the government should have the power and the obligation to compel the use of specific language if that language is not, in your opinion, sufficiently “normalized”?
I think it's a good question worth exploring. I agree that the censorship should lie outside of any government's domain. I used 'probably' because I know that few would agree with the idea that using gendered pronouns and language in general is, in a way, a form of violence. I think that using 'she/he' implicitly implies that the whole gamut of 'people' is covered, when it clearly is not. I can see a case for the fact that this has social implications similar to black people openly considered second class citizens. In that way, there is a degree of violence to it and we can all agree that acts of violence should be addressed by the government. So for me, the line is finer.
Freedom of speech is important and I will stand by that. But I also think those 'freely speaking' must be held accountable for the implications of their words and should expect protesting when their speech is oppressive.
Did you mean to say that insisting on using such "anti-inclusive" language to refer to a non-binary individual should be negatively stigmatized or do you think that gender-neutral pronouns should be used exclusively in all contexts?
I think all contexts. If we only use gender-neutral language when referring to an individual who identifies outside of the binary, then we are even further excluding them in every other conversation.
In that way, there is a degree of violence to it and we can all agree that acts of violence should be addressed by the government.
Violence is, by definition, the use or threat of physical force against another person. Speech of any kind cannot constitute violence.
Freedom of speech is important and I will stand by that.
If this were true we’d have no argument. Your response to my question on whether the government should have the power and the obligation to compel the use of specific language was: “I think it's a good question worth exploring.” I can draw no conclusion from this statement other than that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the first amendment and the protections it guarantees.
The government cannot place any restriction on the freedom of speech unless such speech would lead to imminent violence. The government cannot compel you to use any specific form of speech under any circumstance.
I agree completely that offensive speech should be protested and I support your desire to accommodate others through your use of language and your desire to encourage others to do the same. What I am disturbed by is how casually you seem to consider adding government action to the list. Doing so constitutions a fundamental switch from a purely voluntary approach to one which threatens civil or criminal punishment and erodes what is arguably the most important constitutional right we have.
I think all contexts. If we only use gender-neutral language when referring to an individual who identifies outside of the binary, then we are even further excluding them in every other conversation.
I don’t agree with this but I appreciate your willingness to engage on the subject.
I think 'physical force against another person' is a narrow definition. Wikipedia, for example, initially agrees with you:
'The intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation.'
but further down, the definition expands:
'Violence includes those acts that result from a power relationship, including threats and intimidation, neglect or acts of omission. Such non-physical violence has a broad range of outcomes – including psychological harm, deprivation and maldevelopment. Violence may not necessarily result in injury or death, but nonetheless poses a substantial burden on individuals, families, communities and health care systems worldwide. Many forms of violence against women, children and the elderly, for instance, can result in physical, psychological and social problems that do not necessarily lead to injury, disability or death. These consequences can be immediate, as well as latent, and can last for years after the initial abuse. Defining outcomes solely in terms of injury or death thus limits the understanding of the full impact of violence.'
'I can draw no conclusion from this statement other than that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the first amendment and the protections it guarantees.
I don't think I misunderstand the first amendment. My question is 'who exactly, do these laws tend to protect?' The privileged freedom is already protected by default.
I think the core of our disagreement is 'Speech of any kind cannot constitute violence.' I simply disagree with that. Often hate crimes are simply speech.
But I also second what you said that engaging in difficult conversations like this is important and I think if it were more commonplace, we'd all have the opportunity to expand and further develop our opinions of these very complex subjects. We must listen to each other more and be less afraid to engage with different viewpoints.
I think 'physical force against another person' is a narrow definition.
I was using the legal definition which I feel is appropriate since it was in response to your statement that “…acts of violence should be addressed by the government.” and any such addressing by the government would constitute legal action. See: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/16
I think the core of our disagreement is 'Speech of any kind cannot constitute violence.' I simply disagree with that. Often hate crimes are simply speech.
I agree that this is the core of our disagreement but the last sentence is incorrect. In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul the Supreme Court unanimously ruled against the city’s Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance and established the standing jurisprudence that only speech which would lead to imminent violence can be restricted. Using racial epithets (or even burning a cross – such as in the case I cited) are constitutionally protected forms of expression and are not in and of themselves hate crimes.
In order to use the legal definition, I would have to trust that our legal system views violence and abuse in an appropriate way. My whole point here is that the type of violence you're alluding to (e.g. attacking someone with a knife) is obviously a subset of what I consider violence to be and is much easier to identify than systemic forms that work behind the scenes. I see violence as casting a much wider net than that definition. Gentrification, mass incarceration, mass deportation, war on drugs (this one is more obvious), bathroom laws, job apps saying 'male/female' without other options, churches that only marry hetero couples, etc. are all violent in my eyes, and I stand by that whether or not the US government does. I see it as our obligation as citizens to constantly scrutinize the US legal system, including their definitions. We're arguing about what we, not the current legal system, think(s) can be ethically justified.
I see writing the n word on a piece of paper put on the doorstep of a family as a hate crime. I see yelling offensive, derogatory language at someone as a hate crime. Do you not?
This article articulates it well:
'A crime is an act deemed to be illegal, it becomes a hate crime when it is motivated by bias or prejudice against a person or people perceived to be a part of a group, and that is intended to induce fear, scare, terrify or cause psychological harm. Victims of hate crimes often continue to feel threatened long after an attack due to being targeted simply because of who they are. These crimes victimize everyone - individuals and our entire community.'
I know that we're discussing the term in the context of simply using 'she/he' to reference an arbitrary individual. So, I get that you might say back 'clearly, that language is not intended to induce fear.' That's where I feel the definition is limited. It should also factor in the implied emotional repercussions of the oppressed. If I don't intend to hurt someone or induce fear, but I do, shouldn't I still be held accountable for that?
Again, though, in order to make this conversation less about you or me, I'm interested in how we can collectively foster an online and in-person environment that welcomes these conversations. I'm interested in us continually scrutinizing our own words and actions and those of our friends, family, political representatives, the government and its legal system to strive to be unconditionally inclusive. We are far from that today and only have ourselves and our institutions to blame for that. We must reprioritize, starting with those left behind, not those benefiting from a rampant lack of justice.
The fact that this site is fostering this type of exchange is powerful to me. Feels like a much more productive/ healthy form of the mess than ensures with controversial Facebook posts.
I see writing the n word on a piece of paper put on the doorstep of a family as a hate crime. I see yelling offensive, derogatory language at someone as a hate crime. Do you not?
First example: Only in so far as trespassing is a crime. Placing such a sign on your own property across the street would not be a hate crime. Second example: No. For both examples, as with all scenarios concerning free speech, there is the universal caveat that threatening physical violence is a crime. A hate crime, as illustrated by the article you cited, is a crime motivated by bias or prejudice. The key point being that in order for something to be a hate crime, it has to be a crime in the first place. Hate speech itself is not a crime and as such is not a hate crime.
If I don't intend to hurt someone or induce fear, but I do, shouldn't I still be held accountable for that?
Sure, but by way of conversation and persuasion, not civil or criminal punishment. I’m not disagreeing with your assertions that hateful speech can cause emotional pain or that there is a lot of work that could be done to make our society more inclusive. I’m just arguing that it should be accomplished through voluntary interaction. Having these kinds of conversations and debates requires a lot of effort and is a constant process but I believe it is the best path towards progress and the only way forward that doesn't infringe on everyone's right to free expression.
In order to use the legal definition, I would have to trust that our legal system views violence and abuse in an appropriate way.
If you do not accept the legal definition of violence, then you must own all the consequences of any change you wish to make to that definition. Changing the law to adopt your definition of violence would mean that individuals could be fined or jailed for offensive speech. This is a horrifying concept and one I could never be persuaded to support.
Can't help but point out that you're saying the 'stress' it causes you is somehow comparable to the relentless exclusion faced by non cisgendered individuals.
I was only referring to this line: 'it is stressful enough to misspeak preferred pronouns.'
This felt like a way to emphasize the stresses of using inclusive language, which makes the issue about Jank, instead of transpeople. I don't see the magnitude of these stresses as comparable.
I agree with the following statement that a fine wouldn't make people any more open or inclusive. Despite my pushback, I do agree that the government should not have the power to regulate language and if/when they do, it will show to be ineffective.
This felt like a way to emphasize the stresses of using inclusive language, which makes the issue about Jank, instead of transpeople. I don't see the magnitude of these stresses as comparable.
You accused Jank of making the comparison in your original comment. That doesn't seem fair to me.
The statement is that it is stressful to misspeak preferred pronouns, not that it is stressful to use them. Since Jank specifically excluded the threat of a fine as the reason for the stress, I don’t see any way to read this other than that it is stressful because there is a possibility of inadvertently causing emotional pain for someone by failing to remember to use their preferred pronoun.
I think we can all agree that it's stressful to misspeak preferred pronouns. I see mentioning that stress at all during a conversation based on trans-inclusion is problematic.
I do concede to the fact that Jank was not directly comparing this stress to that of transpeople and I was wrong to say that. I was reacting to a perceived undertone of the burden of modifying hir language to be put on hir, instead of emphasizing the oppression continually perpetuated by our exclusive language.
My problem with this argument is that it seems to be too much about us and not enough about the issue (which is largely my fault for the accusation - inaccurate and ineffective!)
I'm much more interested in a healthy dialogue about how we can make our language and social institutions across the US more inclusive to everyone. Clearly, the government fining individuals for use of exclusive language is not the solution. What are your thoughts?
I think an effective method of persuasion might be to focus on the plight of non-binary individuals on a more personal level. If you don’t have a close relationship with such a person it could be difficult to empathize with their struggle and appreciate the argument for a need to change our language. I believe more people would be willing to accept such a change if they understood the value it could bring on a human level.
Very important to note that both articles have dead links in the first sentences. So obviously NYC realized they made a mistake. Also, I'm pretty sure the NYC Commission on Human Rights doesn't make laws (and wasn't trying to). The other article is a bit clearer in saying that the NYC commission was simply offering "legal guidance"
Anyway, this probably isn't worth further conversation, but I'm still interested in where you found this, Jeff. Did it pop up on Drudge?
Very important to note that a failure to redirect URLs after moving to a new website does not have any bearing on the existence or enforceability of legislation signed into law.
It turns out that a large portion of the internet is indexed and searchable, which is coincidentally how I happened upon this piece in the first place after having an in-depth discussion on the matter with a friend and wanting to know more about the topic.
If you can manage to navigate your way to the above link you'll find the references to the local law and a section describing the exorbitant penalties that can be levied if someone is found to be in violation of the law in accordance with the Commission's enforcement guidelines.
Also, I added a new feature to our issue tracker to automatically ban any user that uses a hashtag in their post. Thanks for always being a wellspring of inspiration.
P.S. I love the "whichever" bathroom signs. We have them at the gas station where I work. The customers who complain about them are definitely the kind of people you wouldn't want to be associated with - openly ignorant, bigoted & hateful folk.
I strongly agree with the author's position that the government has no place in compelling anyone to speak a certain way. Forcing people to use made up pronouns which are subject to change at any time is completely unconscionable. I understand the desire to accommodate those who don't identify as either sex, but this is not the way to go about it.
Language is fluid and shaped by consensus and I can understand the argument for the need for a gender neutral pronoun. This gross, ill-conceived overreach of government power only serves to drown out the rational voices on both sides and illicit push-back against the notion as a whole.
"Taking a page from Orwell, the Big Apple actually requires speakers to use the invented gender-free pronoun “ze,” a word that does not appear in five different dictionaries I checked. A future version of this regime could potentially outlaw gendered pronouns altogether, so as to accommodate gender-fluid individuals. Taken to its natural conclusion, this effort to promote tolerance is frighteningly intolerant."
This is a perfect example of the oppressor complaining that they're the oppressed (kind of like this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7hHQ7hydsI&feature=youtu.be). Yes, transpeople have been excluded from our vernacular since the beginning of the human race and that is not okay. Altering our exclusive language to include all gender identities is, by definition, inclusive.
Should the government fine anyone using gendered pronouns? Probably not because of how normalized it is. However, anti-inclusive language, e.g. 'she/he', should be negatively stigmatized. We should be more accountable for the way we talk and how it oppresses our friends, families, neighbors, peers.
This comment was deleted on 12/19/2019
Also, when I said 'she/he' should be stigmatized, I meant it in the context to referring to an arbitrary individual without knowing their preferred pronoun. For example,
'was she/he upset that you asked a personal question?'
can be re-stated
'was zhe upset that you asked a personal question?'
Once one is aware of another's gender identity and preferred pronouns, it's important to welcome and respect that.
I think that's a great point. Who am I to say what should / should not be stigmatized? Many of my trans friends also prefer gendered pronouns. I want to reiterate that inaccurately calling you out wasn't appropriate nor productive nor accurate.
What I meant by that statement is that if we can agree than gender identity, sexual preferences and sexual activity levels exists on a continuum, then is it possible that there's something fundamentally wrong with speaking in binaries at all? I think that normalizing gender-neutral pronouns has the potential to offer a new paradigm for gender identity.
I prefer 'he/him' but only because I had to choose one and that fits best. My question to anyone willing to engage is 'don't we all to some extent?' While it's particularly exclusive and limiting for the trans population, I'm in the camp that it's limiting for non-trans identifying people too and that a new model could benefit everyone.
So you are suggesting that the government should have the power and the obligation to compel the use of specific language if that language is not, in your opinion, sufficiently “normalized”?
Did you mean to say that insisting on using such "anti-inclusive" language to refer to a non-binary individual should be negatively stigmatized or do you think that gender-neutral pronouns should be used exclusively in all contexts?
So you are suggesting that the government should have the power and the obligation to compel the use of specific language if that language is not, in your opinion, sufficiently “normalized”?
I think it's a good question worth exploring. I agree that the censorship should lie outside of any government's domain. I used 'probably' because I know that few would agree with the idea that using gendered pronouns and language in general is, in a way, a form of violence. I think that using 'she/he' implicitly implies that the whole gamut of 'people' is covered, when it clearly is not. I can see a case for the fact that this has social implications similar to black people openly considered second class citizens. In that way, there is a degree of violence to it and we can all agree that acts of violence should be addressed by the government. So for me, the line is finer.
Freedom of speech is important and I will stand by that. But I also think those 'freely speaking' must be held accountable for the implications of their words and should expect protesting when their speech is oppressive.
Did you mean to say that insisting on using such "anti-inclusive" language to refer to a non-binary individual should be negatively stigmatized or do you think that gender-neutral pronouns should be used exclusively in all contexts?
I think all contexts. If we only use gender-neutral language when referring to an individual who identifies outside of the binary, then we are even further excluding them in every other conversation.
Violence is, by definition, the use or threat of physical force against another person. Speech of any kind cannot constitute violence.
If this were true we’d have no argument. Your response to my question on whether the government should have the power and the obligation to compel the use of specific language was: “I think it's a good question worth exploring.” I can draw no conclusion from this statement other than that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the first amendment and the protections it guarantees.
The government cannot place any restriction on the freedom of speech unless such speech would lead to imminent violence. The government cannot compel you to use any specific form of speech under any circumstance.
I agree completely that offensive speech should be protested and I support your desire to accommodate others through your use of language and your desire to encourage others to do the same. What I am disturbed by is how casually you seem to consider adding government action to the list. Doing so constitutions a fundamental switch from a purely voluntary approach to one which threatens civil or criminal punishment and erodes what is arguably the most important constitutional right we have.
I don’t agree with this but I appreciate your willingness to engage on the subject.
I think 'physical force against another person' is a narrow definition. Wikipedia, for example, initially agrees with you:
'The intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation.'
but further down, the definition expands:
'Violence includes those acts that result from a power relationship, including threats and intimidation, neglect or acts of omission. Such non-physical violence has a broad range of outcomes – including psychological harm, deprivation and maldevelopment. Violence may not necessarily result in injury or death, but nonetheless poses a substantial burden on individuals, families, communities and health care systems worldwide. Many forms of violence against women, children and the elderly, for instance, can result in physical, psychological and social problems that do not necessarily lead to injury, disability or death. These consequences can be immediate, as well as latent, and can last for years after the initial abuse. Defining outcomes solely in terms of injury or death thus limits the understanding of the full impact of violence.'
'I can draw no conclusion from this statement other than that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the first amendment and the protections it guarantees.
I don't think I misunderstand the first amendment. My question is 'who exactly, do these laws tend to protect?' The privileged freedom is already protected by default.
I think the core of our disagreement is 'Speech of any kind cannot constitute violence.' I simply disagree with that. Often hate crimes are simply speech.
But I also second what you said that engaging in difficult conversations like this is important and I think if it were more commonplace, we'd all have the opportunity to expand and further develop our opinions of these very complex subjects. We must listen to each other more and be less afraid to engage with different viewpoints.
I was using the legal definition which I feel is appropriate since it was in response to your statement that “…acts of violence should be addressed by the government.” and any such addressing by the government would constitute legal action. See: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/16
I agree that this is the core of our disagreement but the last sentence is incorrect. In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul the Supreme Court unanimously ruled against the city’s Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance and established the standing jurisprudence that only speech which would lead to imminent violence can be restricted. Using racial epithets (or even burning a cross – such as in the case I cited) are constitutionally protected forms of expression and are not in and of themselves hate crimes.
Couldn’t agree more with your final paragraph.
In order to use the legal definition, I would have to trust that our legal system views violence and abuse in an appropriate way. My whole point here is that the type of violence you're alluding to (e.g. attacking someone with a knife) is obviously a subset of what I consider violence to be and is much easier to identify than systemic forms that work behind the scenes. I see violence as casting a much wider net than that definition. Gentrification, mass incarceration, mass deportation, war on drugs (this one is more obvious), bathroom laws, job apps saying 'male/female' without other options, churches that only marry hetero couples, etc. are all violent in my eyes, and I stand by that whether or not the US government does. I see it as our obligation as citizens to constantly scrutinize the US legal system, including their definitions. We're arguing about what we, not the current legal system, think(s) can be ethically justified.
I see writing the n word on a piece of paper put on the doorstep of a family as a hate crime. I see yelling offensive, derogatory language at someone as a hate crime. Do you not?
This article articulates it well:
'A crime is an act deemed to be illegal, it becomes a hate crime when it is motivated by bias or prejudice against a person or people perceived to be a part of a group, and that is intended to induce fear, scare, terrify or cause psychological harm. Victims of hate crimes often continue to feel threatened long after an attack due to being targeted simply because of who they are. These crimes victimize everyone - individuals and our entire community.'
http://ejce.berkeley.edu/report-incident/what-hate-crime
I know that we're discussing the term in the context of simply using 'she/he' to reference an arbitrary individual. So, I get that you might say back 'clearly, that language is not intended to induce fear.' That's where I feel the definition is limited. It should also factor in the implied emotional repercussions of the oppressed. If I don't intend to hurt someone or induce fear, but I do, shouldn't I still be held accountable for that?
Again, though, in order to make this conversation less about you or me, I'm interested in how we can collectively foster an online and in-person environment that welcomes these conversations. I'm interested in us continually scrutinizing our own words and actions and those of our friends, family, political representatives, the government and its legal system to strive to be unconditionally inclusive. We are far from that today and only have ourselves and our institutions to blame for that. We must reprioritize, starting with those left behind, not those benefiting from a rampant lack of justice.
The fact that this site is fostering this type of exchange is powerful to me. Feels like a much more productive/ healthy form of the mess than ensures with controversial Facebook posts.
First example: Only in so far as trespassing is a crime. Placing such a sign on your own property across the street would not be a hate crime. Second example: No. For both examples, as with all scenarios concerning free speech, there is the universal caveat that threatening physical violence is a crime. A hate crime, as illustrated by the article you cited, is a crime motivated by bias or prejudice. The key point being that in order for something to be a hate crime, it has to be a crime in the first place. Hate speech itself is not a crime and as such is not a hate crime.
Sure, but by way of conversation and persuasion, not civil or criminal punishment. I’m not disagreeing with your assertions that hateful speech can cause emotional pain or that there is a lot of work that could be done to make our society more inclusive. I’m just arguing that it should be accomplished through voluntary interaction. Having these kinds of conversations and debates requires a lot of effort and is a constant process but I believe it is the best path towards progress and the only way forward that doesn't infringe on everyone's right to free expression.
If you do not accept the legal definition of violence, then you must own all the consequences of any change you wish to make to that definition. Changing the law to adopt your definition of violence would mean that individuals could be fined or jailed for offensive speech. This is a horrifying concept and one I could never be persuaded to support.
This comment was deleted on 12/19/2019
Can't help but point out that you're saying the 'stress' it causes you is somehow comparable to the relentless exclusion faced by non cisgendered individuals.
There was no such comparison drawn, implicitly or explicitly, in the comment you replied to. You're quite literally seeing something that isn't there.
I was only referring to this line: 'it is stressful enough to misspeak preferred pronouns.'
This felt like a way to emphasize the stresses of using inclusive language, which makes the issue about Jank, instead of transpeople. I don't see the magnitude of these stresses as comparable.
I agree with the following statement that a fine wouldn't make people any more open or inclusive. Despite my pushback, I do agree that the government should not have the power to regulate language and if/when they do, it will show to be ineffective.
You accused Jank of making the comparison in your original comment. That doesn't seem fair to me.
The statement is that it is stressful to misspeak preferred pronouns, not that it is stressful to use them. Since Jank specifically excluded the threat of a fine as the reason for the stress, I don’t see any way to read this other than that it is stressful because there is a possibility of inadvertently causing emotional pain for someone by failing to remember to use their preferred pronoun.
I think we can all agree that it's stressful to misspeak preferred pronouns. I see mentioning that stress at all during a conversation based on trans-inclusion is problematic.
I do concede to the fact that Jank was not directly comparing this stress to that of transpeople and I was wrong to say that. I was reacting to a perceived undertone of the burden of modifying hir language to be put on hir, instead of emphasizing the oppression continually perpetuated by our exclusive language.
My problem with this argument is that it seems to be too much about us and not enough about the issue (which is largely my fault for the accusation - inaccurate and ineffective!)
I'm much more interested in a healthy dialogue about how we can make our language and social institutions across the US more inclusive to everyone. Clearly, the government fining individuals for use of exclusive language is not the solution. What are your thoughts?
I think an effective method of persuasion might be to focus on the plight of non-binary individuals on a more personal level. If you don’t have a close relationship with such a person it could be difficult to empathize with their struggle and appreciate the argument for a need to change our language. I believe more people would be willing to accept such a change if they understood the value it could bring on a human level.
I really read another article on the same topic (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/05/17/you-can-be-fined-for-not-calling-people-ze-or-hir-if-thats-the-pronoun-they-demand-that-you-use/?utm_term=.f27218c6ec7a ) but I'm not going to comment on that one because I don't think this topic deserves a new thread.
Very important to note that both articles have dead links in the first sentences. So obviously NYC realized they made a mistake. Also, I'm pretty sure the NYC Commission on Human Rights doesn't make laws (and wasn't trying to). The other article is a bit clearer in saying that the NYC commission was simply offering "legal guidance"
Anyway, this probably isn't worth further conversation, but I'm still interested in where you found this, Jeff. Did it pop up on Drudge?
#fakenews
Very important to note that a failure to redirect URLs after moving to a new website does not have any bearing on the existence or enforceability of legislation signed into law.
Here's the working link: https://www1.nyc.gov/site/cchr/law/legal-guidances-gender-identity-expression.page
It turns out that a large portion of the internet is indexed and searchable, which is coincidentally how I happened upon this piece in the first place after having an in-depth discussion on the matter with a friend and wanting to know more about the topic.
If you can manage to navigate your way to the above link you'll find the references to the local law and a section describing the exorbitant penalties that can be levied if someone is found to be in violation of the law in accordance with the Commission's enforcement guidelines.
Also, I added a new feature to our issue tracker to automatically ban any user that uses a hashtag in their post. Thanks for always being a wellspring of inspiration.
I naturally looked for a "like" button after reading the conclusion of this comment!
Dude. You're out-snarking me. How is that even possible?
P.S. I love the "whichever" bathroom signs. We have them at the gas station where I work. The customers who complain about them are definitely the kind of people you wouldn't want to be associated with - openly ignorant, bigoted & hateful folk.
@jeff - How'd you find this? It's over a year old.
I strongly agree with the author's position that the government has no place in compelling anyone to speak a certain way. Forcing people to use made up pronouns which are subject to change at any time is completely unconscionable. I understand the desire to accommodate those who don't identify as either sex, but this is not the way to go about it.
Language is fluid and shaped by consensus and I can understand the argument for the need for a gender neutral pronoun. This gross, ill-conceived overreach of government power only serves to drown out the rational voices on both sides and illicit push-back against the notion as a whole.
+1
Meaning, I agree that this is government overreach and an attempt at inclusion that's more likely to backfire.