Germany to allow third gender in registry of births

[Forty Two]

The You included Brian. Should I have used a star to signal that he was meant to?

Whatever makes your meaning clear.

[NineBerry]

Are you saying you want to force me to use certain words just so that you don't misunderstand me?!? Political Correctness gone mad! Freeedom!

[NineBerry]

It's not as if requiring respectful communication in professional settings is a new thing. Suppose there is a 100% pure sex and gender male guy working in a company. And some of his colleagues keep referring to him as "she". Would you not say that this is harassment and should be prevented?

So, now what is the difference when (as we have found) there is a third gender where the pronoun to use is not clear at all, to use the pronoun that is preferred by that person?

[Forty Two]

Are you saying you want to force me to use certain words just so that you don't misunderstand me?!? Political Correctness gone mad! Freeedom!

I'm saying we should discuss it between ourselves like free people do. I would never want legislation or regulation to provide some compulsion regarding the words you use.

[Forty Two]

It's not as if requiring respectful communication in professional settings is a new thing.

It is, actually - the "requirement" that is. There wasn't a law that said that communications in the professional setting had to be respectful, was there?

Suppose there is a 100% pure sex and gender male guy working in a company. And some of his colleagues keep referring to him as "she". Would you not say that this is harassment and should be prevented?

Yes, and I doubt he'd have any legal recourse for his colleagues referring to him as "she." It's not sexual harassment. And, I certainly think he shouldn't have legal recourse. The same rules involving harassment of women did not traditionally apply to men, and for the most part they still don't. The cases where men are successful in sexual harassment cases are those where there is physical contact, requests for sex, and other blatant and overt conduct, and retaliation for rebuffing sexual advances, that kind of thing. Do you know of a single instance where a man was called "she" in the workplace, and had recourse? He might have recourse from his HR department, of course, where he could go and tell on the offending employee and the employer might take action, but that's part of working things out in private, not legal recourse. And, traditionally, an employer would do nothing, because they wouldn't want to be bothered with bullshit among employees. Employers began caring about this kind of thing only in the context of women successfully suing for sexual harassment.

So, now what is the difference when (as we have found) there is a third gender where the pronoun to use is not clear at all, to use the pronoun that is preferred by that person?

The difference is that nobody cared, traditionally, about whether men were called the wrong name at work, and men typically sucked it up and handled it themselves, or dealt with it. And, even today, there is little, if any, sympathy and little, if any, recourse, for men when such words are directed or not directed at them. The third gender gets to pick their pronoun, but men don't - if someone misgenders a man, what recourse do you think they actually have? Have there been cases where coworkers or an employer was sanctioned because Big Ed in the warehouse was called Nancy?

[Brian Peacock]

Also, it's one thing to say that one's own identity as an Otherkin or a Brony or to be a white guy who "identifies" as Filipino doesn't hurt anyone and people should do what they want, and it's another to extrapolate from that that that the rest of us has to do anything because of that. I mean, are we REQUIRED to give a fuck now? If someone says "I'm gender fluid" -- can I say "I don't give a flying fuck what your gender is?" or is that going to then be considered hate speech? If they want to be called Xe or Zhi, do I have to remember that? Or, can I not give a fuck and say "good luck to you..." and move on with my life?

Why do you seem to feel so oppressed by the sensibilities of others - as if they have some magical power over you?

I don't feel oppressed by the sensibilities of others. I oppose their sensibilities being used as a justification for telling other people what to do, what to say, and what to think. If someone wants to identify as whatever, that's fine. I am not, however, required to respect it, to like it, or to speak in designated terms. The identity politics movement wishes to require me to respect it, to like it and to use certain words.

OK, so you don't think we can extrapolate from someone's self-declared identity any obligation to respect that identity

Right, I don't think people should be required to "respect" other people. Respect is a feeling or notion of esteem for another person, proper acceptance or courtesy, deference to a right or privilege - that kind of thing -- it's a thought and a feeling. If there is one aspect of a person's existence that remains inviolate, it's their thoughts and feelings, including disrespect for others and even misanthropy across the board.

- but who is obliging you to make such an extrapolation? Who is forcing you to respect and condone that which you do not respect or condone, and on what basis would you like us to respect and/or condone your position on that?

I don't need your respect or for you to condone anything I do or say. The obligation that the identity politic folks want to impose includes, for example, the obligation to use certain pronouns. If a teacher does not use the right pronoun, for example, he can in some jurisdictions lose his job. That's the obligation I extrapolate. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/teac ... -qjrjtvc0l - in New York folks can lose their jobs and be fined for the same type of thing.

What tends to happen with these issues is that it's not just a function of someone wanting to do what THEY want, they also want other people "respect" it and other people to have their behaviors and words restricted as a result. You must use the proper pronoun, and I get to decide on a daily basis what that pronoun is which may vary, because I'm gender fluid.

As I said before, so what(?), and as I mentioned before, referring to one's male co-workers as 'Ladies' might form part of good-natured, light-hearted workplace badinage and ribaldry, but it could also be used to disparage and belittle. Imagine if someone constantly referred to you as a 'Lady', or made a point of applying female pronouns to you. Now imagine that you asked them not to do that any more. Do you think the argument you supplied above should now be applied to you too?

Yes. These are words. Such an etiquette dispute is something people work out privately in a free society. They should not have the law impose an obligation to show respect or to refer to people as something. It's like someone entering a room full of people and saying "hey, guys, good morning." There may be both biological males and females who object to being called "guys," and would you have each person in the group be given veto power to declare that reference verboten? "I don't like being called a guy." What do you want to be called? "A man." Ok. "hey guys and man, good morning." Oh, wait, I don't like being called a guy or a man, I want to be called an other."

You can be a hippie if you want, but I don't have to like hippies. You can be a Christian if you want, but I don't have to like Christians. You can like masturbating into potted plants if you want, but I don't have to like that either. Whether you think you're a girl or a boy or something in between, or a black person or a Filipino, well, that's up to you. I just don't think I should have to worry about what you think you are.

Who is obliging you to 'like' trans people or those of indeterminate gender? If you don't like them you don't like them - though I'd be interested to know on what basis you can be so sure that none among that particular group are worthy of you liking -- but tell me, what is the difference between, say, you insisting that your co-workers recognise and address you as male and the same acknowledgements and provisions being made and afforded to those who you don't want to be made to like? Is the difference just that: their difference?

Look, if a guy comes into my place of business, and he's White Irishman, and fills out a form declaring that he's a black Filipino woman, then I don't have to accept that, yet the identity politics folks are pushing the agenda that I do have to. We all have to, out of recognition of their humanity, and we have to refer to them as what they want to be referred to as, which can change tomorrow.

If someone were to refer to me in a way that I didn't find acceptable, then I could certainly work it out with them. If I felt they did not respect me and I couldn't work it out with them, then I'd have to find someone else to be around. I would not have legal recourse to force them. Are you under the impression that straight, white males have traditionally had legal recourse when someone calls them a "lady?" Of course we haven't. [youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5P6fxWZVEcg[/youtube] So, it's not the same provision afforded to me. There has never been an agency with which to file a report that I, as a white male, am being misgendered. That's new.

I think you're using some outrageous hypotheticals here to avoid the issue. For me, if a trans person or someone of indeterminate gender doesn't want to be called Sir or Madam I'd say just respect that - and if they don't want to be labelled as a man or woman, but as something else, then I'd say respect that too. That a state can or does recognise that some people fall outside of the traditional binary gender categories doesn't change your or my life in anyway. It only becomes and issue for you, it seems, when you are confronted with the idea that you might have an passig obligation to respect a non-binary gender category or someone's preferred manner of address. Arguing that you don't have to respect this is fine in the abstract, but it does sound a bit like arguing to be allowed to call a Black man 'Boy' because one doesn't feel comfortable acknowledging that he's actually a man (and no, I'm not calling you a racist - it's just an example).

[Forty Two]

That's not accurate. You say that "it only becomes an issue for you, it seems, when you are confronted with the idea that you might have a passing obligation to respect a non-binary gender category or someone's preferred manner of address." That's not accurate at all. It becomes an issue for me when I am confronted with the idea that I have any legal "obligation" to respect "any" gender category or "anyone's preferred manner of address." I never had that obligation to refer to white men as their "preferred manner of address," nor did I (nor do I) have the "obligation" to respect them.

There are a lot of people I do respect, and in practice if someone said to me that they were trans and preferred that I call them she or he or whatever, then I'd very likely honor that request. What's new here is the legal obligation to do so, the requirement under the law to do so, which is what the identity politickers and sjws are trying to achieve and which they have been successful in some jurisdictions.

It's not that it's trans people that would be the beneficiaries of this kind of law. It's that anyone would be, including "fucking white males." Word and thought policing are not things I generally support.

[pErvinalia]

It's not as if requiring respectful communication in professional settings is a new thing.

It is, actually - the "requirement" that is. There wasn't a law that said that communications in the professional setting had to be respectful, was there?

Suppose there is a 100% pure sex and gender male guy working in a company. And some of his colleagues keep referring to him as "she". Would you not say that this is harassment and should be prevented?

Yes, and I doubt he'd have any legal recourse for his colleagues referring to him as "she." It's not sexual harassment. And, I certainly think he shouldn't have legal recourse. The same rules involving harassment of women did not traditionally apply to men, and for the most part they still don't. The cases where men are successful in sexual harassment cases are those where there is physical contact, requests for sex, and other blatant and overt conduct, and retaliation for rebuffing sexual advances, that kind of thing. Do you know of a single instance where a man was called "she" in the workplace, and had recourse? He might have recourse from his HR department, of course, where he could go and tell on the offending employee and the employer might take action, but that's part of working things out in private, not legal recourse. And, traditionally, an employer would do nothing, because they wouldn't want to be bothered with bullshit among employees. Employers began caring about this kind of thing only in the context of women successfully suing for sexual harassment.

So, now what is the difference when (as we have found) there is a third gender where the pronoun to use is not clear at all, to use the pronoun that is preferred by that person?

The difference is that nobody cared, traditionally, about whether men were called the wrong name at work, and men typically sucked it up and handled it themselves, or dealt with it. And, even today, there is little, if any, sympathy and little, if any, recourse, for men when such words are directed or not directed at them. The third gender gets to pick their pronoun, but men don't - if someone misgenders a man, what recourse do you think they actually have? Have there been cases where coworkers or an employer was sanctioned because Big Ed in the warehouse was called Nancy?

Yeah, won't somebody think about the MEN!

[Forty Two]

Who cares about men? Men aren't as worthy of thought as other people.

The issue under discussion was why I would be concerned now, when all along men were protected by this obligation that we refer to them how they want to be referred to and to "respect" them. I took issue with the notion that there was that obligation. There wasn't. So, it's the new obligation to do so that I object to. I am for equal treatment under the law, and as such there should be no law that a man be allowed to designated his "preferred manner of address" or pronoun or whatever. Someone may wish to be called "your majesty," but I'm not obligated to respect that, and similarly, I ought not be obligated to refer to them as xi or xoo or zor or zem. Note, I said "obligated." It's a matter for people to work out among themselves, without State power.

[Brian Peacock]

The You included Brian. Should I have used a star to signal that he was meant to?

No, you're the star about which we all orbit.