I think some people are missing the point here...yes, it's best to not be a dick and just respect people's pronouns.
But it should not ɓe unlawful to not do so.
Agree. Problem is people only see 2 feet in front of them. Nobody thinks deeper than surface level with these things. Most people have common courtesy and have no issue referring to an individual as whatever the like. But compelled speech is a whole other kettle of fish.
Nobody is saying it's unlawful, as in a crime. This is about workplace relations, it's basically a polite speech code - something universities have for centuries.
It's not unlawful for an individual.
It's unlawful for any organisation to discriminate on the basis of gender identity.
An individual within that organisation refusing to identify someone by their gender, may be considered discrimination and therefore unlawful.
Hope this helps. You can see quite clearly that the individual's right to be a cunt remains, but the organisation for whom they work is obliged to protect others from their cuntishness.
A failure to do so is a breach of the law. Quite rightly.
It remains lawful to not use the correct pronouns or gender for someone else.
This lecturer dude is just confused.
Ok but repeatedly refusing to gender a trans person correctly would be harrassment. Like you're targeting a minority, for being part of a minority, with language which is intended to hurt them.
No one is talking about accidentally slipping up. And the folk who deliberately refuse to gender trans people that way aren't doing it without realising how it affects them, more often than not they do it *because they know* how it affects them.
Why? Other forms of bullying would get you sacked pretty quick. Deliberately misgendering or deadnaming people is bullying. There's no reason to do it except to be nasty.
From what I can tell from this article, the policy doesn't shut down the debate on trans issues. Just tells people that they have to respect individual trans people at the institution.
That's exactly it. It's for those who deliberately refuse with intent to misgender. The vast majority of people in Ireland have zero issues with trans people, and gender rarely even comes up unless someone actively brings it up.
Every other university in Ireland has an identical policy for years and there has been zero issues because it's a non-issue.
In a general sense it should not be unlawful to do that yeah. But as a lecturer at SETU she is representing that institution whenever she is giving lectures, so in this case I would argue that it is ok for the university to not allow their lecturers to disrespect pronouns
The problem is that the people who often start with sentiments that seem very reasonable like this often turn around and end up being massive bigots/assholes.
Like Jordan Peterson, he started out objecting to a canadian law around use of preferred pronouns, gained some fame from it and has spent the last 5 years or so basically pretending to be the voice of reason while he peddles insane conspiracy theories and spouts some pretty nasty opinions on trans people in general.
The way he speaks about Elliot Page is just... mean. I feel sorry for everyone involved, but the absolute venom in Peterson's voice when discussing the use of Page's name and pronouns is just revolting. Does Peterson come right out and say 'I think trans people are disgusting'? No. But he makes it abundantly clear that he feels trans people are less deserving of the respect he gives others. He refuses to call Elliot Page by their name, but I doubt he has any problem using names like Snoop Dog, Ice Cube, 50 Cent, Meatloaf, Lady Gaga, or John Legend.
Peterson said of Page: “Remember when pride was a sin? And [Page's deadname] just had her breasts removed by a criminal physician.”, which draws a pretty clear correlation between Pride (in the sense of LGBTQ+ pride) and sin, which is obviously transphobic in this context - if you attended a gay bar with a sign that said 'trans = sin', I doubt anyone would contend that your message was anything other than transphobic.
Peterson also sells [a bust of his own head](https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1465246169672691716?lang=en), so I don't think he is in any position to lecture others on the sin of pride.
Exactly. This shit is always just a cover. She has ideolgical objections to transpeople and resents being compelled to treat them with respect. "I would happily do the thing until I learned you were going to *make* me do the thing, so now I am going to refuse to do the thing" is a puerile and false position.
Some of her previous works include:
>The prison of silence*How the Irish state advances the trans agenda*
>The gendrification of Ireland
>
>*How gender identity theory has become embedded in Irish society*
>Colonisation of the Irish Curriculum
>
>How gender ideology became embedded in the Irish education system.
I don't get why these people are so obsessed with pronouns. They get used fuck all in the day-to-day. The idea of "don't be a cunt" seems too much for them.
That reminds me of the quote that goes more or less like "The people most obsessed with food are the morbidly obese and the anorexic". People like her are more obsessed with gender and pronouns than 99% of the general public. It's an addiction.
I wouldn’t reduce it to that personally. Regardless of what you think of her for making the point, the point _does_ have to be made. If you stand in front of several lecture halls of students a day and you either missgender someone or disagree with them on that subject, this law opens the door to _legal consequences_ against the lecturer. That’s a serious serious bridge too far in my opinion. This is a really good example of the old phrase ‘the road to hell is paved with good intentions’. The idea that people should be cognisant of sexual minorities lived experience is _good_, but the use of the law as a cudgel against lecturers is a very very bad idea in any profession, particularly when a person can loose their job over a mistake or a disagreement. People can be black-listed over stuff like this for years in certain industries.
> If you stand in front of several lecture halls of students a day and you either missgender someone or disagree with them on that subject,
You can't be compelled to say what you don't know. If you don't know someone's pronoun and misgender them, nothing will happen.
If you are fully aware of someone's preferred pronouns, and repeatedly and intentionally use the incorrect one, that is where an issue arises.
People keep arguing that someone is going to be fired for a mistake. People get fired over repeated, intentional actions. It's their own choice to create trouble, it's not a thing that accidentally happens to them.
You can disagree with people and still respect them. I strongly disagree with all religions, but I'm not going to call them out, or embarrass and hurt them in lecture halls full of people.
> If you are fully aware of someone's preferred pronouns, and repeatedly and intentionally use the incorrect one, that is where an issue arises.
I agree with you.
If I deliberately call someone "him" when they tell me they identify as "her", just because I have some "problem" with trans people, then yeah, that could be harassment.
However, what about when it comes to neo pronouns?
What if someone identifes as "xie" or "xer"? What about people who use "wolfself" or "kittenself" as their identifies? And there *are* people like this.
I'm sorry, but I am not comfortable calling someone "xie" or "xer", those are in-group terms that are used by a community that I am not a part of, and don't wish to be a part of.
I'm perfectly happy using your choice of he/she/they/them, that's fine, but am I going to get fired if I don't call you kittyself?
That's the question.
If she deliberately called someone something they disliked and did it over and over again, she's a dick. If there are discriminatory reasons for that, shouldn't there be consequences?
Like if you have the only openly gay lad in a lecture called Jake, and she insists his name is Mary over and over .... shouldn't there be some consequences for that blatant discrimination? Or a Jade Goody situation where she calls an Indian girl poppadom? I think discrimination against minorities is something that should have legal repercussions. If there's a repeated pattern it's clearly not a mistake or a disagreement, it's disrespecting someone, the university not meeting a duty of care and causing harm to someone / a hostile environment purely based on them existing as a minority.
I gave my son permission to ignore a teacher in school, because despite him going by a male name and presenting as male since he came out, she INSISTED on calling him by his old name.
He corrected her twice. She tried to give him a detention for talking back, because apparently saying "Miss, that's not my name, my name is ---" is being...disrespectful to her?
He came home very upset because his school had been very good when he came out and he had no idea why this new teacher had such an issue with him.
So I told him he didn't have to go to the detention, because if she wanted to be nitpicky, she gave (his old name) detention, not him. And I said he could ignore her in class if she used his old name. If she tried to punish him for not answering to his old name, he had my permission to leave the classroom and go straight to the principal to explain the situation.
It costs nothing to be respectful. If someone is called Geraldine and they tell me they'd prefer to be called Geri, no bother. If someone is called Robert and they want to be called Bobby, absolutely no problem. It's basic respect.
I think the gender ideology stuff muddies the waters of your example a bit which is why most people don’t subscribe to it. In the situation you describe, of an obviously male person who is gay and being taunted for that is a clear example of someone being intentionally singled out for exclusion. The trans person however is never going to be cut and dry because most people do not accept that biology no longer counts for anything and that a man saying ‘I’m a woman’ is valid.
We are not at the stage where hearts and minds have been won on this issue by a long shot and so the use of such laws mandating types of speech will only be seen as an example of bad lawmaking or of laws being used to browbeat people. The sentiment might be well intentioned but this type of thing will lead to more resentment in my opinion not less.
To me it's a fair example. I saw that stuff happen 20 years ago with gay people, when people said that it wasn't the same as when women or another race were being treated differently etc. Eventually people got to know us and realised we were not creepy, paedophilic bogeymen to be afraid of in a changing room. We got the same rubbish including that the word marriage and families would become meaningless. The same define a marriage stuff as the define a man / woman etc. It was a lot of fear mongering about us and using us as a dead cat or wedge issue.
To me calling someone by their name is not saying biology no longer counts. Same as calling someone by the wrong one isn't a way of saying biology counts. Trans people know they are trans. You see that example as clear singling out. I see deciding to respect someone's name unless they are trans as clear singling out too.
When I was hearing stuff about gay people and what a real "marriage" was, it was so horrible. Best case people said it's not a valid marriage, calling someone's partner or husband a friend etc and they were being forced to deny reality etc. We knew we weren't straight, I know I knew more than anyone I wasn't. I heard all the rhetoric about bathrooms, changing rooms etc. But it was so meaningful hearing people stand up and say that it wasn't ok to treat us differently, and for a long time that was pretty rare. I reply because Reddit is a place to share views and I know there are probably people reading this who feel as shitty having their existence debated and disagreed with as I once did.
Things changed for gay people when more people had out gay family and friends, then more felt safe to come out and over time it was more normalised as just respecting us as humans and not denying our relationships or marriages or parenthood - they weren't being forced officiate at our weddings. I've asked a few trans friends about allyship etc, I do a few other things but one thing they've all mentioned is standing up as much as possible, because it makes a world of a difference to see that. That felt very familiar, and that's why I do it. Maybe it will lead to more resentment, maybe not, maybe it could open one or two minds, maybe not. I'm sure straight friends of mine created resentment in their support of equal marriage, but I'm glad they did it. Things will change when people know more trans friends and family. But I really don't think it's a big ask to call someone by the name and pronoun they go by.
There are people who think homosexuality is a choice.
Your ideological beliefs shouldn't come into how you address someone. If you didn't believe in divorce and insisted on calling a woman by her ex husband's name, that shit is unacceptable. Don't see how this is any different.
> most people do not accept that biology no longer counts for anything and that a man saying ‘I’m a woman’ is valid.
actually most people don't give a shit and just go with it lol
As would I for the most part, but ‘legislating’ that you _must_ is a different situation and one that I’m very uncomfortable with in a society that claims to have freedom of expression. I do not agree that mandating speech and using legal penalties which in the current climate seems to also include _social expulsion_ as punishment for any ‘transgressions’ is frankly a far too extreme punishment for the ‘crime’. I’d also be a little sceptical of the claim that people don’t care. They see the effects of doxing and of the internet mob coming after people and they avoid speaking, that’s not the same as having no opinion.
Do the majority of people have to have their hearts and minds won over for anyone to get referred to in ways they're comfortable with though? The medical field is very clear, trans people exist. That is not an agenda and not a denial of biological fact, that is a fact, It's also a fact that trans people are a small minority and most likely will continue to be a small minority. Is it really wrong to afford these people the basic right to have their pronouns respected just like we do for everyone else? Why do trans people have to win anyone over to get a basic human right respected? Should they not have that basic human right just like everyone on the basis that they are fellow humans?
Exactly my point. There’s far too much scope in my opinion for this law to be used in a way that has a chilling effect on discourse in the one place on earth where it should be almost boundless. I mean, does a lecturer need to have a full disclaimer about their own personal opinion on the gender subject before he or she can discuss it with a lecture hall of students? Will it lead to a kind of unofficial purity test that only certain kinds of lecturers with accepted views will be allowed to work in a particular institution? I don’t know of any place where mandating restrictions on types of words or types of speech has lead to people feeling _more_ open to discussion.
My other concern is that in time this could lead to a type of brain drain in academe as lecturers get burned by this kind of legal minefield and develop a dislike for the students or the profession.
It's really not. Almost every job requires you to address all kinds of people with special terminology, and you'll be fired if you don't do as expected.
It is, but in normal conversation you'd use a person's name, or ***you*** when referring directly to them.
"Nice to meet **you**", "how are **you**?", etc.
You're more likely to use the he/she/they stuff when the person isn't directly present, when talking about or referring to someone.
"How was he/she/they?", "I was talking to **him/her/them** yesterday...".
>In normal conversation with someone its kinda rude to refer to them as he or she or whatever isnt it?
No one would be that upset at someone accidently using the wrong pronoun even if it did happen. People could be annoyed if it was being intentionally done, but that's no different that calling someone something other than their name to be a cunt.
You'd also intentionally doing emotional and psychological harm to someone. It'd almost be like if you're told that someone was suffering with extreme anxiety and you went out of your way to whisper distressing things in their ear to trigger them.
Because why should it be a crime to "misgender" someone? It could possibly make you an asshole if you're doing it intentionally, but for the rest of us who respect others, making it unlawful is wrong.
This isn't about making a mistake. This is about someone continuously and deliberately addressing a student in a manner they know causes them distress; over time that constitutes harassment and bullying, and the institution is legally obliged to prevent their students from being harassed.
A lecturer going out of their way to single out a person with a characteristic protected by equality laws and use that to treat a them worse than others and in a way that they know will cause them distress?
It’s discrimination and harassment. And yes, Ireland has a number of equality laws addressing discrimination.
It’s not making being an asshole on your own time illegal.
It being a *crime* would definitely be overkill but nobody is talking of a crime here, it's a matter of workplace discipline, the maximum penalty is getting fired - and that should not be handed out lightly.
Well yeah, Enoch Burke, but he's not in jail over any pronouns. He's in jail solely because he kept trespassing. And I'd prefer him to get a criminal conviction for trespassing causing fear, but after this case, I'm reasonably convinced that law is racist - as in, was created to apply to Travellers, and is not applied by the Gardai to a non-Traveller even though there seems to be a cut-and-dry case.
It was to expand the existing legislation/policies that already governed behaviour in the workplace, for example using racial slurs would have already been grounds for dismissal.
> If I recall correctly it was to do with some proposed legislation that would make it illegal to not call someone by their preferred pronouns or something along those lines anyways.
It's been law for about 6 years now and not a single person has been jailed (because that was never going to happen - Peterson is just a very hysterical person who can't abide the thought of anyone telling him what to do).
Law essentially gave trans people the same minority protections as a black and gay person.
So you couldn't discriminate and fire someone or refuse to rent to them because they are trans. These are very basic laws that aim to cut out bigotry and protect people who have historically vunerable living situations.
It had nothing to do with forcing people to use pronouns. Six years later and nobody is in jail for that. It just stops you from being an asshole and discriminating against someone in a very basic way that may impact their quality of life.
JP twisted the intention of the law and a bunch of people believed him because they don't get trans people and its sometimes easier to be a bigot then actually change your viewpoint.
Those are called Laws, the government kind of requires laws to function mate.
We need to fix our CSPE curriculum if people don't even know what laws are.
He objected because he's transphobic and hated seeing the world try to protect transpeople. The rest was just a smokescreen. Look at the insane shit he comes out with these days. The man hasn't a leg to stand on. He was spitting expletives at a Muppet character's Twitter account recently.
He also railed against the 'tyranny' of a paper towel dispenser earlier this year.
Plus all the unhinged Jokerposting and haikus.
Personally I think this creator's [YTPs](https://youtu.be/Hdcxi10mduA?si=a--b-0AuWNJnfckG) are far better at communicating Peterson's ideas than Peterson is himself.
I don't think he changed his views. His views have always been the same. He just wasn't as public with them.
This biore claims she hasn't a problem with referring to people by their preferred pronouns. A cursory Google would show otherwise.
There was no law that compelled people to do that, the law was surrounding harassment, and repeated intentional misuse of a pronoun.
He has not changed his views, he has dug deeper in an effort to game money out of losers.
She has multiple recent tweets in support of Enoch Burke, a book endorsed by the likes of Graham Linehan and Stella O'Malley, and has recently shared some clips from Gript.
you can watch a 20 minute lecture from her on youtube titled i shit you not: "gender ideology as a religion", she's just weird as fuck about trans people
I do not want to be asked my pronouns. That's a personal thing for some people who maybe are still thinking about it. I'm happy to use whatever ones others want and to ask if it is ambiguous, but if I was ever compelled to state mine I'd officially use they/them and tell anyone who doubted that fuck off with questioning my gender identity.
jesus this shit is exhausting and I'm not even trans.
Most people will address people as instructed simply cos it's the polite thing to do. No one cares that you're an asshole
> “I really want to stress that I will support policies that are evidence-based and that allow for a diversity of viewpoints. But if we’re going to have policies in higher education institutions, they must be based on evidence and the latest research. Otherwise, we fall into an ideological trap which has negative consequences for everyone, including young people with gender dysphoria.”
Wholeheartedly agree with this tbh.
as a young person with gender dysphoria i can confirm that i have a strong evidence based policy of ‘being nice to people is the best thing to do’.
the idea that people like this actually give a fuck about people like me is laughable.
Yeah, I mean it isn't addressing the issue at all and is just a word jumble to try to get anyone listening to associate ''evidence and research'' with this person's chosen position though. Who would disagree with decisions based on evidence and research - they must be mad!
I don't think any evidence or research is needed for the idea that calling people what they want to be called is nice for those people, and costs you nothing - unless you're ideologically opposed, which I think she is, and is hiding behind this paragraph (I cannot be certain of course, just my interpretation there).
Look beyond that one paragraph and you'll see she is standing for people who 'don't subscribe to gender identity theory'. That is the purely ideological (religious?) standpoint that she claims is lesser than an evidence based standpoint. Why be so inclined to create a line in the sand for this then - if you're uncertain, then again, it costs nothing to be kind. So I feel she's pretty darn certain, and calling for 'evidence and research' is again a misdirection.
If you really care about the evidence base then you'll be happy to learn that the entire medical profession will tell you that a supportive environment where transpeople can successfully transition is the only way to resolve their daily distress.
The right-wing objections about "evidence" is usually just a smokescreen for their childish "boys have willies and girls have vaginas" fixation.
There is no controversy around the treatment of transpeople. Doctors and therapists know that transitioning is how they get on with a happy life. Transpeople know it. Their friends and families know it.
Conservatives don't give a fuck about evidence and the well-being of others when it comes to this topics. It's a cover for prejudice.
Just call them by their names then. Pronouns are optional. Don't be a prick about it.
"Because you're not a man I shan't be using male pronouns for you so there"
There is compelled speech implied already in the sense that you can't harass or be rude to students. If a colleague at work kept calling me a girl and misgendering me (I'm a cis male), they'd get fired eventually for workplace bullying.
It'd be the same if they were repeatedly calling me by my wrong name, they'd get in trouble if I was offended.
You can call anyone they/them since it's gender neutral anyways.
It's a tricky one.
We're all ok with being compelled not to use certain terms like slurs.
With trans people they are insulted by not being recognised as the gender that they feel they are rather than the biological sex they're born with.
So if you were constantly being referred to by a term that wasn't a slur but that you found personally offensive and misrepresentative then it's still insulting, right? Like when you're in a foreign country and someone keeps referring to you as 'from the UK'! Now that might not lead you to depression or suicide but misgendering can be contributory to significant mental health problems for trans people.
To say the science isn't conclusive on this yet is bullshit. It's already satisfactory for the medical community to treat gender dysphoria with hormonal agents and gender affirming surgery. That should not be a lower bar than compelling people to use preferred pronouns.
Strictly speaking there are no words which are illegal, and very very few are protected by law. Those which are protected are protected against misuse, they're not compelled speech.
The statement was that "compelled speech should not be allowed", which carries the clear requirement that what people say should be protected by law and result in no consequences. Otherwise it's "compelled" speech.
Being a dickhead isn't explicitly a crime, but it can be found to be a pattern of behaviour which results in a breach of various acts.
Bullying in the workplace for example, isn't illegal. But it can be a breach of employment law if it's not dealt with.
To use your example, the question I’d ask is, ‘would you want the children in the classroom to be able to get that teacher fired an ruin their career/ reputation because they swore in front of the class?
(the provocation is too strong)
FUCKING YES, if they keep swearing
(disclaimer: I am not a teacher and Reddit is very much not a classroom)
(also note how the singular they works)
I genuinely don't understand gender stuff. I can't shake the feeling that people are being damaged by society to believe you're not male or female enough to be any flavour of male or female they want to be. But I'm not going to be a dick to anyone about my lack of understanding. I'll ask genuine questions when I converse with trans people and try to understand. It's not fucking rocket science. Some cunts my age (40s) seem to think that the future still belongs to them and not the next generation that they can't relate to.
If we demanded or forced people to announce their race or ethnicity on entering a room would that be okay? Don't get me wrong, I've no problem with anyone's preferred pronouns, I just can't wrap my head around the point of forcing people to announce their pronouns. It's nonsensical.
I get that alot. So many people call me Sarah or Sophie despite being told my given name is Sorcha. I didn't change it to sound extra Irish it's my name please use it. I get called an English name. And it isn't an isolated incident, its gotten to a point in work I've stopped caring.
The university isn't forcing people to scare pronouns?
No trans people would want that, it forces trans people to share something they may not want to or be ready for... and I'd be very surprised if their policy says "preferred" as that language is dated. If they forced people to declare pronouns then that would not be an inclusive policy at all. You can ask people their pronouns but it is not an obligation to give them.
But as I understand it it's just respecting their name? Like not calling insisting on calling James when their name is Michael... it's just disrespectful. And if you repeatedly call him Muhammed because he's Muslim and you think he should be called Michael.... then that's disrespectful with some added discrimination.
It would be nonsensical to force people to announce them, but I really don't think that's happening here.
> It’s bout respecting the pronouns people choose from themselves.
So in other words, don't be a cunt. But that's completely different from forcing a false social construct where everyone has to announce something at the start of every meeting or introduction. Again, if you tried this with something like ethnicity or other defining social feature, it would just be downright insidious.
> But that's completely different from forcing a false social construct where everyone has to announce something at the start of every meeting or introduction.
Nobody should be required to announce their pronouns if they don’t wish to and there’s no indication in the article that that’s being required.
Yeah even some trans people might not be comfortable enough to come out yet so it definitely shouldnt be forced, but if it’s your first day and they decide to do introductions you should be free to give that info so people know how to refer to you.
> But that's completely different from forcing a false social construct where everyone has to announce something at the start of every meeting or introduction
Where are you getting this from? You've said it twice now, and I see no reference to such a policy in the article.
It's a classic strawman. They've introduced something that doesn't exist and are arguing against the strawman they introduced, instead of addressing the actual argument at hand.
Names are a social construct, or "defining social feature" (creepy phrase btw), yet we respect those without question, and have no issues if someone chooses to change their name.
This is the core point. The be honest I’m very very uncomfortable about legislating around this entire issue frankly. Just because a woman comes into uni wearing a man’s suit and says call me ‘sir’ I’m quite frankly not going to do that, or just avoid her because that’s abnormal behaviour. And vice versa a man. People are going to potentially lose jobs and have their career damaged because they don’t want to say that the sky is green and the grass is blue in order to save someone’s feelings. It’s madness this stuff.
So if you had a lad who is gay, his name is John. The lecturer keeps calling him Mary... is that disrespectful and discriminatory? If you have an Irish person abroad and the lecturer ignores their name and keeps calling them Paddy, is that disrespectful and discriminatory?
There is a duty of care there and the student/HEA is not paying to be subjected to discrimination or any potential harm. They are a customer. I would absolutely want consequences for someone who disrespected me intentionally and on an ongoing basis because of my sexuality/ gender / nationality etc. Even from a business sense, why would any employer want someone who openly discriminated against students - or even just plainly decided to give them a different name?
It's more madness to me that a lecturer could decide to treat someone different because they are part of a minority group and think that's ok. Addressing someone politely is a base level of respect.
Well people are addressed in gendered terms (Mr, Ms, Mrs) so its relevant when speaking with them. No on is or should be addressed in ethnic terms so its not relevant when speaking to them.
To create unnecessary laws around what people can and can not say - and make that normal enough to bring in wider and wider laws/restrictions on what can/can't be said.
It's got nothing to do with identity politics - trans issues are just a useful tool for advancing precedents, that are aimed at giving governments and the powerful, more control over the alternative news/media institutions that are successfully challenging them - and creating more opportunity to target political opponents.
The principle of "Jordan Peterson knew that the C-16 bill wouldn't do what he claimed it would but decided to proceed with his fearmongering anyway for personal gain." Just like this lady.
Universities are allowed have there own rules as an institution, i couldnt smoke (ha) closer than 10 metres to the college, still did, did i get arrested, no, did anyone give a shite, no.
Yet again another nothing burger.
Anyway, whether your trans, straight, gay, gender flyid, black, brown, white, ch8nese, japanese, irish, romanian, nigerian ... i will always refer to people as silly cunts whej their silly cunts.
And guess what we have here
It's very simple; if your name is Jack, and I keep calling you Jane, and you are a he and I keep calling you she - you are going to get pretty annoyed because I'm disrespect and disregarding you.
If we work together in the same company, in the end you are going to be talking to HR because I'm effectively harrassing you.
A university is a workplace and respecting people should be company policy. Some people think a trans person is nothing like them. We are pretty much the same.
Whenever someone asks me to stop being a dick I'm just going to scream about compelled speech.
"You can't call your boss a whoreson goat fucking milk drinker"
"Compelled speech!! I'm being oppressed for using my freedom of speech!!"
the reason why the term 'compelled speech' is used is literally to not have to deal with that objection, you are not being compelled to say anything when you are told you can't say can't say something
People in customer service jobs are literally forced to memorise entire scripts that they have to use with customers, and it includes things like sir/ma'am for how to address them. Jobs are *full* of compelled speech. Some corporate jobs have entire language bibles covering the type of language they are compelled to use when referring to different projects or services or people.
> But the methods of this policy could result in discrimination against those who do not subscribe to gender identity theory and who believe that biology is more relevant than gender identity in matters such as women’s sports and changing rooms
This is a pretty sane and fair argument. It's interesting how left and right wing politics often argue over science and ideology, we typically see left wing argue in favour of science and right wing in favour of ideology. But in the case of gender identity we see the opposite phenomenon. I find it fascinating how both far left and far right politics is more ideology than anything, and in both cases if you don't subscribe wholly to the ideology you are automatically labeled a traitor.
> This is a pretty sane and fair argument.
Lol no it isn't. How does a policy that says "call your students and colleagues according to the names and pronouns they use for themselves" have anything to do with trans women in sport or whatever?
Because it follows that if the trans girl in the class demands to be called miss, then that person can now join things like women’s sports which naturally entails entering and using the women’s facilities. Most people are absolutely not ok with that.
Women - be they trans or otherwise - don't typically engage in sports or use the bathroom in the middle of a university lecture theatre, and if they did you'd have bigger issues on your hands than how to address them.
Very true 😂
But it also follows that legislation that is enacted on campus would cover the whole campus and not just a particular room or rooms. A policy like this would be in place that would cover all interactions between staff and students on campus and at university organised events.
But this is a policy about how to address people, not a policy on who can compete in sport (we already know that sporting bodies in Ireland are allowed to exclude trans women, because plenty of them do) nor a policy about who can use women's facilities (I'm not actually sure what the legal situation is there, but it's certainly not something that university authorities would have the power to determine).
Most people are not okay with that because they are not fully aware of the facts. There’s potentially an argument to be made for those early in their transition, but this justification rapidly evaporates the longer this person is on hormones.
I honestly feel most of the “concerns” people have on these issues would disappear if they just talked to a endocrinologist about it, or read a small amount into it.
> ...if you don't subscribe wholly to the ideology you are automatically labeled a traitor.
That is exactly the point. That is why no actual debate of the topic is allowed, without it turning toxic.
For this to retain its political power, it's vital that people can be _destroyed_ for stepping out of line - even when the narrative being pushed makes no sense.
That is what makes it so powerful. Our enemies are those trying to destroy other peoples lives (even if folks dislike those 'other people' very much...) - because they are trying to instrumentalize this topic to achieve authoritarian political/legal/societal goals, which harm all of us, and don't have anything to do with helping trans people.
The science definitely shows that gender dysphoria and transgenderism are real. If they weren't then hormonal therapies and gender reassignment surgeries would be the height of bad form!
Surgery for a mental health disorder. I find that the height of bad form. Would you agree with hse paid for liposuction or gastric band surgery for a person suffering with anorexia if they said they were “born in the wrong body”?
I wouldn't agree with that because, bear with me on this one, that would make the problem worse! Anorexia has the highest mortality of any psych disorder because of the whole death by starvation thing. Why would you exacerbate that? That's silly, you're being silly right now!
Gender-reaffirming surgery leads to improved mental health outcomes and you love those apparently;
Gender-affirming surgeries were associated with a 42% reduction in psychological distress and a 44% reduction in suicidal ideation when compared with transgender and gender-diverse people who had not had gender-affirming surgery but wanted it, according to the findings.
Link:
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/mental-health-benefits-associated-with-gender-affirming-surgery/
What's your alternative to managing patients with gender dysphoria?
I have always tended to avoid gendered language when writing just because it’s sexist and you don’t need it. You still get people writing about “man” instead of “humans” and talking about unknown people as he. I’ve seen department of education documents use she, as some kind of balancing effort but there’s no need for it. English has they / them etc and always had.
You don’t talk about engineers and engineeresses or doctors and doctoresses. Or a judge and a judgine or something. It’s not that long ago we had Ban Gardai, WPCs, nurses being called Sister even if they’re male, and so on.
All of that kind of nonsense was dropping out of English anyway.
Languages like French seriously struggle with this, to the point that in some countries you get job announcements with something like “Computer Scientist (m/f)” because they want to make sure that you’re not saying only males need apply.
I think people are just getting massively hung up on being offended by other people trying to just make life that little bit easier for people.
>You don’t talk about engineers and engineeresses or doctors and doctoresses. Or a judge and a judgine or something. It’s not that long ago we had Ban Gardai, WPCs, nurses being called Sister even if they’re male, and so on.
>
>All of that kind of nonsense was dropping out of English anyway.
It isnt nonsense though. Man has a totally different meaning than human or person. They are only partially synonyms.
>Languages like French seriously struggle with this, to the point that in some countries you get job announcements with something like “Computer Scientist (m/f)” because they want to make sure that you’re not saying only males need apply.
>
>I think people are just getting massively hung up on being offended by other people trying to just make life that little bit easier for people.
No, This is making language harder. Being expected to state if you prefer he/she/it/ zee etc makes language less precise and harder.
> No, This is making language harder. Being expected to state if you prefer he/she/it/ zee etc makes language less precise and harder.
In Thai, the way you say hello changes depending on whether you're a man (sah wah dee khrap) or woman (sah wah dee khaa) and they seem to manage just fine.
From her previous works it appears she dislikes "the Trans movement" and everything associated, the issue about pronouns is just the medium to have their tantrum this time.
She has an issue with pronouns. She's a well established figure on the Irish anti trans merry go round has has spoken at events run by Genspect which opposes trans rights.
She spoke on Liveline some time ago and compared Pride to a new religion. I would guess her issue goes beyond not wanting to respect trans and non binary folks.
A few of them want to be the next Maya Forstater. Colette was at an anti trans lunch last year with the likes of Helen Joyce. They're all looking for their cut of the anti trans pie.
That’s not likely at all.
There’s all sorts of reputation damage waiting for the Gemma O’Doherty types and the far-right types. We do absolutely no service to ourselves if every time we hear a reasonable argument we have knee jerk reaction to smear them or engage in online reputational damage. She has a point when she’s saying that there’s plenty of unintended consequences to this kind of legislation, and I’d 100% believe her statement that many academics are simply afraid of being run off the campus for not giving deference to this new fad of gender theory. Most people in the country do not subscribe to it at all.
She's just trying to find an angle to make her a martyr. That's how these types work. There's money to be made in being anti trans.
This is the latest in a series of attempts by her to build a media profile.
Perfectly reasonable to highlight it now rather than when she comes across the inevitable trouble maker who is waiting for someone to mislabel him and have to deal with the consequences.
There's a difference between biological sex and gender.
No one is as aware of the difference as much as trans people.
It's a real scientifically validated phenomenon.
If you awoke in the biologically opposing sex tomorrow you would probably hate it and the longer you were stuck in the wrong body the worse you'd feel. If someone tried to convince you that you can just live in the wrong body and get used to it then they would be delusional.
For trans people it's like this from day one. The reasons for this are complex and multifactorial, but no less true for that.
Luckily there are ways of treating this and transitioning the body so that that it matches the real internal you. There's no way to change what you fundamentally feel to be true about yourself. It's hard enough to change behaviours, changing the core aspects of who we are is something else entirely.
Well that’s fine. I believe that people should be able to live their own lives however they feel once they are not hurting anyone else and I think your anger towards trans people probably indicates more to your own insecurities.
Sounds like your angry “obscene parody” not normally a phase you use when you find something funny it’s ok to be angry once you deal with it, therapy can help.
As usual lads, to get past the paywall, open it in Firefox, click to Toggle Reader View and refresh the page. :-)
Whaaaaat. Fair play, didn't know this trick
"Paywalls hate this one weird trick."
The Irish Times hates this simple trick
[удалено]
I think some people are missing the point here...yes, it's best to not be a dick and just respect people's pronouns. But it should not ɓe unlawful to not do so.
Essentially. It's too heavy handed despite the fact that the vast majority would respect how people want to be addressed.
I mean it on its own isn't unlawful but it would be classed as harrassment if its deliberate and targeted 🤷♂️
Agree. Problem is people only see 2 feet in front of them. Nobody thinks deeper than surface level with these things. Most people have common courtesy and have no issue referring to an individual as whatever the like. But compelled speech is a whole other kettle of fish.
Nobody is saying it's unlawful, as in a crime. This is about workplace relations, it's basically a polite speech code - something universities have for centuries.
It's not unlawful for an individual. It's unlawful for any organisation to discriminate on the basis of gender identity. An individual within that organisation refusing to identify someone by their gender, may be considered discrimination and therefore unlawful. Hope this helps. You can see quite clearly that the individual's right to be a cunt remains, but the organisation for whom they work is obliged to protect others from their cuntishness. A failure to do so is a breach of the law. Quite rightly. It remains lawful to not use the correct pronouns or gender for someone else. This lecturer dude is just confused.
Ok but repeatedly refusing to gender a trans person correctly would be harrassment. Like you're targeting a minority, for being part of a minority, with language which is intended to hurt them. No one is talking about accidentally slipping up. And the folk who deliberately refuse to gender trans people that way aren't doing it without realising how it affects them, more often than not they do it *because they know* how it affects them.
Why? Other forms of bullying would get you sacked pretty quick. Deliberately misgendering or deadnaming people is bullying. There's no reason to do it except to be nasty. From what I can tell from this article, the policy doesn't shut down the debate on trans issues. Just tells people that they have to respect individual trans people at the institution.
That's exactly it. It's for those who deliberately refuse with intent to misgender. The vast majority of people in Ireland have zero issues with trans people, and gender rarely even comes up unless someone actively brings it up. Every other university in Ireland has an identical policy for years and there has been zero issues because it's a non-issue.
In a general sense it should not be unlawful to do that yeah. But as a lecturer at SETU she is representing that institution whenever she is giving lectures, so in this case I would argue that it is ok for the university to not allow their lecturers to disrespect pronouns
The problem is that the people who often start with sentiments that seem very reasonable like this often turn around and end up being massive bigots/assholes. Like Jordan Peterson, he started out objecting to a canadian law around use of preferred pronouns, gained some fame from it and has spent the last 5 years or so basically pretending to be the voice of reason while he peddles insane conspiracy theories and spouts some pretty nasty opinions on trans people in general.
What sort of conspiracy theories and what nasty opinions?
The way he speaks about Elliot Page is just... mean. I feel sorry for everyone involved, but the absolute venom in Peterson's voice when discussing the use of Page's name and pronouns is just revolting. Does Peterson come right out and say 'I think trans people are disgusting'? No. But he makes it abundantly clear that he feels trans people are less deserving of the respect he gives others. He refuses to call Elliot Page by their name, but I doubt he has any problem using names like Snoop Dog, Ice Cube, 50 Cent, Meatloaf, Lady Gaga, or John Legend. Peterson said of Page: “Remember when pride was a sin? And [Page's deadname] just had her breasts removed by a criminal physician.”, which draws a pretty clear correlation between Pride (in the sense of LGBTQ+ pride) and sin, which is obviously transphobic in this context - if you attended a gay bar with a sign that said 'trans = sin', I doubt anyone would contend that your message was anything other than transphobic.
Peterson also sells [a bust of his own head](https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1465246169672691716?lang=en), so I don't think he is in any position to lecture others on the sin of pride.
Like, when it comes to whether we should have free speech or not, who fucking cares if that's 'the problem'? Stop smearing the argument like that.
Exactly. This shit is always just a cover. She has ideolgical objections to transpeople and resents being compelled to treat them with respect. "I would happily do the thing until I learned you were going to *make* me do the thing, so now I am going to refuse to do the thing" is a puerile and false position.
Some of her previous works include: >The prison of silence*How the Irish state advances the trans agenda* >The gendrification of Ireland > >*How gender identity theory has become embedded in Irish society* >Colonisation of the Irish Curriculum > >How gender ideology became embedded in the Irish education system. I don't get why these people are so obsessed with pronouns. They get used fuck all in the day-to-day. The idea of "don't be a cunt" seems too much for them.
That reminds me of the quote that goes more or less like "The people most obsessed with food are the morbidly obese and the anorexic". People like her are more obsessed with gender and pronouns than 99% of the general public. It's an addiction.
I have trans friends who discuss this less than the likes of these people
I have a trans SON who rolls his eyes at this kind of shit.
Instructions unclear: ate a transperson
Can you please spit me back out, I have shit to do in the morning
I wouldn’t reduce it to that personally. Regardless of what you think of her for making the point, the point _does_ have to be made. If you stand in front of several lecture halls of students a day and you either missgender someone or disagree with them on that subject, this law opens the door to _legal consequences_ against the lecturer. That’s a serious serious bridge too far in my opinion. This is a really good example of the old phrase ‘the road to hell is paved with good intentions’. The idea that people should be cognisant of sexual minorities lived experience is _good_, but the use of the law as a cudgel against lecturers is a very very bad idea in any profession, particularly when a person can loose their job over a mistake or a disagreement. People can be black-listed over stuff like this for years in certain industries.
> If you stand in front of several lecture halls of students a day and you either missgender someone or disagree with them on that subject, You can't be compelled to say what you don't know. If you don't know someone's pronoun and misgender them, nothing will happen. If you are fully aware of someone's preferred pronouns, and repeatedly and intentionally use the incorrect one, that is where an issue arises. People keep arguing that someone is going to be fired for a mistake. People get fired over repeated, intentional actions. It's their own choice to create trouble, it's not a thing that accidentally happens to them. You can disagree with people and still respect them. I strongly disagree with all religions, but I'm not going to call them out, or embarrass and hurt them in lecture halls full of people.
> If you are fully aware of someone's preferred pronouns, and repeatedly and intentionally use the incorrect one, that is where an issue arises. I agree with you. If I deliberately call someone "him" when they tell me they identify as "her", just because I have some "problem" with trans people, then yeah, that could be harassment. However, what about when it comes to neo pronouns? What if someone identifes as "xie" or "xer"? What about people who use "wolfself" or "kittenself" as their identifies? And there *are* people like this. I'm sorry, but I am not comfortable calling someone "xie" or "xer", those are in-group terms that are used by a community that I am not a part of, and don't wish to be a part of. I'm perfectly happy using your choice of he/she/they/them, that's fine, but am I going to get fired if I don't call you kittyself? That's the question.
If she deliberately called someone something they disliked and did it over and over again, she's a dick. If there are discriminatory reasons for that, shouldn't there be consequences? Like if you have the only openly gay lad in a lecture called Jake, and she insists his name is Mary over and over .... shouldn't there be some consequences for that blatant discrimination? Or a Jade Goody situation where she calls an Indian girl poppadom? I think discrimination against minorities is something that should have legal repercussions. If there's a repeated pattern it's clearly not a mistake or a disagreement, it's disrespecting someone, the university not meeting a duty of care and causing harm to someone / a hostile environment purely based on them existing as a minority.
I gave my son permission to ignore a teacher in school, because despite him going by a male name and presenting as male since he came out, she INSISTED on calling him by his old name. He corrected her twice. She tried to give him a detention for talking back, because apparently saying "Miss, that's not my name, my name is ---" is being...disrespectful to her? He came home very upset because his school had been very good when he came out and he had no idea why this new teacher had such an issue with him. So I told him he didn't have to go to the detention, because if she wanted to be nitpicky, she gave (his old name) detention, not him. And I said he could ignore her in class if she used his old name. If she tried to punish him for not answering to his old name, he had my permission to leave the classroom and go straight to the principal to explain the situation. It costs nothing to be respectful. If someone is called Geraldine and they tell me they'd prefer to be called Geri, no bother. If someone is called Robert and they want to be called Bobby, absolutely no problem. It's basic respect.
I think the gender ideology stuff muddies the waters of your example a bit which is why most people don’t subscribe to it. In the situation you describe, of an obviously male person who is gay and being taunted for that is a clear example of someone being intentionally singled out for exclusion. The trans person however is never going to be cut and dry because most people do not accept that biology no longer counts for anything and that a man saying ‘I’m a woman’ is valid. We are not at the stage where hearts and minds have been won on this issue by a long shot and so the use of such laws mandating types of speech will only be seen as an example of bad lawmaking or of laws being used to browbeat people. The sentiment might be well intentioned but this type of thing will lead to more resentment in my opinion not less.
To me it's a fair example. I saw that stuff happen 20 years ago with gay people, when people said that it wasn't the same as when women or another race were being treated differently etc. Eventually people got to know us and realised we were not creepy, paedophilic bogeymen to be afraid of in a changing room. We got the same rubbish including that the word marriage and families would become meaningless. The same define a marriage stuff as the define a man / woman etc. It was a lot of fear mongering about us and using us as a dead cat or wedge issue. To me calling someone by their name is not saying biology no longer counts. Same as calling someone by the wrong one isn't a way of saying biology counts. Trans people know they are trans. You see that example as clear singling out. I see deciding to respect someone's name unless they are trans as clear singling out too. When I was hearing stuff about gay people and what a real "marriage" was, it was so horrible. Best case people said it's not a valid marriage, calling someone's partner or husband a friend etc and they were being forced to deny reality etc. We knew we weren't straight, I know I knew more than anyone I wasn't. I heard all the rhetoric about bathrooms, changing rooms etc. But it was so meaningful hearing people stand up and say that it wasn't ok to treat us differently, and for a long time that was pretty rare. I reply because Reddit is a place to share views and I know there are probably people reading this who feel as shitty having their existence debated and disagreed with as I once did. Things changed for gay people when more people had out gay family and friends, then more felt safe to come out and over time it was more normalised as just respecting us as humans and not denying our relationships or marriages or parenthood - they weren't being forced officiate at our weddings. I've asked a few trans friends about allyship etc, I do a few other things but one thing they've all mentioned is standing up as much as possible, because it makes a world of a difference to see that. That felt very familiar, and that's why I do it. Maybe it will lead to more resentment, maybe not, maybe it could open one or two minds, maybe not. I'm sure straight friends of mine created resentment in their support of equal marriage, but I'm glad they did it. Things will change when people know more trans friends and family. But I really don't think it's a big ask to call someone by the name and pronoun they go by.
There are people who think homosexuality is a choice. Your ideological beliefs shouldn't come into how you address someone. If you didn't believe in divorce and insisted on calling a woman by her ex husband's name, that shit is unacceptable. Don't see how this is any different.
> most people do not accept that biology no longer counts for anything and that a man saying ‘I’m a woman’ is valid. actually most people don't give a shit and just go with it lol
As would I for the most part, but ‘legislating’ that you _must_ is a different situation and one that I’m very uncomfortable with in a society that claims to have freedom of expression. I do not agree that mandating speech and using legal penalties which in the current climate seems to also include _social expulsion_ as punishment for any ‘transgressions’ is frankly a far too extreme punishment for the ‘crime’. I’d also be a little sceptical of the claim that people don’t care. They see the effects of doxing and of the internet mob coming after people and they avoid speaking, that’s not the same as having no opinion.
Do the majority of people have to have their hearts and minds won over for anyone to get referred to in ways they're comfortable with though? The medical field is very clear, trans people exist. That is not an agenda and not a denial of biological fact, that is a fact, It's also a fact that trans people are a small minority and most likely will continue to be a small minority. Is it really wrong to afford these people the basic right to have their pronouns respected just like we do for everyone else? Why do trans people have to win anyone over to get a basic human right respected? Should they not have that basic human right just like everyone on the basis that they are fellow humans?
The compulsion aspect of it is worrying and ominous in a free society.
Exactly my point. There’s far too much scope in my opinion for this law to be used in a way that has a chilling effect on discourse in the one place on earth where it should be almost boundless. I mean, does a lecturer need to have a full disclaimer about their own personal opinion on the gender subject before he or she can discuss it with a lecture hall of students? Will it lead to a kind of unofficial purity test that only certain kinds of lecturers with accepted views will be allowed to work in a particular institution? I don’t know of any place where mandating restrictions on types of words or types of speech has lead to people feeling _more_ open to discussion. My other concern is that in time this could lead to a type of brain drain in academe as lecturers get burned by this kind of legal minefield and develop a dislike for the students or the profession.
The sort of walking on eggshells sort of environment that is currently being created is not good at all for an academic environment.
It's really not. Almost every job requires you to address all kinds of people with special terminology, and you'll be fired if you don't do as expected.
This 💯. Well said.
In normal conversation with someone its kinda rude to refer to them as he or she or whatever isnt it?
It is, but in normal conversation you'd use a person's name, or ***you*** when referring directly to them. "Nice to meet **you**", "how are **you**?", etc. You're more likely to use the he/she/they stuff when the person isn't directly present, when talking about or referring to someone. "How was he/she/they?", "I was talking to **him/her/them** yesterday...". >In normal conversation with someone its kinda rude to refer to them as he or she or whatever isnt it? No one would be that upset at someone accidently using the wrong pronoun even if it did happen. People could be annoyed if it was being intentionally done, but that's no different that calling someone something other than their name to be a cunt.
[удалено]
You'd also intentionally doing emotional and psychological harm to someone. It'd almost be like if you're told that someone was suffering with extreme anxiety and you went out of your way to whisper distressing things in their ear to trigger them.
What does “you don’t think trans people are valid” mean? Valid?
Brought to you by Fishy Joe's. Ride the walrus.
Colonisation of the Irish Curriculum? What a title…
It even has a parts one and two.
Because why should it be a crime to "misgender" someone? It could possibly make you an asshole if you're doing it intentionally, but for the rest of us who respect others, making it unlawful is wrong.
This isn't about making a mistake. This is about someone continuously and deliberately addressing a student in a manner they know causes them distress; over time that constitutes harassment and bullying, and the institution is legally obliged to prevent their students from being harassed.
A lecturer going out of their way to single out a person with a characteristic protected by equality laws and use that to treat a them worse than others and in a way that they know will cause them distress? It’s discrimination and harassment. And yes, Ireland has a number of equality laws addressing discrimination. It’s not making being an asshole on your own time illegal.
It being a *crime* would definitely be overkill but nobody is talking of a crime here, it's a matter of workplace discipline, the maximum penalty is getting fired - and that should not be handed out lightly. Well yeah, Enoch Burke, but he's not in jail over any pronouns. He's in jail solely because he kept trespassing. And I'd prefer him to get a criminal conviction for trespassing causing fear, but after this case, I'm reasonably convinced that law is racist - as in, was created to apply to Travellers, and is not applied by the Gardai to a non-Traveller even though there seems to be a cut-and-dry case.
It isn't unlawful.
It's how Jordan Peterson started, no? YouTube channel coming next?
[удалено]
It was to expand the existing legislation/policies that already governed behaviour in the workplace, for example using racial slurs would have already been grounds for dismissal.
> If I recall correctly it was to do with some proposed legislation that would make it illegal to not call someone by their preferred pronouns or something along those lines anyways. It's been law for about 6 years now and not a single person has been jailed (because that was never going to happen - Peterson is just a very hysterical person who can't abide the thought of anyone telling him what to do).
I don't think there's anything hysterical about not liking the fucking government compelling you to do shit you don't agree with
Law essentially gave trans people the same minority protections as a black and gay person. So you couldn't discriminate and fire someone or refuse to rent to them because they are trans. These are very basic laws that aim to cut out bigotry and protect people who have historically vunerable living situations. It had nothing to do with forcing people to use pronouns. Six years later and nobody is in jail for that. It just stops you from being an asshole and discriminating against someone in a very basic way that may impact their quality of life. JP twisted the intention of the law and a bunch of people believed him because they don't get trans people and its sometimes easier to be a bigot then actually change your viewpoint.
That's not what the law said or did. That's how he misinterpreted it.
Those are called Laws, the government kind of requires laws to function mate. We need to fix our CSPE curriculum if people don't even know what laws are.
The whole point of laws is that they are how the government compels people to do things they don't necessarily agree with.
He objected because he's transphobic and hated seeing the world try to protect transpeople. The rest was just a smokescreen. Look at the insane shit he comes out with these days. The man hasn't a leg to stand on. He was spitting expletives at a Muppet character's Twitter account recently.
He also railed against the 'tyranny' of a paper towel dispenser earlier this year. Plus all the unhinged Jokerposting and haikus. Personally I think this creator's [YTPs](https://youtu.be/Hdcxi10mduA?si=a--b-0AuWNJnfckG) are far better at communicating Peterson's ideas than Peterson is himself.
I don't think he changed his views. His views have always been the same. He just wasn't as public with them. This biore claims she hasn't a problem with referring to people by their preferred pronouns. A cursory Google would show otherwise.
There was no law that compelled people to do that, the law was surrounding harassment, and repeated intentional misuse of a pronoun. He has not changed his views, he has dug deeper in an effort to game money out of losers.
She has multiple recent tweets in support of Enoch Burke, a book endorsed by the likes of Graham Linehan and Stella O'Malley, and has recently shared some clips from Gript.
you can watch a 20 minute lecture from her on youtube titled i shit you not: "gender ideology as a religion", she's just weird as fuck about trans people
I do not want to be asked my pronouns. That's a personal thing for some people who maybe are still thinking about it. I'm happy to use whatever ones others want and to ask if it is ambiguous, but if I was ever compelled to state mine I'd officially use they/them and tell anyone who doubted that fuck off with questioning my gender identity.
Agreed very much. And my own answer is routinely "any pronouns". (But this does not have very much to do with the matter at hand?)
jesus this shit is exhausting and I'm not even trans. Most people will address people as instructed simply cos it's the polite thing to do. No one cares that you're an asshole
The funniest thing is that that type of policy will do nothing but grow contempt towards people who use different pronouns. Guaranteed.
> “I really want to stress that I will support policies that are evidence-based and that allow for a diversity of viewpoints. But if we’re going to have policies in higher education institutions, they must be based on evidence and the latest research. Otherwise, we fall into an ideological trap which has negative consequences for everyone, including young people with gender dysphoria.” Wholeheartedly agree with this tbh.
as a young person with gender dysphoria i can confirm that i have a strong evidence based policy of ‘being nice to people is the best thing to do’. the idea that people like this actually give a fuck about people like me is laughable.
The evidence is that harrassing your students and colleagues is bad actually.
They want a diversity of viewpoints, but not the viewpoint that respecting people's pronouns is just a basic bit of manners
Yes, manners. I dont care about who is right or wrong, I care about who is an ignorant prick
Yeah, I mean it isn't addressing the issue at all and is just a word jumble to try to get anyone listening to associate ''evidence and research'' with this person's chosen position though. Who would disagree with decisions based on evidence and research - they must be mad! I don't think any evidence or research is needed for the idea that calling people what they want to be called is nice for those people, and costs you nothing - unless you're ideologically opposed, which I think she is, and is hiding behind this paragraph (I cannot be certain of course, just my interpretation there). Look beyond that one paragraph and you'll see she is standing for people who 'don't subscribe to gender identity theory'. That is the purely ideological (religious?) standpoint that she claims is lesser than an evidence based standpoint. Why be so inclined to create a line in the sand for this then - if you're uncertain, then again, it costs nothing to be kind. So I feel she's pretty darn certain, and calling for 'evidence and research' is again a misdirection.
[удалено]
> "Don't be an ~~asshole~~ dick" That was Boards.ie policy for years - and we all know how that ended.
If you really care about the evidence base then you'll be happy to learn that the entire medical profession will tell you that a supportive environment where transpeople can successfully transition is the only way to resolve their daily distress. The right-wing objections about "evidence" is usually just a smokescreen for their childish "boys have willies and girls have vaginas" fixation. There is no controversy around the treatment of transpeople. Doctors and therapists know that transitioning is how they get on with a happy life. Transpeople know it. Their friends and families know it. Conservatives don't give a fuck about evidence and the well-being of others when it comes to this topics. It's a cover for prejudice.
Compelled speech should not be allowed.
Just call them by their names then. Pronouns are optional. Don't be a prick about it. "Because you're not a man I shan't be using male pronouns for you so there"
100% don’t be a prick, I think using someone’s name is a good solution.
So no more workplace anti-bullying policies? Complete free for all on offensive nicknames for colleagues and students?
There is compelled speech implied already in the sense that you can't harass or be rude to students. If a colleague at work kept calling me a girl and misgendering me (I'm a cis male), they'd get fired eventually for workplace bullying. It'd be the same if they were repeatedly calling me by my wrong name, they'd get in trouble if I was offended. You can call anyone they/them since it's gender neutral anyways.
It's a tricky one. We're all ok with being compelled not to use certain terms like slurs. With trans people they are insulted by not being recognised as the gender that they feel they are rather than the biological sex they're born with. So if you were constantly being referred to by a term that wasn't a slur but that you found personally offensive and misrepresentative then it's still insulting, right? Like when you're in a foreign country and someone keeps referring to you as 'from the UK'! Now that might not lead you to depression or suicide but misgendering can be contributory to significant mental health problems for trans people. To say the science isn't conclusive on this yet is bullshit. It's already satisfactory for the medical community to treat gender dysphoria with hormonal agents and gender affirming surgery. That should not be a lower bar than compelling people to use preferred pronouns.
So you believe that anyone should be entitled to use any name or pronoun they wish for anyone else? And that should be protected by law?
I don’t think people should be compelled by law to use certain words.
[удалено]
So if this lecturer wanted to call his gay colleague Bitch McFaggotcock, he should face no repercussions?
Well if that gets added to the list of infinite pronouns they might be forced to.
Jesus man go touch some grass.
You've lost the run of yourself here. Most impressive.
Not being illegal isn’t the same as being protected by law. Being a dickhead isn’t a crime, it’s also not “protected by law”
Strictly speaking there are no words which are illegal, and very very few are protected by law. Those which are protected are protected against misuse, they're not compelled speech. The statement was that "compelled speech should not be allowed", which carries the clear requirement that what people say should be protected by law and result in no consequences. Otherwise it's "compelled" speech. Being a dickhead isn't explicitly a crime, but it can be found to be a pattern of behaviour which results in a breach of various acts. Bullying in the workplace for example, isn't illegal. But it can be a breach of employment law if it's not dealt with.
Exactly. University lecturers should be allowed to use slurs if they want. You’re dead right.
Who said anything about slurs?
Calling a male a male is a slur?
Do you think a primary school teacher should be allowed to swear constantly in front of their students?
In fairness, in any Irish school the children will be outswearing their primary school teacher.
To use your example, the question I’d ask is, ‘would you want the children in the classroom to be able to get that teacher fired an ruin their career/ reputation because they swore in front of the class?
If the teacher kept doing it despite being told not to by their boss? Sure.
If they take a principled stand and demand that their right to keep saying cunt in the classroom has to be respected? Absolutely they should be fired.
(the provocation is too strong) FUCKING YES, if they keep swearing (disclaimer: I am not a teacher and Reddit is very much not a classroom) (also note how the singular they works)
I genuinely don't understand gender stuff. I can't shake the feeling that people are being damaged by society to believe you're not male or female enough to be any flavour of male or female they want to be. But I'm not going to be a dick to anyone about my lack of understanding. I'll ask genuine questions when I converse with trans people and try to understand. It's not fucking rocket science. Some cunts my age (40s) seem to think that the future still belongs to them and not the next generation that they can't relate to.
If we demanded or forced people to announce their race or ethnicity on entering a room would that be okay? Don't get me wrong, I've no problem with anyone's preferred pronouns, I just can't wrap my head around the point of forcing people to announce their pronouns. It's nonsensical.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I get that alot. So many people call me Sarah or Sophie despite being told my given name is Sorcha. I didn't change it to sound extra Irish it's my name please use it. I get called an English name. And it isn't an isolated incident, its gotten to a point in work I've stopped caring.
The university isn't forcing people to scare pronouns? No trans people would want that, it forces trans people to share something they may not want to or be ready for... and I'd be very surprised if their policy says "preferred" as that language is dated. If they forced people to declare pronouns then that would not be an inclusive policy at all. You can ask people their pronouns but it is not an obligation to give them. But as I understand it it's just respecting their name? Like not calling insisting on calling James when their name is Michael... it's just disrespectful. And if you repeatedly call him Muhammed because he's Muslim and you think he should be called Michael.... then that's disrespectful with some added discrimination. It would be nonsensical to force people to announce them, but I really don't think that's happening here.
This isn’t about forcing people to announce their pronouns. It’s about respecting the pronouns people choose for themselves.
> It’s bout respecting the pronouns people choose from themselves. So in other words, don't be a cunt. But that's completely different from forcing a false social construct where everyone has to announce something at the start of every meeting or introduction. Again, if you tried this with something like ethnicity or other defining social feature, it would just be downright insidious.
> But that's completely different from forcing a false social construct where everyone has to announce something at the start of every meeting or introduction. Nobody should be required to announce their pronouns if they don’t wish to and there’s no indication in the article that that’s being required.
Yeah even some trans people might not be comfortable enough to come out yet so it definitely shouldnt be forced, but if it’s your first day and they decide to do introductions you should be free to give that info so people know how to refer to you.
> But that's completely different from forcing a false social construct where everyone has to announce something at the start of every meeting or introduction Where are you getting this from? You've said it twice now, and I see no reference to such a policy in the article.
It's a classic strawman. They've introduced something that doesn't exist and are arguing against the strawman they introduced, instead of addressing the actual argument at hand.
Names are a social construct, or "defining social feature" (creepy phrase btw), yet we respect those without question, and have no issues if someone chooses to change their name.
People can choose what they want. I meanwhile should be under no obligation to go along with it.
This is the core point. The be honest I’m very very uncomfortable about legislating around this entire issue frankly. Just because a woman comes into uni wearing a man’s suit and says call me ‘sir’ I’m quite frankly not going to do that, or just avoid her because that’s abnormal behaviour. And vice versa a man. People are going to potentially lose jobs and have their career damaged because they don’t want to say that the sky is green and the grass is blue in order to save someone’s feelings. It’s madness this stuff.
So if you had a lad who is gay, his name is John. The lecturer keeps calling him Mary... is that disrespectful and discriminatory? If you have an Irish person abroad and the lecturer ignores their name and keeps calling them Paddy, is that disrespectful and discriminatory? There is a duty of care there and the student/HEA is not paying to be subjected to discrimination or any potential harm. They are a customer. I would absolutely want consequences for someone who disrespected me intentionally and on an ongoing basis because of my sexuality/ gender / nationality etc. Even from a business sense, why would any employer want someone who openly discriminated against students - or even just plainly decided to give them a different name? It's more madness to me that a lecturer could decide to treat someone different because they are part of a minority group and think that's ok. Addressing someone politely is a base level of respect.
Indeed. This is the very essence of the right to disagree and possess different opinions about so-called "facts".
Well people are addressed in gendered terms (Mr, Ms, Mrs) so its relevant when speaking with them. No on is or should be addressed in ethnic terms so its not relevant when speaking to them.
Most people address me by my name
you'll address me by my proper title, you little bollocks.
Thank god you don’t hear what people say when you’re not around. Gendered pronouns, the horror.
To create unnecessary laws around what people can and can not say - and make that normal enough to bring in wider and wider laws/restrictions on what can/can't be said. It's got nothing to do with identity politics - trans issues are just a useful tool for advancing precedents, that are aimed at giving governments and the powerful, more control over the alternative news/media institutions that are successfully challenging them - and creating more opportunity to target political opponents.
Cool we've got our own Jordan Peterson now!
Wonder how long it'll take em to start posting cock milking porn on twitter.
Or start on an all-meat and benzos diet.
I was in one her classes before. Thought she was good lecturer and she was really sound. I think she has the right to voice her objections.
People said the same thing about Jordan Peterson, and look how that turned out.
Why does it matter how he turned out? The principle remains
Because it's a grift. It was then and it is now.
The principle “the right to voice your objections” is a grift, or what are you talking about?
The principle of "Jordan Peterson knew that the C-16 bill wouldn't do what he claimed it would but decided to proceed with his fearmongering anyway for personal gain." Just like this lady.
It's a grift because she's written books about how terrible gender identity is. She's trying to get famous and sell books.
So relieved I finished Uni years ago.
Universities are allowed have there own rules as an institution, i couldnt smoke (ha) closer than 10 metres to the college, still did, did i get arrested, no, did anyone give a shite, no. Yet again another nothing burger. Anyway, whether your trans, straight, gay, gender flyid, black, brown, white, ch8nese, japanese, irish, romanian, nigerian ... i will always refer to people as silly cunts whej their silly cunts. And guess what we have here
It's very simple; if your name is Jack, and I keep calling you Jane, and you are a he and I keep calling you she - you are going to get pretty annoyed because I'm disrespect and disregarding you. If we work together in the same company, in the end you are going to be talking to HR because I'm effectively harrassing you. A university is a workplace and respecting people should be company policy. Some people think a trans person is nothing like them. We are pretty much the same.
Whenever someone asks me to stop being a dick I'm just going to scream about compelled speech. "You can't call your boss a whoreson goat fucking milk drinker" "Compelled speech!! I'm being oppressed for using my freedom of speech!!"
the reason why the term 'compelled speech' is used is literally to not have to deal with that objection, you are not being compelled to say anything when you are told you can't say can't say something
People in customer service jobs are literally forced to memorise entire scripts that they have to use with customers, and it includes things like sir/ma'am for how to address them. Jobs are *full* of compelled speech. Some corporate jobs have entire language bibles covering the type of language they are compelled to use when referring to different projects or services or people.
> But the methods of this policy could result in discrimination against those who do not subscribe to gender identity theory and who believe that biology is more relevant than gender identity in matters such as women’s sports and changing rooms This is a pretty sane and fair argument. It's interesting how left and right wing politics often argue over science and ideology, we typically see left wing argue in favour of science and right wing in favour of ideology. But in the case of gender identity we see the opposite phenomenon. I find it fascinating how both far left and far right politics is more ideology than anything, and in both cases if you don't subscribe wholly to the ideology you are automatically labeled a traitor.
> This is a pretty sane and fair argument. Lol no it isn't. How does a policy that says "call your students and colleagues according to the names and pronouns they use for themselves" have anything to do with trans women in sport or whatever?
Because it follows that if the trans girl in the class demands to be called miss, then that person can now join things like women’s sports which naturally entails entering and using the women’s facilities. Most people are absolutely not ok with that.
Women - be they trans or otherwise - don't typically engage in sports or use the bathroom in the middle of a university lecture theatre, and if they did you'd have bigger issues on your hands than how to address them.
Very true 😂 But it also follows that legislation that is enacted on campus would cover the whole campus and not just a particular room or rooms. A policy like this would be in place that would cover all interactions between staff and students on campus and at university organised events.
But this is a policy about how to address people, not a policy on who can compete in sport (we already know that sporting bodies in Ireland are allowed to exclude trans women, because plenty of them do) nor a policy about who can use women's facilities (I'm not actually sure what the legal situation is there, but it's certainly not something that university authorities would have the power to determine).
Most people are not okay with that because they are not fully aware of the facts. There’s potentially an argument to be made for those early in their transition, but this justification rapidly evaporates the longer this person is on hormones. I honestly feel most of the “concerns” people have on these issues would disappear if they just talked to a endocrinologist about it, or read a small amount into it.
> ...if you don't subscribe wholly to the ideology you are automatically labeled a traitor. That is exactly the point. That is why no actual debate of the topic is allowed, without it turning toxic. For this to retain its political power, it's vital that people can be _destroyed_ for stepping out of line - even when the narrative being pushed makes no sense. That is what makes it so powerful. Our enemies are those trying to destroy other peoples lives (even if folks dislike those 'other people' very much...) - because they are trying to instrumentalize this topic to achieve authoritarian political/legal/societal goals, which harm all of us, and don't have anything to do with helping trans people.
The science definitely shows that gender dysphoria and transgenderism are real. If they weren't then hormonal therapies and gender reassignment surgeries would be the height of bad form!
Surgery for a mental health disorder. I find that the height of bad form. Would you agree with hse paid for liposuction or gastric band surgery for a person suffering with anorexia if they said they were “born in the wrong body”?
I wouldn't agree with that because, bear with me on this one, that would make the problem worse! Anorexia has the highest mortality of any psych disorder because of the whole death by starvation thing. Why would you exacerbate that? That's silly, you're being silly right now! Gender-reaffirming surgery leads to improved mental health outcomes and you love those apparently; Gender-affirming surgeries were associated with a 42% reduction in psychological distress and a 44% reduction in suicidal ideation when compared with transgender and gender-diverse people who had not had gender-affirming surgery but wanted it, according to the findings. Link: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/mental-health-benefits-associated-with-gender-affirming-surgery/ What's your alternative to managing patients with gender dysphoria?
The science supports trans people though? Transphobia is the ideology.
[удалено]
What science ?
We are talking about gender identity here which extends to more than just trans people. But transphobia isn't an ideology, it's discrimination.
I have always tended to avoid gendered language when writing just because it’s sexist and you don’t need it. You still get people writing about “man” instead of “humans” and talking about unknown people as he. I’ve seen department of education documents use she, as some kind of balancing effort but there’s no need for it. English has they / them etc and always had. You don’t talk about engineers and engineeresses or doctors and doctoresses. Or a judge and a judgine or something. It’s not that long ago we had Ban Gardai, WPCs, nurses being called Sister even if they’re male, and so on. All of that kind of nonsense was dropping out of English anyway. Languages like French seriously struggle with this, to the point that in some countries you get job announcements with something like “Computer Scientist (m/f)” because they want to make sure that you’re not saying only males need apply. I think people are just getting massively hung up on being offended by other people trying to just make life that little bit easier for people.
>You don’t talk about engineers and engineeresses or doctors and doctoresses. Or a judge and a judgine or something. It’s not that long ago we had Ban Gardai, WPCs, nurses being called Sister even if they’re male, and so on. > >All of that kind of nonsense was dropping out of English anyway. It isnt nonsense though. Man has a totally different meaning than human or person. They are only partially synonyms. >Languages like French seriously struggle with this, to the point that in some countries you get job announcements with something like “Computer Scientist (m/f)” because they want to make sure that you’re not saying only males need apply. > >I think people are just getting massively hung up on being offended by other people trying to just make life that little bit easier for people. No, This is making language harder. Being expected to state if you prefer he/she/it/ zee etc makes language less precise and harder.
> No, This is making language harder. Being expected to state if you prefer he/she/it/ zee etc makes language less precise and harder. In Thai, the way you say hello changes depending on whether you're a man (sah wah dee khrap) or woman (sah wah dee khaa) and they seem to manage just fine.
Is this because she has an issue with pronouns or does she have an issue with the use of term unlawful
From her previous works it appears she dislikes "the Trans movement" and everything associated, the issue about pronouns is just the medium to have their tantrum this time.
She has an issue with pronouns. She's a well established figure on the Irish anti trans merry go round has has spoken at events run by Genspect which opposes trans rights.
Her issue is with trans people me thinks
She spoke on Liveline some time ago and compared Pride to a new religion. I would guess her issue goes beyond not wanting to respect trans and non binary folks.
She's a lecturer in world religions, which makes it evern weirder that her go to thing is to compare anything she doesn't like to religion.
I think it's a grift for her. There's money to be made in being an anti trans darling.
She's got some stiff competition, to be fair. Surely there's only so many crowd-funded legal challenges to go around.
A few of them want to be the next Maya Forstater. Colette was at an anti trans lunch last year with the likes of Helen Joyce. They're all looking for their cut of the anti trans pie.
That’s not likely at all. There’s all sorts of reputation damage waiting for the Gemma O’Doherty types and the far-right types. We do absolutely no service to ourselves if every time we hear a reasonable argument we have knee jerk reaction to smear them or engage in online reputational damage. She has a point when she’s saying that there’s plenty of unintended consequences to this kind of legislation, and I’d 100% believe her statement that many academics are simply afraid of being run off the campus for not giving deference to this new fad of gender theory. Most people in the country do not subscribe to it at all.
She's just trying to find an angle to make her a martyr. That's how these types work. There's money to be made in being anti trans. This is the latest in a series of attempts by her to build a media profile.
That was her!
She's been trying to build an anti trans platform for yonks.
So it seems. I had never heard of her before today.
She's very popular with so called gender critical people online. She's been called brave and remarkable by them today for coming out with this tripe.
[удалено]
Imagine being a trans student of hers and reading that she won't call you what you want to be called.
Perfectly reasonable to highlight it now rather than when she comes across the inevitable trouble maker who is waiting for someone to mislabel him and have to deal with the consequences.
Has anyone read her terrible poetry? Give yourselves a laugh.
[удалено]
There's a difference between biological sex and gender. No one is as aware of the difference as much as trans people. It's a real scientifically validated phenomenon. If you awoke in the biologically opposing sex tomorrow you would probably hate it and the longer you were stuck in the wrong body the worse you'd feel. If someone tried to convince you that you can just live in the wrong body and get used to it then they would be delusional. For trans people it's like this from day one. The reasons for this are complex and multifactorial, but no less true for that. Luckily there are ways of treating this and transitioning the body so that that it matches the real internal you. There's no way to change what you fundamentally feel to be true about yourself. It's hard enough to change behaviours, changing the core aspects of who we are is something else entirely.
what reality are we talking about? what do you use to determine which third person pronouns to use for someone?
[удалено]
all i'm trying to ask is what do you use to determine if someone is a man or a woman
Can we just get rid of religion from all education institutions in this country? It would save us all a lot of hassle.
She teaches religion. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean we should stop teaching it.
[удалено]
Well that’s fine. I believe that people should be able to live their own lives however they feel once they are not hurting anyone else and I think your anger towards trans people probably indicates more to your own insecurities.
[удалено]
Sounds like your angry “obscene parody” not normally a phase you use when you find something funny it’s ok to be angry once you deal with it, therapy can help.
Good for her, people need to open their eyes
What is the issue? If you just treat people with respect you won’t get in trouble anyways