Journeyman
Established Member
- Joined
- 16 Apr 2014
- Messages
- 6,295
Well, I hope he isn't either, so we agree on that.Ok, I'll shut up. Seems like you can only comment if opinions match up. I just hope the Guard is not in trouble.
Well, I hope he isn't either, so we agree on that.Ok, I'll shut up. Seems like you can only comment if opinions match up. I just hope the Guard is not in trouble.
It was promotion of homosexuaility by local authorities which was prohibited by law. I expect there were authorities and individual schools which decided the (edit)I'm 46 now and was at high school between 1985 and 1992, when talking about homosexuality was actually illegal. Extraordinary when you think about it. Homophobic bullying was absolutely rife as well.
Do you know for a fact that the guard in question is a 'he'?Well, I hope he isn't either, so we agree on that.
No, fair point. I hope they aren't in trouble.Do you know for a fact that the guard in question is a 'he'?
And there we are. That's how easy it is, despite the lecture you just gave everyone about about such things, you did what you're saying others should not.No, fair point. I hope they aren't in trouble.
Exactly, that's what ended up happening. "Promotion" was a really stupid idea and term. If someone isn't gay, you're not going to make them gay by talking about gay relationships, and if someone is gay, you're not going to straighten them out by not talking about them!It was promotion of homosexuaility by local authorities which was prohibited by law. I expect there were authorities and individual schools which decided the (edit)bestsimplest way to avoid being accused of crossing that vague line decided to avoid all discussion of the subject (or even to misrepresent what the law said).
I never said I was perfect, and I'm happy to correct myself.And there we are. That's how easy it is, despite the lecture you just gave everyone about about such things, you did what you're saying others should not.
If someone is offended by something I've said, however it was meant, it's reasonable for them to say so, and it's reasonable for me not to say it to them again. It's part of being a considerate person.
That's not relevant to this example and is completely not what's being discussed here, and you know it.OK, let's see how that works out:
Inspector: Can I see your ticket please
Ticket-dodger: I'm offended that you ask to see my ticket. It makes me feel like you don't trust me.
Inspector (following Journeyman's advice): I'm so sorry, I won't ask to see your ticket again. Please carry on!
That's not relevant to this example and is completely not what's being discussed here, and you know it.
A lot of people feel very threatened by the mere existence of trans and non-binary people. This is one of the main reasons that they're murdered, assaulted or commit suicide far more frequently than straight and/or cis people.
No. Your comment is absurd. The phrase "apples and oranges" springs to mind. This discussion is about forms of address, inclusion and identity, not dealing with fare evasion.On the contrary, it is perfectly relevant. You appear to be trying to argue that you should always avoid saying something if someone is offended by whatever you're saying. I'm merely giving an example that demonstrates how absurd that position is.
Fair enough, the data I've seen is American, where the case rate is much higher. It's still an important issue, though. Trans people still get a lot of extremely shoddy treatment, including being openly mocked and laughed at, and they're pretty much the last group in society it is seen as socially acceptable in some quarters to mock in that way.The claim of a transgender murder epidemic is frequently made but it certainly isn't the case in this country.
Even in Brazil, which as per the above chart has by far the highest rate of murders of transgender people, there were 41,635 total murders in 2019 - and of those only 124 were transgender. That's 0.3%. Meanwhile 1,314 [3.16%] were women.
Meanwhile, in 2020, Galop, a UK LGBT+ anti-violence charity, surveyed a group of transgender people. They found that 17% of respondents had experienced sexual assault or the threat of sexual assault. In comparison, the ONS found 22.9% of women have experienced sexual assault or attempted sexual assault.
The data I could find does not support the assertion that the rate of violence against transgender people is higher than the rate of violence against women and girls.
This has to stop. Its ridiculous. We are supposed to have freedom of speech. People should not have to worry about losing their job by saying some wrong in ordinary conversation.
On the contrary, it is perfectly relevant. You appear to be trying to argue that you should always avoid saying something if someone is offended by whatever you're saying. I'm merely giving an example that demonstrates how absurd that position is.
Of course it isn’t. Being offended by the terms used to address you is perfectly understandable and reasonable (even if some of us - me included - struggle with the specifics of this case, and the way the victim raised the issue is abhorrent).
Absolutely. There's a reason I try to use the word partner when I am talking about the person I am with (but again, as you've said in another post, we are human beings and so aren't perfect and sometimes I do slip up, and they are more than OK with that as long as I make the effort generally!).A lot of people feel very threatened by the mere existence of trans and non-binary people. This is one of the main reasons that they're murdered, assaulted or commit suicide far more frequently than straight and/or cis people.
Not at all, you absolutely can comment regardless of your opinion (just don't be surprised if some people disagree with it) - I just find it a bit odd when people go off on a bit of a rant and include as part of it "I don't care" because if you actually didn't care you wouldn't be going on a rant!Ok, I'll shut up. Seems like you can only comment if opinions match up.
So do I.I just hope the Guard is not in trouble.
Really? To my mind, that is a pretty strange idea of what justifies taking offense.
Bang on. This really, really needed to be handled better, and has devalued the issue somewhat.However, in a different scenario in which said individual had politely asked to be addressed by gender-neutral terms in conversation and was refused, that would be a different situation and one which would potentially be worthy of complaint.
Good episodeIn cases like this, I'm reminded of an episode of Doctor Who from the David Tennant era (circa 2006). Passengers on board a tourist shuttle were addressed as "Ladies, gentlemen and variations thereupon", so perhaps this would actually work in common usage!
I do very occasionally get misgendered when dealing with people online or by mail etc. because although I have a first name that is mostly a male one, there are some women who have it as well, although generally spell it differently. I don't usually mind because it's an easy mistake to make, but if I happened all the time, I suspect I'd tire of it very quickly indeed.If you are male and you are repeatedly called "Mrs" - that would annoy you yes? If multiple people you meet did that time and time again, despite you asking them not to, eventually you may "snap" at one of them. Even if that person may have been acting totally innocently and not been one of the previous examples. That is exactly what is happening here. Hell even take gender out of it and lets say people call you the wrong name day in day out. Eventually you will have had enough of it.
But if people constantly disrespect you by calling you a different name to the one you've chosen and address you using the wrong gender, would it annoy you? If it happened to you every single day of your life, would you get angry about it?It's all just labels. I don't care about labels. The only ones I'm interested in the washing labels on my clothes.
There's more to life then getting concerned about whether someone uses the right label or not. In some parts of the world people can be sentenced to death because of their sexual preferences. Now, that IS important.
No. If I was in a group of women it wouldn't bother me at all if we were addressed as ladies/women/females. It wouldn't bother me at all if it happened every time I was with a group of the opposite sex.But if people constantly disrespect you by calling you a different name to the one you've chosen and address you using the wrong gender, would it annoy you? If it happened to you every single day of your life, would you get angry about it?
Of course you would.
I'm not convinced that's an entirely honest answer, and even if it is, you're not allowed to decide whether it does or doesn't offend someone else.No. If I was in a group of women it wouldn't bother me at all if we were addressed as ladies/women/females. It wouldn't bother me at all if it happened every time I was with a group of the opposite sex.
I'm not convinced that's an entirely honest answer, and even if it is, you're not allowed to decide whether it does or doesn't offend someone else.
I'm just saying that if a core part of your identity was mis-identified more or less constantly, it would annoy you. It's also not hard to understand why it would annoy people. What I'm getting here is an "I think it's trivial, therefore so should you" attitude.Calling people liars, classy. I believe the question you also asked was whether @westv would be offended, not that they should decide if someone else should be.
This thread really has descended into some bizarre kind of mind control 'this is how you should think' vibe.
But if people constantly disrespect you by calling you a different name to the one you've chosen
and address you using the wrong gender, would it annoy you? If it happened to you every single day of your life, would you get angry about it?
Of course you would.
It's honest even if it's not the answer you want.I'm not convinced that's an entirely honest answer, and even if it is, you're not allowed to decide whether it does or doesn't offend someone else.
Exactly, it's an important discussion to have but it's equally important to choose which battles to fight as, like you say, the issue can be at risk of becoming devalued (or ridiculed) if handled improperly, as was the case here.Bang on. This really, really needed to be handled better, and has devalued the issue somewhat.
Glad someone knew which one I was talking aboutGood episode
In all seriousness though, it does seem "Ladies and Gentlemen" is becoming a little bit outdated, nor do I really see railway staff calling passengers "Sir/Ma'am" when asking for a ticket.
Seems Journeyman likes to twist what people say to suit the personal agenda. Question though, regarding being identified wrong, whats the solution? Its unfair to expect everyone to be a mind reader and know the situation. For example, if someone has a predominantly blokes name, why is it wrong for people to innocently believe they are talking to a bloke?Calling people liars, classy. I believe the question you also asked was whether @westv would be offended, not that they should decide if someone else should be.
This thread really has descended into some bizarre kind of mind control 'this is how you should think' vibe.
The other point is that the person concerned wasn't directly addressed. He was just one of a number.Seems Journeyman likes to twist what people say to suit the personal agenda. Question though, regarding being identified wrong, whats the solution? Its unfair to expect everyone to be a mind reader and know the situation. For example, if someone has a predominantly blokes name, why is it wrong for people to innocently believe they are talking to a bloke?