Sam Smith announces new pronouns of ‘they’ and ‘them’

[Homerboy]

writing formal letters to a specific person with an unknown gender and an ambiguous name is dangerous. let's say the clerk of jones county is jordan smith and i need something filed. no pic of the clerk on the website. is it 'dear mr. smith'? 'dear ms. smith'? Trouble.

At my employer we send 1000s of letters a day to people. We don't know their gender in any case so they are all just address "Dear John Smith"
This is how the entire world has been doing it for decades.

 

[UglyCasanova]

At my employer we send 1000s of letters a day to people. We don't know their gender in any case so they are all just address "Dear John Smith"
This is how the entire world has been doing it for decades.

For standard blasted letters, but what about email conversations. And not just in reference to the header but any pronouns used throughout that email to that person or when referring to that person in other emails. Theoretically unless you specifically knew a gender someone identified as you’d never be able to use the words he or she again. That’s unrealistic and absurd to most people.

 

[Vic]

Or those that are the fraction of 1% can just simply accept that they are in the extreme minority and that our use of language isn’t likely to change for them. Especially in cases where we would have no clue they are in the extreme minority. If you want to alter your language to accommodate that’s great, but it’s unrealistic to expect most people to.

Your logic doesn't follow here. If you want to piss off your customers, business associates, etc by being impolite to them, you are free to do so. If you are contractually obligated to them in some fashion, then of course the courts can and quite possibly will require that your formal correspondence be polite and civil, which is neither new nor unusual.
None of this is "changing our language" except to Fucking Idiots who claim to believe in free speech, but then freak out when they disagree with someone else's speech, by creating fantastical paranoid conspiracy theories about how that speech obligates or oppresses them somehow.
Which - to be clear - is exactly what has happened here. Sam Smith spoke, nothing more, and you and those of like mind have gone to great lengths to rationalize why his speech should not be allowed, using flimsy illogical rationale that his speech oppresses you somehow.

 

[UglyCasanova]

claim to believe in free speech, but then freak out when they disagree with someone else's speech

No they don’t. They freak out when that other person compels them to say something they don’t want to or disagree with. Big difference.

 

[dank69]

No they don’t. They freak out when that other person compels them to say something they don’t want to or disagree with. Big difference.

Who is compelling anyone to say something they don't want to say or disagree with?

 

[UglyCasanova]

Who is compelling anyone to say something they don't want to say or disagree with?

NY state?

 

[Vic]

No they don’t. They freak out when that other person compels them to say something they don’t want to or disagree with. Big difference.

You are not being compelled, you are being asked. Big difference.
And what is that you actually disagree with? Why is it so disagreeable that someone asks you refer to them in some fashion that you have to make up reasons to feel threatened and oppressed?

 

[Vic]

NY state?

Dear Miss Fucking Idiot,

This has already been explained to you in thread.

Sincerely,
Vic

 

[UglyCasanova]

You are not being compelled, you are being asked. Big difference.

With no option to say no. So....compelled.

 

[cytg111]

The outcry over this topic sure seems a lot to be a conservative one. Same gang that will like to explain how dems are the real racists today while its OK to put their vote on Steve King or Roy Moore etc etc etc.
I can honestly say that I believe my head would explode if I had to wrap my mind around those paradoxes... I just dont think I could do it, it would be off to the loony bin for me.
In this regard I actually admire conservatives, they got mad skills in this specific cognitive department... department of paradoxes..

 

[WelshBloke]

Or those that are the fraction of 1% can just simply accept that they are in the extreme minority and that our use of language isn’t likely to change for them. Especially in cases where we would have no clue they are in the extreme minority. If you want to alter your language to accommodate that’s great, but it’s unrealistic to expect most people to.

So if it's a fraction of a percentage then it's not going to come up very often for you is it? I'm sure you'll cope with it now and again.

 

[Vic]

With no option to say no. So....compelled.

You absolutely have the option to say no. Sam Smith's speech doesn't compel you to do or say anything. And you don't live in NY, nor are you compelled to business with anyone in NY, so.. not compelled.

 

[dank69]

NY state?

No. I'm guessing this is the same/similar misunderstanding from the Peterson thread. Please cite the NY law compelling specific speech

 

[WelshBloke]

Theoretically unless you specifically knew a gender someone identified as you’d never be able to use the words he or she again. That’s unrealistic and absurd to most people.

Why not? If you use the wrong one just apologise then use their preferred one. No ones expecting you to automagically know what everyone wants to be called.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Dear Miss Fucking Idiot,

This has already been explained to you in thread.

Sincerely,
Vic

I would assume that it would be grounds for an early termination of said contract but I doubt the government normally goes and steps in if there’s name calling going on lol.

 

[UglyCasanova]

No. I'm guessing this is the same/similar misunderstanding from the Peterson thread. Please cite the NY law compelling specific speech

I did earlier in the thread

 

[ElFenix]

So unless the recipient has already provided a preferred gender-identifying prefix, you just address the formal correspondence to "Dear Jordan Smith." No trouble at all.

that's just awkward. i guess i could use the title although "Dear Clerk Smith" doesn't have the same ring as you would someone else with an honorrific, like "Dear Judge Smith" or "Dear Senator Smith"

(though in reality the letter is almost certainly being opened by a staff member, not the clerk, who probably doesn't even read that part)

 

[dank69]

I did earlier in the thread

You talking about the WaPo OPINION piece where if you click the link to the "source" for his claim you arrive at a page that isn't found?

Let's ignore the fact that you can't distinguish between valid and garbage sources for now and look at his claim anyway:

employers[, landlords, and all businesses and professionals] to use an [employee’s, tenant’s, customer’s, or client’s] preferred name, pronoun and title

As expected, this is he (and you) not understanding what is being said. If you don't want to use the person's preferred pronoun or title because it's against your religion (lol) then you can still use their name. They aren't forcing you to say anything. What they are protecting people against is discrimination. This means that if you tell your landlord that you want to be referred to as UC, he, him, Mr, etc. because you identify as a man, the landlord cannot refer to you as she/her/Ms just because you were born without a penis. The landlord does not have to call you he/him/Mr. but he cannot continue to imply you are a woman just because he hates trannies. That would be harassment. So you see, this is the law telling you what you can't say, not what you must say.

Would you like to try again, Ms. UglyCasanova?

 

[kage69]

Odd that American conservatives are so interested with what a gay English vocalist from London thinks.

War is a real risk on multiple fronts, democracy is receiving wounds from republicans that AQ and ISIS couldn't inflict (North Carolina, Wisconsin, etc), people are still going bankrupt over health expenses, and mass shootings continue to fill body bags coast to coast.

Never mind Trump's pathetic yet failing mental glossary, check out how this Brit talks!

 

[WelshBloke]

Odd that American conservatives are so interested with what a gay English vocalist from London thinks.

One can only wonder that there are worried about what to call Sam in their personal letters.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

One can only wonder that there are worried about what to call Sam in their personal letters.

Hey you’re a Welsh Bloke.
Have you heard of Sam before this thread of much concern?

 

[UglyCasanova]

You talking about the WaPo OPINION piece where if you click the link to the "source" for his claim you arrive at a page that isn't found?

Let's ignore the fact that you can't distinguish between valid and garbage sources for now and look at his claim anyway:



As expected, this is he (and you) not understanding what is being said. If you don't want to use the person's preferred pronoun or title because it's against your religion (lol) then you can still use their name. They aren't forcing you to say anything. What they are protecting people against is discrimination. This means that if you tell your landlord that you want to be referred to as UC, he, him, Mr, etc. because you identify as a man, the landlord cannot refer to you as she/her/Ms just because you were born without a penis. The landlord does not have to call you he/him/Mr. but he cannot continue to imply you are a woman just because he hates trannies. That would be harassment. So you see, this is the law telling you what you can't say, not what you must say.

Would you like to try again, Ms. UglyCasanova?

Here let me google it for you

https://www1.nyc.gov/site/cchr/law/legal-guidances-gender-identity-expression.page#3.1

 

[dank69]

Here let me google it for you

https://www1.nyc.gov/site/cchr/law/legal-guidances-gender-identity-expression.page#3.1

Hey thanks, but that still says the same thing I just said. Did you even read it, Ms. UglyCasanova?

a. Intentional or repeated refusal to use a person’s name, pronouns, or title. For example, repeatedly calling a transgender woman “him” or “Mr.” after she has made clear that she uses she/her and Ms.

b. Refusal to use a person’s name, pronouns, or title because they do not conform to gender stereotypes. For example, insisting on calling a non-binary person “Mr.” after they have requested to be called “Mx.”

c. Conditioning a person’s use of their name on obtaining a court-ordered name change or providing identification in that name. For example, a covered entity may not refuse to call a transgender man who introduces himself as Manuel by that name because his identification lists his name as Maribel.17

d. Requiring a person to provide information about their medical history or proof of having undergone particular medical procedures in order to use their preferred name, pronouns, or title.

 

[WelshBloke]

Hey you’re a Welsh Bloke.
Have you heard of Sam before this thread of much concern?

Nope. Still not heard of any of their songs.

 

[Pens1566]

Why is this even a discussion? Seems a bit minor, and generally of no concern.