ECT Hypothetical for literalist Bible believers

[musterion]

Here's the situation. Your company hired an employee who recently "switched genders." She has had her name legally changed to a decidedly male name, dresses as a male, etc.

The company says that a person's legal name is their legal name so they must be addressed as such.

Let's say you're willing to go that far with this; wrong or not the law is the law, and you need to work. So you agree to refer to the person by the legalized name (or maybe you'd refuse even that, you tell me) but that's as close to affirming anything about this as you're willing to get.

Here's where the trouble really starts.

One of your duties is to put things in writing, some of which unavoidably refers at length to employees. You do not want to call a biological woman "he" or "him," and the company's policy on THIS point is not yet clear . . . but you know that once it's noticed (and it will be) that you're avoiding this, the person in question will complain that the "correct" pronouns are being deliberately avoided, which equals harassment, bigotry, lawsuits, etc.

At this point, the foundational issue of free speech vs compelled speech will kick in. In today's madhouse society you cannot know how this is going to go, if it goes south. Which it's likely to do if you stand on principles your company does not/cannot afford to share.

What would you do?

Would you figure that since you've already agreed to call them by their now-legal male name, you may as well call her "him"?

Would you draw the line at using what you know is the biologically incorrect pronoun, and refuse to do so?

I posted a hypothetical like this about a year ago re: a person who asked to be called a name belonging to someone of the opposite sex but had no legal change in place. This hypothetical is different because the legal name change is already in place.

 

[Sherman]

Sadly, this is a thorny issue that does exist in today's morally relativistic society. We have a very vocal minority that thinks they can trump the free speech of others and force compelled speech.

I can also see how this thread can attract trolls. So I will be kicking anyone who trolls or is disruptive. Sensible dialog on this topic only please.

 

[Tambora]

I would call them he or she according to their biological makeup no matter what their name is.

And I will follow with another question.

What kind of person would want to see another person get into trouble over such a thing to the point of getting them fired and unable to support their family?
That's would be the true hate crime in my opinion.

 

[genuineoriginal]

English contains three gender pronouns and they should be used.
"He" is for male, "she" is for female, and "it" is for whatever is not male nor female.
If a biological female does not want to be called by the "she" pronoun, then the only real choice left is to call the gender confused person "it", amiright?

 

[musterion]

English contains three gender pronouns and they should be used.
"He" is for male, "she" is for female, and "it" is for whatever is not male nor female.
If a biological female does not want to be called by the "she" pronoun, then the only real choice left is to call the gender confused person "it", amiright?

Try getting away with it.

Like Jordan Peterson in Canada has been saying, the problem isn't so much words that can't be said; we have always had those for (usually) very reasonable issues of safety, propriety, societal cohesion, etc. The issue now is when government tells you there are things you MUST say, even if it knows you disagree...or ESPECIALLY when it knows you disagree.

 

[patrick jane]

After thinking only a little bit about it, I would want to keep my job for sure but I would make the effort to use only the word "person" maybe. Similar to the legal system and law enforcement use. I can't see how they could stop you or fire you for doing that. I would avoid saying "he" or "she" or any derivative thereof.

 

[glorydaz]

I would call them whatever they wanted to be called, as long as they looked enough like that gender. If a man had a big beard and wanted to be called a woman, I doubt I could manage to refer to him as a woman.

 

[musterion]

I would avoid saying "he" or "she" or any derivative thereof.

They're looking specifically for that.

 

[musterion]

I would call them whatever they wanted to be called, as long as they looked enough like that gender. If a man had a big beard and wanted to be called a woman, I doubt I could manage to refer to him as a woman.

I couldn't. For me, it would be upholding them in their lie.

XY or XX. A skirt or flannel shirt, or new name, can't change it.

 

[patrick jane]

They're looking specifically for that.

How could they argue if you use legal terms like, person. Will they start saying that that's discrimination too? What a crazy world.

 

[Nihilo]

They, them, their.

 

[musterion]

How could they argue if you use legal terms like, person. Will they start saying that that's discrimination too? What a crazy world.

You will call them what they want you to call them, against logic and biology.

In 1984, O'Brien tortured Smith until he saw that 2 + 2 = 5 only because the Party wanted to hear him say it did, not because it actually was 4.

 

[musterion]

They, them, their.

Avoidance is not allowed. They'll use that as proof of bigotry.

 

[glorydaz]

I couldn't. For me, it would be upholding them in their lie.

XY or XX. A skirt or flannel shirt, or new name, can't change it.

Reminds me of Crocodile Dundee.
Remember how he started grabbing people's crotch in order to make sure what they were? :shocked:

I'm a firm believer in people walking according to their convictions, so if you feel you'd be upholding them in their lie, then you do right to not do so.

Personally, I don't consider it a battle worth fighting, and I'm afraid I would just be giving them what they want.... ammunition to play the martyr. :idunno:

 

[musterion]

Reminds me of Crocodile Dundee.
Remember how he started grabbing people's crotch in order to make sure what they were? :shocked:

I'm a firm believer in people walking according to their convictions, so if you feel you'd be upholding them in their lie, then you do right to not do so.

Personally, I don't consider it a battle worth fighting, and I'm afraid I would just be giving them what they want.... ammunition to play the martyr. :idunno:

Except the person who won't agree ends up the martyr.

 

[glorydaz]

Except the person who won't agree ends up the martyr.

Only short term.

 

[musterion]

True.

 

[Danoh]

Except the person who won't agree ends up the martyr.

I know what you mean.

Logged back on just now.

To find myself kicked off three more threads just today - for having spoken my mind.

:chuckle:

What hypocrites.

Do your thing "mod."

Rom. 5: 6-8.

 

[musterion]

Your incorrigible condescension and sniping led to that. Consider some input for a moment.

First, you are not the victim here. Everything that has happened and is happening is your fault.

Example: you keep complaining about how people read into what you say. The problem there is that, often, you're not as clear a communicator as you think.

Take JohnW for an example: blunt, harsh, even uncharitable at times, but NO ONE is left with the slightest doubt of what point he's making, ever. They disagree with him, no doubt hate him, but even the dimmest understand him.

You (and you're not alone in this) do not communicate anywhere near his level of clarity, all style, personality and attitude issues aside. What you post often raises more questions than it answers because of HOW you phrased something. It happens so often that I sometimes wonder if it's deliberate but in any case, that's your fault.

Second, what is also your fault is that you exhibit no real interest in telling people (MADs) what they're asking to know. I think you've already figured this out: people don't have a problem with what you do say as often as with what you WON'T say. It's almost like you enjoy being a constant goad against MADs while refusing to get down to the wire with our questions about what YOU really think about us. You seem to enjoy being a moving target while proclaiming to be carving your thoughts on stone in small letters that any fool can understand. But that's not the way it is. And you have to know it. Why do you do this? Because that would put a stop to all your fun? Because there's no "there" there? Dunno. But there is a reason for it, and it's not because you don't trust Sherman.

There's one sure fire way to prove all of that wrong.

The offer for you to freely speak your mind and lay out your case against TOL's MADs, defended from all disruption by Sherman, is still open. She's promised that's how it'd go. Quoting MADs verbatim, no one posting but you, the mic is all yours, if that's how you want it.

The more you beg off and stall, while continuing to snipe and call us all sorts of names THAT YOU NEVER SUBSTANTIATE, the more some of us have to believe that you don't WANT to clarify what you really believe about us.

Again...one way to prove that wrong.

 

[Interplanner]

The problem with D'ist literalists is that when you get to the right pinchpoints, they are not literal. They are wildly deviant about Acts 13:32, Acts 2:30, Eph 3:6, Heb 12:22, etc, among others. Rom 11 especially is always a matter of protecting precious D'ist resources, then after that what the text actually says.