I'm sorry, but this isn't a prerequisite for working in the software industry. You are not allowed to vilify someone over having an opinion about gender, just like you shouldn't fire someone for having a different opinion on it than you.
"Leah was at the time struggling with gender dysphoria and substance abuse. Since then, she has been managing these issues. She agrees that her behaviour was rash and is determined to find a unifying solution."
The people involved have moved on. The internet, however, is still trying to sling mud where there is none in an embarrassing display of social lynching and lack of loyalty to people who have done so much for human freedom.
It's not un-lawful however. If you asked them during the training for a specific law and a pointer to why they thought that it was un-lawful, you'd see pretty quickly they didn't actually have the force of law behind them.
I've been through a lot of training both at UC and in industry and a bunch of what is said simply isn't true. WHen I challenged the instructors, it became pretty clear they were just reading a script without any understanding of the actual laws and rules behind what they were saying.
"The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has also addressed pronoun use with respect to transgender individuals in the workplace. In 2013, the EEOC held in Jameson v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120130992, 2013 WL 2368729 (May 21, 2013) that repeated, intentional misuse of a transgender employee’s new name and gender pronoun may constitute sex-based discrimination or harassment. It noted that “supervisors and coworkers should use the name and pronoun of the gender that the employee identifies with in employee records and in communications with and about the employee.” In its decision, the EEOC cited guidance from the Office of Personnel Management, which encourages federal employers to use pronouns appropriate to an employee’s expressed gender identity." -- https://www.natlawreview.com/article/he-saidshe-said-pronoun...
The trainer probably wasn't a lawyer and certainly wasn't your lawyer and definitely wasn't being paid to give you legal advice. What they were telling you was what they expected you to internalize so that your behavior would keep your employer well on the safe side of the law, which includes avoiding behaviors which are not individually unlawful per se but which could easily, in combination with other factors, be part of a pattern that might support a claim of a hostile work environment.
https://legal.thomsonreuters.com/en/insights/articles/prepar...
https://ogletree.com/insights/2016-03-21/the-new-california-...
People aren't seeing the forest for the trees, while one by one prerequisite precedents are being established for a new wave of authoritarian control. In any specific context, it seems laughable-- how could the RMS snafu and authoritarian power creep possibly be connected? But it's just one data point among many.
"""We were referred to a statement released by the school's attorney, which says: "Mr. Vlaming insisted on treating a transgender student differently than other students in the classroom, singling out the student on the basis of gender identity. In addition, Mr. Vlaming refused to comply with administrators' directives to follow division policies. During the public hearing before the school board, Mr. Vlaming again stated that he would not comply with these directives. Accordingly, the school board voted unanimously to terminate his employment. """
The fired individual does not have the monetary resources to fight this in the courts.
Oh yes you are allowed to vilify someone for bullying LGBT folks. People who do this are literally attacking other people over who they are and what they cannot change. Just imagine it would be about the color of their skin. Gender identity or sexual/dating preferences are the same thing.
The IT industry must grow up and accept people who are not white, cis alpha males.
Of course you're not supposed to bully anyone. That has nothing to do with this conversation.
No proof of that.
>and made them uncomfortable
Not a crime.
>he outright fired a transgender woman from the FSF for reporting her transphobic coworker
No proof of that, no proof of the coworker being transphobic, also all of that is not a crime.
>See also https://mobile.twitter.com/_sagesharp_/status/11736371384133....
That's the same person that accused Linus Torvalds of harassment and made him quit. Coincidence?
Not a crime.
I beg your pardon? Just because the police doesn't come after you (and depending how far he went, it might have been a literal crime), doesn't mean a behavior is acceptable.
Do you have an employed job? In most work places creating a "hostile work environment" is a very good reason (and rightfully so) to be fired.
Also, Jesus, they literally classified asking someone out on a date as sexual harassment.
And by my understanding, he certainly was way more direct than asking someone out for a date. Have you seen the "pleasure cards"?
I can testify of him harassing people privately over public discussions on mailing lists.
Yes, having been asked "business or pleasure" countless times during his travel, his "pleasure card" is a nice pun on "business card". Of course, some might not like puns, so this reduces to "guy uses corny joke to introduce himself." I'm sure that never happened before.
https://fossforce.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/RMSleisure....
> I can testify of him harassing people privately over public discussions on mailing lists.
Taking disagreements off-list is now harassment instead of good form?
Feel free to reproduce exactly these harassing private exchanges here. I'm fairly sure rms wouldn't mind, so there is nothing stopping you from providing actual evidence for this particular accusation.
That's the nerdiest joke that I ever heard.
BTW this is the first time I heard the pleasure card explanation. Poor choice for a joke.
It wasn't disagreement, but aggressive harassment including legal threads.
That sounds terribly exaggerated. If this is the way to describe Stallman, what adjectives could be reserved to the much worse people out there?
You may not care about a random dude in the internet giving you an advice, but consider both sides of the coin and don't fall so quickly into manichaeism.
I struggle with names at times...
And now pronouns? Uhhhh, I bet I screw it up more than 50% of the time. The differences in people (don't say god bless you you to some indians or muslims when they sneeze, for example) are more than I can keep track of at times. Does that make me a creep?
There was one guy his chose "The Great and Powerful <something>" for his pronoun. Yeah, I'll remember that...
At what point do you become a creep for not remembering? At what point do you become a target for the SJW hit squad?
But I you really try to remember, but can't overcome your programming (I do that often with my non-binary acquaintances, it's hard as fuck, but I guess I'm getting old as well ¯\_(ツ)_/¯) then you are a human being that tries to be respectful. And that's a good thing! So take a look in the mirror and try to see which one you are and ignore those disrespectful human beings that would call you a creep for not remembering.
BTW as I have long blond hair I'm called madam quite often and learned not to be bothered by it though I'm a cis hetero white male. Furthermore it comes often from children, who speak the truth as everyone knows. So grow a spine and fight, don't nag everyone else to be nice. People aren't nice. The world isn't any more just than we make it. And lynching (even symbolically) isn't the way to get a just world. Victims aren't noble. Fighters are. See Malcolm X. MLK. Rosa Luxemburg. Daniel Guérin.
Have you ever been forced to use a women's bathroom because of your, probably fabulous, hair?
On the other hand, how many different toilets should there be in your world? Should non transgender women be allowed in women's toilets? That has been an actual question and an actual problem to solve in the world of infinitely exploded communities of precious snowflakes (in the very same order of absurdity, should veiled white women allowed in "coloured women only" meetings? what about transgender black women?).
As food for thought, if you believe that, as a white cis male, I'm a born oppressor, I've also been actually harassed, publicly humiliated, attacked and beaten for being "a fag" (you know, long blond hair), because homophobes don't really care about who you actually are, and also beaten for defending women harassed on the street (because machos/sexists are also generally violent).
In the global competition for victimhood, nobody can win. Who knows what humiliations RMS was subjected to for being ugly, fat, an asocial geek, etc. Maybe he used the power he has in some sets and circumstances in despicable ways. But so do the students at Evergreen, because that's just what human beings do. Being an aggressor or a victim is mostly circumstantial for most people.
Do you think that the person who looked at you and proceeded to call you a fag showed you respect?
I've worked for a doctor doing sex change treatments, a long time ago. I've seen people that suffered incredibly. Some of them looked like caricatures, but that was certainly not funny. I took, naturally, great care in calling them "sir" or "madam" as they expected (and it sometimes required actual effort, and it was poignant and upsetting just thinking of the looks these persons must have received back outdoors).
However I don't feel like wanting to be called some very special pronoun that nobody ever heard of because you're oh so special falls into the same category. I don't feel that people wanting to be in their own very special niche class of genre, race or whatever category is sane, good and healthy, or some form of progress. Happiness isn't finding some form of very individualistic achievement.
1) That's not a feeling, that's an opinion. 2) And really? Do you think you have the answer to how people should find "happiness". Then you should write one more book on the subject and become another self help millionaire. You seem appropriately sure of yourself so, go nuts!
This seems acceptable to me. Stallman has always been weird with word choice but I see no bad intent here.
And to other's that seems like he doesn't respect the wishes of others and instead behaves in a way that is logically sound in his own mind. That's not a crime. Just a disrespectful way of behaving that generates antagonists instead of friends.
Side note: "per" is very funny to me as a swede since it's a super common traditionally(exclusively?) male name.
Please define "others". It should be a definition that is not only "transgender people". Could it be "all the people in the world that is not you"?
If so, it is impossible to please them all. Some will contradict each other. It will generate antagonists or you will be seen as rude whenever you want it or not.
So you may decide you will be siding and pleasing those "others" who are "right" (based on your personal preference only). But at the same time, not everyone who is "not right" is necessarily "wrong".
I'm not siding with anyone, and I won't tell if I use or not special pronouns. But today the discussion is about pronouns. Tomorrow, who knows? Up to where are you willing to bend?
That goes both ways though.
I'd be more wary of the people with low integrity who just say what others want to hear, they change their speech but doesn't actually change their behavior and will still discriminate and undermine groups even when forced to change their speech pattern.
Stallman seems to me like a person with an extremely high level of integrity, if a normal person believe that voluntary pedophilia is fine they would just shut up and join the mob but not Stallman. He faced his world view head on and no longer believe that pedophilia is fine, and we can be pretty sure that he actually changed since he doesn't buckle to pressure. The same can not be said about most politicians and other conventional leaders.
I don't really understand this. When I'm talking to an adopted child, I have no trouble calling their parents their parents, even though they're objectively guardians. When I'm dining with religious folks, I have no trouble saying "Amen" or some such phrase from their religion despite me being an atheist.
Saying something you don't objectively believe out of consideration for others' feelings is normal, and it's fairly basic manners.
Yep, they're the worst in my book as well.
How is that not respecting others?
One could also make claim that choosing some ridiculous new pronoun is disrespectful of others. People were content with he/she for thousands of years and some could consider inventing new ones similar to 1984's Newspeak.
Of course, but that hypothetical person who put forward this claim doesn't subscribe to the generally accepted definition of respect so I don't see why we should discuss that person.
Ok. Now I understand. Read my comment again. We're talking about hypotetical person A who claims that another hypothetical B person who wants to be called by a ridiculous pronoun is disrespectful.
A says that B is disrespectful.
I said that it is A who doesn't know what respect is.
Sorry that you got confused.
> Respect, also is called esteem, is a positive feeling or action shown towards someone or something considered important, or held in high esteem or regard. It conveys a sense of admiration for good or valuable qualities. And it is also the process of honoring someone by exhibiting care, concern, or consideration for their needs or feelings.
My emphasis. I don't know if you define "respect" in your own way or you only care about people's feeling if they have a certain skill level or have achieved/contributed enough.
I haven't met someone yet who has preferences outside of that. But you know what? If I met one, it would cost me virtually nothing to respect their preferences and make them feel seen.
And to be clear -- it's absolutely fine (usually) to make mistakes, so long as you're making an effort to be respectful. It's not ideal to not remember someone's pronouns (and again, 99% of the time when it's different than what you'd expect, it's either "he", "she", or "they"), but it's also usually not the end of the world -- most people I know, myself included, are fine if you say "oops! my bad".
Intentions go a long way.
I thought I covered that in 2 ways...
1) Random thoughts from an old guy
2) I was giving an example of the differences between people.
I have been chastised in the past for saying bless you to some people. I've kind of trained myself now to say "Maay the diety of your choice bless you" in some cirumstances but I also get chastised for that. I've also been chastised for remaining silent. So, what choice do I make here to not be "creepy".
For whatever it's worth.
I always say "gesundheit", which is normal in German (it translates to "health"). As a non-religious person, I don't understand why religious people always want to push religion on everyone around them.
The other thing you can do is just not say anything at all when someone sneezes. Asian cultures don't have this practice at all.
I'm not religious at all and I still say "bless you" since it's from the culture I grew up with of wishing others well. If anyone finds that offensive then they certainly have more issues than I do.
You're not just wishing them better health; you're wishing that your preferred deity magically give them better health. So you're pushing your faith in that deity on that person.
>I'm not religious at all and I still say "bless you" since it's from the culture I grew up
The culture I grew up in (America, specifically the South) does the same thing. It also has other great things in its "culture", like murdering black people with nooses during the Jim Crow days, and generally being intolerant of people who are different. "The culture I grew up in" is not a good excuse for bad behavior, and that includes pushing religion on people.
As for culture, sure, every single one is at some point guilty of crimes against humanity such as in my country [1], [2], etc and we must be able to look past those things as otherwise it's impossible to change for the better.
We will be different, have different beliefs, different sexuality, different colours of skin, and different languages to convey our thoughts. If we continue to see even an act of kindness as hostile then I don't have much hope people will ever get over differences. It shouldn't be different if they're Christian, Sunni, or any else and extend their greeting in their way to you along with their own way of wishing you well. What matters most is the intention rather than if they're from the same faith as you.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilisation_in_Sw... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midsummer_crisis
This may come as a shock to you, but there's a lot of people in the world who don't have any "preferred deity", and really don't appreciate religious people trying to push their myths on them.
>It's rather sad that even an act of kindness is now seen as bad behaviour simply from refusal to accept that we have different ways of showing it.
This reminds me of Christians who want to give food to starving people, but only if they sit and listen to some stupid sermon trying to get them to convert.
If you want to be kind, then don't tie your "act of kindness" to your belief system in an attempt to convert others to it.
This is generally an American problem too. Other cultures, even when they do have a religion, don't really care about pushing it on others. Even in Europe, most modern-day Christians there seem to keep their religion very private (hence why Germans say "gesundheit" when someone sneezes, even though Germany is traditionally a Christian country).
Well I live in Europe as I'm Swedish; in the UK it's common to say "bless you" while in Sweden we usually say "prosit" (the two I've spent a significant portion of my life in). The former would even be from those not following Christian traditions but rather as stated before. This seems to reflect the trend in quite a few others in Europe such as Spain, Ireland, Wales (UK), etc.
Again, most of it isn't an attempt at "converting" or even some other hidden motive. It may be different in other parts of the world but from the places I've lived in Europe it's been as I've stated.
Would you mind providing a citation for this? I am legitimately curious, Leah for example retracted their comments on the issue.
> Not to mention his refusal to respect the pronouns of trans, queer, and nonbinary folks.
Please elaborate. This is the first time that I hear of such an accusation.
> See also https://mobile.twitter.com/_sagesharp_/status/11736371384133....
I don't see anything wrong there. What is wrong with believing that victimless crimes should be legal? Also, asking someone on a date is harassment now? What?
He says that he took it from "Marge Piercy's book Woman on the Edge of Time"
> He refuses to respect singular "they".
He says "As for \"they\", if you are plural by nature — for instance, if you are a colonial organism or a group mind, or if you wish to be known for having multiple personalities — I will use that plural pronoun to refer to you.", which seems fair to me.
Singular "they" is common English. Not respecting it seems unfair to me.
He's extreme in following his dogma. If he believes "they" is plural in nature, he will refuse to use that as a singular - and that is not because he disrespects you, but because he thinks "this is the right thing to do".
If you believe it's fair to have a particular personality that requires other persons to call you "they".... doesn't it follow that it's fair to have a particular personality that makes you feel very bad about "misusing English"? It's really two sides of the same coin, if you believe a person has the right to decide what pronouns he's comfortable being called, you must also believe a person has the right to decide how he uses a particular pronoun. The essential thing here is that RMS doesn't avoid "they" out of disrespect, but out of his own particular weirdness/ peculiarity... something that we should be able to respect.
It leaves a bad taste in my mouth when people leap to the defense of people in positions of institutional and cultural power who behave in a way that disempowers and dehumanizes marginalized people.
See also https://mobile.twitter.com/_sagesharp_/status/11736371384133...