Try calling Cate Jenner “he” and see what happens. The tide will turn,all right. It’ll turn on you, flooding you with admonishments about which pronoun you must use when referring to Jenner.
Different venues.
Seems to me that the “PC is bad for you” issue is mostly an issue for universities and colleges (I’m not sure university students are correctly referred to as ‘kids’ though).
The threats lower school students & educators face from (mostly) conservative parents also exist of course, but that’s a different issue - both can, and do, exist at the same time.
Admonishments? ADMONISHMENTS??!?!?!
OH NOES! ADMONISHMENTS!
Are you kidding me? You say something people don’t like, and they tell you they don’t like it, and that’s a BAD thing? That’s somehow a threat to free speech, instead of being exactly how free speech is supposed to work? When people talk about “draconian consequences,” they’re talking about mean tweets?
Mean streets, mean tweets, what’s the difference? 
OK, what do you think would happen to an MSNBC contributor, on payroll, who stated on air that he or she would refuse to refer to Jenner as anything other than “he”?
I’m ageist, I own it :).
And yes, they’re different venues. My point is that “politically correct” is not actually a discussion of the threat to free speech in our country. The examples we’ve seen in universities are, every single one, either trivial or a product of a poor investigative system or a product of insufficient worker protections for faculty. What it really seems to be is a backdoor rear-guard action by people who want to preserve their ability to say ugly shit without facing any social consequences for saying it. And it’s hard for me to take that stuff seriously.
The difference being that teachers are actually facing consequences–even when they win in the end, they have their lessons disrupted by censor-happy parents. The difference being that high school kids (there I go again) are actually facing consequences: when they want to speak about being gay, they’re denied an academic honor they’ve earned.
When professors say something others don’t like, they’re investigated and exonerated.
Do you see the difference?
Are you saying that, in a business that’s comprised of nothing but words and images on a TV channel, an employer shouldn’t suspend or fire an employee for speaking words on that TV channel that went against the wishes of the employer?
Let’s look at the underlying principle first. The question seems to be predicated on this: if someone takes a private-sector job that involves offering up a certain sort of opinion to the public, and they offer a completely counter opinion, does their employer have the right to terminate their employment?
I say yes. Let’s look at four examples:
- The spokesperson for Coca-Cola says, “Actually, I think Coke tastes like beaver piss.” Fire her!
- A worker at a fancy hotel keeps telling patrons, “you know we’re overpriced, and you can get a better room down the street for half the price.” Fire him!
- A talk radio DJ on a right-wing station starts talking about how great Obamacare is. Fire her!
- An MSNBC contributor, on payroll, who stated on air that he or she would refuse to refer to Jenner as anything other than “he”. Fire him!
In some of these cases, I might be pissed at the person doing the firing, but not because of the underlying principle: I might be pissed because I think the person who got fired was talking some correct shit. But the principle, that an employer who hires someone for their willingness to express a certain opinion is able to fire that person when they express a different opinion, is perfectly fine with me.
And continuing with my theme, was it “political correctness” that got Phil Donahue fired for his muted objections to the Iraq war during the run-up to it?
If you go around trying to get people fired because they say something that upsets your political sensibilities you don’t really believe in free speech.
It’s already happened to an extent, but at some point people will just stop saying anything controversial in any medium that could be linked to their real names. If things get really bad you might see a push to link internet accounts with real names and addresses, so people can’t hide anonymously.
I’m saying there would be a shit-storm of protest from the Pronoun Police, and the person would be canned regardless of whether the employer cared one or the other, in order to quell the controversy.
If it was Fox, they might consider it a badge of honor to have offended the PP.
And I don’t know anything about Phil Donahue and the Iraq war, so don’t feel qualified to comment.
And the so called pronoun police are… Bad? Not doing anything worthwhile? Have any actual power to do anything? I mean, it’s not like transgendered people are a particularly popular minority in this country, or there wouldn’t be any need for anyone to say anything to begin with, right?
The real question is, what do YOU want to happen when this MSNBC contributor pisses off their viewers? Should the Suits not be allowed to fire this idiot? Should they be legally barred from firing someone over being an asshole? Should we make ‘asshole’ a legally protected class of people?
Let us all know how much you want to curtail the rights of the owners and operators of MSNBC to run their business the way they see fit.
Except that are no “Pronoun Police.” Yes, there are going to be a lot of people who accept that Caitlin Jenner is a woman, and want her to be referred to as one. And yes, they will be talking about the use of terminology. But it’s awfully reductionist and condescending to dismiss the broader point–that trans women are women and not just perverts or mentally ill men–as simply arguing over pronouns.
If it’s important to you (not you personally, John, but yanno) that trans women be seen as men, by all means talk about her using masculine terms. When I correct you, it’s not because I’m some sort of mindless niggler of pronouns. It’s because I think you’re wrong.
Just as I think it’s wrong to dehumanize African-Americans by calling them niggers or lazy or thugs. Just as I think it’s wrong to use “gay” as a casual insult. Or “retard,” or “jew,” or “gyp.” I’ll correct those too, and not feel one bit ashamed if someone wants to label me a member of the PC fascist elite because of it.
Bullshit. NOt that I do that anyway, but bullshit.
Completely agree. Free speech does not mean “speech free from consequences” - it’s about protection against prosecution.
Out of curiosity, what would happen to a TV anchor who went to great lengths to avoid “he” or “she” to refer to Cate Jenner, always saying “Cate Jenner” instead of “him,” “her,” “he,” “she?”
Would this obvious ducking of the issue still get the TV anchor in trouble?
People don’t like it when you call transwomen he because it denies their gender. Calling her Cate doesn’t claim she’s a man in any way, so I don’t see why there’d be a problem. You might sound stilted or awkward, which might interfere with your broadcast job though.
This is such a weird question. Why are you asking us whether someone will get in trouble with their boss? Or are you asking whether anyone would object? Of course someone would object. Are you asking if a lot of people would object? You have to add more details to figure out whether the person is acting dickish enough to make lots of people object.
nm.