50 years ago you could tell Janice that she shouldn’t be working outside of the kitchen, or that she has great tits, or (if she’s black) that she needs to call you “sir” and better not look you in the eye; most likely none of that would get you fired.
You’re not really saying that we should go back to those times, are you?
This is just a natural evolution of that strain of decency and compassion that has been, mostly intentionally, injected into workplaces (and society in general). Backyard chickens and automotive choices are not intensely personal topics for the vast majority of people. Gender identity is. Just don’t talk about intensely personal stuff with people who are not very, very close intimate friends, partners, or relatives. Don’t do it in the workplace, and in general don’t do it outside the workplace.
We’re still a long way from this actually being a universal rule – there are still tons of jerks out there who go unpunished, socially or otherwise. But don’t be a jerk, and questioning someone’s gender identity, publicly and when they haven’t hurt anyone or done anything else deceitful, is being a jerk.
And there’s nothing new about this idea of social consequences. If you say certain specific things in public, many or most people aren’t going to want to associate with you. This was true in 1900, true in 1950, and true today. Which things lead to those consequences have changed in many ways, but it’s always been true. There have always been “forbidden” positions to take on issues publicly. This is just a consequence of the freedom of association.
Yes, but there was always solid logic behind them. Blacks should not be treated as second class citizens. Women should be treated equally in the workplace. Even if a person in 1950 disagreed with that, they understood the idea, even if at the end of the day the argument that they put forward was lost.
This is a rather nuanced thing that my OP sort of fleshed out in that there needs to be an understanding of the argument—something beyond “this person wants it this way.” Everyone wants things to go their way. The “don’t be a jerk” rule might work for the SDMB but cannot be one for society because of its malleability and vagueness. Someone in 1950 could have said that race mixing was jerkish behavior. That is more question begging and doesn’t help solve this issue.
I think the difference is that questioning their supporting the NY Rangers is not questioning who they are. I think you would agree that telling someone at work that they are stupid for following religion X will likely get you into trouble, or that they are crazy for wearing that head scarf or whatever. And yet, religion seems like less of what someone is than their gender. It’s certainly the case that more people switch religions than switch genders.
Anyway, I appreciate your approach on this so far!
But “don’t be a jerk” has been what’s worked. There are still lots of people who have sexist thoughts. Why don’t they all voice them at the workplace? Because they (or at least many of them) know they’ll get in trouble for being a jerk. Maybe they think it’s unjust, but it still keeps them from saying this shit out loud. That’s a good thing. It’s a bad thing when it keeps people in the closet (as it did in the past), but it still worked (meaning it was effective) even then.
What you’re asking for – an explanation for everything – is impossible. You’re never going to understand everyone’s innermost thoughts and desires. Just try not to be a jerk.
I think an even more important difference is historical/social context. If folks who followed the Rangers had spent decades facing social ostracization, murderous violence, and economic devastation for speaking of their love for the Rangers, it’d be a lot shittier to tell someone they were crazy for being a Rangers fan.
There’s a long and overwhelming history of terrible treatment of trans folk in our society. We’re slowly getting past that. Maybe 200 years from ow, we’ll have reached the point where a cis person can joke with a trans person, calling them “crazy” in the same way you’d call a Rangers fan “crazy.” But that’s only going to happen once there’s no living memory of terrible oppression for trans folk.
I bit the hook and then spit it out. How is a pregnant man a man? Because he/she says so? That was part of the OP.
Aren’t I being a jerk if I say that Jane has a pretty ugly ass car or that her husband is a dick? That’s pretty jerkish, but jerkishness isn’t the standard. I think you have to justify why a person claiming to be a certain gender, after having done things that is opposite to the things that gender does, should still be considered, under pains and penalties of social ostracization of being fired.
Again, I think you must do that to bring everyone on board. We can agree that nobody should be second class citizens, but you can’t make anyone believe that we should defer to an individual on all choices…only gender and nothing else?
Because society can be wrong.
This is the core distinction between a progressive and a conservative view of society, right?
A conservative in…
1850: “Why should society have to conform to what those radical republicans up north want?”
1900: “Why should society have to conform to what those suffragettes want?”
1950: “Why should society have to conform to what those feminists want?”
1960: “Why should society have to conform to what those black folks want?”
1980: “Why should society have to conform to what those homosexuals want?”
2022: “Why should society have to conform to what those trans folks want?”
And so, so, so many more examples.
But really, how often is social progressivism on the wrong side of history? When have we ever looked back on an expansion of equality and personhood and said, “oh man, no, that was a terrible idea?”
Keep in mind that my OP was not about transpeople. Only those like “pregnant men” who don’t really seem to want to transition because, if you were a man, you wouldn’t bear children…
You might get written up by HR if you say to a coworker that their car is ugly, at least if you don’t already have a joking friendship. Minor-league jerkishness like that can still have relatively minor consequences.
Could be. To me, the difference is questioning something fundamental to to a person rather than something they like. I mean, Christians haven’t been persecuted in the US for a while now, if ever, and yet making fun of someone’s Christianity, for taking holidays, for wearing a cross, or whatever, would still get you in trouble.
OP, would you expect to be fired if you just decided to call some cis-man a woman all the time? Referred to him by Jane instead of John, and “her” instead of “him” in emails?
The reason to consider them men is that there’s zero cost in doing so, and plenty of cost (meaning the harm of deep personal offense) to not doing so.
Is that a good enough reason for you?
Me, personally? Sure. I can roll with that. But there are a hell of a lot of angry people who are also mad at me for my position who that isn’t good enough for. You (and I) need something better to convince them because what you are doing is striking at the core of what used to be mainstream, rural society. You have to give them a good reason besides “shut up and do it.”
They’re not going to be convinced, any more than their grandparents (most of them, anyway) were ever convinced that gay people shouldn’t be prevented from getting married or adopting kids, shunned, locked up, or executed.
Keep in mind that gender is not strictly binary, and there are gradations. I’m sure there are plenty of transmen that think that having a baby would make them less of a man and would refuse to do that. There are others, for example Eliot Page, who identifies as male, but also accepts they/them as pronouns. If -100 is all male and +100 is all female, then a transman who thinks about himself at around the -50 point may be fine with having a baby, but one that thinks about himself at -100 may not want to.
There are lots of women who don’t want to be mothers, but that doesn’t make them less of a woman. Why would wanting a baby make a transman less of a man?
I disagree vehemently. They could be convinced if there wasn’t such a “they are morons” attitude towards them.
I mean, this is clearly false. There are still racists and homophobes around, and nothing is convincing them.
Those who are capable of being convinced will be, eventually, the same way you were - by recognizing that these are just people, and there’s no cost to treating them as they’re asking to be treated.
As a general rule of thumb, you may comment on what people do, not on who they are.
Exceptions probably exist, but following that, you’ll be good 99% of the time.
But I’m not. I’m 90% there for the board rules discussion, but not there on the “pregnant men” thing. And these guys aren’t KKK members. They could hear a good argument. Let’s give it to (me) and them. I haven’t heard it yet. I would like to. I don’t like disagreeing with anyone because I generally think that society should respect personal choices, but there is a lot of logic missing here with this one. I AGREE with my opponents on that. They ask a straight question: How does a person who identifies as a man want to carry a child?
I have no answer for that.