Current Events > My manager keeps misgendering one of my coworkers

(+) Yeah! (+)

shockthemonkey posted...

Id think youd take the hint when everyone explains why your hypothetical is irrelevant bullshit but you keep tripling down on it for no good reason.

It's almost entirely been you. Nobody else has outright insisted to know better what my words me than me like you have. Nobody else has ever consistently dodge and explicit question like they are Donald Trump or something.

"Do you think it might be productive to understand those you disagree with?"
"I'M NOT GOING TO ENTERTAIN THAT TRANSPHOBIC SHIT!!!! RARG RARG YOU ARE SO DUMB"

Like ok man, think that, I'm quite satisfied that if you took a transcript of our interaction and put it in front of a normal person they'd recognize that you aren't at all communicating in good faith.
---

At least it wasn't an "attack helicopter" hypothetical, I guess
---

joe40001 posted...

Anteaterking posted...

joe40001 posted...

Sir Will posted...

joe40001 posted...

Hmm. So obviously people/bosses should be kind and respectful to their employees. Though I could see the argument being made that "if somebody doesn't believe people can actually change their gender, should they be legally forced to change their mind on it?"

If the boss just was honest and said "look, I personally don't think you are actually a male and that's why I say 'she'" would that make them an evil bigot?

Kinda. Especially if, yeah, one is still being a dick and using the wrong pronouns. Also, requiring people to use the proper pronoun would not be 'forcing them to change their mind on it'.

Let's push the hypothetical to extremes.

Let's say somebody prefers to be addressed as Doctor, even though they aren't a doctor and never got a PhD. Are you being a dick if you refuse to do that?

The difference between the two is that one is an earned title (Dr.) and the other is part of someone's identity (and don't waste my time with "Someone's identity could be based on them having a PhD". *I* have a PhD and that's not an inherent aspect of a person).

Like it would be weird for your assistant manager to insist on using your birth name when you've gone by your middle name your whole life because that's part of your identity and the only reason for them to refuse to do so would be some weird interpersonal thing.

I acknowledge this. There are 2 parts to the boss's actions and this question one only addresses 1 component. That doesn't mean it's a bad question because it is not meant to imply these scenarios are equivalent.

I'll restate some of what I said before:
The issue is there is somebody chronically misgendering somebody and it seems to be causing that person distress so I want to break apart the certain elements, there seem to be 2 elements involved in my estimation:

1. A person not believing just because you identify as a gender you are that gender. (This is not being discussed in the hypothetical)
2. The question of if a person is a dick if they refuse to say something they believe to be untrue, if not saying it distresses somebody.

For us to have a full discussion we have to tease apart both of those questions, so that's what this hypothetical question is meant to address, element 2, and it addresses it in a scenario where nobody would disagree that the non-doctor is a doctor.

Let's be incredibly generous to transphobes for a second.

Regardless of whether you think that transgender people are "diseased" or whatever, the fact remains that there is a real "condition" that society acknowledges exists where people think that they are the opposite gender and this disagreement between the gender they were assigned at birth leads to depression, suicide, etc. AND there is documented evidence that this condition is real.

On the other hand, "believing you have a doctorate when you don't" isn't a real medical condition, so how you treat that in a workplace is completely different both legally and "morally".
---

shockthemonkey posted...

No one has entertained your hypothetical beyond pointing out how irrelevant it is to this topic. There is a good reason for that.

Anteaterking and I were having a good faith discussion about it.

Look if you can't wrap your head around the idea that a question is the words and meanings and not your emotional response to the question that again is your issue.

The fact of the matter is that you have consistently disregarded the words as written. There is simply no way to categorize that type of interaction other than "bad faith communication".

If you want to have a conversation between you and the things you project onto what I say (rather than the substance of what I say). That's your choice, I guess, but ultimately you must recognize that that is just you having an argument with yourself.
---

I haven't read the topic,so this is just my opinion from the op. Yeah I think you should go to HR. If you had asked me even a year ago I'd have said who gives a shit. But I've gone through a lot of changes this year on a lot of things. Let go of hate that only serves to hold me back. I still don't completely understand all the stuff about transgender stuff. But I'm trying. We all just need to be nicer to each other.

---

Anteaterking posted...

Let's be incredibly generous to transphobes for a second.

Regardless of whether you think that transgender people are "diseased" or whatever, the fact remains that there is a real "condition" that society acknowledges exists where people think that they are the opposite gender and this disagreement between the gender they were assigned at birth leads to depression, suicide, etc. AND there is documented evidence that this condition is real.

On the other hand, "believing you have a doctorate when you don't" isn't a real medical condition, so how you treat that in a workplace is completely different both legally and "morally".

Ok so just sticking with this second component of the discussion, if there was socially acknowledge condition anchored in something demonstrably untrue. Say needing to believe a dead spouse is alive, or needing to believe you are a younger age than you are, or some extreme body dysmorphia issues like believing you shouldn't have an arm that you have or that you are half or twice the height you really are.

If such things existed and there was cultural and scientific evidence that not indulging the untrue reality of the person causes them significant distress. Would a person be a dick if they still chose to not acknowledge that untrue reality?
---

shockthemonkey posted...

The dude who is comparing lying about being a doctor to being trans is accusing me of bad faith communication

I have explained multiple times how it was not a comparison but a hypothetical meant to parse out the issues. By ignoring that and projecting your own mischaracterization, you once again proved my point that you are communicating in bad faith.
---

joe40001 posted...

Would a person be a dick if they still chose to not acknowledge that untrue reality?

If the person could perform the duties of their job and all it required of you was to not say "Dude your spouse is dead!", then yeah.

Like the core issue with many of the examples that you just came up with is that the "solutions" to many of these are far more substantial than just using a different pronoun. It's hard for me to imagine that someone could have some of those other conditions and still be able to function in the workplace.

When you run into someone who claims to be a woman on the street, do you inspect their genitals to find out "the truth"? Do you make a judgment call on whether they "pass" enough for you to not be like "Sorry, you're too ugly for me to call you a 'she' "? Of course not. Then why does having the knowledge that this person who identifies as a different gender than they were assigned, who lives their life as a different gender than they are assigned, cause such a need to make sure that you refer to them by their birth pronouns/name.

I still think the name example is the best corollary. I have a friend whose birth name is John but he goes by Jake. Now imagine if it caused him great distress for me to call him John, for whatever reason. Would insisting on calling him John anyway because it's on his birth certificate make me a bad person? Duh.
---

Anteaterking posted...

joe40001 posted...

Would a person be a dick if they still chose to not acknowledge that untrue reality?

If the person could perform the duties of their job and all it required of you was to not say "Dude your spouse is dead!", then yeah.

Like the core issue with many of the examples that you just came up with is that the "solutions" to many of these are far more substantial than just using a different pronoun. It's hard for me to imagine that someone could have some of those other conditions and still be able to function in the workplace.

When you run into someone who claims to be a woman on the street, do you inspect their genitals to find out "the truth"? Do you make a judgment call on whether they "pass" enough for you to not be like "Sorry, you're too ugly for me to call you a 'she' "? Of course not. Then why does having the knowledge that this person who identifies as a different gender than they were assigned, who lives their life as a different gender than they are assigned, cause such a need to make sure that you refer to them by their birth pronouns/name.

I still think the name example is the best corollary. I have a friend whose birth name is John but he goes by Jake. Now imagine if it caused him great distress for me to call him John, for whatever reason. Would insisting on calling him John anyway because it's on his birth certificate make me a bad person? Duh.

Well the name is certainly the best example if the theory is that gender like a name is not tied to any truth testable element of reality.

The issue is that pronouns come up in casual conversation, and so if pronouns had to contain the information of whether somebody's spouse is alive or something then the person would have to face the same issue. So in that scenario would they be a dick if they chose the pronoun for spouse was dead rather than spouse was alive?

I want to be clear, I'm not trying to say things like "X is an apt comparison to trans people" but rather explore "should somebody be expected to something they believe to be untrue, if saying what they believe to be the truth is going to cause significant emotional distress to somebody". Once we parse out that, the overall best way to deal with the boss might be more simple to figure out.

(On a side note: A simpler strategy the boss could adopt is always just call the person by their name rather than their pronoun, because I think everybody is more or less fine with people changing their name to whatever they want. But this is a side comment and not part of the discussion of issue 2.)
---

shockthemonkey posted...

joe40001 posted...

shockthemonkey posted...

The dude who is comparing lying about being a doctor to being trans is accusing me of bad faith communication

I have explained multiple times how it was not a comparison but a hypothetical meant to parse out the issues. By ignoring that and projecting your own mischaracterization, you once again proved my point that you are communicating in bad faith.

There are no issues to parse out here other than the managers behavior.

Thank you, this is a much more fair and direct comment. I effectively agree with this, however I think it is both relevant and useful to understand the thinking of the manager to best respond to them.

Because we do have the option to have schadenfreude and hate towards the manager, but if we have empathy for the trans person experiencing distress we should set as the top priority alleviating that distress for that person, and to do that we would have to communicate with the manager in a way likely to make a difference, and to that we likely need to parse out and understand their thinking.
---

Jesus
---

joe40001 posted...

Well the name is certainly the best example if the theory is that gender like a name is not tied to any truth testable element of reality.

The issue is that pronouns come up in casual conversation, and so if pronouns had to contain the information of whether somebody's spouse is alive or something then the person would have to face the same issue. So in that scenario would they be a dick if they chose the pronoun for spouse was dead rather than spouse was alive?

I want to be clear, I'm not trying to say things like "X is an apt comparison to trans people" but rather explore "should somebody be expected to something they believe to be untrue, if saying what they believe to be the truth is going to cause significant emotional distress to somebody". Once we parse out that, the overall best way to deal with the boss might be more simple to figure out.

I'm not even going to even pretend the bolded sentence makes any sense.

I think your framing of this a "truthful testable element of reality" is doing a lot of heavy lifting of your argument here. The people who are gung-ho about misgendering people still do it if the person has transitioned, at which point you're basing it on something that your average person has no way of testing: the chromosomes of the person in question. None of my employers have ever had any "proof" that I was born a man (I mean I guess I lived in a state where that was the sex listed on your driver's license, but that's neither here nor there).

I think the whole reason @shockthemonkey is saying that this is a bad faith argument is because you're ultimately just reaching for a reason to say that misgendering doesn't make you a dick. If a transgender person walked up to me on the street and introduced themselves as "Katie", maybe there's something about them that would make me suspect that they were previously male-presenting, but ultimately there's nothing within the realm of regular human interaction where I could verify that outside of them volunteering that information to me. So why when someone volunteers that information to me is it suddenly vital for me to get their gender "correct" (i.e. refer to them as the gender they were born as)?
---

*popcorn*

Anteaterking posted...

I think your framing of this a "truthful testable element of reality" is doing a lot of heavy lifting of your argument here. The people who are gung-ho about misgendering people still do it if the person has transitioned, at which point you're basing it on something that your average person has no way of testing: the chromosomes of the person in question. None of my employers have ever had any "proof" that I was born a man (I mean I guess I lived in a state where that was the sex listed on your driver's license, but that's neither here nor there).

I think the whole reason @shockthemonkey is saying that this is a bad faith argument is because you're ultimately just reaching for a reason to say that misgendering doesn't make you a dick. If a transgender person walked up to me on the street and introduced themselves as "Katie", maybe there's something about them that would make me suspect that they were previously male-presenting, but ultimately there's nothing within the realm of regular human interaction where I could verify that outside of them volunteering that information to me. So why when someone volunteers that information to me is it suddenly vital for me to get their gender "correct" (i.e. refer to them as the gender they were born as)?

I am trying to find a consensus to the question "Is somebody speaking in such a way that very much distresses somebody else, but is in keeping with their understanding of true reality, are they being a dick?"

Saying "well how truth testible is gender really?" Is a very valid point, but it is talking about the other component of the 2 components. The 2 main components of this problem are:

1. A person is whatever gender they identify as (this is likely where the boss isn't on board, which leads to the problem)
2. Is a person a dick if they refuse to say something they believe to be untrue, if not saying it severely distresses somebody?

Yeah it is easy to just say "the boss is a hateful bigot, who hates trans people because they get off on being evil and hateful", I don't think this stance is likely accurate and it likely isn't productive. If the goal is communicating to the boss in a way that helps the trans person we kinda need to understand the boss which is why we're having this discussion.

We aren't litigating if a FtM is REALLY Male because that statement is largely assume to be true in this context, but likely assumed to be false by the boss.

So instead to get through to them we have to parse out if you are a dick for using pronouns you believe to be in keeping with reality. If the answer is yes then the message to the boss is "look, it doesn't matter what you think the truth is, not using the pronoun this person identifies with is very distressing for them. Please use the one they identify with, even if you disagree"

If the answer is no then we have to figure out a different approach.

That's why it is important to answer this element of the question which I've tried to frame in various hypotheticals. But we can also answer the question as stated explicitly.
---

shockthemonkey posted...

A person who deliberately misgenders someone else is an asshole. Period.

Simply calling them an asshole isn't likely to get them to stop. Understanding their thinking and then communicating with them might.
---

joe40001 posted...

Simply calling them an asshole isn't likely to get them to stop. Understanding their thinking and then communicating with them might.

i often have such conversations with the local lion at the zoo. "you won't eat me right?" i hear him growl every time i walk by the cage. lol! but since talking to him he's settled down a lot
---

joe40001 posted...

I am trying to find a consensus to the question "Is somebody speaking in such a way that very much distresses somebody else, but is in keeping with their understanding of true reality, are they being a dick?"

I don't think sussing out the answer to that question is nearly as important/necessary as you think it is. We don't have to consider a generality of the question. People aren't misgendered in a vacuum. The assistant manager is aware of what they're saying by misgendering the employee. There's no "my understanding of true reality" in question here.

joe40001 posted...

Yeah it is easy to just say "the boss is a hateful bigot, who hates trans people because they get off on being evil and hateful"

No one is claiming that. It's doubtful that the assistant manager thinks that they're being evil. They just don't care about the employee because they have a hang up about transgender people.

joe40001 posted...

So instead to get through to them we have to parse out if you are a dick for using pronouns you believe to be in keeping with reality. If the answer is yes then the message to the boss is "look, it doesn't matter what you think the truth is, not using the pronoun this person identifies with is very distressing for them. Please use the one they identify with, even if you disagree"

Here's my question for you. If the assistant manager got talked to about misgendering, do you think they'd be confused about why they were being disciplined/talked to?
---

Wewillrocku posted...

joe40001 posted...

Simply calling them an asshole isn't likely to get them to stop. Understanding their thinking and then communicating with them might.

i often have such conversations with the local lion at the zoo. "you won't eat me right?" i hear him growl every time i walk by the cage. lol! but since talking to him he's settled down a lot

I don't understand what you are trying to say with this comment.
---

joe40001 posted...

I don't understand what you are trying to say with this comment.

i didn't think so. luckily, the lion can understand me.
---

Anteaterking posted...

joe40001 posted...

I am trying to find a consensus to the question "Is somebody speaking in such a way that very much distresses somebody else, but is in keeping with their understanding of true reality, are they being a dick?"

I don't think sussing out the answer to that question is nearly as important/necessary as you think it is. We don't have to consider a generality of the question. People aren't misgendered in a vacuum. The assistant manager is aware of what they're saying by misgendering the employee. There's no "my understanding of true reality" in question here.

Isn't there though? If you're raised in a very conservative household and always taught: "boys are boys and girls are girls and nothing changes that." Doesn't it go against their understanding of reality to use pronouns that declare the opposite?

Anteaterking posted...

joe40001 posted...

So instead to get through to them we have to parse out if you are a dick for using pronouns you believe to be in keeping with reality. If the answer is yes then the message to the boss is "look, it doesn't matter what you think the truth is, not using the pronoun this person identifies with is very distressing for them. Please use the one they identify with, even if you disagree"

Here's my question for you. If the assistant manager got talked to about misgendering, do you think they'd be confused about why they were being disciplined/talked to?

Confused? No. But if it is not legally required that they change pronouns I do not think simply confronting them would persuade them. That is why I think it might be important to understand their thought process.
---

shockthemonkey posted...

joe40001 posted...

shockthemonkey posted...

A person who deliberately misgenders someone else is an asshole. Period.

Simply calling them an asshole isn't likely to get them to stop. Understanding their thinking and then communicating with them might.

shockthemonkey posted...

Oh thats real easy. HR sits him down and says youre not allowed to harass your employees and youll be terminated if you do it again.

Is "If you misgender your employees you'll be fired" legally enforceable?
---

joe40001 posted...

Isn't there though? If you're raised in a very conservative household and always taught: "boys are boys and girls are girls and nothing changes that." Doesn't it go against their understanding of reality to use pronouns that declare the opposite?

So now we're using reality to mean "whatever they were taught in their household"? This person is an adult, "My parents told me" isn't a valid excuse. Like you acknowledged in the next quoted block, you found it unlikely that they would be surprised by getting talked to about misgendering people. This isn't a new realization to them. They're making informed choices on how they choose to interact with the world.

joe40001 posted...

Confused? No. But if it is not legally required that they change pronouns I do not think simply confronting them would persuade them. That is why I think it might be important to understand their thought process.

Guess what, management/HR doesn't usually care about whether you are persuaded by their directives, they just want you to follow them. I've seen people talked to about repeatedly making jokes at another employee's expense that weren't inherently "offensive" in any way (not racist, sexist, etc.) but it didn't matter because it was creating a hostile work environment and they felt that it wasn't unreasonable to ask the person to stop.
---

Anteaterking posted...

joe40001 posted...

Isn't there though? If you're raised in a very conservative household and always taught: "boys are boys and girls are girls and nothing changes that." Doesn't it go against their understanding of reality to use pronouns that declare the opposite?

So now we're using reality to mean "whatever they were taught in their household"? This person is an adult, "My parents told me" isn't a valid excuse. Like you acknowledged in the next quoted block, you found it unlikely that they would be surprised by getting talked to about misgendering people. This isn't a new realization to them. They're making informed choices on how they choose to interact with the world.

joe40001 posted...

Confused? No. But if it is not legally required that they change pronouns I do not think simply confronting them would persuade them. That is why I think it might be important to understand their thought process.

Guess what, management/HR doesn't usually care about whether you are persuaded by their directives, they just want you to follow them. I've seen people talked to about repeatedly making jokes at another employee's expense that weren't inherently "offensive" in any way (not racist, sexist, etc.) but it didn't matter because it was creating a hostile work environment and they felt that it wasn't unreasonable to ask the person to stop.

To the first point you're dropping an important term. I didn't say "reality" I said "their understanding of reality". Their understanding of reality might be informed by how they were raised.

As to the point of doesn't matter what a person feels HR can tell you to do whatever, if that is the case and if TC has the ability to dictate what HR does then obviously that is a possible solution they could take. but again I think it might be better to figure out how to persuade the person into a mindset of more tolerance rather than force their behavior.

Also, I was operating under the assumption though that TC was not in charge of that offices HR and could not give this manager direct directives of behavior.
---

At the end of the day it's quite simple, if people want to force people with conservative beliefs to behave how they think those people should behave, regardless of those people's beliefs, it will not persuade many people and likely have a backfiring effect.

It is why many people voted for Donald Trump, they just wanted to say a big fuck you to everybody who told them how to act without ever caring about what they thought.

So if everybody believes that forcing rather than persuading people with intolerant beliefs is the most effective strategy for change, then so be it. But I fundamentally reject that theory, which is why I take an interest in trying to parse out and understand people who behave in ways I might not approve of.
---

lol at this being about conservative beliefs instead of religion. the common talking point about there being two genders is traced to adam and eve, which is a religious myth. i could go on but anyone who isn't dead asleep can see how religious dogma makes people hate.
---

Wewillrocku posted...

lol at this being about conservative beliefs instead of religion. the common talking point about there being two genders is traced to adam and eve, which is a religious myth. i could go on but anyone who isn't dead asleep can see how religious dogma makes people hate.

I mean isn't there a link between conservative values and religion? Remember when a bunch of conservatives got swindled by some religious nut that his wife was abusing their daughter by allowing her to transition, when in fact the nutcase was the one being abusive?

---

Blue_Dream87 posted...

I mean isn't there a link between conservative values and religion? Remember when a bunch of conservatives got swindled by some religious nut that his wife was abusing their daughter by allowing her to transition, when in fact the nutcase was the one being abusive?

no, not a convincing one. religion can and has said things that, apparently, no conservative would ever agree with. even though conservatism is kind of ill defined, religion is very sharply defined thanks to the old books that have all the religious dogmas written in them. you know it doesn't agree with you when you see it. it could be anything from jesus telling you you are not worthy of him if you don't hate your family to god telling you the promised land is the only plot of land on earth that matters.
---