Jump to content

Religious Liberty does not excuse rudness, hatefulness, or bullying


Recommended Posts

A friend on Facebook shared an email she received from a friend who works for the State of Virginia.  It says:
 

Quote

When Trump signs that executive order tomorrow, please understand that your transgender status is against my firmly-held religious beliefs.  As a result, I will only refer to you by your real name and gender, as God intended.  I will pray for you.



 

 

Okay, regardless of how people feel about transgender people, how is that not being an asshole for the sake of being an asshole?  

Let's put it like this.  I work for a man named "Shannon".  I go to church with a woman named "Michael".  Neither are transgender.  Wouldn't it be the height of rudeness to refuse to refer to these two people by their given names?  To insist upon using traditionally "male" or traditionally "female" names to address them?  That's being an asshole, right?  What if a guy hates the name "Clive" and prefers the name "Jack"?  Is it not rude to insist upon calling that person "Clive"?  

Basic civility is being lost as people chose to refuse to treat trangender people as people.  Transgender people are entitled to the same courtesy and kindness we should all extend one to another regardless of our religious beliefs, opinions, or political ideals.  You refer to another individual as that individual prefers to be referred.  It is not rocket science.  Nor is it an infringement of another's religious liberty to call someone out for their rudeness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clearly this is just giving religious people who disagree with the very concept of being gay or trans, the green light to have those opinions.

But then this is the free world, they should be allowed to have opinions unless their actions impinge on the rights of others. 

I'm sure these people were assholes anyway, and you can still call them out on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It goes beyond rudeness, Scot.  It is the believer justifying the belittling of the other and making themselves feel superior.

The only thing that will change with the EO is that the bigots will feel emboldened.

Sadly, I suspect (but hope otherwise) that it is going to become a more dangerous place for people who are not overtly Christian in the USA. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jon,

My point is that they are being Jerks for the sake of being Jerks.  If you wouldn't insist upon calling a woman named "Michael" by a traditionally female name like "Michelle" why would you get upset if someone asked to be called "Michael" because they are Transgender?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Stubby said:

It goes beyond rudeness, Scot.  It is the believer justifying the belittling of the other and making themselves feel superior.

The only thing that will change with the EO is that the bigots will feel emboldened.

Sadly, I suspect (but hope otherwise) that it is going to become a more dangerous place for people who are not overtly Christian in the USA. 

I'm not disagreeing with you.  I think it does go beyond rudeness.  My point is that those individuals who refuse to use people's preferred choice of names are being unquestionably rude in their insistence upon using "real" names in this context.  At a minimum the people behaving rudely should be called out for their base meanness.  If everyone holds them to account for their rudeness it may have impact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

What they are doing is dismissing transgender as being a choice, a belief they already have. They basically don't believe it even exists as a condition; its just a perversion, and so won't be recognising it or encouraging by giving the dignity of a name.

Jon,

Then why would they allow "Clive" the dignity of being called by his prefered name "Jack"?  How is that circumstance different from "Jim" wanted to be called "Jane"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Jon,

Then why would they allow "Clive" the dignity of being called by his prefered name "Jack"?  How is that circumstance different from "Jim" wanted to be called "Jane"?

Because Clive is not a pervert, obviously.

/sarcasm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Jon,

Then why would they allow "Clive" the dignity of being called by his prefered name "Jack"?  How is that circumstance different from "Jim" wanted to be called "Jane"?

Its not about names though is it, it's about recognising someone is a different gender 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no two ways about it, this is a jerk being a jerk and finding an excuse for it.

I don't know any transgender persons, and while I'd probably get a bit confused with pronouns every now and again I'd never go out of my way to embarrass or harass them the way this jerk is doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Its not about names though is it, it's about recognising someone is a different gender 

Jon,

It's about both.  It's about a clear double standard.  If someone is willing to call a woman "Michael" because that is her preferred name, or a man "Shannon" because that is his preferred name, why would it be different if that person happens to be Transgender?  

It's an arbitrary double standard.  It is, at a minimum (bare minimum) extremely rude.  

If someone cannot give a reasonable explanation as to why one is proper and the other is improper then they should be confronted about their rudeness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree that not addressing a transgender person by their preferred name or preferred choice of pronoun is pretty shitty and rude.

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Let's put it like this.  I work for a man named "Shannon".  I go to church with a woman named "Michael".  Neither are transgender.  Wouldn't it be the height of rudeness to refuse to refer to these two people by their given names?  To insist upon using traditionally "male" or traditionally "female" names to address them?  That's being an asshole, right?  What if a guy hates the name "Clive" and prefers the name "Jack"?  Is it not rude to insist upon calling that person "Clive"?  

I'll put this way. There is reason why in boot camp, for instance, why drill instructors often deliberately butcher recruit's given names. It's intentionally meant to be demeaning and rude and to strip a person of their individuality.

So to answer your question: Yes, it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

I don't understand. To me this is ONLY about not recognising someone's status as a transgender person, because these people are offended by that status.

They are saying that god doesn't recognise them as transgender so why should I. 

Jon,

But if that individual would call "Clive" by his preferred name "Jack" because it would be rude to refer to "Jack" as "Clive" or would agree to call my female friend "Michael" they are arbitrarily creating a different standard for someone solely upon the basis that the person making the request is Transgender.  

You use the names people prefer to use because refraining from doing so is considered rude.  That doesn't change simply because the person making the request is Transgender.

It's extremely rude, at a bare minimum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Jon,

But if that individual would call "Clive" by his preferred name "Jack" they because it would be rude to refer to "Jack" as "Clive" or would agree to call my female friend "Michael" they are arbitrarily creating a different standard for someone solely upon the basis that the person making the request is Transgender.  

It's extremely rude, at a bare minimum.

I'm sure it that transgender woman was born John and wanted to be called Mark, this person would have no problem doing it. It's recognising or encouraging the idea that this man wants to be seen as a woman that is the issue. 

Of course it's rude, and offensive and stupid and ignorant. But you know my views on religion so that's no surprise :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

I'm sure it that transgender woman was born John and wanted to be called Mark, this person would have no problem doing it. It's recognising or encouraging the idea that this man wants to be seen as a woman that is the issue. 

Of course it's rude, and offensive and stupid and ignorant. But you know my views on religion so that's no surprise :)

Jon,

And as a person who is religious I'm agreeing that this is rude regardless of my religious beliefs.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jon,

It is a tactic that can be used outside of this thread.  People don't like to be told that they are rude.  They certainly don't like to be shown how they are rude.  Therefore, if people explain to those insisting that, for religious reasons, they refuse to refer to a Transgender individual by their preferred name they how they are being rude it may be effective in curbing the delight some seem to be taking in being... assholes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's tempting to simply call these people "asshole" to their faces, but that may be seen as escalation (and reprehensible).

Perhaps systematically using the wrong name for them? Like calling "Judy" "Julie" instead or "Laura" "Lara"? And perhaps not systematically, just frequently enough to make it ambiguous and annoying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...