ECHR N/G | Page 9 | Vital Football

ECHR N/G

Jerryattrick said:
in ottawa canada it would be illegal for you to have not used their preferred pronoun.
In other news today 'the emporer has no clothes'.

i believe part of the issue (according to counter protestors) was that the organiser was calling for extermination of trans types. If so i would have thought that would come under a hate crime.
Click to expand...
Er yeah, I can see how that would cause upset. Ridiculous thing to say.
As I alluded to above, its a bit of a minefield at the moment and all I would ask is that everyone is given a bit of time to get their heads around it all, Ottawa seems to have gone in big early, I can only guess that that is the case if you know the person's preferred pronoun?
At work, we are encouraged to use ours on our email signature so no excuses when exchanging email, the problem arises when meeting someone face to face for the first time. I come from a working environment where senior officers were to be addressed as Sir or Ma'am. I still do it out of habit but strictly speaking, it would be wrong.
 
Tarian said:
I think I would have asked where their fellow / guest / partner is.

If somebody chooses to take offence at another person trying to be polite - then it's probably not worth wasting any more time with that individual.

After being lectured, perhaps your polite colleague should have responded with:
"Please don't be offensive"
(Given that woke activists are forever warning against "offence", that often stumps them !)

The problem for most people is that they rarely encounter this sort of nonsense - so are unprepared with the right language.
(And by "right language", I don't mean pandering to nonsense.)

Anyway, what is "gender queer" ? :oops:
Click to expand...
Gender queer is someone who does not identify as male, female or both. Therefore male or female pronouns (he/she, him/her, man/woman) to not apply so they/them should be used.
 
Jerryattrick said:
study history, happens to many as they need to impose their 'freedom' on others for their own good or enlightenment. In fact people may need to be punished to set them free.
its not a political spectrum thing - its a human being thing.
Click to expand...
Not all people want to impose their beliefs on others.

"History" shows that it only takes a few "human beings" to do that.
Some might be "sociopaths".
I believe there is a term for the variant that climbs to the top of an organisation through disguised but shameless destruction of others.

Meanwhile - as an optimist - I believe that the vast majority of human beings do NOT want to "impose" on others.
Most just want to get on with their lives.

I believe very much that there is a "political spectrum" based around the degree people which to "impose".
 
Nobby_66 said:
Er yeah, I can see how that would cause upset. Ridiculous thing to say.
As I alluded to above, its a bit of a minefield at the moment and all I would ask is that everyone is given a bit of time to get their heads around it all, Ottawa seems to have gone in big early, I can only guess that that is the case if you know the person's preferred pronoun?
At work, we are encouraged to use ours on our email signature so no excuses when exchanging email, the problem arises when meeting someone face to face for the first time. I come from a working environment where senior officers were to be addressed as Sir or Ma'am. I still do it out of habit but strictly speaking, it would be wrong.
Click to expand...

a bit like someone asking to be called napoleon as that is who they identify as.
Legal definitions are one thing, self identification is a completely different story.
 
Jerryattrick said:
a bit like someone asking to be called napoleon as that is who they identify as.
Legal definitions are one thing, self identification is a completely different story.
Click to expand...
Not sure about that, this is about someone belonging to a gender, not identifying as a specific person. If it was, it would be easier as I think I would recognise Napolean, especially in uniform 😉
 
Nobby_66 said:
I'm guessing it's the same one, just Googled "demo bristol" and this came up.
What interested me was that it's women who are objecting to trans women.
Click to expand...

We have reached the point that even feminists are now being accused of being far right by their fellow** feminists.


Nobby_66 said:
What I do find difficult is the whole pronoun thing. A colleague got a complaint as he asked another colleague to "show this lady through to the waiting room". She, (sorry, they) complained as they identified as gender queer so wished to be referred to as they/them.
That's fine, no problem, but how is one supposed to know?
Click to expand...

I am currently working at a university which is somewhat of a breeding ground for all these current terms.

In terms of "how is one supposed to know?" then the answer is you aren't supposed to. If you knew then they wouldn't be able to go running off to HR complaining they have been violently attacked and violated by words.

^ I draw a distinction between those who will politely tell you they wish to be addressed in a certain way and the Karens who love to be able to claim victimhood.

Nobby_66 said:
If I referred to a straight woman as "they" or "them", the polite old school gent in me thinks it would sound rude, as would she (probably). 🙄
Click to expand...

Advice I once got from someone I knew who worked in HR. Refer to them by name and not by gender pronouns. So if the person is called Jane and uses the pronouns them/their, then instead of saying:

"You want to speak to Jane. They sit in that corner and if they aren't there then one of their team will help you", say

"You want to speak to Jane. Janes sits in that corner. If they aren't there, I am sure one of Jane's colleagues will help you"

It might be considered a dick move, but from a "HR not wanting the company to be sued" perspective, ACAS will have a hard time taking a complaint that "someone is calling me by my name" seriously.



** Actually, can I say "fellow feminists"? Does the use of the word "fellow" unintentionally imply gender and therefore is now potentially transphobic?
 
"who love to be able to claim victimhood"

To be honest this is prevalent across society, 'thats life' is no longer an acceptable reason for something bad happening. There must be someone or something to blame if something bad happens or makes you angry/annoyed/upset/anxious and that person/thing should be punished.

I was recently talking to some older folk who do some exam invigilating and they are at their wits end trying to accommodate the students various needs. Their view (and I agree) is that you wouldn't give an easier exam to a stupid person so they could pass it.
 
Tarian said:
Authoritarians.

In order to achieve their goal of "equality" (which emphasises outcomes rather than opportunity) it is necessary to direct the behaviour, speech and thought of others.

If they can, they will create laws to do that.
If not, they bully and threaten.
Click to expand...

You are falling into myour own trap tarian. All governments weild authority and the longer they hold office the more they veer towards the authoritarian. It's nothing to do with left and right but obviously the other lot are always more authoritarian and it's all because of their politics.

Things have got a bit weird with the identity and gender debates because some on the left thought they owned all struggles for equality and freedom, which is nonsense but some on the right gave them apparent reason. Cameron's "liberalising" of the tory party was opposed by some diehards (I know their were other reasons to oppose him), who made a huge fuss about gay marriage. The brief advantage the left thought they had soon disintegrated when sex and gender became plastic and a matter of self dentification. Who is libertarian on this issue and what would that mean. Our vdrugs laws would have changed long ago had the tories not favoured the authoritarian approach to divide opinion.

You are clearly on the libertarian side of things yourself and are idealistic about it. I share your faith in people letting one another crack on but from a different perspective.

Johnson is a startling case of a self identifying liberal with libertarian tendencies, who has all but donned the epaulettes, medals and big hats once he got his feet under the table. A government that sets about allowing Assange to be extradited, restricts the right to protest in petty, restrictive and partisan ways, that changes laws when they don't suit the particular moment, denigrates and threatens judges and employs NDAs and super injunctions hasn't a libertarian bone in its body.

Labour has its fair share of authoritarians and Blair followed the pattern of all leaders who hang on for a long time. Further left the examples are grimmer and the same applies to the right. I can think of Tory and Labour politicians that I wouldn't trust with my liberties and equally ones from both parties that I would trust.
 
At least Macron is looking secure (not) , losing control of his govt lol
The leftist coalition , fracturing already !
It's the problem they will always face , commies , anarchists , Islington crowd etc. They will fall out.

French politics are fun to observe these days !
 
valenciagill said:
At least Macron is looking secure (not) , losing control of his govt lol
The leftist coalition , fracturing already !
It's the problem they will always face , commies , anarchists , Islington crowd etc. They will fall out.

French politics are fun to observe these days !
Click to expand...

You do realise the second biggest party in opposition to Mr Macron is the pan-leftist coalition NUPES who got about 32% of the vote?

Ensemble! is centre-right.
 
jogills said:
You are falling into myour own trap tarian. All governments weild authority and the longer they hold office the more they veer towards the authoritarian. It's nothing to do with left and right but obviously the other lot are always more authoritarian and it's all because of their politics.

Things have got a bit weird with the identity and gender debates because some on the left thought they owned all struggles for equality and freedom, which is nonsense but some on the right gave them apparent reason. Cameron's "liberalising" of the tory party was opposed by some diehards (I know their were other reasons to oppose him), who made a huge fuss about gay marriage. The brief advantage the left thought they had soon disintegrated when sex and gender became plastic and a matter of self dentification. Who is libertarian on this issue and what would that mean. Our vdrugs laws would have changed long ago had the tories not favoured the authoritarian approach to divide opinion.

You are clearly on the libertarian side of things yourself and are idealistic about it. I share your faith in people letting one another crack on but from a different perspective.

Johnson is a startling case of a self identifying liberal with libertarian tendencies, who has all but donned the epaulettes, medals and big hats once he got his feet under the table. A government that sets about allowing Assange to be extradited, restricts the right to protest in petty, restrictive and partisan ways, that changes laws when they don't suit the particular moment, denigrates and threatens judges and employs NDAs and super injunctions hasn't a libertarian bone in its body.

Labour has its fair share of authoritarians and Blair followed the pattern of all leaders who hang on for a long time. Further left the examples are grimmer and the same applies to the right. I can think of Tory and Labour politicians that I wouldn't trust with my liberties and equally ones from both parties that I would trust.
Click to expand...

Hey jo, you never talk to me so I fear you have me on ignore.

I just wanted to say that you always make good posts but this one is particularly good.
 
Nobby_66 said:
Gender queer is someone who does not identify as male, female or both. Therefore male or female pronouns (he/she, him/her, man/woman) to not apply so they/them should be used.
Click to expand...

I think that’s called gender neutral. Not that I want to make any wider point on the issue.
 
Tarian said:
Thank you for what is a much more considered reply - point by point.
Click to expand...

Yeah, well, don't get used to it. Just wanted to show you I can when I want to. I don't have the time to very often indulge you like this, especially given it's a whole lot easy to ignore you (when I'm feeling reasonable) or scream abuse at you (when I'm not feeling so reasonable).

For what it's worth I do reckon our major point of disagreement is the way we view capitalism. We are both Libertarian. Both interested in individual freedom. That's good isn't it? To find some common ground between us.
 
PuB said:
You do realise the second biggest party in opposition to Mr Macron is the pan-leftist coalitio can a government be formed n NUPES who got about 32% of the vote?
Click to expand...
Yes , Nupes , the very same coalition I was referring to. Falling apart within days.
La Pen controlled seats went from 6 to 89.
It's a mess , can a govt be formed ?
Or more elections ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.