LGBT Policy at work

[anon65111186]

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Maybe I am weird, but I call people what they want to be called. If my mom wants to be called Queen Elizabeth, that is what I will call her. Might also take her in for an evaluation, because it would be out of character for it. It isn’t my place to judge why someone wants to be called something different from what I know them as, if I don’t have a close interpersonal relationship with them. I have no problem calling a co-worker anything, regardless of what I know their name or gender to be.

If this is a problem for you, I agree with the others who said you may wish to find a different line of work. The clock isn’t going to turn backwards on this issue. It is going to keep moving forward.

You are predicting that this issue will continue to progress to the point that all will have to call everyone by their chosen pronoun, under the penalty of the law? Well, you could be right, or you could be wrong. The current trend seems to be that you are wrong, if you look at the courts and Title VIII.

So you admit you would take someone in for a psych evaluation based on wanting to be called something they are not, yet that principle doesn’t apply to transgendered people? Not very consistent if you ask me.

 

[therese1998]

To explicitly do the opposite to a person standing in front of you is cruel. It is not loving. It is something other than Christ-like.

No issue with being loving, but I DO have an issue with someone else telling me not only what I must think in order to be loving, but also what I must say in order to be loving.

If you refuse to call me Mr. President, are you being cruel to me? Why is this discriminatory in the context of LGBTQ but not in the context of the mentally ill?

It is nothing more or nothing less than that.

I could agree with that EXCEPT no one is going to legally protect my right to be called Mr. President, no matter how much I am sure I am Abraham Lincoln. There is only one instance in which a person is addressed as they wish and that is in the case of LGBTQ orientation. Why are those of trans-gender orientation granted this protection, but those who are mentally ill not afforded this protection? Hint: it has to do with politics, money and the legal influence that money can buy.

If I work with Bob, and everyone knows his name is Bob, but he wishes to be call Jim, then I call him Jim.

I could actually agree with you here, if it was only about a name. But it’s not just a name as has been made obvious by current lawsuits. Just as, if I were to insist on being called Mr. President, I would soon be demanding lodging in the White House, as is the prerogative of the POTUS. I would also expect others to follow my orders, as is fitting for what is arguably the highest position in the land. I would then wish to take punitive action against those who will NOT follow my orders. And so on. There is clearly an agenda among those who advocate for LGBTQ rights that this is more than a name, this is about the right to tell others what they must think and say, how they must act, and what rights they must give up in order for those of LGBTQ orientation to be “treated fairly”.

The quantity of stress or hardship in one’s life doesn’t justify forcing others to say something that is not true.

Exactly! While we want to be loving and we want to “go along to get along” at some point, it becomes ridiculous and the cognitive dissonance must stop or the whole world will be saying what they know is not true.

You just want to bully people and it’s wrong

Are you being cruel to me (or anyone) by calling me a bully? If I don’t see myself as a bully, don’t I have the right to say that you are causing me distress by being a bully? It has to go both ways, and that’s what doesn’t happen in the conversation about LGBTQ rights.

It is going to keep moving forward.

I agree the issue will continue to move forward, but I’m not sure it means a “win” for the LGBTQ agenda. As the issue gets pushed forward and forward, the ridiculous may well become so obvious as to have people starting to apply logic to this issue.

 

[anon65111186]

@therese1998 You’ve got the right attitude, and have clearly thought this through logically. Glad to see someone is thinking critically about this issue and not afraid to question this idea of calling trans-gendered people other than what they truly are.

 

[JMMJ]

So you admit you would take someone in for a psych evaluation based on wanting to be called something they are not, yet that principle doesn’t apply to transgendered people? Not very consistent if you ask me.

If my 80 year old-clear thinking mother woke up tomorrow morning and asked that I call her Queen Elizabeth, then yes, I would take her in for an evaluation because it would be an indicator something was very wrong. I am comfortable making that preliminary assessment because I know my mother as well as I do, and I have known her for over 50 years.

If my co-worker decides they want to present as a him instead of a her, then I will address him as he asks me to address him. Being transgender isn’t the same as having a stroke or dimentia.

 

[PJH_74]

When those at my company talk about Christians in particular and call them bigots for not wanting to call transgendered by their pronoun, is that playing nice?

When those at your company talk about LGBT people in particular and addressing them in derisive ways for rocking the boat a little, is that playing nice? Would you defend them in the the same way you want to be treated? That is called love your neighbor as yourself , one of the two Jesus placed these over any other law. It means not self-centering on your views even if they are not reciprocated well or at all.

I get that this might be hard to do, I know a few people who want to be addresses as they/them. That’s something I struggle with grammatically and try my best to accommodate. To help me with this I try extra hard to form my sentences in such ways so as to not use pronouns as much as I can.

 

[anon65111186]

If my co-worker decides they want to present as a him instead of a her, then I will address him as he asks me to address him. Being transgender isn’t the same as having a stroke or dimentia.

You’re right it is not the same, but it is a disorder when the proper order of things is to be called what you are. If your biology is a man, you are a man.

 

[anon65111186]

transgendered by their pronoun, is that playing nice?

How is calling a man “he” or a woman “she” derisive? Love entails telling the truth to people, even when they don’t recognize it themselves. Where is the love for the Christians?

 

[PJH_74]

How is calling a man “he” or a woman “she” derisive? Love entails telling the truth to people, even when they don’t recognize it themselves. Where is the love for the Christians?

Would you feel loved by someone trying to convince you that you are delusional to believe some man 2000 years ago magically rose from the dead and is now a deity? This person could claim to be loving you by making you come to your senses. Love is defined by who you are purporting to love. If you want to introduce a person to God’s love, it is not by centering your own definition on that person.

 

[therese1998]

It means not self-centering on your views even if they are not reciprocated well or at all.

Does this mean not self-centering on LGBTQ issues and recognizing the legitimate difficulty others (Christian or no) have with using pronouns opposite to biological sex? Or is it only on others to accommodate those with LGBTQ orientation. In my experience, these types of questions make people get huffy and cry “bully”, “unloving”, etc. This is not my intention. I truly would like to know why the accommodation is one way. I honestly don’t have a problem understanding the free will to live your life as you choose. I have no ill will toward others; we all struggle through this journey in the way that seems best to us. But how does accommodating others while being forced to speak and act outside of what is plainly obvious on my part equal ill will?

When those at your company talk about LGBT people in particular and addressing them in derisive ways for rocking the boat a little, is that playing nice?

Where has the OP indicated that he, or his colleagues, were being “derisive”. Is disagreement derisive? Do we have to only indicate agreement with everyone we meet?

Would you feel loved by someone trying to convince you that you are delusional to believe some man 2000 years ago magically rose from the dead and is now a deity?

My father tried to tell me this his whole life. I never doubted for a minute that he loved me and was trying to tell me the Truth as he knew it. I appreciated his love and his guidance, but I didn’t agree with his views and he didn’t change mine. So, we either agreed to disagree or we had a conversation that followed very clear rules of respect and we knew when to stop that conversation. Why is that so bad? Part of being human is recognizing that not everyone is going to agree with you. Part of being an adult, and confident in your own decisions, is accepting that those who don’t agree with you aren’t defacto “bad” and aren’t going to be silenced so you can be comfortable. Christians have lived with this reality for 2000 years and the Jews about 4000 years longer than that.

 

[anon65111186]

Would you feel loved by someone trying to convince you that you are delusional to believe some man 2000 years ago magically rose from the dead and is now a deity? This person could claim to be loving you by making you come to your senses. Love is defined by who you are purporting to love. If you want to introduce a person to God’s love, it is not by centering your own definition on that person.

Is it love to call a man a woman or a woman a man? Even if they are convinced they aren’t what they actually are? Love entails being honest with others and yourself.

 

[JMMJ]

Is it love to call a man a woman or a woman a man? Even if they are convinced they aren’t what they actually are?

It is. Especially when it takes you out of your comfort zone.

 

[Finn]

This sort of stuff simply sets up irreducible conflict and isn’t really non-discriminatory. Someone gets discriminated against, either way.

 

[Start]

I didn’t make the statement, it was someone else.

 

[Start]

No it isn’t. There’s no need to mention those things and it’s hardly necessary to go along.

 

[PJH_74]

Part of being human is recognizing that not everyone is going to agree with you. Part of being an adult, and confident in your own decisions, is accepting that those who don’t agree with you aren’t defacto “bad” and aren’t going to be silenced so you can be comfortable.

I’m not sure how much of what I was saying you saw, but I agree with you. The thing is, per what I have read and understood by many comments the OP has made, he’s having difficulties with simply addressing transgender people by their preferred names. My impression is that he is putting up as many defensive arguments against this as he can muster.

Interesting for me, as an HR manager, he is letting his feelings interfere with something that in very many ways is important to the intent of his job. Among many things HR is supposed to act as a referee between employees on such issues; but their bigger charge is to protect the company’s interests. Not implementing transgender friendly HR policies risks a lawsuit in today’s day and age.

 

[Lara]

As Catholics, we should not be using the word cis. It’s a bogus term. If you were born female, that’s what you are, right down to your DNA. You don’t need to add words. Are you going to follow the ways of humanity or God’s ways?

By the way, when police look for a suspect, they say the individual is described as male, six feet tall etc… They don’t say, “We are looking for a presumed male.” They don’t say, “We are looking for a person who identifies as male, or is comfortable embodying his maleness.” No, they just say male.

 

[JulianN]

Calling Sue by her divorced or whatever last name is not an issue, since it doesn’t change her pronoun and gender identity. You can’t conflate the two.

Perhaps a more accurate comparison would be acknowledging Sue’s current (second or third) husband as her spouse, rather than insisting her ex-husband is her valid spouse, because of your religious belief that it is so.

 

[therese1998]

Sorry @Start, but I don’t see where I tagged you…

 

[therese1998]

Yes, indeed. I understand the legal risk. What, exactly, are the protections for OP as a Christian that he does not have to violate his conscience at work by calling someone who is biologically male a female or vice versa? Or are the protections only for one class of people?

 

[Start]

It was a quote on post 44 or around that number.