An Apology to Gay Latter-day Saints

[Scott Lloyd]

57 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Participation in a thread does not imply agreement with the OP. In my first comments in the thread, I mentioned how I see it, which was quite different from the way the OP had it. 

I grant that your participation in the thread does not necessarily imply agreement with the OP, and I’m glad if you in fact do not agree with it, because I found it to be a bit “out there,” to use an expression currently in vogue. 

[USU78]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

Thank you for that. I kind of figured it was something like that. Here's the criminalizing part:

 

There's also California SB 219, which specifically criminalizes the "willful or repeated violation of the anti-misgendering law.  Only a misdemeanor, but still.  Of course it's being challenged:  

https://www.google.com/search?ei=SM59W_uGD-fJjwSg3YmoAw&q=taking+offense+vs+state+of+california+update&oq=taking+offense+vs+state+of+california+update&gs_l=psy-ab.3...89181.90244.0.90488.7.7.0.0.0.0.172.743.0j5.5.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..2.3.438...33i160k1j33i21k1.0.QU-TpUfBEFM

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, USU78 said:

There's also California SB 219, which specifically criminalizes the "willful or repeated violation of the anti-misgendering law.  Only a misdemeanor, but still.  Of course it's being challenged:  

https://www.google.com/search?ei=SM59W_uGD-fJjwSg3YmoAw&q=taking+offense+vs+state+of+california+update&oq=taking+offense+vs+state+of+california+update&gs_l=psy-ab.3...89181.90244.0.90488.7.7.0.0.0.0.172.743.0j5.5.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..2.3.438...33i160k1j33i21k1.0.QU-TpUfBEFM

I hope the challenge prevails. But in a state where drinking straws are being outlawed and undocumented immigrants are being given the right to vote, this just seems one more part of the zany political landscape. 

[jkwilliams]

23 minutes ago, USU78 said:

There's also California SB 219, which specifically criminalizes the "willful or repeated violation of the anti-misgendering law.  Only a misdemeanor, but still.  Of course it's being challenged:  

https://www.google.com/search?ei=SM59W_uGD-fJjwSg3YmoAw&q=taking+offense+vs+state+of+california+update&oq=taking+offense+vs+state+of+california+update&gs_l=psy-ab.3...89181.90244.0.90488.7.7.0.0.0.0.172.743.0j5.5.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..2.3.438...33i160k1j33i21k1.0.QU-TpUfBEFM

I have a hard time with these kinds of laws. An employee who willfully and repeatedly refuses to address a patient by their preferred pronoun is, well, an a--hole, not a criminal. If an employee of mine did that repeatedly, I wouldn't have a problem disciplining them even up to firing, if they were that intransigent. But freedom of speech means we have the right to be a--holes. 

[Calm]

Quote

But we also found an element of truth: Violations of the bill could, under limited circumstances, be treated as a misdemeanor with punishment of up to one year in jail and/or a $1,000 fine.

Courtney Joslin, a UC Davis law professor, said the bar for criminal prosecution would be extremely high.

"The bill is very, very clear that what is prohibited is the willful engagement and repeated engagement in discriminatory conduct against LGBT seniors. So, if someone makes a mistake or doesn’t know what a person’s gender identity is and uses the incorrect pronoun that is not a violation of the statute," Joslin said.

Willful and repeated violations alone wouldn’t lead to criminal prosecution, Joslin added. They would likely be punished with a fine.

Criminal charges would only follow, she said, if the violation reached a level that was shown to cause the risk of death or serious physical harm, in accordance with state’s existing penalty structure for health and safety code violations at long-term care centers.

Wiener has said purposefully using the wrong pronoun would be treated the same way as someone who violates a center’s smoking ban. It would be considered a minor violation but "no one is going to jail for that."

Facilities that fail to comply would most likely get a notice of violation, akin to "a parking ticket," the senator said in an interview with PolitiFact California. He added that the provisions apply only to care facility staff, not to residents.

https://www.politifact.com/california/article/2017/sep/26/claims-mislead-about-california-bill-forcing-jail-/

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Calm said:

https://www.politifact.com/california/article/2017/sep/26/claims-mislead-about-california-bill-forcing-jail-/

I saw that. The law mentions civil penalties (fines), not jail time. 

[Anijen]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I hope the challenge prevails. But in a state where drinking straws are being outlawed and undocumented immigrants are being given the right to vote, this just seems one more part of the zany political landscape. 

Gotta watch out for them there assault straws.

I have a relative who lives in Cali who is disabled and needs those bendy straws just to drink. I wonder if she is going to become a criminal for her using a tool that helps her drink her fluids...

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, Anijen said:

Gotta watch out for them there assault straws.

I have a relative who lives in Cali who is disabled and needs those bendy straws just to drink. I wonder if she is going to become a criminal for her using a tool that helps her drink her fluids...

No, there are exceptions made.  From what I have read it is just preventing restaurants from making single use plastic the default, they have to be asked for.  A plastic straw almost caused us a big plumbing bill.  I remember seeing plastic straws in clumps of crap when walking down the riverside or by the duck pond near our last house.  Since paper straws fulfill needs the majority of the time without the issues of plastic, I am not seeing the big deal.

I would like to see the option for paper straws at my local store for single use.  I worry about the dog chewing on them if one gets dropped on the floor and it ends up causing a stomach blockage for her (we have come close with plastic bags a few times).

https://www.businessinsider.com/why-are-plastic-straws-being-banned-2018-7

Edited August 22, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I have a hard time with these kinds of laws. An employee who willfully and repeatedly refuses to address a patient by their preferred pronoun is, well, an a--hole, not a criminal. If an employee of mine did that repeatedly, I wouldn't have a problem disciplining them even up to firing, if they were that intransigent. But freedom of speech means we have the right to be a--holes. 

Finding employees for senior nursing homes, especially trained ones, may be difficult though...leading employers to retain someone who is disrespectful to patients.

Assisted living, which is much less regulated, probably is even harder if what .I have seen and heard in the past 4 years dealing with this stuff for Mom and Dad is an indication,  most of the staff look like early twenties and most of the ones I have talked to are still in school.  The supervising staff are older, 40s-60, but they are a handful for even large places.

Edited August 22, 2018 by Calm

[Stargazer]

13 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I honestly don't have much I feel like I can positively respond to.  Your comments sound quite callous to my ears, and unfortunately oblivious to the pain that is experienced on a frequent basis by those who are discriminated against in our society.  Their stories are real, and their pain is real, and if you don't see it, perhaps that is because you have a blind spot that once removed can open up a whole new reality to your view.  I can't remove that blind spot for you, that's work you'll have to do yourself.  I hope you won't take my comments as intending insult as I'm not trying to place blame or say that this blind spot is a fault of your doing.  Best of luck.  

 

I hate discrimination. Always have.

But recently there has been much made of nonsense like "microaggressions", wherein offense is taken for the most picayune and minor reasons, that anyone with a brain can determine are not true offenses, but are made up solely in order to gain advantage over others. To make offenders for a word.

Take the insistence upon special pseudo pronouns, for example. My preferred pronouns are x, y, and z. I will be offended unless you use them when talking to me. This is the kind of thing I'm talking about, among others.

I have never referred to someone using offensive epithets, at least as far as I can remember - I've always hated that kind of thing. I don't even like nicknames. 

But real pain? In connection with someone using the word "homosexual", instead of "gay", with no intent to offend? Pain, my foot. It's freaking oversensitivity. "Don't call me a Mormon, you cretin, I'm a member of the Church of ..." More oversensitivity. Do you get the picture, yet?

I get the impression that you think I'm going around muttering about . Never. My first inclination upon hearing someone using such words is to get away from them. With a side order of wanting to slug them in the nose. Not that I would.

But pain, upon some person hearing the horrible term same-sex attraction? I'm sorry, it appears that we have just entered the Twilight Zone.

By the way, has anyone managed to fulfill the CFR over the LDS Church having invented the term same-sex attraction? Out of malice, no doubt? No? Still waiting I guess.

Edited August 23, 2018 by Nemesis
You could have accomplished the same thing saying racial slurs than actually saying the,

[hope_for_things]

6 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I hate discrimination. Always have.

But recently there has been much made of nonsense like "microaggressions", wherein offense is taken for the most picayune and minor reasons, that anyone with a brain can determine are not true offenses, but are made up solely in order to gain advantage over others. To make offenders for a word.

Take the insistence upon special pseudo pronouns, for example. My preferred pronouns are x, y, and z. I will be offended unless you use them when talking to me. This is the kind of thing I'm talking about, among others.

I have never referred to someone using offensive epithets, at least as far as I can remember - I've always hated that kind of thing. I don't even like nicknames. 

But real pain? In connection with someone using the word "homosexual", instead of "gay", with no intent to offend? Pain, my foot. It's freaking oversensitivity. "Don't call me a Mormon, you cretin, I'm a member of the Church of ..." More oversensitivity. Do you get the picture, yet?

I get the impression that you think I'm going around muttering about . Never. My first inclination upon hearing someone using such words is to get away from them. With a side order of wanting to slug them in the nose. Not that I would.

But pain, upon some person hearing the horrible term same-sex attraction? I'm sorry, it appears that we have just entered the Twilight Zone.

By the way, has anyone managed to fulfill the CFR over the LDS Church having invented the term same-sex attraction? Out of malice, no doubt? No? Still waiting I guess.

😓

Edited August 23, 2018 by Nemesis

[Stargazer]

Just now, hope_for_things said:

😓

I feel your pain.

[jkwilliams]

6 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I feel your pain.

Was that really necessary?

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Finding employees for senior nursing homes, especially trained ones, may be difficult though...leading employers to retain someone who is disrespectful to patients.

Assisted living, which is much less regulated, probably is even harder if what .I have seen and heard in the past 4 years dealing with this stuff for Mom and Dad is an indication,  most of the staff look like early twenties and most of the ones I have talked to are still in school.  The supervising staff are older, 40s-60, but they are a handful for even large places.

This is so true...and sometimes, weekends are a disaster for qualified employees.  I went through some real problems during Dad's stay. 

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

This is so true...and sometimes, weekends are a disaster for qualified employees.  I went through some real problems during Dad's stay. 

I would think an employee treating a patient badly would open the facility up for a lawsuit. A civil penalty would be the least of their worries. 

[Nemesis]

Everyone, we will close this thread if we continue to receive reports on personal attacks. It is going on both sides. 

 

Nemesis

[Stargazer]

 

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

😓

 

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

I feel your pain.

 

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

Was that really necessary?

Maybe not.  

But I spent a fair amount of time explaining in detail what my problem is with the endless "offense train".  While I was in bed, on my tablet, which is super hard to compose text on, when I was supposed to be asleep, and then all I get for my trouble is some vague emoticon.  I gather that hope_for_things was in despair over my Neanderthal sensibilities?  

So now I've abandoned my bed, it's 1:30 in the morning here in the UK, and now I'm on my laptop.  

I don't call people nasty names.  I try to treat everyone with respect.  As I said, I am tempted to get very angry with people who call other people names, especially race-, gender- and ethnicity-slurs, and wish to smash their pimply faces.  But I am getting damned tired of people trying to tell me that unless I kowtow to every delicate sensitivity over words that have been and still are neutral (or were, five seconds ago), such as "same-sex attraction", which has as much meaning as any other clinical term that mean something in human psychology, I am offending them.  In case a turn was missed somewhere back there, it means someone who is attracted to someone of the same sex they are themselves.  It is judgement-neutral.  It describes exactly what is going on in their heads -- just as "opposite-sex attraction" would in my case -- and those who find it offensive are looking for offense where no offense exists.  If you don't like it because it is too clinical, and you don't like clinical terms, fine.  But if you think it is offensive, just because you don't like clinical terms, I'm sorry, but you're being oversensitive.  I am trying to describe the situation where someone is attracted to others of the same sex, and I have darned few choices, without twisting the language into pretzel shapes.  And to declare that that term is offensive takes it away from me.  You want me to use the term "gay"?  There's a problem with that.  Someone who is attracted to others of the same sex may also be attracted to others of the opposite case, and may not want to be labelled as "gay".  Maybe they are gay, but just doesn't like that word, and want to be "queer" instead.  Fine, but how many more rabbit holes do I have to go down before I reach one that will be inoffensive to everyone?  So I would like to say that someone who is attracted to people of the same sex as themselves, regardless of whether they act on the attraction, is experiencing "same sex attraction" without being called a Philistine and a hateful person. Not saying that you, John, are calling me that.  

And who refers to another person in sentences as "He has same-sex attraction"?  I wouldn't.  I would prefer to write "He is gay" in that case.  The three-word term fits in other contexts, however, like describing the "condition".  Instead of some made-up word like "gayness."  

And then we come to the "preferred pronoun" thing, which is an extreme case (but getting more mainstream) of what I am talking about.  Ever hear of it?  It is not old.  It is being taken entirely too seriously by people who one would have thought had more than two brain cells to rub together.  And it is right smack dab in the middle of this whole manufacturing of offense thing.  And I am sure there are people who want an apology for being called "he" or "she" when the person prefers "ze" or "xe".  Or "Ne"," "Ve" or "Ey".

• Pronouns, Gender and You - Here's a link to a video posted on YouTube a number of years ago, and this gentlebeing is dead serious about the 60-some gender pronouns we have now been blessed with.  By all indications out there, it is going to get worse.
• Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Gender-Neutral Pronouns - this is a Time magazine article that appeared in 2016, and I am still trying to figure out if it is a parody or the author is dead serious.  But he, or xe is probably quite serious.  I think he wrote that he finally settled on "he", "him" "his", but used to prefer "they" "them" "their".
• 'Ze' or 'They'? A Guide to Using Gender-Neutral Pronouns - another one I couldn't decide for sure if it was serious, but probably is.

It's now 2:45 am, and I am quite sure I have missed an entire hour of sleep writing this.  Fortunately I am retired, so I can take plenty of time writing useless (because nobody appears to be listening) things.

And in all seriousness, if anything I've written has actually offended you, I am sorry.  

Edited August 23, 2018 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

4 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I saw that. The law mentions civil penalties (fines), not jail time. 

And what happens if you refuse to pay the fine?

[jkwilliams]

5 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

And what happens if you refuse to pay the fine?

I’ve already said I don’t like these kinds of laws, but it’s clearly not the totalitarian oppression people are making it out to be. 

[Stargazer]

12 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I’ve already said I don’t like these kinds of laws, but it’s clearly not the totalitarian oppression people are making it out to be. 

I know you said that.  I'm not claiming you approve.  I'm saying that even if the law doesn't provide jail time, that is what is going to happen if you refuse to pay the fine.  Probably.  Perhaps they could garnish someone's wages.  If they have any.

When you get right down to brass tacks, the government has guns, and every single law no matter how mild can lead to guns being drawn, if someone pushes hard enough.  It's either that or there's no law.  I'm not saying that that is wrong, by the way.  But one must always remember that government is force.  If not, it is not government.  Every law that is passed must answer the question, "Is this serious enough to draw guns over?"  If it isn't, then it shouldn't be a law.  And refusing to use a person's preferred pronouns should therefore not be subject to a law.

Edited August 23, 2018 by Stargazer

[Anijen]

29 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

And what happens if you refuse to pay the fine?

You get contempt of court and could face jail time

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

 

 

 

Maybe not.  

But I spent a fair amount of time explaining in detail what my problem is with the endless "offense train".  While I was in bed, on my tablet, which is super hard to compose text on, when I was supposed to be asleep, and then all I get for my trouble is some vague emoticon.  I gather that hope_for_things was in despair over my Neanderthal sensibilities?  

So now I've abandoned my bed, it's 1:30 in the morning here in the UK, and now I'm on my laptop.  

I don't call people nasty names.  I try to treat everyone with respect.  As I said, I am tempted to get very angry with people who call other people names, especially race-, gender- and ethnicity-slurs, and wish to smash their pimply faces.  But I am getting damned tired of people trying to tell me that unless I kowtow to every delicate sensitivity over words that have been and still are neutral (or were, five seconds ago), such as "same-sex attraction", which has as much meaning as any other clinical term that mean something in human psychology, I am offending them.  In case a turn was missed somewhere back there, it means someone who is attracted to someone of the same sex they are themselves.  It is judgement-neutral.  It describes exactly what is going on in their heads -- just as "opposite-sex attraction" would in my case -- and those who find it offensive are looking for offense where no offense exists.  If you don't like it because it is too clinical, and you don't like clinical terms, fine.  But if you think it is offensive, just because you don't like clinical terms, I'm sorry, but you're being oversensitive.  I am trying to describe the situation where someone is attracted to others of the same sex, and I have darned few choices, without twisting the language into pretzel shapes.  And to declare that that term is offensive takes it away from me.  You want me to use the term "gay"?  There's a problem with that.  Someone who is attracted to others of the same sex may also be attracted to others of the opposite case, and may not want to be labelled as "gay".  Maybe they are gay, but just doesn't like that word, and want to be "queer" instead.  Fine, but how many more rabbit holes do I have to go down before I reach one that will be inoffensive to everyone?  So I would like to say that someone who is attracted to people of the same sex as themselves, regardless of whether they act on the attraction, is experiencing "same sex attraction" without being called a Philistine and a hateful person. Not saying that you, John, are calling me that.  

And who refers to another person in sentences as "He has same-sex attraction"?  I wouldn't.  I would prefer to write "He is gay" in that case.  The three-word term fits in other contexts, however, like describing the "condition".  Instead of some made-up word like "gayness."  

And then we come to the "preferred pronoun" thing, which is an extreme case (but getting more mainstream) of what I am talking about.  Ever hear of it?  It is not old.  It is being taken entirely too seriously by people who one would have thought had more than two brain cells to rub together.  And it is right smack dab in the middle of this whole manufacturing of offense thing.  And I am sure there are people who want an apology for being called "he" or "she" when the person prefers "ze" or "xe".  Or "Ne"," "Ve" or "Ey".

• Pronouns, Gender and You - Here's a link to a video posted on YouTube a number of years ago, and this gentlebeing is dead serious about the 60-some gender pronouns we have now been blessed with.  By all indications out there, it is going to get worse.
• Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Gender-Neutral Pronouns - this is a Time magazine article that appeared in 2016, and I am still trying to figure out if it is a parody or the author is dead serious.  But he, or xe is probably quite serious.  I think he wrote that he finally settled on "he", "him" "his", but used to prefer "they" "them" "their".
• 'Ze' or 'They'? A Guide to Using Gender-Neutral Pronouns - another one I couldn't decide for sure if it was serious, but probably is.

It's now 2:45 am, and I am quite sure I have missed an entire hour of sleep writing this.  Fortunately I am retired, so I can take plenty of time writing useless (because nobody appears to be listening) things.

And in all seriousness, if anything I've written has actually offended you, I am sorry.  

Here’s an episode in which conservative talk show host Tucker Carlson, with the help of liberal Sherpa Cathy Areu, explores the gender-neutral pronoun phenomenon. It appears tongue-in-cheek, but as Carlson predicts, though no one is holding a gun to your head over this now, be assured that in time, they will. 

 

[jkwilliams]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Here’s an episode in which conservative talk show host Tucker Carlson, with the help of liberal Sherpa Cathy Areu, explores the gender-neutral pronoun phenomenon. It appears tongue-in-cheek, but as Carlson predicts, though no one is holding a gun to your head over this now, be assured that in time, they will. 

 

Hmmm. We’ve had a gender-neutral pronoun in English for at least 600 years. It’s hardly a “phenomenon.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they

[Kenngo1969]

4 hours ago, Anijen said:

Gotta watch out for them there assault straws.

I have a relative who lives in Cali who is disabled and needs those bendy straws just to drink. I wonder if she is going to become a criminal for her using a tool that helps her drink her fluids...

Probably.    I mean, isn't dying of thirst a small price to pay to protect Mother Earth?  

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

Hmmm. We’ve had a gender-neutral pronoun in English for at least 600 years. It’s hardly a “phenomenon.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they

Your Wikipedia reference points out that it has been the target of criticism since the late 19th century. 

And with good reason. It still sounds highly awkward to use a plural pronoun (they) in reference to a singular noun. 

I recognize that it has become more and more common as society has become more hung up on gender inclusivity. But unless things have changed since I retired some three months ago, even Associated Press Style still forbids it. 

Footnote: As I type this, I’m fully aware that in my immediate prior post I used the indeterminate “they”. Yes even I am on occasion prone to grammatical carelessness and what the Economy Style Guide refers to as “scrambled syntax that people adopt because they cannot bring themselves to use a singular pronoun".

A rep point prize to the first person to spot it in my post and highlight it in his or her own post. 

Edited August 23, 2018 by Scott Lloyd