FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Pronouns Matter Too#
Pronouns Matter Too#
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reports that Halifax Bank are including pronouns on the staff namebadges if the member wants it.. now Tom is not sure what a pronoun is but suddenly there are dozens of them. Tom just wants to be called Tom. Reports that if customers don't like it they can go elsewhere. It's a crazy crazy world. And this one is all over the news. Storm in an egg cup maybe?" The badges are optional. Customers can always go elsewhere if they don't like a company. If they are upset by this I'm not sure what can be said. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tom just wants to be called Tom." Then you understand.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Really? I know Pride is over but do we need another Transphobic fuelled non-story brought up? Halifax, like MANY banks and companies are allowing staff to put pronouns on their badges/email. It is purely Voluntary. People who read the Daily Mail got upset about something that does not affect them in the slightest, other than removing an excuse to be transphobic. Halifax said the absolute truth that no-one was forced to bank with them. James O'Brien puts it better than me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdZuYBzEps0" Question... if someone wants to be inclusive/ supportive but doesn't want to have their own pronouns displayed for whatever reason, what can they do? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Really? I know Pride is over but do we need another Transphobic fuelled non-story brought up? Halifax, like MANY banks and companies are allowing staff to put pronouns on their badges/email. It is purely Voluntary. People who read the Daily Mail got upset about something that does not affect them in the slightest, other than removing an excuse to be transphobic. Halifax said the absolute truth that no-one was forced to bank with them. James O'Brien puts it better than me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdZuYBzEps0 Question... if someone wants to be inclusive/ supportive but doesn't want to have their own pronouns displayed for whatever reason, what can they do? " Respect others choices and pronouns. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Really? I know Pride is over but do we need another Transphobic fuelled non-story brought up? Halifax, like MANY banks and companies are allowing staff to put pronouns on their badges/email. It is purely Voluntary. People who read the Daily Mail got upset about something that does not affect them in the slightest, other than removing an excuse to be transphobic. Halifax said the absolute truth that no-one was forced to bank with them. James O'Brien puts it better than me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdZuYBzEps0 Question... if someone wants to be inclusive/ supportive but doesn't want to have their own pronouns displayed for whatever reason, what can they do? Respect others choices and pronouns." Well yes... 
I mean on badges etc. Feels like if I don't have a pronoun stated it looks like I'm against it all.
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder if the people so upset about it get upset when filling in forms that ask them if they are Mr or Mrs/Ms/Miss instead of just assuming by their name and marital status. " The hilarious part of this story is the amount of people on Twitter saying they are switching to other banks... who have had the pronouns on their badges for at least six months. Ot lloyds.. which is the SAME company | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Really? I know Pride is over but do we need another Transphobic fuelled non-story brought up? Halifax, like MANY banks and companies are allowing staff to put pronouns on their badges/email. It is purely Voluntary. People who read the Daily Mail got upset about something that does not affect them in the slightest, other than removing an excuse to be transphobic. Halifax said the absolute truth that no-one was forced to bank with them. James O'Brien puts it better than me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdZuYBzEps0 Question... if someone wants to be inclusive/ supportive but doesn't want to have their own pronouns displayed for whatever reason, what can they do? Respect others choices and pronouns. Well yes...
I mean on badges etc. Feels like if I don't have a pronoun stated it looks like I'm against it all.
"You see that's a misnomer, only a handful of people will actually be offended if you choose to not do it. If you are happy with people to guess then you do you. you may get people asking cos they want to be sure. Similarly to my last post, don't take it as an insult, just answer and that is that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Really? I know Pride is over but do we need another Transphobic fuelled non-story brought up? Halifax, like MANY banks and companies are allowing staff to put pronouns on their badges/email. It is purely Voluntary. People who read the Daily Mail got upset about something that does not affect them in the slightest, other than removing an excuse to be transphobic. Halifax said the absolute truth that no-one was forced to bank with them. James O'Brien puts it better than me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdZuYBzEps0 Question... if someone wants to be inclusive/ supportive but doesn't want to have their own pronouns displayed for whatever reason, what can they do? Respect others choices and pronouns. Well yes...
I mean on badges etc. Feels like if I don't have a pronoun stated it looks like I'm against it all.
"Personally I wouldn't say so. If anything I think gender nonconforming folk are more likely to be understanding that there's a whole host of reasons someone may prefer not to publicly disclosure their preferred pronouns. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Really? I know Pride is over but do we need another Transphobic fuelled non-story brought up? Halifax, like MANY banks and companies are allowing staff to put pronouns on their badges/email. It is purely Voluntary. People who read the Daily Mail got upset about something that does not affect them in the slightest, other than removing an excuse to be transphobic. Halifax said the absolute truth that no-one was forced to bank with them. James O'Brien puts it better than me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdZuYBzEps0 Question... if someone wants to be inclusive/ supportive but doesn't want to have their own pronouns displayed for whatever reason, what can they do? Respect others choices and pronouns. Well yes...
I mean on badges etc. Feels like if I don't have a pronoun stated it looks like I'm against it all.
Personally I wouldn't say so. If anything I think gender nonconforming folk are more likely to be understanding that there's a whole host of reasons someone may prefer not to publicly disclosure their preferred pronouns. "Ok that helps, thank you.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think it's great because it prevents me from making a mistake and offending someone. My dad however just doesn't understand and wouldn't know why they were on their badges. He finds the world a very confusing place " This is my view too, I would hate to address someone incorrectly so I think it's a great idea, well done Halifax and well done for telling people to bank elsewhere if they don't like it  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think it's great because it prevents me from making a mistake and offending someone. My dad however just doesn't understand and wouldn't know why they were on their badges. He finds the world a very confusing place This is my view too, I would hate to address someone incorrectly so I think it's a great idea, well done Halifax and well done for telling people to bank elsewhere if they don't like it "I find that part of it slightly ironic. They're trying to be inclusive why exclude someone in the effort to achieve it. Surely education is the way forward | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think it's great because it prevents me from making a mistake and offending someone. My dad however just doesn't understand and wouldn't know why they were on their badges. He finds the world a very confusing place This is my view too, I would hate to address someone incorrectly so I think it's a great idea, well done Halifax and well done for telling people to bank elsewhere if they don't like it "Me too. Never understand why people are offended or affronted by something that costs them nothing but may help others. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think it's great because it prevents me from making a mistake and offending someone. My dad however just doesn't understand and wouldn't know why they were on their badges. He finds the world a very confusing place This is my view too, I would hate to address someone incorrectly so I think it's a great idea, well done Halifax and well done for telling people to bank elsewhere if they don't like it
I find that part of it slightly ironic. They're trying to be inclusive why exclude someone in the effort to achieve it. Surely education is the way forward "Good point, never thought of that! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think it's great because it prevents me from making a mistake and offending someone. My dad however just doesn't understand and wouldn't know why they were on their badges. He finds the world a very confusing place This is my view too, I would hate to address someone incorrectly so I think it's a great idea, well done Halifax and well done for telling people to bank elsewhere if they don't like it
I find that part of it slightly ironic. They're trying to be inclusive why exclude someone in the effort to achieve it. Surely education is the way forward "That isn't what they did though, they did that if it was a problem and they didn't like it they don't HAVE to bank with them, how is that controversial in the slightest? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Really? I know Pride is over but do we need another Transphobic fuelled non-story brought up? Halifax, like MANY banks and companies are allowing staff to put pronouns on their badges/email. It is purely Voluntary. People who read the Daily Mail got upset about something that does not affect them in the slightest, other than removing an excuse to be transphobic. Halifax said the absolute truth that no-one was forced to bank with them. James O'Brien puts it better than me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdZuYBzEps0" Transphobes literally refuse to keep trans people out of their mouths; it’s borderline embarrassing. It’s an obsession | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reports that Halifax Bank are including pronouns on the staff namebadges if the member wants it.. now Tom is not sure what a pronoun is but suddenly there are dozens of them. Tom just wants to be called Tom. Reports that if customers don't like it they can go elsewhere. It's a crazy crazy world. And this one is all over the news. Storm in an egg cup maybe?" comenon people, Tim has a good point here... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think it's great because it prevents me from making a mistake and offending someone. My dad however just doesn't understand and wouldn't know why they were on their badges. He finds the world a very confusing place This is my view too, I would hate to address someone incorrectly so I think it's a great idea, well done Halifax and well done for telling people to bank elsewhere if they don't like it "I'm not sure you address people by their pronouns, you can refer to them by their pronouns though, or am I missing something? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reports that Halifax Bank are including pronouns on the staff namebadges if the member wants it.. now Tom is not sure what a pronoun is but suddenly there are dozens of them. Tom just wants to be called Tom. Reports that if customers don't like it they can go elsewhere. It's a crazy crazy world. And this one is all over the news. Storm in an egg cup maybe?" Halifax had tweeted for 3 days last I checked. Me thinks someone's pronoun is now P45. C | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think it's great because it prevents me from making a mistake and offending someone. My dad however just doesn't understand and wouldn't know why they were on their badges. He finds the world a very confusing place This is my view too, I would hate to address someone incorrectly so I think it's a great idea, well done Halifax and well done for telling people to bank elsewhere if they don't like it
I find that part of it slightly ironic. They're trying to be inclusive why exclude someone in the effort to achieve it. Surely education is the way forward
That isn't what they did though, they did that if it was a problem and they didn't like it they don't HAVE to bank with them, how is that controversial in the slightest? "Not controversial, ironic. Of course it's their prerogative but it's hardly inclusive which I understood perhaps mistakenly was their aim. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The pronouns of a bank clerk makes zero difference to anyones life. If anyone is upset by this they need to get a grip. I’m more interested in what they’ve done with Howard." This! Are people really changing their bank because of this  . Folk got too much bloody time on their hands. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The pronouns of a bank clerk makes zero difference to anyones life. If anyone is upset by this they need to get a grip. I’m more interested in what they’ve done with Howard. This! Are people really changing their bank because of this . Folk got too much bloody time on their hands. "If people boycotted every company that has done something they don’t like there’d be nowhere left to shop. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think it's great because it prevents me from making a mistake and offending someone. My dad however just doesn't understand and wouldn't know why they were on their badges. He finds the world a very confusing place This is my view too, I would hate to address someone incorrectly so I think it's a great idea, well done Halifax and well done for telling people to bank elsewhere if they don't like it
I'm not sure you address people by their pronouns, you can refer to them by their pronouns though, or am I missing something? "Do you think it isn't disrespectful to use the wrong pronouns when talking about them? Also conversations happen which arent only 1 to 1 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think it's great because it prevents me from making a mistake and offending someone. My dad however just doesn't understand and wouldn't know why they were on their badges. He finds the world a very confusing place This is my view too, I would hate to address someone incorrectly so I think it's a great idea, well done Halifax and well done for telling people to bank elsewhere if they don't like it
I find that part of it slightly ironic. They're trying to be inclusive why exclude someone in the effort to achieve it. Surely education is the way forward
That isn't what they did though, they did that if it was a problem and they didn't like it they don't HAVE to bank with them, how is that controversial in the slightest?
Not controversial, ironic. Of course it's their prerogative but it's hardly inclusive which I understood perhaps mistakenly was their aim. "I think you are mistaking the paradox of tolerance with inclusivity | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I identify as binary and my badge pronouns are 001110101 and 101010110. Please respect." Transphobes have one joke | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think it's great because it prevents me from making a mistake and offending someone. My dad however just doesn't understand and wouldn't know why they were on their badges. He finds the world a very confusing place This is my view too, I would hate to address someone incorrectly so I think it's a great idea, well done Halifax and well done for telling people to bank elsewhere if they don't like it
I find that part of it slightly ironic. They're trying to be inclusive why exclude someone in the effort to achieve it. Surely education is the way forward
That isn't what they did though, they did that if it was a problem and they didn't like it they don't HAVE to bank with them, how is that controversial in the slightest?
Not controversial, ironic. Of course it's their prerogative but it's hardly inclusive which I understood perhaps mistakenly was their aim.
I think you are mistaking the paradox of tolerance with inclusivity"Are the concepts of tolerance and inclusivity paradoxical? I'm all for using the correct pronouns and being enabled to see what they are by the way. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I find that "oi, you" works perfectly well to get the attention of bank lackeys. They have every right to put their pronouns on a badge. I have every right to ignore them." You is a pronoun | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I find that "oi, you" works perfectly well to get the attention of bank lackeys. They have every right to put their pronouns on a badge. I have every right to ignore them." So does that mean I can ignore the pronouns you prefer? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Really? I know Pride is over but do we need another Transphobic fuelled non-story brought up? Halifax, like MANY banks and companies are allowing staff to put pronouns on their badges/email. It is purely Voluntary. People who read the Daily Mail got upset about something that does not affect them in the slightest, other than removing an excuse to be transphobic. Halifax said the absolute truth that no-one was forced to bank with them. James O'Brien puts it better than me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdZuYBzEps0" You, and another, are very quick to try and label things you dislike as a 'phobia' or an 'ism' if people dislike something but you are the first to voice your opinion if you dislike a thing as well... Can you not see how weird that is? Why are you allowed to denigrate things but others are not? The current beef with Halifax is not merely just the badges but the swiftness that people are told they are not welcome for holding a different opinion. Its weird how businesses are allowed to be overtly political when they should be neutral. Halifax never said that no-one is forced to bank with them. They flat out said they can leave if they disagree, it's wildly different. It's beyond "Daily Mail" readers as well as corporatism is a slope we don't want to go down. Stop claiming the Boogeyman all the time. It washes away care for people who need help. C | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I find that "oi, you" works perfectly well to get the attention of bank lackeys. They have every right to put their pronouns on a badge. I have every right to ignore them." I find "excuse me" works pretty well, even if you dislike someone's chosen pronouns. While "me" is a pronoun, it's not one that is part of this culture war. Excuse me is also useful, because it at least allows one to pretend that one has a vague acquaintance with courtesy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Really? I know Pride is over but do we need another Transphobic fuelled non-story brought up? Halifax, like MANY banks and companies are allowing staff to put pronouns on their badges/email. It is purely Voluntary. People who read the Daily Mail got upset about something that does not affect them in the slightest, other than removing an excuse to be transphobic. Halifax said the absolute truth that no-one was forced to bank with them. James O'Brien puts it better than me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdZuYBzEps0 You, and another, are very quick to try and label things you dislike as a 'phobia' or an 'ism' if people dislike something but you are the first to voice your opinion if you dislike a thing as well... Can you not see how weird that is? Why are you allowed to denigrate things but others are not? The current beef with Halifax is not merely just the badges but the swiftness that people are told they are not welcome for holding a different opinion. Its weird how businesses are allowed to be overtly political when they should be neutral. Halifax never said that no-one is forced to bank with them. They flat out said they can leave if they disagree, it's wildly different. It's beyond "Daily Mail" readers as well as corporatism is a slope we don't want to go down. Stop claiming the Boogeyman all the time. It washes away care for people who need help. C" Can you explain how pronouns (that I’m sure we all use) are political? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I find that "oi, you" works perfectly well to get the attention of bank lackeys. They have every right to put their pronouns on a badge. I have every right to ignore them. So does that mean I can ignore the pronouns you prefer? " Absolutely you are in your right to be disrespectful and rude by ignoring a person's correct pronouns, assuming you are happy with accepting the backlash that may come as a consequence | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think it's great because it prevents me from making a mistake and offending someone. My dad however just doesn't understand and wouldn't know why they were on their badges. He finds the world a very confusing place " I'm finding the world a confusing place! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Really? I know Pride is over but do we need another Transphobic fuelled non-story brought up? Halifax, like MANY banks and companies are allowing staff to put pronouns on their badges/email. It is purely Voluntary. People who read the Daily Mail got upset about something that does not affect them in the slightest, other than removing an excuse to be transphobic. Halifax said the absolute truth that no-one was forced to bank with them. James O'Brien puts it better than me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdZuYBzEps0 You, and another, are very quick to try and label things you dislike as a 'phobia' or an 'ism' if people dislike something but you are the first to voice your opinion if you dislike a thing as well... Can you not see how weird that is? Why are you allowed to denigrate things but others are not? The current beef with Halifax is not merely just the badges but the swiftness that people are told they are not welcome for holding a different opinion. Its weird how businesses are allowed to be overtly political when they should be neutral. Halifax never said that no-one is forced to bank with them. They flat out said they can leave if they disagree, it's wildly different. It's beyond "Daily Mail" readers as well as corporatism is a slope we don't want to go down. Stop claiming the Boogeyman all the time. It washes away care for people who need help. C Can you explain how pronouns (that I’m sure we all use) are political? " They are not, but some see it as part of a "woke agenda" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I find that "oi, you" works perfectly well to get the attention of bank lackeys. They have every right to put their pronouns on a badge. I have every right to ignore them. So does that mean I can ignore the pronouns you prefer? Absolutely you are in your right to be disrespectful and rude by ignoring a person's correct pronouns, assuming you are happy with accepting the backlash that may come as a consequence" Not being rude, was simply saying if he ignores others pronouns then surely others can ignore his? I’m actually all for using pronouns but sure, jump down my throat | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think it's great because it prevents me from making a mistake and offending someone. My dad however just doesn't understand and wouldn't know why they were on their badges. He finds the world a very confusing place This is my view too, I would hate to address someone incorrectly so I think it's a great idea, well done Halifax and well done for telling people to bank elsewhere if they don't like it
I'm not sure you address people by their pronouns, you can refer to them by their pronouns though, or am I missing something?
Do you think it isn't disrespectful to use the wrong pronouns when talking about them?
Also conversations happen which arent only 1 to 1"Where did I say isn't disrespectful to refer to someone without using their pronouns? What I said clearly was, you don't address people by their pronouns. Please read carefully what is posted, and you wont come over as ranty when there is absolutely no reason to. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think it's great because it prevents me from making a mistake and offending someone. My dad however just doesn't understand and wouldn't know why they were on their badges. He finds the world a very confusing place This is my view too, I would hate to address someone incorrectly so I think it's a great idea, well done Halifax and well done for telling people to bank elsewhere if they don't like it
I find that part of it slightly ironic. They're trying to be inclusive why exclude someone in the effort to achieve it. Surely education is the way forward
That isn't what they did though, they did that if it was a problem and they didn't like it they don't HAVE to bank with them, how is that controversial in the slightest?
Not controversial, ironic. Of course it's their prerogative but it's hardly inclusive which I understood perhaps mistakenly was their aim.
I think you are mistaking the paradox of tolerance with inclusivity
Are the concepts of tolerance and inclusivity paradoxical?
I'm all for using the correct pronouns and being enabled to see what they are by the way. "The paradox of tolerance - "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think it's great because it prevents me from making a mistake and offending someone. My dad however just doesn't understand and wouldn't know why they were on their badges. He finds the world a very confusing place This is my view too, I would hate to address someone incorrectly so I think it's a great idea, well done Halifax and well done for telling people to bank elsewhere if they don't like it
I find that part of it slightly ironic. They're trying to be inclusive why exclude someone in the effort to achieve it. Surely education is the way forward
That isn't what they did though, they did that if it was a problem and they didn't like it they don't HAVE to bank with them, how is that controversial in the slightest?
Not controversial, ironic. Of course it's their prerogative but it's hardly inclusive which I understood perhaps mistakenly was their aim.
I think you are mistaking the paradox of tolerance with inclusivity
Are the concepts of tolerance and inclusivity paradoxical?
I'm all for using the correct pronouns and being enabled to see what they are by the way.
The paradox of tolerance - "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.""Thank you for explaining that to me. I wasn't aware of it .
This sort of illustrates the point I was trying to make in a way. I didn't understand what the paradox of tolerance is, you've explained rather than dismissing me. I wonder if Halifax could try and explain in depth to the nay sayers what they're trying to achieve rather than telling them accept it or you're not welcome. Maybe they have I don't know. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think it's great because it prevents me from making a mistake and offending someone. My dad however just doesn't understand and wouldn't know why they were on their badges. He finds the world a very confusing place This is my view too, I would hate to address someone incorrectly so I think it's a great idea, well done Halifax and well done for telling people to bank elsewhere if they don't like it
I find that part of it slightly ironic. They're trying to be inclusive why exclude someone in the effort to achieve it. Surely education is the way forward
That isn't what they did though, they did that if it was a problem and they didn't like it they don't HAVE to bank with them, how is that controversial in the slightest?
Not controversial, ironic. Of course it's their prerogative but it's hardly inclusive which I understood perhaps mistakenly was their aim.
I think you are mistaking the paradox of tolerance with inclusivity
Are the concepts of tolerance and inclusivity paradoxical?
I'm all for using the correct pronouns and being enabled to see what they are by the way.
The paradox of tolerance - "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."
Thank you for explaining that to me. I wasn't aware of it .
This sort of illustrates the point I was trying to make in a way. I didn't understand what the paradox of tolerance is, you've explained rather than dismissing me. I wonder if Halifax could try and explain in depth to the nay sayers what they're trying to achieve rather than telling them accept it or you're not welcome. Maybe they have I don't know."They didn't actually say they're not welcome though, just that nobody is forced to bank with them when asked about people who are unhappy about the change. Which is true, nobody is forced to bank with them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think it's great because it prevents me from making a mistake and offending someone. My dad however just doesn't understand and wouldn't know why they were on their badges. He finds the world a very confusing place This is my view too, I would hate to address someone incorrectly so I think it's a great idea, well done Halifax and well done for telling people to bank elsewhere if they don't like it
I find that part of it slightly ironic. They're trying to be inclusive why exclude someone in the effort to achieve it. Surely education is the way forward
That isn't what they did though, they did that if it was a problem and they didn't like it they don't HAVE to bank with them, how is that controversial in the slightest?
Not controversial, ironic. Of course it's their prerogative but it's hardly inclusive which I understood perhaps mistakenly was their aim.
I think you are mistaking the paradox of tolerance with inclusivity
Are the concepts of tolerance and inclusivity paradoxical?
I'm all for using the correct pronouns and being enabled to see what they are by the way.
The paradox of tolerance - "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."
Thank you for explaining that to me. I wasn't aware of it .
This sort of illustrates the point I was trying to make in a way. I didn't understand what the paradox of tolerance is, you've explained rather than dismissing me. I wonder if Halifax could try and explain in depth to the nay sayers what they're trying to achieve rather than telling them accept it or you're not welcome. Maybe they have I don't know.
They didn't actually say they're not welcome though, just that nobody is forced to bank with them when asked about people who are unhappy about the change. Which is true, nobody is forced to bank with them. "It is true. I know what I mean but I'm finding it difficult to articulate it in a way that doesn't offend so I'm probably best tootling about addressing people respectfully and still banking with Halifax | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I find that "oi, you" works perfectly well to get the attention of bank lackeys. They have every right to put their pronouns on a badge. I have every right to ignore them. So does that mean I can ignore the pronouns you prefer? Absolutely you are in your right to be disrespectful and rude by ignoring a person's correct pronouns, assuming you are happy with accepting the backlash that may come as a consequence Not being rude, was simply saying if he ignores others pronouns then surely others can ignore his? I’m actually all for using pronouns but sure, jump down my throat "I am not above admitting I was wrong, I am sorry for not reading what you wrote properly. This forum has repeatedly taken problematic stances and I let that let me jump to a conclusion. I am sorry | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think it's great because it prevents me from making a mistake and offending someone. My dad however just doesn't understand and wouldn't know why they were on their badges. He finds the world a very confusing place This is my view too, I would hate to address someone incorrectly so I think it's a great idea, well done Halifax and well done for telling people to bank elsewhere if they don't like it
I find that part of it slightly ironic. They're trying to be inclusive why exclude someone in the effort to achieve it. Surely education is the way forward
That isn't what they did though, they did that if it was a problem and they didn't like it they don't HAVE to bank with them, how is that controversial in the slightest?
Not controversial, ironic. Of course it's their prerogative but it's hardly inclusive which I understood perhaps mistakenly was their aim.
I think you are mistaking the paradox of tolerance with inclusivity
Are the concepts of tolerance and inclusivity paradoxical?
I'm all for using the correct pronouns and being enabled to see what they are by the way.
The paradox of tolerance - "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."
Thank you for explaining that to me. I wasn't aware of it .
This sort of illustrates the point I was trying to make in a way. I didn't understand what the paradox of tolerance is, you've explained rather than dismissing me. I wonder if Halifax could try and explain in depth to the nay sayers what they're trying to achieve rather than telling them accept it or you're not welcome. Maybe they have I don't know.
They didn't actually say they're not welcome though, just that nobody is forced to bank with them when asked about people who are unhappy about the change. Which is true, nobody is forced to bank with them. "The response that blew up was: "We strive for inclusion, equality and quite simply, in doing what’s right. If you disagree with our values, you’re welcome to close your account". I think that could have been worded so much better, it became combative. It plays somewhat into the paradox of tolerance you mentioned above. The Halifax response can be read as being intolerant to any other view other than theirs. The whole thing was poorly managed in my opinion, by using their inclusivity as a promotional tool it turned a positive into a controversy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think it's great because it prevents me from making a mistake and offending someone. My dad however just doesn't understand and wouldn't know why they were on their badges. He finds the world a very confusing place This is my view too, I would hate to address someone incorrectly so I think it's a great idea, well done Halifax and well done for telling people to bank elsewhere if they don't like it
I find that part of it slightly ironic. They're trying to be inclusive why exclude someone in the effort to achieve it. Surely education is the way forward
That isn't what they did though, they did that if it was a problem and they didn't like it they don't HAVE to bank with them, how is that controversial in the slightest?
Not controversial, ironic. Of course it's their prerogative but it's hardly inclusive which I understood perhaps mistakenly was their aim.
I think you are mistaking the paradox of tolerance with inclusivity
Are the concepts of tolerance and inclusivity paradoxical?
I'm all for using the correct pronouns and being enabled to see what they are by the way.
The paradox of tolerance - "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."
Thank you for explaining that to me. I wasn't aware of it .
This sort of illustrates the point I was trying to make in a way. I didn't understand what the paradox of tolerance is, you've explained rather than dismissing me. I wonder if Halifax could try and explain in depth to the nay sayers what they're trying to achieve rather than telling them accept it or you're not welcome. Maybe they have I don't know.
They didn't actually say they're not welcome though, just that nobody is forced to bank with them when asked about people who are unhappy about the change. Which is true, nobody is forced to bank with them.
The response that blew up was: "We strive for inclusion, equality and quite simply, in doing what’s right. If you disagree with our values, you’re welcome to close your account".
I think that could have been worded so much better, it became combative.
It plays somewhat into the paradox of tolerance you mentioned above. The Halifax response can be read as being intolerant to any other view other than theirs.
The whole thing was poorly managed in my opinion, by using their inclusivity as a promotional tool it turned a positive into a controversy. "Opinion: Halifax were right, with the badges, and with their response to the backlash. Not Opinion: To the privileged, equality feels like oppression | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Can you explain how pronouns (that I’m sure we all use) are political? " On their own they are not. The way Halifax went about it was political. C | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Can you explain how pronouns (that I’m sure we all use) are political? On their own they are not. The way Halifax went about it was political. C" I disagree, it was made political by the "Daily Mail Readers" who turned a non-issue into a political discourse as a cover for being transphobic | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder if the people so upset about it get upset when filling in forms that ask them if they are Mr or Mrs/Ms/Miss instead of just assuming by their name and marital status. " ^^^ This ^^^ I've always been grossly annoyed by the fact that society labels me (and all women) by their marital status. It's no-one's business but mine what my status is. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder if the people so upset about it get upset when filling in forms that ask them if they are Mr or Mrs/Ms/Miss instead of just assuming by their name and marital status. ^^^ This ^^^ I've always been grossly annoyed by the fact that society labels me (and all women) by their marital status. It's no-one's business but mine what my status is." Why I use Mx... it was intended as Gender neutral, but it is also not tied to marital status | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think it's great because it prevents me from making a mistake and offending someone. My dad however just doesn't understand and wouldn't know why they were on their badges. He finds the world a very confusing place This is my view too, I would hate to address someone incorrectly so I think it's a great idea, well done Halifax and well done for telling people to bank elsewhere if they don't like it
I find that part of it slightly ironic. They're trying to be inclusive why exclude someone in the effort to achieve it. Surely education is the way forward
That isn't what they did though, they did that if it was a problem and they didn't like it they don't HAVE to bank with them, how is that controversial in the slightest?
Not controversial, ironic. Of course it's their prerogative but it's hardly inclusive which I understood perhaps mistakenly was their aim.
I think you are mistaking the paradox of tolerance with inclusivity
Are the concepts of tolerance and inclusivity paradoxical?
I'm all for using the correct pronouns and being enabled to see what they are by the way.
The paradox of tolerance - "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."
Thank you for explaining that to me. I wasn't aware of it .
This sort of illustrates the point I was trying to make in a way. I didn't understand what the paradox of tolerance is, you've explained rather than dismissing me. I wonder if Halifax could try and explain in depth to the nay sayers what they're trying to achieve rather than telling them accept it or you're not welcome. Maybe they have I don't know.
They didn't actually say they're not welcome though, just that nobody is forced to bank with them when asked about people who are unhappy about the change. Which is true, nobody is forced to bank with them.
The response that blew up was: "We strive for inclusion, equality and quite simply, in doing what’s right. If you disagree with our values, you’re welcome to close your account".
I think that could have been worded so much better, it became combative.
It plays somewhat into the paradox of tolerance you mentioned above. The Halifax response can be read as being intolerant to any other view other than theirs.
The whole thing was poorly managed in my opinion, by using their inclusivity as a promotional tool it turned a positive into a controversy.
Opinion:
Halifax were right, with the badges, and with their response to the backlash.
Not Opinion:
To the privileged, equality feels like oppression"What?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not Opinion: To the privileged, equality feels like oppression What??" I was quite clear. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not Opinion: To the privileged, equality feels like oppression What?? I was quite clear." Obviously not to me... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not Opinion: To the privileged, equality feels like oppression What?? I was quite clear. Obviously not to me..." When people are privileged in society, they view steps towards equality and equity as oppression. they think because others are getting more rights and being brought in line with them, that they must be losing something, when they are not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not Opinion: To the privileged, equality feels like oppression What?? I was quite clear. Obviously not to me... When people are privileged in society, they view steps towards equality and equity as oppression. they think because others are getting more rights and being brought in line with them, that they must be losing something, when they are not." What do you class as privileged? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reports that Halifax Bank are including pronouns on the staff namebadges if the member wants it.. now Tom is not sure what a pronoun is but suddenly there are dozens of them. Tom just wants to be called Tom. Reports that if customers don't like it they can go elsewhere. It's a crazy crazy world. And this one is all over the news. Storm in an egg cup maybe?" Your last line is bang on Tom. The pronouns of other people mean nothing to you but everything to them and to not use them when made aware of them is nothing short of disrespectful. Good on Halifax for standing by their employees who choose to display their pronouns. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not Opinion: To the privileged, equality feels like oppression What?? I was quite clear. Obviously not to me... When people are privileged in society, they view steps towards equality and equity as oppression. they think because others are getting more rights and being brought in line with them, that they must be losing something, when they are not." Define privileged | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not Opinion: To the privileged, equality feels like oppression What?? I was quite clear. Obviously not to me... When people are privileged in society, they view steps towards equality and equity as oppression. they think because others are getting more rights and being brought in line with them, that they must be losing something, when they are not. Define privileged" White men at the top Literally everyone else below them That’s why my life is so easy.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not Opinion: To the privileged, equality feels like oppression What?? I was quite clear. Obviously not to me... When people are privileged in society, they view steps towards equality and equity as oppression. they think because others are getting more rights and being brought in line with them, that they must be losing something, when they are not. What do you class as privileged?" The ultimate in privilege in the UK is: Rich White Allosexual Cisgender Assigned Male at Birth Heterosexual Neurotypical Able-Bodied Each of those descriptors you have makes you more privileged, each one you don't have makes you less. The UK is predominantly built for the list above. The less that applies to you the more obstacles you have in your day to day life simply by being who you are. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not Opinion: To the privileged, equality feels like oppression What?? I was quite clear. Obviously not to me... When people are privileged in society, they view steps towards equality and equity as oppression. they think because others are getting more rights and being brought in line with them, that they must be losing something, when they are not. Define privileged White men at the top Literally everyone else below them That’s why my life is so easy. "Isn't it just | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not Opinion: To the privileged, equality feels like oppression What?? I was quite clear. Obviously not to me... When people are privileged in society, they view steps towards equality and equity as oppression. they think because others are getting more rights and being brought in line with them, that they must be losing something, when they are not. What do you class as privileged? The ultimate in privilege in the UK is: Rich White Allosexual Cisgender Assigned Male at Birth Heterosexual Neurotypical Able-Bodied Each of those descriptors you have makes you more privileged, each one you don't have makes you less. The UK is predominantly built for the list above. The less that applies to you the more obstacles you have in your day to day life simply by being who you are." Ok. Thankyou for clarifying your definition. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not Opinion: To the privileged, equality feels like oppression What?? I was quite clear. Obviously not to me... When people are privileged in society, they view steps towards equality and equity as oppression. they think because others are getting more rights and being brought in line with them, that they must be losing something, when they are not. Define privileged White men at the top Literally everyone else below them That’s why my life is so easy. "Privilege doesn't mean your life is easier, it means your life isn't made harder because of those factors being additional obstacles. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder if the people so upset about it get upset when filling in forms that ask them if they are Mr or Mrs/Ms/Miss instead of just assuming by their name and marital status. ^^^ This ^^^ I've always been grossly annoyed by the fact that society labels me (and all women) by their marital status. It's no-one's business but mine what my status is." I go for Ms, but my mail is always Miss or Mrs. Drives me potty. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not Opinion: To the privileged, equality feels like oppression What?? I was quite clear. Obviously not to me... When people are privileged in society, they view steps towards equality and equity as oppression. they think because others are getting more rights and being brought in line with them, that they must be losing something, when they are not. Define privileged White men at the top Literally everyone else below them That’s why my life is so easy.
Privilege doesn't mean your life is easier, it means your life isn't made harder because of those factors being additional obstacles."Mines easy as pie and I plan to keep it that way | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I find that "oi, you" works perfectly well to get the attention of bank lackeys. They have every right to put their pronouns on a badge. I have every right to ignore them. So does that mean I can ignore the pronouns you prefer? " If you work in a place that I am giving my custom to, you'll call me sir or lose my business and possibly your job. It's as simple as that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I find that "oi, you" works perfectly well to get the attention of bank lackeys. They have every right to put their pronouns on a badge. I have every right to ignore them. So does that mean I can ignore the pronouns you prefer? If you work in a place that I am giving my custom to, you'll call me sir or lose my business and possibly your job. It's as simple as that. " So you agree that people's gender preferences should be respected, on pain of loss of livelihood? Fascinating. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I find that "oi, you" works perfectly well to get the attention of bank lackeys. They have every right to put their pronouns on a badge. I have every right to ignore them. So does that mean I can ignore the pronouns you prefer? If you work in a place that I am giving my custom to, you'll call me sir or lose my business and possibly your job. It's as simple as that. " You made my point better than I could ever have done. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you work in a place that I am giving my custom to, you'll call me sir or lose my business and possibly your job. It's as simple as that. " So this is exactly the sort of thing you would hear from someone who had all the privilege I mentioned earlier in this thread (obviously not the poster above, I am sure it was done as satire), all with an added level of entitlement | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I find that "oi, you" works perfectly well to get the attention of bank lackeys. They have every right to put their pronouns on a badge. I have every right to ignore them. So does that mean I can ignore the pronouns you prefer? If you work in a place that I am giving my custom to, you'll call me sir or lose my business and possibly your job. It's as simple as that. " Are you a knight or hold a Queens commission then. If not you Mr. I’d like to see you try and lose me my job, you’d be laughed out of the place…. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I find that "oi, you" works perfectly well to get the attention of bank lackeys. They have every right to put their pronouns on a badge. I have every right to ignore them. So does that mean I can ignore the pronouns you prefer? If you work in a place that I am giving my custom to, you'll call me sir or lose my business and possibly your job. It's as simple as that. So you agree that people's gender preferences should be respected, on pain of loss of livelihood? Fascinating." You're very easily fascinated. No, I believe my gender preferences as a customer are important. I don't give a shit what a shop monkey's preferences are. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I find that "oi, you" works perfectly well to get the attention of bank lackeys. They have every right to put their pronouns on a badge. I have every right to ignore them. So does that mean I can ignore the pronouns you prefer? If you work in a place that I am giving my custom to, you'll call me sir or lose my business and possibly your job. It's as simple as that. Are you a knight or hold a Queens commission then. If not you Mr. I’d like to see you try and lose me my job, you’d be laughed out of the place…." I never shop in Poundland | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think it's great because it prevents me from making a mistake and offending someone. My dad however just doesn't understand and wouldn't know why they were on their badges. He finds the world a very confusing place This is my view too, I would hate to address someone incorrectly so I think it's a great idea, well done Halifax and well done for telling people to bank elsewhere if they don't like it
I find that part of it slightly ironic. They're trying to be inclusive why exclude someone in the effort to achieve it. Surely education is the way forward
That isn't what they did though, they did that if it was a problem and they didn't like it they don't HAVE to bank with them, how is that controversial in the slightest?
Not controversial, ironic. Of course it's their prerogative but it's hardly inclusive which I understood perhaps mistakenly was their aim.
I think you are mistaking the paradox of tolerance with inclusivity
Are the concepts of tolerance and inclusivity paradoxical?
I'm all for using the correct pronouns and being enabled to see what they are by the way.
The paradox of tolerance - "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."
Thank you for explaining that to me. I wasn't aware of it .
This sort of illustrates the point I was trying to make in a way. I didn't understand what the paradox of tolerance is, you've explained rather than dismissing me. I wonder if Halifax could try and explain in depth to the nay sayers what they're trying to achieve rather than telling them accept it or you're not welcome. Maybe they have I don't know.
They didn't actually say they're not welcome though, just that nobody is forced to bank with them when asked about people who are unhappy about the change. Which is true, nobody is forced to bank with them.
The response that blew up was: "We strive for inclusion, equality and quite simply, in doing what’s right. If you disagree with our values, you’re welcome to close your account".
I think that could have been worded so much better, it became combative.
It plays somewhat into the paradox of tolerance you mentioned above. The Halifax response can be read as being intolerant to any other view other than theirs.
The whole thing was poorly managed in my opinion, by using their inclusivity as a promotional tool it turned a positive into a controversy. "The point of the paradox of tolerance is actually to discourage unlimited tolerance. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think it's great because it prevents me from making a mistake and offending someone. My dad however just doesn't understand and wouldn't know why they were on their badges. He finds the world a very confusing place This is my view too, I would hate to address someone incorrectly so I think it's a great idea, well done Halifax and well done for telling people to bank elsewhere if they don't like it
I find that part of it slightly ironic. They're trying to be inclusive why exclude someone in the effort to achieve it. Surely education is the way forward
That isn't what they did though, they did that if it was a problem and they didn't like it they don't HAVE to bank with them, how is that controversial in the slightest?
Not controversial, ironic. Of course it's their prerogative but it's hardly inclusive which I understood perhaps mistakenly was their aim.
I think you are mistaking the paradox of tolerance with inclusivity
Are the concepts of tolerance and inclusivity paradoxical?
I'm all for using the correct pronouns and being enabled to see what they are by the way.
The paradox of tolerance - "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."
Thank you for explaining that to me. I wasn't aware of it .
This sort of illustrates the point I was trying to make in a way. I didn't understand what the paradox of tolerance is, you've explained rather than dismissing me. I wonder if Halifax could try and explain in depth to the nay sayers what they're trying to achieve rather than telling them accept it or you're not welcome. Maybe they have I don't know.
They didn't actually say they're not welcome though, just that nobody is forced to bank with them when asked about people who are unhappy about the change. Which is true, nobody is forced to bank with them.
The response that blew up was: "We strive for inclusion, equality and quite simply, in doing what’s right. If you disagree with our values, you’re welcome to close your account".
I think that could have been worded so much better, it became combative.
It plays somewhat into the paradox of tolerance you mentioned above. The Halifax response can be read as being intolerant to any other view other than theirs.
The whole thing was poorly managed in my opinion, by using their inclusivity as a promotional tool it turned a positive into a controversy.
The point of the paradox of tolerance is actually to discourage unlimited tolerance. "I'm confused | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think it's great because it prevents me from making a mistake and offending someone. My dad however just doesn't understand and wouldn't know why they were on their badges. He finds the world a very confusing place This is my view too, I would hate to address someone incorrectly so I think it's a great idea, well done Halifax and well done for telling people to bank elsewhere if they don't like it
I find that part of it slightly ironic. They're trying to be inclusive why exclude someone in the effort to achieve it. Surely education is the way forward
That isn't what they did though, they did that if it was a problem and they didn't like it they don't HAVE to bank with them, how is that controversial in the slightest?
Not controversial, ironic. Of course it's their prerogative but it's hardly inclusive which I understood perhaps mistakenly was their aim.
I think you are mistaking the paradox of tolerance with inclusivity
Are the concepts of tolerance and inclusivity paradoxical?
I'm all for using the correct pronouns and being enabled to see what they are by the way.
The paradox of tolerance - "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."
Thank you for explaining that to me. I wasn't aware of it .
This sort of illustrates the point I was trying to make in a way. I didn't understand what the paradox of tolerance is, you've explained rather than dismissing me. I wonder if Halifax could try and explain in depth to the nay sayers what they're trying to achieve rather than telling them accept it or you're not welcome. Maybe they have I don't know.
They didn't actually say they're not welcome though, just that nobody is forced to bank with them when asked about people who are unhappy about the change. Which is true, nobody is forced to bank with them.
The response that blew up was: "We strive for inclusion, equality and quite simply, in doing what’s right. If you disagree with our values, you’re welcome to close your account".
I think that could have been worded so much better, it became combative.
It plays somewhat into the paradox of tolerance you mentioned above. The Halifax response can be read as being intolerant to any other view other than theirs.
The whole thing was poorly managed in my opinion, by using their inclusivity as a promotional tool it turned a positive into a controversy.
The point of the paradox of tolerance is actually to discourage unlimited tolerance. "Is unlimited tolerance a good thing at all times in every situation? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I find that "oi, you" works perfectly well to get the attention of bank lackeys. They have every right to put their pronouns on a badge. I have every right to ignore them. So does that mean I can ignore the pronouns you prefer? If you work in a place that I am giving my custom to, you'll call me sir or lose my business and possibly your job. It's as simple as that. So you agree that people's gender preferences should be respected, on pain of loss of livelihood? Fascinating. You're very easily fascinated. No, I believe my gender preferences as a customer are important. I don't give a shit what a shop monkey's preferences are." Your courtesy for others is overwhelming. I hope it's repaid in kind. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Have a day off." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I find that "oi, you" works perfectly well to get the attention of bank lackeys. They have every right to put their pronouns on a badge. I have every right to ignore them. So does that mean I can ignore the pronouns you prefer? If you work in a place that I am giving my custom to, you'll call me sir or lose my business and possibly your job. It's as simple as that. Are you a knight or hold a Queens commission then. If not you Mr. I’d like to see you try and lose me my job, you’d be laughed out of the place…. I never shop in Poundland "Not a shop, it’s a place where you would have no choice but to encounter me if you passed through and nobody not even you gets called sir… | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think it's great because it prevents me from making a mistake and offending someone. My dad however just doesn't understand and wouldn't know why they were on their badges. He finds the world a very confusing place This is my view too, I would hate to address someone incorrectly so I think it's a great idea, well done Halifax and well done for telling people to bank elsewhere if they don't like it
I find that part of it slightly ironic. They're trying to be inclusive why exclude someone in the effort to achieve it. Surely education is the way forward
That isn't what they did though, they did that if it was a problem and they didn't like it they don't HAVE to bank with them, how is that controversial in the slightest?
Not controversial, ironic. Of course it's their prerogative but it's hardly inclusive which I understood perhaps mistakenly was their aim.
I think you are mistaking the paradox of tolerance with inclusivity
Are the concepts of tolerance and inclusivity paradoxical?
I'm all for using the correct pronouns and being enabled to see what they are by the way.
The paradox of tolerance - "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."
Thank you for explaining that to me. I wasn't aware of it .
This sort of illustrates the point I was trying to make in a way. I didn't understand what the paradox of tolerance is, you've explained rather than dismissing me. I wonder if Halifax could try and explain in depth to the nay sayers what they're trying to achieve rather than telling them accept it or you're not welcome. Maybe they have I don't know.
They didn't actually say they're not welcome though, just that nobody is forced to bank with them when asked about people who are unhappy about the change. Which is true, nobody is forced to bank with them.
The response that blew up was: "We strive for inclusion, equality and quite simply, in doing what’s right. If you disagree with our values, you’re welcome to close your account".
I think that could have been worded so much better, it became combative.
It plays somewhat into the paradox of tolerance you mentioned above. The Halifax response can be read as being intolerant to any other view other than theirs.
The whole thing was poorly managed in my opinion, by using their inclusivity as a promotional tool it turned a positive into a controversy.
The point of the paradox of tolerance is actually to discourage unlimited tolerance.
Is unlimited tolerance a good thing at all times in every situation?
"No, that's the point. Unlimited tolerance is a bad thing Unlimited tolerance leads to the tolerant being destroyed and tolerance with them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Can you explain how pronouns (that I’m sure we all use) are political? On their own they are not. The way Halifax went about it was political. C I disagree, it was made political by the "Daily Mail Readers" who turned a non-issue into a political discourse as a cover for being transphobic" It was actually reported very widely in most of the broadsheets. The Independent and the Telegraph.. transphobic as they are .. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think it's great because it prevents me from making a mistake and offending someone. My dad however just doesn't understand and wouldn't know why they were on their badges. He finds the world a very confusing place This is my view too, I would hate to address someone incorrectly so I think it's a great idea, well done Halifax and well done for telling people to bank elsewhere if they don't like it
I find that part of it slightly ironic. They're trying to be inclusive why exclude someone in the effort to achieve it. Surely education is the way forward
That isn't what they did though, they did that if it was a problem and they didn't like it they don't HAVE to bank with them, how is that controversial in the slightest?
Not controversial, ironic. Of course it's their prerogative but it's hardly inclusive which I understood perhaps mistakenly was their aim.
I think you are mistaking the paradox of tolerance with inclusivity
Are the concepts of tolerance and inclusivity paradoxical?
I'm all for using the correct pronouns and being enabled to see what they are by the way.
The paradox of tolerance - "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."
Thank you for explaining that to me. I wasn't aware of it .
This sort of illustrates the point I was trying to make in a way. I didn't understand what the paradox of tolerance is, you've explained rather than dismissing me. I wonder if Halifax could try and explain in depth to the nay sayers what they're trying to achieve rather than telling them accept it or you're not welcome. Maybe they have I don't know.
They didn't actually say they're not welcome though, just that nobody is forced to bank with them when asked about people who are unhappy about the change. Which is true, nobody is forced to bank with them.
The response that blew up was: "We strive for inclusion, equality and quite simply, in doing what’s right. If you disagree with our values, you’re welcome to close your account".
I think that could have been worded so much better, it became combative.
It plays somewhat into the paradox of tolerance you mentioned above. The Halifax response can be read as being intolerant to any other view other than theirs.
The whole thing was poorly managed in my opinion, by using their inclusivity as a promotional tool it turned a positive into a controversy.
The point of the paradox of tolerance is actually to discourage unlimited tolerance. "Would the customers of Halifax who showed anger or frustration with the pronouns being added to the badge, feel Halifax are showing unlimited tolerance? Intolerance and tolerance can be reversed on each side of the view point. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I find that "oi, you" works perfectly well to get the attention of bank lackeys. They have every right to put their pronouns on a badge. I have every right to ignore them." And they have every right note to serve you. Why are you so disrespectful of others? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I find that "oi, you" works perfectly well to get the attention of bank lackeys. They have every right to put their pronouns on a badge. I have every right to ignore them. So does that mean I can ignore the pronouns you prefer? If you work in a place that I am giving my custom to, you'll call me sir or lose my business and possibly your job. It's as simple as that. Are you a knight or hold a Queens commission then. If not you Mr. I’d like to see you try and lose me my job, you’d be laughed out of the place…. I never shop in Poundland
Not a shop, it’s a place where you would have no choice but to encounter me if you passed through and nobody not even you gets called sir… "A lesbian bar? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The point of the paradox of tolerance is actually to discourage unlimited tolerance. I'm confused " People are criticising Halifax as being intolerant for saying that people do not have to bank with them if they do not like their policies. (instead of correctly attributing the intolerance to those who are willing to close their accounts because Halifax is allowing staff to put pronouns on their badges if they choose) The paradox of tolerance says "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them." So by the nature of the Paradox Halifax SHOULD be intolerant of the intolerance shown by those people. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think it's great because it prevents me from making a mistake and offending someone. My dad however just doesn't understand and wouldn't know why they were on their badges. He finds the world a very confusing place This is my view too, I would hate to address someone incorrectly so I think it's a great idea, well done Halifax and well done for telling people to bank elsewhere if they don't like it
I find that part of it slightly ironic. They're trying to be inclusive why exclude someone in the effort to achieve it. Surely education is the way forward
That isn't what they did though, they did that if it was a problem and they didn't like it they don't HAVE to bank with them, how is that controversial in the slightest?
Not controversial, ironic. Of course it's their prerogative but it's hardly inclusive which I understood perhaps mistakenly was their aim.
I think you are mistaking the paradox of tolerance with inclusivity
Are the concepts of tolerance and inclusivity paradoxical?
I'm all for using the correct pronouns and being enabled to see what they are by the way.
The paradox of tolerance - "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."
Thank you for explaining that to me. I wasn't aware of it .
This sort of illustrates the point I was trying to make in a way. I didn't understand what the paradox of tolerance is, you've explained rather than dismissing me. I wonder if Halifax could try and explain in depth to the nay sayers what they're trying to achieve rather than telling them accept it or you're not welcome. Maybe they have I don't know.
They didn't actually say they're not welcome though, just that nobody is forced to bank with them when asked about people who are unhappy about the change. Which is true, nobody is forced to bank with them.
The response that blew up was: "We strive for inclusion, equality and quite simply, in doing what’s right. If you disagree with our values, you’re welcome to close your account".
I think that could have been worded so much better, it became combative.
It plays somewhat into the paradox of tolerance you mentioned above. The Halifax response can be read as being intolerant to any other view other than theirs.
The whole thing was poorly managed in my opinion, by using their inclusivity as a promotional tool it turned a positive into a controversy.
The point of the paradox of tolerance is actually to discourage unlimited tolerance.
I'm confused "If you tolerate everything, you have to tolerate (jumping to extreme on purpose) genocidal Nazis. Which would by definition remove tolerance for the existence of Jewish people and other minorities, because we'd be tolerating genocide. Therefore tolerance by definition must have a limit, or else it destroys itself. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I find that "oi, you" works perfectly well to get the attention of bank lackeys. They have every right to put their pronouns on a badge. I have every right to ignore them. So does that mean I can ignore the pronouns you prefer? If you work in a place that I am giving my custom to, you'll call me sir or lose my business and possibly your job. It's as simple as that. So you agree that people's gender preferences should be respected, on pain of loss of livelihood? Fascinating. You're very easily fascinated. No, I believe my gender preferences as a customer are important. I don't give a shit what a shop monkey's preferences are." Why the need to insult shop workers? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I find that "oi, you" works perfectly well to get the attention of bank lackeys. They have every right to put their pronouns on a badge. I have every right to ignore them. So does that mean I can ignore the pronouns you prefer? If you work in a place that I am giving my custom to, you'll call me sir or lose my business and possibly your job. It's as simple as that. Are you a knight or hold a Queens commission then. If not you Mr. I’d like to see you try and lose me my job, you’d be laughed out of the place…. I never shop in Poundland
Not a shop, it’s a place where you would have no choice but to encounter me if you passed through and nobody not even you gets called sir…
A lesbian bar?"No pal, keep trying | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think it's great because it prevents me from making a mistake and offending someone. My dad however just doesn't understand and wouldn't know why they were on their badges. He finds the world a very confusing place This is my view too, I would hate to address someone incorrectly so I think it's a great idea, well done Halifax and well done for telling people to bank elsewhere if they don't like it
I find that part of it slightly ironic. They're trying to be inclusive why exclude someone in the effort to achieve it. Surely education is the way forward
That isn't what they did though, they did that if it was a problem and they didn't like it they don't HAVE to bank with them, how is that controversial in the slightest?
Not controversial, ironic. Of course it's their prerogative but it's hardly inclusive which I understood perhaps mistakenly was their aim.
I think you are mistaking the paradox of tolerance with inclusivity
Are the concepts of tolerance and inclusivity paradoxical?
I'm all for using the correct pronouns and being enabled to see what they are by the way.
The paradox of tolerance - "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."
Thank you for explaining that to me. I wasn't aware of it .
This sort of illustrates the point I was trying to make in a way. I didn't understand what the paradox of tolerance is, you've explained rather than dismissing me. I wonder if Halifax could try and explain in depth to the nay sayers what they're trying to achieve rather than telling them accept it or you're not welcome. Maybe they have I don't know.
They didn't actually say they're not welcome though, just that nobody is forced to bank with them when asked about people who are unhappy about the change. Which is true, nobody is forced to bank with them.
The response that blew up was: "We strive for inclusion, equality and quite simply, in doing what’s right. If you disagree with our values, you’re welcome to close your account".
I think that could have been worded so much better, it became combative.
It plays somewhat into the paradox of tolerance you mentioned above. The Halifax response can be read as being intolerant to any other view other than theirs.
The whole thing was poorly managed in my opinion, by using their inclusivity as a promotional tool it turned a positive into a controversy.
The point of the paradox of tolerance is actually to discourage unlimited tolerance.
Would the customers of Halifax who showed anger or frustration with the pronouns being added to the badge, feel Halifax are showing unlimited tolerance?
Intolerance and tolerance can be reversed on each side of the view point. "You're missing the point. Unlimited tolerance isn't the aim. Unlimited tolerance shouldn't be shown. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think it's great because it prevents me from making a mistake and offending someone. My dad however just doesn't understand and wouldn't know why they were on their badges. He finds the world a very confusing place This is my view too, I would hate to address someone incorrectly so I think it's a great idea, well done Halifax and well done for telling people to bank elsewhere if they don't like it
I find that part of it slightly ironic. They're trying to be inclusive why exclude someone in the effort to achieve it. Surely education is the way forward
That isn't what they did though, they did that if it was a problem and they didn't like it they don't HAVE to bank with them, how is that controversial in the slightest?
Not controversial, ironic. Of course it's their prerogative but it's hardly inclusive which I understood perhaps mistakenly was their aim.
I think you are mistaking the paradox of tolerance with inclusivity
Are the concepts of tolerance and inclusivity paradoxical?
I'm all for using the correct pronouns and being enabled to see what they are by the way.
The paradox of tolerance - "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."
Thank you for explaining that to me. I wasn't aware of it .
This sort of illustrates the point I was trying to make in a way. I didn't understand what the paradox of tolerance is, you've explained rather than dismissing me. I wonder if Halifax could try and explain in depth to the nay sayers what they're trying to achieve rather than telling them accept it or you're not welcome. Maybe they have I don't know.
They didn't actually say they're not welcome though, just that nobody is forced to bank with them when asked about people who are unhappy about the change. Which is true, nobody is forced to bank with them.
The response that blew up was: "We strive for inclusion, equality and quite simply, in doing what’s right. If you disagree with our values, you’re welcome to close your account".
I think that could have been worded so much better, it became combative.
It plays somewhat into the paradox of tolerance you mentioned above. The Halifax response can be read as being intolerant to any other view other than theirs.
The whole thing was poorly managed in my opinion, by using their inclusivity as a promotional tool it turned a positive into a controversy.
The point of the paradox of tolerance is actually to discourage unlimited tolerance.
Is unlimited tolerance a good thing at all times in every situation?
"Not just that but tolerance isn't binary (ha!). I mean where do we draw the line on what we tolerate? Taking pronouns as an example, what if we all decided to invent our own? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I find that "oi, you" works perfectly well to get the attention of bank lackeys. They have every right to put their pronouns on a badge. I have every right to ignore them. So does that mean I can ignore the pronouns you prefer? If you work in a place that I am giving my custom to, you'll call me sir or lose my business and possibly your job. It's as simple as that. Are you a knight or hold a Queens commission then. If not you Mr. I’d like to see you try and lose me my job, you’d be laughed out of the place…. I never shop in Poundland
Not a shop, it’s a place where you would have no choice but to encounter me if you passed through and nobody not even you gets called sir… "Airport security.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I find that "oi, you" works perfectly well to get the attention of bank lackeys. They have every right to put their pronouns on a badge. I have every right to ignore them. So does that mean I can ignore the pronouns you prefer? If you work in a place that I am giving my custom to, you'll call me sir or lose my business and possibly your job. It's as simple as that. So you agree that people's gender preferences should be respected, on pain of loss of livelihood? Fascinating. You're very easily fascinated. No, I believe my gender preferences as a customer are important. I don't give a shit what a shop monkey's preferences are." Someone clearly isn't getting enough attention! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I find that "oi, you" works perfectly well to get the attention of bank lackeys. They have every right to put their pronouns on a badge. I have every right to ignore them. So does that mean I can ignore the pronouns you prefer? If you work in a place that I am giving my custom to, you'll call me sir or lose my business and possibly your job. It's as simple as that. So you agree that people's gender preferences should be respected, on pain of loss of livelihood? Fascinating. You're very easily fascinated. No, I believe my gender preferences as a customer are important. I don't give a shit what a shop monkey's preferences are. Why the need to insult shop workers?" Tbh, I think the correct pronoun for someone who believes it's ok to be rude to staff is "get the fuck out and don't come back/ no we don't want your business" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I find that "oi, you" works perfectly well to get the attention of bank lackeys. They have every right to put their pronouns on a badge. I have every right to ignore them. So does that mean I can ignore the pronouns you prefer? If you work in a place that I am giving my custom to, you'll call me sir or lose my business and possibly your job. It's as simple as that. So you agree that people's gender preferences should be respected, on pain of loss of livelihood? Fascinating. You're very easily fascinated. No, I believe my gender preferences as a customer are important. I don't give a shit what a shop monkey's preferences are." State of this one. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not just that but tolerance isn't binary (ha!). I mean where do we draw the line on what we tolerate? Taking pronouns as an example, what if we all decided to invent our own? " Everybody on this site has an absolutely unique username. Everybody you come across in life has not quite but almost unique name. The idea of everyone having different identifiers is not a new concept, nor a tricky one in practice. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think it's great because it prevents me from making a mistake and offending someone. My dad however just doesn't understand and wouldn't know why they were on their badges. He finds the world a very confusing place This is my view too, I would hate to address someone incorrectly so I think it's a great idea, well done Halifax and well done for telling people to bank elsewhere if they don't like it
I find that part of it slightly ironic. They're trying to be inclusive why exclude someone in the effort to achieve it. Surely education is the way forward
That isn't what they did though, they did that if it was a problem and they didn't like it they don't HAVE to bank with them, how is that controversial in the slightest?
Not controversial, ironic. Of course it's their prerogative but it's hardly inclusive which I understood perhaps mistakenly was their aim.
I think you are mistaking the paradox of tolerance with inclusivity
Are the concepts of tolerance and inclusivity paradoxical?
I'm all for using the correct pronouns and being enabled to see what they are by the way.
The paradox of tolerance - "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."
Thank you for explaining that to me. I wasn't aware of it .
This sort of illustrates the point I was trying to make in a way. I didn't understand what the paradox of tolerance is, you've explained rather than dismissing me. I wonder if Halifax could try and explain in depth to the nay sayers what they're trying to achieve rather than telling them accept it or you're not welcome. Maybe they have I don't know.
They didn't actually say they're not welcome though, just that nobody is forced to bank with them when asked about people who are unhappy about the change. Which is true, nobody is forced to bank with them.
The response that blew up was: "We strive for inclusion, equality and quite simply, in doing what’s right. If you disagree with our values, you’re welcome to close your account".
I think that could have been worded so much better, it became combative.
It plays somewhat into the paradox of tolerance you mentioned above. The Halifax response can be read as being intolerant to any other view other than theirs.
The whole thing was poorly managed in my opinion, by using their inclusivity as a promotional tool it turned a positive into a controversy.
The point of the paradox of tolerance is actually to discourage unlimited tolerance.
Would the customers of Halifax who showed anger or frustration with the pronouns being added to the badge, feel Halifax are showing unlimited tolerance?
Intolerance and tolerance can be reversed on each side of the view point.
You're missing the point. Unlimited tolerance isn't the aim. Unlimited tolerance shouldn't be shown."Unlimited tolerance is not being shown by numbers of customers of Halifax, and are calling them out or leaving the bank, and Halifax is showing unlimited tolerance to some of their customers. The point here is on both sides of the fence, each party will not show unlimited tolerance to the other side. Will both sides then fade out? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not just that but tolerance isn't binary (ha!). I mean where do we draw the line on what we tolerate? Taking pronouns as an example, what if we all decided to invent our own? Everybody on this site has an absolutely unique username. Everybody you come across in life has not quite but almost unique name. The idea of everyone having different identifiers is not a new concept, nor a tricky one in practice." I have a fairly common name. I expect people to get it right. When people get it wrong, I correct them. I also make an effort to get names right even when I find them difficult. In most English speaking countries we regard limiting given names as an encroachment on our freedom. I have yet to meet a person who has decided my name is too difficult and they're just going to substitute their own name - and most people think it's very rude to do it to anyone. Same thing. The sky won't fall. Language changes all the time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unlimited tolerance is not being shown by numbers of customers of Halifax, and are calling them out or leaving the bank, and Halifax is showing unlimited tolerance to some of their customers. The point here is on both sides of the fence, each party will not show unlimited tolerance to the other side. Will both sides then fade out? " One side (the daily Fail Readers) are showing Intolerance to the other side (Halifax) because they are being Tolerant of people with differing pronouns. Halifax is in the right to be intolerant of the other sides intolerance. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not just that but tolerance isn't binary (ha!). I mean where do we draw the line on what we tolerate? Taking pronouns as an example, what if we all decided to invent our own? Everybody on this site has an absolutely unique username. Everybody you come across in life has not quite but almost unique name. But that defeats the object of what a pronoun actually is. It's a set of widely understood words that can replace a multitude of nouns. If people started using random words as pronouns, we wouldn't have a clue what they were talking about, right? The idea of everyone having different identifiers is not a new concept, nor a tricky one in practice." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think it's great because it prevents me from making a mistake and offending someone. My dad however just doesn't understand and wouldn't know why they were on their badges. He finds the world a very confusing place This is my view too, I would hate to address someone incorrectly so I think it's a great idea, well done Halifax and well done for telling people to bank elsewhere if they don't like it
I find that part of it slightly ironic. They're trying to be inclusive why exclude someone in the effort to achieve it. Surely education is the way forward
That isn't what they did though, they did that if it was a problem and they didn't like it they don't HAVE to bank with them, how is that controversial in the slightest?
Not controversial, ironic. Of course it's their prerogative but it's hardly inclusive which I understood perhaps mistakenly was their aim.
I think you are mistaking the paradox of tolerance with inclusivity
Are the concepts of tolerance and inclusivity paradoxical?
I'm all for using the correct pronouns and being enabled to see what they are by the way.
The paradox of tolerance - "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."
Thank you for explaining that to me. I wasn't aware of it .
This sort of illustrates the point I was trying to make in a way. I didn't understand what the paradox of tolerance is, you've explained rather than dismissing me. I wonder if Halifax could try and explain in depth to the nay sayers what they're trying to achieve rather than telling them accept it or you're not welcome. Maybe they have I don't know.
They didn't actually say they're not welcome though, just that nobody is forced to bank with them when asked about people who are unhappy about the change. Which is true, nobody is forced to bank with them.
The response that blew up was: "We strive for inclusion, equality and quite simply, in doing what’s right. If you disagree with our values, you’re welcome to close your account".
I think that could have been worded so much better, it became combative.
It plays somewhat into the paradox of tolerance you mentioned above. The Halifax response can be read as being intolerant to any other view other than theirs.
The whole thing was poorly managed in my opinion, by using their inclusivity as a promotional tool it turned a positive into a controversy.
The point of the paradox of tolerance is actually to discourage unlimited tolerance.
Would the customers of Halifax who showed anger or frustration with the pronouns being added to the badge, feel Halifax are showing unlimited tolerance?
Intolerance and tolerance can be reversed on each side of the view point.
You're missing the point. Unlimited tolerance isn't the aim. Unlimited tolerance shouldn't be shown.
Unlimited tolerance is not being shown by numbers of customers of Halifax, and are calling them out or leaving the bank, and Halifax is showing unlimited tolerance to some of their customers.
The point here is on both sides of the fence, each party will not show unlimited tolerance to the other side. Will both sides then fade out? "I'm confused. You said Halifax are showing unlimited tolerance then that they aren't. Halifax are not tolerating intolerance by bending to the will of the intolerant. The intolerant are not toleranting badges with pronouns so are moving banks and life carries on as normal at Halifax I guess. Apparently most banks are allowing pronouns on badges now and some have for some time now just with less publicity so I suppose those who won't tolerate pronouns on badges will just have to work with whatever their banking options are if they're that upset by it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unlimited tolerance is not being shown by numbers of customers of Halifax, and are calling them out or leaving the bank, and Halifax is showing unlimited tolerance to some of their customers. The point here is on both sides of the fence, each party will not show unlimited tolerance to the other side. Will both sides then fade out? One side (the daily Fail Readers) are showing Intolerance to the other side (Halifax) because they are being Tolerant of people with differing pronouns. Halifax is in the right to be intolerant of the other sides intolerance." Yeah. Rude customers (in a venue where they tend to have security) versus staff with name badges. This isn't an even fight | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unlimited tolerance is not being shown by numbers of customers of Halifax, and are calling them out or leaving the bank, and Halifax is showing unlimited tolerance to some of their customers. The point here is on both sides of the fence, each party will not show unlimited tolerance to the other side. Will both sides then fade out? One side (the daily Fail Readers) are showing Intolerance to the other side (Halifax) because they are being Tolerant of people with differing pronouns. Halifax is in the right to be intolerant of the other sides intolerance." Both sides feel they have the right to not show tolerance of each others actions, that much is obvious. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not just that but tolerance isn't binary (ha!). I mean where do we draw the line on what we tolerate? Taking pronouns as an example, what if we all decided to invent our own? Everybody on this site has an absolutely unique username. Everybody you come across in life has not quite but almost unique name. But that defeats the object of what a pronoun actually is. It's a set of widely understood words that can replace a multitude of nouns. If people started using random words as pronouns, we wouldn't have a clue what they were talking about, right? The idea of everyone having different identifiers is not a new concept, nor a tricky one in practice." You'll figure it out eventually | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unlimited tolerance is not being shown by numbers of customers of Halifax, and are calling them out or leaving the bank, and Halifax is showing unlimited tolerance to some of their customers. The point here is on both sides of the fence, each party will not show unlimited tolerance to the other side. Will both sides then fade out? One side (the daily Fail Readers) are showing Intolerance to the other side (Halifax) because they are being Tolerant of people with differing pronouns. Halifax is in the right to be intolerant of the other sides intolerance. Both sides feel they have the right to not show tolerance of each others actions, that much is obvious. " They don't both actually have that right though... at least in legal theory. they prolly do in practice. When famous TERF Maya Forstater sued her previous employers for not renewing her contract because she was transphobic (note she wasnt fired, her contract lapsed and they didnt renew) The courts found that unfortunately yes She was allowed to think that way. They also ruled though that No-one has the Right to misgender someone. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think it's great because it prevents me from making a mistake and offending someone. My dad however just doesn't understand and wouldn't know why they were on their badges. He finds the world a very confusing place This is my view too, I would hate to address someone incorrectly so I think it's a great idea, well done Halifax and well done for telling people to bank elsewhere if they don't like it
I find that part of it slightly ironic. They're trying to be inclusive why exclude someone in the effort to achieve it. Surely education is the way forward
That isn't what they did though, they did that if it was a problem and they didn't like it they don't HAVE to bank with them, how is that controversial in the slightest?
Not controversial, ironic. Of course it's their prerogative but it's hardly inclusive which I understood perhaps mistakenly was their aim.
I think you are mistaking the paradox of tolerance with inclusivity
Are the concepts of tolerance and inclusivity paradoxical?
I'm all for using the correct pronouns and being enabled to see what they are by the way.
The paradox of tolerance - "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."
Thank you for explaining that to me. I wasn't aware of it .
This sort of illustrates the point I was trying to make in a way. I didn't understand what the paradox of tolerance is, you've explained rather than dismissing me. I wonder if Halifax could try and explain in depth to the nay sayers what they're trying to achieve rather than telling them accept it or you're not welcome. Maybe they have I don't know.
They didn't actually say they're not welcome though, just that nobody is forced to bank with them when asked about people who are unhappy about the change. Which is true, nobody is forced to bank with them.
The response that blew up was: "We strive for inclusion, equality and quite simply, in doing what’s right. If you disagree with our values, you’re welcome to close your account".
I think that could have been worded so much better, it became combative.
It plays somewhat into the paradox of tolerance you mentioned above. The Halifax response can be read as being intolerant to any other view other than theirs.
The whole thing was poorly managed in my opinion, by using their inclusivity as a promotional tool it turned a positive into a controversy.
The point of the paradox of tolerance is actually to discourage unlimited tolerance.
Would the customers of Halifax who showed anger or frustration with the pronouns being added to the badge, feel Halifax are showing unlimited tolerance?
Intolerance and tolerance can be reversed on each side of the view point.
You're missing the point. Unlimited tolerance isn't the aim. Unlimited tolerance shouldn't be shown.
Unlimited tolerance is not being shown by numbers of customers of Halifax, and are calling them out or leaving the bank, and Halifax is showing unlimited tolerance to some of their customers.
The point here is on both sides of the fence, each party will not show unlimited tolerance to the other side. Will both sides then fade out?
I'm confused. You said Halifax are showing unlimited tolerance then that they aren't.
Halifax are not tolerating intolerance by bending to the will of the intolerant. The intolerant are not toleranting badges with pronouns so are moving banks and life carries on as normal at Halifax I guess.
Apparently most banks are allowing pronouns on badges now and some have for some time now just with less publicity so I suppose those who won't tolerate pronouns on badges will just have to work with whatever their banking options are if they're that upset by it. "Re-read, I missed the word "not" from Halifax. Tad confusing I admit  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread is demonstrating what a load of nonsense this pronoun business is" It is ridiculous that people have such a problem with what halifax are doing. It isn't ridiculous that halifax are doing it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread is demonstrating what a load of nonsense this pronoun business is It is ridiculous that people have such a problem with what halifax are doing. It isn't ridiculous that halifax are doing it." The company are giving people tools to help social interaction between strangers be more pleasant. Outrageous! Soon dogs will marry cats and civilisation will collapse! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread is demonstrating what a load of nonsense this pronoun business is" Ha! Brevity is a virtue as they say!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I find that "oi, you" works perfectly well to get the attention of bank lackeys. They have every right to put their pronouns on a badge. I have every right to ignore them. So does that mean I can ignore the pronouns you prefer? If you work in a place that I am giving my custom to, you'll call me sir or lose my business and possibly your job. It's as simple as that. So you agree that people's gender preferences should be respected, on pain of loss of livelihood? Fascinating. You're very easily fascinated. No, I believe my gender preferences as a customer are important. I don't give a shit what a shop monkey's preferences are. Why the need to insult shop workers?" Especially when he was one…. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I identify as binary and my badge pronouns are 001110101 and 101010110. Please respect. Transphobes have one joke" Oops, sorry, mistook all this for the Dad's Jokes thread. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I identify as binary and my badge pronouns are 001110101 and 101010110. Please respect. Transphobes have one joke Oops, sorry, mistook all this for the Dad's Jokes thread." Doesn't make the joke any less transphobic | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I identify as binary and my badge pronouns are 001110101 and 101010110. Please respect. Transphobes have one joke Oops, sorry, mistook all this for the Dad's Jokes thread." What a lad eh. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I identify as binary and my badge pronouns are 001110101 and 101010110. Please respect. Transphobes have one joke Oops, sorry, mistook all this for the Dad's Jokes thread. What a lad eh. " Lass if you don't mind. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unlimited tolerance is not being shown by numbers of customers of Halifax, and are calling them out or leaving the bank, and Halifax is showing unlimited tolerance to some of their customers. The point here is on both sides of the fence, each party will not show unlimited tolerance to the other side. Will both sides then fade out? One side (the daily Fail Readers) are showing Intolerance to the other side (Halifax) because they are being Tolerant of people with differing pronouns. Halifax is in the right to be intolerant of the other sides intolerance. Both sides feel they have the right to not show tolerance of each others actions, that much is obvious. They don't both actually have that right though... at least in legal theory. they prolly do in practice. When famous TERF Maya Forstater sued her previous employers for not renewing her contract because she was transphobic (note she wasnt fired, her contract lapsed and they didnt renew) The courts found that unfortunately yes She was allowed to think that way. They also ruled though that No-one has the Right to misgender someone." This is a great example for the benefit of actually displaying a preferred pronoun. A working environment is more than likely a situation that may lead another person into conversation with reference to a person they have already dealt with. The displayed pronouns will then help prevent misgender. Tolerance will remain lacking as long as people can't or don't piece together the benefits or reasons as to why it is as important to some as it is practical for others. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I identify as binary and my badge pronouns are 001110101 and 101010110. Please respect. Transphobes have one joke Oops, sorry, mistook all this for the Dad's Jokes thread. What a lad eh. Lass if you don't mind." I'm sure it's an honest mistake. If only there was a way of knowing you identified as a lass... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I identify as binary and my badge pronouns are 001110101 and 101010110. Please respect. Transphobes have one joke Oops, sorry, mistook all this for the Dad's Jokes thread. What a lad eh. Lass if you don't mind.I'm sure it's an honest mistake. If only there was a way of knowing you identified as a lass... " Now that made me laugh | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unlimited tolerance is not being shown by numbers of customers of Halifax, and are calling them out or leaving the bank, and Halifax is showing unlimited tolerance to some of their customers. The point here is on both sides of the fence, each party will not show unlimited tolerance to the other side. Will both sides then fade out? One side (the daily Fail Readers) are showing Intolerance to the other side (Halifax) because they are being Tolerant of people with differing pronouns. Halifax is in the right to be intolerant of the other sides intolerance. Both sides feel they have the right to not show tolerance of each others actions, that much is obvious. They don't both actually have that right though... at least in legal theory. they prolly do in practice. When famous TERF Maya Forstater sued her previous employers for not renewing her contract because she was transphobic (note she wasnt fired, her contract lapsed and they didnt renew) The courts found that unfortunately yes She was allowed to think that way. They also ruled though that No-one has the Right to misgender someone. This is a great example for the benefit of actually displaying a preferred pronoun. A working environment is more than likely a situation that may lead another person into conversation with reference to a person they have already dealt with. The displayed pronouns will then help prevent misgender. Tolerance will remain lacking as long as people can't or don't piece together the benefits or reasons as to why it is as important to some as it is practical for others. " An important part of piecing together is helping people understand why, in my opinion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unlimited tolerance is not being shown by numbers of customers of Halifax, and are calling them out or leaving the bank, and Halifax is showing unlimited tolerance to some of their customers. The point here is on both sides of the fence, each party will not show unlimited tolerance to the other side. Will both sides then fade out? One side (the daily Fail Readers) are showing Intolerance to the other side (Halifax) because they are being Tolerant of people with differing pronouns. Halifax is in the right to be intolerant of the other sides intolerance. Both sides feel they have the right to not show tolerance of each others actions, that much is obvious. They don't both actually have that right though... at least in legal theory. they prolly do in practice. When famous TERF Maya Forstater sued her previous employers for not renewing her contract because she was transphobic (note she wasnt fired, her contract lapsed and they didnt renew) The courts found that unfortunately yes She was allowed to think that way. They also ruled though that No-one has the Right to misgender someone. This is a great example for the benefit of actually displaying a preferred pronoun. A working environment is more than likely a situation that may lead another person into conversation with reference to a person they have already dealt with. The displayed pronouns will then help prevent misgender. Tolerance will remain lacking as long as people can't or don't piece together the benefits or reasons as to why it is as important to some as it is practical for others. An important part of piecing together is helping people understand why, in my opinion. " Totally agree with you, especially if done from a place of empathy and not criticism | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unlimited tolerance is not being shown by numbers of customers of Halifax, and are calling them out or leaving the bank, and Halifax is showing unlimited tolerance to some of their customers. The point here is on both sides of the fence, each party will not show unlimited tolerance to the other side. Will both sides then fade out? One side (the daily Fail Readers) are showing Intolerance to the other side (Halifax) because they are being Tolerant of people with differing pronouns. Halifax is in the right to be intolerant of the other sides intolerance. Both sides feel they have the right to not show tolerance of each others actions, that much is obvious. They don't both actually have that right though... at least in legal theory. they prolly do in practice. When famous TERF Maya Forstater sued her previous employers for not renewing her contract because she was transphobic (note she wasnt fired, her contract lapsed and they didnt renew) The courts found that unfortunately yes She was allowed to think that way. They also ruled though that No-one has the Right to misgender someone. This is a great example for the benefit of actually displaying a preferred pronoun. A working environment is more than likely a situation that may lead another person into conversation with reference to a person they have already dealt with. The displayed pronouns will then help prevent misgender. Tolerance will remain lacking as long as people can't or don't piece together the benefits or reasons as to why it is as important to some as it is practical for others. An important part of piecing together is helping people understand why, in my opinion. Totally agree with you, especially if done from a place of empathy and not criticism " Yep. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread is demonstrating what a load of nonsense this pronoun business is" You're right. It is nonsense what some people get offended by. Pronouns being out on badges of workers who chose to let other people know how they wish to be addressed as has certainly upset quite a few people. What will these snowflakes be offended by next? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unlimited tolerance is not being shown by numbers of customers of Halifax, and are calling them out or leaving the bank, and Halifax is showing unlimited tolerance to some of their customers. The point here is on both sides of the fence, each party will not show unlimited tolerance to the other side. Will both sides then fade out? One side (the daily Fail Readers) are showing Intolerance to the other side (Halifax) because they are being Tolerant of people with differing pronouns. Halifax is in the right to be intolerant of the other sides intolerance. Both sides feel they have the right to not show tolerance of each others actions, that much is obvious. They don't both actually have that right though... at least in legal theory. they prolly do in practice. When famous TERF Maya Forstater sued her previous employers for not renewing her contract because she was transphobic (note she wasnt fired, her contract lapsed and they didnt renew) The courts found that unfortunately yes She was allowed to think that way. They also ruled though that No-one has the Right to misgender someone. This is a great example for the benefit of actually displaying a preferred pronoun. A working environment is more than likely a situation that may lead another person into conversation with reference to a person they have already dealt with. The displayed pronouns will then help prevent misgender. Tolerance will remain lacking as long as people can't or don't piece together the benefits or reasons as to why it is as important to some as it is practical for others. An important part of piecing together is helping people understand why, in my opinion. Totally agree with you, especially if done from a place of empathy and not criticism Yep. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is a great example for the benefit of actually displaying a preferred pronoun." Just going to jump in here and say it is not a preferred pronoun, it is a correct pronoun. I understand you may not have thought of it, but preferred implies there is a vaguely acceptable reason why someone wouldn't use it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can't even remember the last time I was in a Bank and then staff are usually hiding behind a screen and in a rush to get you out. And if I where to go to the effort of looking at said name badge they may assume I was checking out their breasts if they have them. So I wouldn't stare long enough to be able to read that much detail, also without my reading glasses it may as well say hi my name is bug's bunny in Urdu coz I couldn't read it anyway. Just saying that most people who go in bank's generally tend to be of the older generation and don't do online banking and really wouldn't understand the whole issue. But then like I said I haven't been in a Bank for ages. " This is true. I haven’t either. And I can’t think of a reason I would even look at their name badge or refer to them as anything. I’d probably say hello, thank you and goodbye at the most. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is a great example for the benefit of actually displaying a preferred pronoun. Just going to jump in here and say it is not a preferred pronoun, it is a correct pronoun. I understand you may not have thought of it, but preferred implies there is a vaguely acceptable reason why someone wouldn't use it." Surely it means the pronoun that the person prefers? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can't even remember the last time I was in a Bank and then staff are usually hiding behind a screen and in a rush to get you out. And if I where to go to the effort of looking at said name badge they may assume I was checking out their breasts if they have them. So I wouldn't stare long enough to be able to read that much detail, also without my reading glasses it may as well say hi my name is bug's bunny in Urdu coz I couldn't read it anyway. Just saying that most people who go in bank's generally tend to be of the older generation and don't do online banking and really wouldn't understand the whole issue. But then like I said I haven't been in a Bank for ages. " Fair point. (OldLadySmiley) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The pronouns of a bank clerk makes zero difference to anyones life. If anyone is upset by this they need to get a grip. I’m more interested in what they’ve done with Howard." Howard him/he's/his gone | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The pronouns of a bank clerk makes zero difference to anyones life. If anyone is upset by this they need to get a grip. I’m more interested in what they’ve done with Howard. Howard him/he's/his gone" He was on first dates a while back. Unfortunately his date didn't recognise him  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is a great example for the benefit of actually displaying a preferred pronoun. Just going to jump in here and say it is not a preferred pronoun, it is a correct pronoun. I understand you may not have thought of it, but preferred implies there is a vaguely acceptable reason why someone wouldn't use it. Surely it means the pronoun that the person prefers? "Nope they are the correct pronouns for addressing the person. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Whatever shop I always just call them, Brad, Janet, Vic, or whatever the name on the tag is. So I do think , go halifax blah blah. Why do we actually need all that information on a name tag in a bank, shop or anywhere you would need such name tag anywhere? " "Hi, Sharon is it? I just spoke to Gemma at the front desk, she told me that I need to get a form from you, and when I am done with it her manager can finalise things for me." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is a great example for the benefit of actually displaying a preferred pronoun. Just going to jump in here and say it is not a preferred pronoun, it is a correct pronoun. I understand you may not have thought of it, but preferred implies there is a vaguely acceptable reason why someone wouldn't use it. Surely it means the pronoun that the person prefers? "I thought people actually said my preferred pronoun is …….. I’ve seen it on here. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Whatever shop I always just call them, Brad, Janet, Vic, or whatever the name on the tag is. So I do think , go halifax blah blah. Why do we actually need all that information on a name tag in a bank, shop or anywhere you would need such name tag anywhere? "Hi, Sharon is it? I just spoke to Gemma at the front desk, she told me that I need to get a form from you, and when I am done with it her manager can finalise things for me." " How did Gemma let you in without a name badge? Thats it, shes out. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is a great example for the benefit of actually displaying a preferred pronoun. Just going to jump in here and say it is not a preferred pronoun, it is a correct pronoun. I understand you may not have thought of it, but preferred implies there is a vaguely acceptable reason why someone wouldn't use it. Surely it means the pronoun that the person prefers?
I thought people actually said my preferred pronoun is …….. I’ve seen it on here. "So have I and elsewhere. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is a great example for the benefit of actually displaying a preferred pronoun. Just going to jump in here and say it is not a preferred pronoun, it is a correct pronoun. I understand you may not have thought of it, but preferred implies there is a vaguely acceptable reason why someone wouldn't use it. Surely it means the pronoun that the person prefers?
I thought people actually said my preferred pronoun is …….. I’ve seen it on here. "It used to be the common practice, until people parsed the semantics of the word preferred and used it as an excuse to misgender people "It is only the preferred pronoun" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Whatever shop I always just call them, Brad, Janet, Vic, or whatever the name on the tag is. So I do think , go halifax blah blah. Why do we actually need all that information on a name tag in a bank, shop or anywhere you would need such name tag anywhere? "Hi, Sharon is it? I just spoke to Gemma at the front desk, she told me that I need to get a form from you, and when I am done with it her manager can finalise things for me." " But in reality At which point your probably going to be told. " I'm sorry you need to go online and fill out the form, goodbye " "Next please " (Automated voice ) Cashier number 6 please | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is a great example for the benefit of actually displaying a preferred pronoun. Just going to jump in here and say it is not a preferred pronoun, it is a correct pronoun. I understand you may not have thought of it, but preferred implies there is a vaguely acceptable reason why someone wouldn't use it. Surely it means the pronoun that the person prefers?
I thought people actually said my preferred pronoun is …….. I’ve seen it on here.
It used to be the common practice, until people parsed the semantics of the word preferred and used it as an excuse to misgender people "It is only the preferred pronoun""So how am I to phrase the question with a person I don't know? "What pronoun would you like me to use?"? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is a great example for the benefit of actually displaying a preferred pronoun. Just going to jump in here and say it is not a preferred pronoun, it is a correct pronoun. I understand you may not have thought of it, but preferred implies there is a vaguely acceptable reason why someone wouldn't use it. Surely it means the pronoun that the person prefers?
I thought people actually said my preferred pronoun is …….. I’ve seen it on here.
It used to be the common practice, until people parsed the semantics of the word preferred and used it as an excuse to misgender people "It is only the preferred pronoun"
So how am I to phrase the question with a person I don't know? "What pronoun would you like me to use?"?"That is a perfect way to ask. (I mean semantically it would be pronouns, but I am guessing you just missed the s key) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is a great example for the benefit of actually displaying a preferred pronoun. Just going to jump in here and say it is not a preferred pronoun, it is a correct pronoun. I understand you may not have thought of it, but preferred implies there is a vaguely acceptable reason why someone wouldn't use it. Surely it means the pronoun that the person prefers?
I thought people actually said my preferred pronoun is …….. I’ve seen it on here.
It used to be the common practice, until people parsed the semantics of the word preferred and used it as an excuse to misgender people "It is only the preferred pronoun"
So how am I to phrase the question with a person I don't know? "What pronoun would you like me to use?"?
That is a perfect way to ask.
(I mean semantically it would be pronouns, but I am guessing you just missed the s key)"No I got it wrong. It won't surprise you to know that I'm not perfect and I get things wrong sometimes. If some is trying to learn and is actually on your side it might be best to cut them a little slack. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is a great example for the benefit of actually displaying a preferred pronoun. Just going to jump in here and say it is not a preferred pronoun, it is a correct pronoun. I understand you may not have thought of it, but preferred implies there is a vaguely acceptable reason why someone wouldn't use it. Surely it means the pronoun that the person prefers?
I thought people actually said my preferred pronoun is …….. I’ve seen it on here.
It used to be the common practice, until people parsed the semantics of the word preferred and used it as an excuse to misgender people "It is only the preferred pronoun"
So how am I to phrase the question with a person I don't know? "What pronoun would you like me to use?"?
That is a perfect way to ask.
(I mean semantically it would be pronouns, but I am guessing you just missed the s key)
No I got it wrong. It won't surprise you to know that I'm not perfect and I get things wrong sometimes.
If some is trying to learn and is actually on your side it might be best to cut them a little slack.
"I literally complimented you saying it was perfect, and i put the tiny mistake down to not being your fault. I am sorry, but how is this not cutting you slack? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is a great example for the benefit of actually displaying a preferred pronoun. Just going to jump in here and say it is not a preferred pronoun, it is a correct pronoun. I understand you may not have thought of it, but preferred implies there is a vaguely acceptable reason why someone wouldn't use it. Surely it means the pronoun that the person prefers?
I thought people actually said my preferred pronoun is …….. I’ve seen it on here.
It used to be the common practice, until people parsed the semantics of the word preferred and used it as an excuse to misgender people "It is only the preferred pronoun"
So how am I to phrase the question with a person I don't know? "What pronoun would you like me to use?"?
That is a perfect way to ask.
(I mean semantically it would be pronouns, but I am guessing you just missed the s key)
No I got it wrong. It won't surprise you to know that I'm not perfect and I get things wrong sometimes.
If some is trying to learn and is actually on your side it might be best to cut them a little slack.
I literally complimented you saying it was perfect, and i put the tiny mistake down to not being your fault. I am sorry, but how is this not cutting you slack?"I have no appetite for an argument but you didn't need to mention it at all. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have no appetite for an argument but you didn't need to mention it at all. " That was for the benefit of people that were reading the thread. Maybe take your own advice and not assume ill intent. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is a great example for the benefit of actually displaying a preferred pronoun. Just going to jump in here and say it is not a preferred pronoun, it is a correct pronoun. I understand you may not have thought of it, but preferred implies there is a vaguely acceptable reason why someone wouldn't use it. Surely it means the pronoun that the person prefers?
I thought people actually said my preferred pronoun is …….. I’ve seen it on here.
It used to be the common practice, until people parsed the semantics of the word preferred and used it as an excuse to misgender people "It is only the preferred pronoun"
So how am I to phrase the question with a person I don't know? "What pronoun would you like me to use?"?"Do we have to get to the point of asking? If so I would be that blunt. However I do think ill call you, him, her, he, she, they, us, x, z, whatever you prefer, or preferred person, however I can't do that unless you tell me?. Otherwise I would start every conversation with a mini interview. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Have a day off." If only... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is a great example for the benefit of actually displaying a preferred pronoun. Just going to jump in here and say it is not a preferred pronoun, it is a correct pronoun. I understand you may not have thought of it, but preferred implies there is a vaguely acceptable reason why someone wouldn't use it. Surely it means the pronoun that the person prefers?
I thought people actually said my preferred pronoun is …….. I’ve seen it on here.
It used to be the common practice, until people parsed the semantics of the word preferred and used it as an excuse to misgender people "It is only the preferred pronoun"
So how am I to phrase the question with a person I don't know? "What pronoun would you like me to use?"?
Do we have to get to the point of asking? If so I would be that blunt. However I do think ill call you, him, her, he, she, they, us, x, z, whatever you prefer, or preferred person, however I can't do that unless you tell me?. Otherwise I would start every conversation with a mini interview. "I don't think we need to start every conversation like that but possibly in interviews or a new colleague starting work something like that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is a great example for the benefit of actually displaying a preferred pronoun. Just going to jump in here and say it is not a preferred pronoun, it is a correct pronoun. I understand you may not have thought of it, but preferred implies there is a vaguely acceptable reason why someone wouldn't use it. Surely it means the pronoun that the person prefers?
I thought people actually said my preferred pronoun is …….. I’ve seen it on here.
It used to be the common practice, until people parsed the semantics of the word preferred and used it as an excuse to misgender people "It is only the preferred pronoun"
So how am I to phrase the question with a person I don't know? "What pronoun would you like me to use?"?
Do we have to get to the point of asking? If so I would be that blunt. However I do think ill call you, him, her, he, she, they, us, x, z, whatever you prefer, or preferred person, however I can't do that unless you tell me?. Otherwise I would start every conversation with a mini interview. "In queer circles at least, introductions go "Hi, I am Tara and my Pronouns are She/Her" or third person, "This is Jack Their pronouns are they/them" It works fantastically, and if it became the standard there wouldn't be a problem. There's also no issue of simply asking "what pronouns do you use" many would tank you for asking. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is a great example for the benefit of actually displaying a preferred pronoun. Just going to jump in here and say it is not a preferred pronoun, it is a correct pronoun. I understand you may not have thought of it, but preferred implies there is a vaguely acceptable reason why someone wouldn't use it. Surely it means the pronoun that the person prefers?
I thought people actually said my preferred pronoun is …….. I’ve seen it on here.
It used to be the common practice, until people parsed the semantics of the word preferred and used it as an excuse to misgender people "It is only the preferred pronoun"
So how am I to phrase the question with a person I don't know? "What pronoun would you like me to use?"?
Do we have to get to the point of asking? If so I would be that blunt. However I do think ill call you, him, her, he, she, they, us, x, z, whatever you prefer, or preferred person, however I can't do that unless you tell me?. Otherwise I would start every conversation with a mini interview.
I don't think we need to start every conversation like that but possibly in interviews or a new colleague starting work something like that. "I agree - just like we are sometimes asked if we are happy to be called by our first name. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is a great example for the benefit of actually displaying a preferred pronoun. Just going to jump in here and say it is not a preferred pronoun, it is a correct pronoun. I understand you may not have thought of it, but preferred implies there is a vaguely acceptable reason why someone wouldn't use it. Surely it means the pronoun that the person prefers?
I thought people actually said my preferred pronoun is …….. I’ve seen it on here.
It used to be the common practice, until people parsed the semantics of the word preferred and used it as an excuse to misgender people "It is only the preferred pronoun"
So how am I to phrase the question with a person I don't know? "What pronoun would you like me to use?"?
Do we have to get to the point of asking? If so I would be that blunt. However I do think ill call you, him, her, he, she, they, us, x, z, whatever you prefer, or preferred person, however I can't do that unless you tell me?. Otherwise I would start every conversation with a mini interview.
I don't think we need to start every conversation like that but possibly in interviews or a new colleague starting work something like that. "I see what you mean and of course. I just imagined this whole scenario of meeting someone out in bar/fab or any social thing and how it would or should be brought up. Is it down to me to ask? or more its to be told. Like i dont ask everyone are you straight, gay, or such. They tell me. I didn't even think about it in that way. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is the modern way. Pronouns can be assumed in the vast majority of circumstances but there is the odd occasion you might get it wrong. Halifax are being considerate but the business of customers being told to go elsewhere if they don’t like is intolerant. Having said that, I’ve got no problem with those who think it is all utter bollocks." To be honest that is where I am, you just phrased it better. I am happy for this to be done and respected but I am not going to fight with anyone who does not agree with me. Life is too precious. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There's also no issue of simply asking "what pronouns do you use" many would tank you for asking." This seems to be more common with the younger generation, whereas everyone has been great with my transition it's always the younger ones who instantly ask which pronouns I prefer. Always takes me by surprise how easily they adapt! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is a great example for the benefit of actually displaying a preferred pronoun. Just going to jump in here and say it is not a preferred pronoun, it is a correct pronoun. I understand you may not have thought of it, but preferred implies there is a vaguely acceptable reason why someone wouldn't use it. Surely it means the pronoun that the person prefers?
I thought people actually said my preferred pronoun is …….. I’ve seen it on here.
It used to be the common practice, until people parsed the semantics of the word preferred and used it as an excuse to misgender people "It is only the preferred pronoun"
So how am I to phrase the question with a person I don't know? "What pronoun would you like me to use?"?
That is a perfect way to ask.
(I mean semantically it would be pronouns, but I am guessing you just missed the s key)
No I got it wrong. It won't surprise you to know that I'm not perfect and I get things wrong sometimes.
If some is trying to learn and is actually on your side it might be best to cut them a little slack.
I literally complimented you saying it was perfect, and i put the tiny mistake down to not being your fault. I am sorry, but how is this not cutting you slack?"Sounded totally condescending to me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is a great example for the benefit of actually displaying a preferred pronoun. Just going to jump in here and say it is not a preferred pronoun, it is a correct pronoun. I understand you may not have thought of it, but preferred implies there is a vaguely acceptable reason why someone wouldn't use it. Surely it means the pronoun that the person prefers?
I thought people actually said my preferred pronoun is …….. I’ve seen it on here.
It used to be the common practice, until people parsed the semantics of the word preferred and used it as an excuse to misgender people "It is only the preferred pronoun"
So how am I to phrase the question with a person I don't know? "What pronoun would you like me to use?"?
Do we have to get to the point of asking? If so I would be that blunt. However I do think ill call you, him, her, he, she, they, us, x, z, whatever you prefer, or preferred person, however I can't do that unless you tell me?. Otherwise I would start every conversation with a mini interview.
I don't think we need to start every conversation like that but possibly in interviews or a new colleague starting work something like that.
I see what you mean and of course.
I just imagined this whole scenario of meeting someone out in bar/fab or any social thing and how it would or should be brought up. Is it down to me to ask? or more its to be told. Like i dont ask everyone are you straight, gay, or such. They tell me. I didn't even think about it in that way. "There is potential for it to be very difficult but basically I think mutual respect goes a long way. So if I didn't ask for any reason and got it wrong I hope the person would correct me and we could both continue with good grace | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is a great example for the benefit of actually displaying a preferred pronoun. Just going to jump in here and say it is not a preferred pronoun, it is a correct pronoun. I understand you may not have thought of it, but preferred implies there is a vaguely acceptable reason why someone wouldn't use it. Surely it means the pronoun that the person prefers?
Nope they are the correct pronouns for addressing the person."Where are the 'correct' pronouns listed? Ze zim etc. I would love to know what the correct pronouns are for me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is a great example for the benefit of actually displaying a preferred pronoun. Just going to jump in here and say it is not a preferred pronoun, it is a correct pronoun. I understand you may not have thought of it, but preferred implies there is a vaguely acceptable reason why someone wouldn't use it. Surely it means the pronoun that the person prefers?
Nope they are the correct pronouns for addressing the person.
Where are the 'correct' pronouns listed? Ze zim etc.
I would love to know what the correct pronouns are for me."Your correct pronouns are what you say they are. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is a great example for the benefit of actually displaying a preferred pronoun. Just going to jump in here and say it is not a preferred pronoun, it is a correct pronoun. I understand you may not have thought of it, but preferred implies there is a vaguely acceptable reason why someone wouldn't use it. Surely it means the pronoun that the person prefers?
Nope they are the correct pronouns for addressing the person.
Where are the 'correct' pronouns listed? Ze zim etc.
I would love to know what the correct pronouns are for me."Surely only you would know that though? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
