You can be fined $250,000 for not calling people ‘ze’ or ‘hir,’ pronouns if they demand

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

In regards to this little snowflake issue.

Even though, I wasn't planning on calling a transgender man him/her/zer,zit,zem hir "it" whatever.

Even tho I want planning on calling him "him" it's still annoying if it's indeed against the law to call him "him"

Just the fact that it's illegal to do it that's kinda a problem..

a reply to: omniEther
Up theirs. Never gonna happen

a reply to: omniEther

Do you have employees or tenants you need to address? If not, you have no legality issues to concern you.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I wasn't clear enough. Apologies. I'm speaking about when we refer to others in the third person, as in "I saw Bill the other day and he was wearing a cape".

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I prefer his majesty from here on out.

I'm rolling with "Sire" from now on.

Don't tell my wife!

I prefer to call them derps, it's the most accurate.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Why would Bill be wearing a cape?

Is he Superman? Or is that Superzer?

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Annee
Don't know if this was covered in the first few pages, but this is not new.

In 1789, William H. Marshall records the existence of a dialectal English epicene pronoun, singular "ou": "'Ou will' expresses either he will, she will, or it will." Marshall traces "ou" to Middle English epicene "a", used by the 14th century English writer John of Trevisa, and both the OED and Wright's English Dialect Dictionary confirm the use of "a" for he, she, it, they, and even I. This "a" is a reduced form of the Anglo-Saxon he = "he" and heo = "she". en.wikipedia.org...

Also Spivak

The Spivak pronouns are a set of gender-neutral pronouns in English promulgated on LambdaMOO based on pronouns used by Michael Spivak. Though not in widespread use, they have been employed in writing for gender-neutral language by those who dislike the standard terms "he/she" or singular they. en.wikipedia.org...

It's not new and it didn't catch on, so what's your point?

Now is the time.

Are you giving me the "it's 2016" appeal?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
That's why I asked "what if you were speaking to someone else?"

I am always speaking to someone else.

I am still waiting for a real world example of where I could not use someone's name and had to say 'he' or 'she'.

Thats easy,

What if your co worker called in sick and you have to interview a new lady intern in their place then when your co-manager doesent see her you have to inform your co-manager that she quickly went to the bathroom. And will be back shortly.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

"I saw Bill the other day wearing a cape.'

You are too verbose sir.

And if the other person is not around, why worry?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

What if they are around?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: omniEther

Do you have employees or tenants you need to address? If not, you have no legality issues to concern you.

I might one day, but still there's Millions of Americans that do.

What are you inferring.

a reply to: omniEther

That one is easy.

'Excuse me, Boss Person, the candidate is using the facilities.'

Or, if you are from Staten Island.

"Yo, Boss, dat new person is taking a dump.'

originally posted by: omniEther
I might one day, but still there's Millions of Americans that do.

What are you inferring.

That this only applies to those scenarios.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
What if they are around?

I think the sentence I posted can be used if the person you are referring to is either present or not.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

For one, the rules do not apply to the scenarios you provided, yet accuse me of not reading the article. Two, what you could provide on the proper grammar was ugly and lazy. Three, all this to save your skin. So then what good is this law again?

"Yo everyone, Bill's wearing a cape !! Bwahahahaha !!"

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
For one, the rules do not apply to the scenarios you provided, yet accuse me of not reading the article.

They most certainly do apply to communication with people at places of employment or tenants and how you address them. What are you talking about?

Two, what you could provide on the proper grammar was ugly and lazy.

It was shorter and more to the point then the self indulgent sentences you supplied.

Three, all this to save your skin. So then what good is this law again?

Save my skin? I just told you earlier I have bene speaking like this at work for some time as it is easier, more relatable and concise. Pay attention.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

They most certainly do apply to communication with people at places of employment or tenants and how you address them. What are you talking about?

You used and continue to use conversation where those pronouns do not even apply, as if it was relevant to the law. It isn't.

Pay attention to someone who eschews basic grammar? Speaking of silly demands...

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
You used and continue to use conversation where those pronouns do not even apply, as if it was relevant to the law. It doesn't.

Once again, my overly verbose friend, give me a real world example where you would fall afoul of this potential issue.

You still use Mr. and Mrs. in your interactions with employees or tenants? What part impacts you?