Non-gender entity sues it's employer $500k b/c they referred to it as a woman.

So in this thread you posit that everyone younger than you and everyone older than you is ignorant. I'm certain the world is more nuanced than that.

BTW, you're getting old.

 

What did he say to you? It is the norm when gender is unknown.
A female might say she in that instance. If we change bus driver to stripper, most people would assume it's a she. If we change it to Navy Seal would assume it's a he.
Those are some nuances for you.

If a female sues for $500, 000 because she is referred to as she, most people would assume she is deliberately abusing the legal system to steal money from her employer.

The testimony was quoted in several links but I'm on my phone so can't post one now. Google the phrase using she and you'll find a couple.

 

This is generational. It was the norm to use "he" when the gender was unknown. It isn't anymore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they

I've learned that if someone perceived as female insists over and over again that they aren't female, most people aren't going to believe them and insist they know them better than they know themselves. I don't think that's worth a 500k lawsuit, but it is worth arguing about.

Oh, yeah, I found a couple!

 

Also unclear is which gender pronouns the special and unique litigant sought to be called.

Jones’s lawsuit, filed this week in Multnomah County Circuit Court by Portland attorney Donel Courtney, doesn’t identify the pronoun Jones prefers.

The Oregonian suggests that people in LGBTQ communities sometimes prefer the plural word “they” instead of “he” or “she.”

So, for example: Jones, a catering employee, diced the carrots and then they grated the cheese.

Hilarious. The correct interpretation of this sentence is that after Jones diced the carrots, the carrots grated the cheese.

 

It’s not gay rights. It’s not even LGBT which includes men who dress up like women. It’s actually LGBTQIA which includes a bunch of people who don’t know what they are, including “Queer” and “Asexual”.

This is the story of Valeria Jones, a real life Pat, who is apparently a woman and really determined not to be a woman. (via Doug Ross)

A person in Oregon named Valeria Jones is suing catering company Bon Appétit Management for $518,682 because coworkers used female names in reference to Jones despite the fact that Jones had continually expressed the desire to be addressed only with gender neutral pronouns.

Jones was unhappy, explaining that pronouns which apply to everyone do not apply to Jones and are “unwelcome” because Jones is “not a female or a male.”

Before ultimately quitting the job, Jones asked supervisors to present information to every other employee about various gender identity issues. The suit says supervisors chose not to make such a presentation.

“Plaintiff cried regularly at work and at home during this time,” Jones’s $518,682 suit declares.

The supervisors chose not to waste everyone’s time with the insanity of a crazy person. And here comes the lawsuit because the catering company chose not to manufacture a single new gender consisting entirely of “Jones”.

This whole thing is happening in Portland, because obviously where else could it happen except maybe San Francisco.

You’re never done with it. There are an infinite amount of permutations that people can come up with and there is no conceivable way of satisfying everyone because many of these people are unstable and looking for something to validate their sense of persecution and general state of unhappiness.

It never ends. Not until we roll back the madness and stop taking these incessant demands from people with identity problems seriously.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dg...682-for-not-acknowledging-its-lack-of-gender/

 

While the law is clear that people in Oregon must be treated according to their chosen, not biological, sex, it is unclear what the law prescribes for those who consider themselves ‘genderless,’ as Jones does.

Robert Levy, a legal expert with the Cato Institute, did not shy away from calling Jones’s lawsuit frivolous. “My impression is that this is much ado about nothing,” Levy told LifeSiteNews.

However, Levy warned that under the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) now being debated in Congress, such lawsuits could soon become commonplace nationwide – and maybe even justifiable under the law.

“If this law passes, this ENDA, which is specifically designed to incorporate the same kind of law that applies to racial, … gender, … disability, … and age discrimination, it would now extend over to sexual preference discrimination, and maybe that would apply here; I don’t know.”

But ultimately, even under ENDA, Jones’ case would be a stretch, said Levy.

“Frankly, I doubt even if ENDA were passed that this would qualify as discrimination based on sexual preference,” Levy told LifeSiteNews. “It has nothing to do with her sexual preference. She’s not being critical of someone for calling her gay, or calling her lesbian, or being homophobic in any sense. This is simply about her desire to be called by some gender-neutral term” – something Levy maintains she had no right to expect, regardless of the law.

“There are all kinds of different laws in different states giving people all sorts of ‘rights’ that justifiably shouldn’t exist,” Levy said. “But as a matter of public policy, I think it’s ridiculous to suggest people have a ‘right’ to be called something or something else. If they don’t like it, then don’t talk to that person. It’s pretty simple.”

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/ge...then-sues-former-bosses-for-518000-because-th

 

The carrots are non-gender entity's roommates - they self-identify as carrots, not as humans.

 

Carrots are so ghey.

 

Gender is the range of physical, biological, mental and behavioral characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, masculinity and femininity.

Everyone is of at least 1 gender.

People are free to "self-identify" as being genderless, but just because they can't figure out which gender(s) they are doesn't mean everyone around them has to pretend they are also mystified.

They themselves are free to "self-identify" as people who can discern another person's gender through their own astute observations.

 

Wash.

Rinse.

Repeat.

(Same threads every couple of months - after people forget about the previous one.)

<cue Buck Angel thread>

 

Your prescriptions for other people's identities are meaningless.

If you had a coworker you assumed was female and they asked you not to refer to them as female, would you respect that request or not?

 

Apples and Oranges.

Females exist. Genderless people don't.

Absolutely, if she told me what she preferred to be called. Otherwise no, because its an obvious setup. That is what happened in this case.

 

The tolerant left...

 

You're a rich, white, hipster liberal? I'm shocked!

 

That's awesome. Repped.

 

Pineapples and Grapefruit. See, I can name random fruit too.

As a social construct, there are definitely genderless people. As a matter of biology, sex is a spectrum.

http://www.isna.org/faq/what_is_intersex

Where does it say that the preferred pronoun wasn't provided? The only thing the article says is that the lawsuit doesn't mention it. You're assuming again.

 

Well you got the white liberal part right.

 

Poor white Americans don't study in Morocco.

 

the ones that get scholarships do. Both of my study trips to Morocco were 100% paid for by the U.S. Gubment. Thanks, taxpayers!

EDIT: Also black people.

 

Yes because I am attempting to be an avatar of liberalism instead of just being myself.

dismissive wanking motion