Gender pronouns in the workplace


#62

Speaks volumes, my friend. Maybe you should get that checked. :rofl::rofl::rofl:

(I’m kidding, I’m kidding…)


#63

My hair’s turning gray just learning about this!


#64

It’s certifiable insanity.


#65

My head literally exploded. LOL I’m now dealing with the fallout.


#66

Be happy you’ve been isolated from it so far. What I’m happy about is retirement isn’t far away. I dread the work environment of the future.


#67

It’s bats!! If someone asked me at work, “what do you want to be called?” I’d be like , “you see what’s written on my application?”. “There’s your answer”.


#68

My concern is actually more having a penile-american in the dressing rooms or restrooms with my daughters, no matter what gender he fancies himself . . .

hawk, wondering whether labeling restrooms by body parts rather than sex or gender is the answer . . . :scream::scream::scream::scream::tired_face:


#69

I agree with that as well. I’ve also thought of that.


#70

Why not just put Mr. or Ms. or Miss or Mrs. in front of the first name in the signature block? I guess that is what I don’t get. If Jim wants to be considered a her, I am completely fine with that. If he wants to make sure everyone knows, why not just make his signature block “Ms. Jim Smith, Accountant”. Not much matters beyond that. I just think the whole thing is awkward to put “Jim Smith (her)”. I would say “her what?” Very confusing.


#71

This!! All this. I totally agree.


#72

I once knew a woman named Robert Lee…


#73

"
Ahh, but jim might consider himself a “zim”, or “zem”, or “sem”, or “thdpt”, or even a “zit”, and be offended by the others. (I wish I was making this up; that offense exists).

Oh, and heaven forbid that when second grade Betty comes back to school on monday, that you forget to call her “Billy” (another recent national news case).

It’s not about hm/her . . .

hawk


#74

Don’t people know what a stigma they are putting on themselves? Any on-looker knows that there’s something odd about three different bathrooms. I think the only reason I’d use on is in a downright emergency!


#75

I am still OK with it. I will call someone whatever they wish to be called. But, gramatically, it just makes more sense to put the descriptor before the name. (Zem) Jim Smith, is even OK with me. But to put it after the name…well it just appears as if it is a dangler at that point. Like an explanation, of some sort, should follow. I guess I think this because it isn’t a generally accepted practice, but the people who do it expect the reader to know what it means. Communicaiton, people. Communication!!!


#76

Oops. I didn’t explain that very well.

I’ll use Chipotle here in Tacoma. There are two single toilet bathrooms with independent doors in self-contained rooms (like “family restrooms” are in Target, for example). They’re not gendered - one isn’t for women and one isn’t for men. Either can use them.

It actually makes it easier to use the bathroom. LOL.


#77

I can’t with this. I don’t know whether to laugh or shake my head.

That poor girl. Who does this stuff to their kids???


#78

U mean unisex?


#79

Yes. And it’s just one toilet with a locking door. Just like a family bathroom in Target. Obviously not feasible everywhere, but that arrangement doesn’t bug me.


#80

sigh.

It’s obvious: E did it!

:rofl::roll_eyes::thinking:


#81

That’s fine really. Even your own family has one kind of bathroom.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.