Androgyne sues catering business for $518,682

Post Reply New Topic

What is an Androgyne ... ?
Androgyne is a non-binary gender identity. Androgynes may possess traits that are simultaneously feminine and masculine, or neither. Some androgynes have adopted an androgynous psychological gender identity, while some may still be questioning their gender or live with the social gender identity assigned to them at birth.
source, http://gender.wikia.com/wiki/Androgyne

Lawsuit
- 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.

Employment Application
-When filling out a job application, the prospective employee left the binary boxes about being either male or female blank — apparently intentionally — and staffers at Bon Appétit Management Co. never mentioned it.

Misgendering (Basis of Lawsuit)
- Valeria Jones alleges in a lawsuit that co-workers repeatedly called Jones “miss,” “lady” and “little lady” despite explanations that Jones “was not a female or a male and that the term was unwelcome.”
- Valeria 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.”
- Valeria Jones continually expressed the desire to be addressed only with gender neutral pronouns.

Monetary Compensation sought
- Valria Jones is asking for $18,682 in lost wages and benefits, and another $500,000 for humiliation and suffering, including times when the “plaintiff cried regularly at work and at home,” the lawsuit said.

What do you think ? Androgyne should be a protected identity ?

(Note: If you respond, then don't use the word "she", because "Valeria Jones" does not identify as "she").

sources,
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/inde ... ues_f.html
http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/09/disgr ... z2sqQpwNEP

Looks like frivolous litigation to me.

Would Valeria have preferred the pronoun "it"?

I'd find that one demeaning and offensive even if I was a 100% cisgendered female.

It's getting really confusing as to how to not offend.I don't get mad if someone calls me Mrs.even though I'm divorced.
But little lady would be annoying.

Valeria Jones sueing in Oregon."In 2007, the State of Oregon enacted the Oregon Equality Act (also known as SB2)" ...

Q What does this anti-discrimination law cover?
- The Oregon Equality Act forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity or expression in all state, municipal and private workplaces.

Q How does the Oregon Equality Act define gender identity?
- Under Oregon law, gender identity includes what a person believes his or her gender to be, including how the person chooses to express his or her gender

source, http://data.lambdalegal.org/pdf/fs_oreg ... ty-act.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-neu ... un#Summary

"Hir", "Per", "Thon" , "Jee" , "Ve" "Xe", "Ze" are proposed gender-neutral language.

So, the question is should other people have to learn this new language, and refer to Valeria Jones in this "non-offensive language".

or perhaps refer to Valeria Jones by name always.

lol come on now

frivolous is right

How would Valeria know the difference between hir and her in spoken language? The seem like they would be pronounced precisely the same.

"Little lady," however, is indeed demeaning.

I tend to use words like they or them when referring to people. In this case their given name or a preferred nickname sound like the best thing to call them.

It isnt an absolute that gender singular pronouns MUST be used at all.

After reading, gender ambiguous people are preferring to abstain from the use of binary gender singular pronouns, instead using gender neutral ones like 'they' and 'them'.
http://tranifesto.com/2013/10/28/ask-ma ... -pronouns/

Someone tell Lex Luthor that he needs to modify his San Andreas fault plan to include a good portion of Oregon.

There is no such thing as a gender-neutral pronoun in polite society. "IT" is considered a rude pronoun when referring to a person. If the person in question appears to be female, that person should learn to be accepting of the feminine labels because you aren't going to last long in ANY job if you're going to throw a fit or hold a gender identity lecture every time a CUSTOMER refers to you with a feminine label.

IT has no case outside of the "little lady" comments.

If IT wins, I hope IT uses the money wisely...odds are NOBODY will hire IT for fear of a lawsuit.

the extent of passive aggressiveness of some towards the most marginalised of society never ceases to confound and disgust me.

Wow. Especially on an autism forum of all places. You'd think most of us would be immune to the seduction of the neuro-centric tendencies, the cruelty, the unrealistic expectations and the tyranny of those born into archetypically 'desirable' bodies.

Perhaps 'polite society' as you put it is where the fault lies. Nature doesnt respect your binary preconceptions, your sensitivities or your auspices of a order where everyone can be just pigeon holed. Nature just is. Nature is an abstract, organic thing and some people are going to be born between the cracks.

The legal question is whether using gender-specific pronouns amounts to discrimination. In general, discrimination laws protect people from harassment and/or employment decisions made based on protected attributes. The second doesn't appear to apply here - so the suit will boil down to whether using pronouns associated with gender amounts to harassment. I have mixed opinions on the matter. Intent will play a large part in the decision.

Under the law, it was once not considered discriminatory to prevent white and black people marrying each other or to prevent women from voting.

The argument "this is the way its always been so it must be right" is a misnomer. Times change.

Laws were changed in both cases to accomodate changes in societal views. We're talking about here and now, with the current set of laws.

Calling someone a "she" when they don't identify as female in and of itself is not harassment, and thus not discriminatory. However, calling someone "little lady" after they've made their position clear with the intent of belittling them or their identifies is very clearly harassment. It all boils down to intent.