Xref: utzoo news.admin:3019 misc.legal:5243 soc.women:11960
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!psuvax1!rutgers!ucsd!ames!pasteur!agate!violet.berkeley.edu!era1987
From: era1987@violet.berkeley.edu
Newsgroups: news.admin,misc.legal,soc.women
Subject: Re: Proposed lawsuit
Message-ID: <12180@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: 18 Jul 88 07:39:09 GMT
References: <12165@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <6278@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>
Sender: usenet@agate.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 63

In article <6278@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> peter@athena.mit.edu (Peter J Desnoyers) writes:
>Who is this MES person? Why does (sexual term) get so ****ed off when people
>refer to (sexual term) by feminine pronouns?

I am an emancipated woman, and I am accustomed to and have
established my legal right to equal terms without regard to sex.

Do you know what the word "feminine" refers to?  That's right,
it refers to sex.  And so do "feminine pronouns."

Pretending you know my sex but don't know my name is an
interesting ploy to violate my rights yet again.  I am a person,
a human being, a citizen, and my name is Mark.  Do you call everyone
named Mark by diminutive pronouns, or are you doing it only to
treat me differently from other people similarly situated, on the
basis of my sex?  If you're not an attorney, or law student, have
somebody explain that last statement to you, while I add you to the
list of named defendants.

The reason my name is Mark, is so that people will have no need to
use diminutive, sexual, exclusive terms to refer to me.
Otherwise, if I had a traditional name, and was referred to with
traditional pronouns, every single reference to me would refer
to my sex instead of to me.  Think of it this way, Peter.  I am a
man in the Constitutional sense that all men are created equal.
The inclusive sense.  I am not female, my sex is.  I am not blue,
my eyes are.  

Now read this slowly ard repeat it to yourself several times:
Emancipateed women have the same rights as men.  Emancipated women
have the right to be treated exactly the same as men, without regard
to their sex, that is, without regard to the fact that their sex may
not be male.  Sex is not always relevant, and does not have to be
mentioned in every statement.  When one federal judge had a need to
mention my sex, it was written thus:  "...plaintiff states a
complaint on the basis of his sex (female)...."  It is because of
the irreparable harm done me by the Usenet bigots, that you would
know my sex before you know my name, and refer to me differently
than you have ever referred to anyone else with my name.  For the
first year I posted, nobody used diminutive terms to refer to me,
and there no problems.  Then the bigots started their harassment
campaign, encouraging people like yourself to treat me as a class
member, baed on sex, rather than as a unique individual, and
to judge my postings on the basis of my sex rather than according
to their merits.

Your site, MIT, Peter, didn't use to admit females.  There is still
a lot of discrimination at your site, but most people are more
discreet about it than you are, because they don't want to lose federal
funding.  Should they lose their funding due to your posting, just
because you wanted to have a little fun, they might not be too pleased
with you.  Do you think you could discriminate against women on your
own time, your own computer, and nnot post in such a way as to make
MIT liable?  It is obvious that you have never encountered an
emancipated woman, and like Judge Teitelbaum, are accustomed to
women who submit to diminutive terms and other forms of
sexual stereotyping.  I don't.  If you have any more stupid questions,
don't hesitate to ask.  The first Black to say, "Don't
call me boy," got similar treatment from bigots like you.  They said,
"Why does that ol' colored boy get so teed off when we call him boy?"
I hope the analogy helps you overcome your learning disability.

--Mark