Xref: utzoo news.admin:3034 misc.legal:5275 soc.women:11984 Path: utzoo!utgpu!utfyzx!oscvax!lsuc!attcan!uunet!husc6!uwvax!rutgers!mcnc!unccvax!dya From: dya@unccvax.UUCP (York David Anthony) Newsgroups: news.admin,misc.legal,soc.women Subject: Re: Proposed lawsuit Message-ID: <1040@unccvax.UUCP> Date: Mon, 18-Jul-88 13:08:57 EDT References: <12165@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <6278@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> <12180@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> Organization: Univ. of NC at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC Lines: 81 > 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 > (Mark was referred to as "he" [parenthetically](female) . . . . Why should this default to "men" however. Why in the hell can't I say (with equal legitimacy) that emancipated men have the right to be treated exactly the same as women. Can you imagine the brouhaha which would ensue if I were, upon marriage, to change my last name to the one whom I entered the marriage contract, obstensibly the one possessing female genitalia? I probably have a better case than Mark does. The federal judge wasn't so much following the FRCP as this individual was covering its own legal tail. After all, why draw an unnecessary lawsuit. Prenuptual agreements were enough. This business about life insurance salesmen asking me if I was pregnant (I am male) was slightly annoying, but humourous nevertheless. Mark's lawsuit (I have agreed to be the test case, and am anxiously awaiting my summons), if Mark should win, would set a level of precedent which is totally absurd. Many people would find objectionable being called an "it". I, for one, would find, Usenet or no, the unbelieveable overhead of a typical conversation (if Mark wins, we all have plenty to fear) to be costly and downright unnecessary. Is this what Mark really wants? (example) Hi, Actor 2, I'd like you to meet Actor 3. Actor 3, I'm pleased to meet you. What range of personal pronouns shall we mutually agree upon prior to continuing our conversation. Will you sign a release absolving me of all liability should I spontaneously emit a discriminating remark? Most men and women I know would belt me across the room for asking such a question. There is, as a practical matter, no need to have gender related personal pronouns, other than gender identification. However, the matter of gender identification has a POSITIVE MARGINAL UTILITY other than "female diminuition." (I can think of at least one person who is female who uses "men" as a diminuitive term.) Discrimination in hiring, firing, pay, and all that is socially unacceptable, and I have vehemently and adamantly gone on public record in support of EEO and AA laws. (The legal process is called "discovery", Mark. BTW, Mark, like the character on LA Law says, slap me with a lawsuit, I'll have so many discovery motions on your doorstep that it will take a hand cart to move them!!!). The notion of using personal pronouns which are gender specific is not employment or affirmative action adverse. Fortunately, men and women, as individual sexual classes, have characteristics which differentiate them. There is equality, and there is absurdity. Emitting a difference of opinion (should you be demonstrably female, I shall refer to you as "she") is obstensibly not the same thing as wanton discrimination. The ramifications of Mark prevailing in a lawsuit are ominous. I, for one, shall stop emitting lexical behaviour of any kind, for fear that any (gender specific, cat specific, weather specific) term will result in discrimination lawsuits. You've got to prevail, first. Go ahead. Make my day. I'll see you in Columbia, SC federal court. York David Anthony DataSpan, Inc. P.S. I have already posted the "Sue me" challenge to the net with full particulars. I am not a "pseudo." And, I don't need the net's legal defence fund.