Xref: utzoo news.admin:3058 misc.legal:5320 soc.women:12009
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!pyrdc!pyrnj!dasys1!tneff
From: tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff)
Newsgroups: news.admin,misc.legal,soc.women
Subject: Re: Proposed lawsuit
Message-ID: <5640@dasys1.UUCP>
Date: 19 Jul 88 15:52:58 GMT
References: <12165@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <6278@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> <12180@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>
Reply-To: tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff)
Organization: Independent Users Guild
Lines: 50

I've been following this discussion for a while, Mark, and I have a few
problems with it.  You and I have agreed on some things in the past, such
as comp.women, and we probably still agree that net.bigots do exist. I
am not sure, however, that this brouhaha is a good test for anything.
Here's why:

 1. Even if you do have the right to be addressed with the pronouns of
    your choice -- an interesting question whose answer I couldn't begin
    to guess at -- the postings you object to are not addressing you.
    One cannot use "he," "she," "him," "her," "his" or "hers" except
    in the third person.  Second person pronouns -- used to address -- are
    genderless.  There is the issue of Mr./Miss/Ms./etc., but almost
    no-one around here uses those anyway, including in the postings you
    dislike.  It seems as though what you really want is control over
    how you're referred to, not addressed.  Again, an interesting question,
    but (for one thing) your judge's quote doesn't discuss referral, only
    address I believe.

 2. You point out that "emancipated women have the same rights as men"
    to pronoun control and other things.  I feel the emphasis on 
    "emancipated" is wrong there.  ALL women, "emancipated" or not,
    have the same rights as men.  Emancipation is an admirable condition,
    but subjectively determined.  Rights are real.  Emancipation may
    make asserting those rights more natural, but everyone has them.
    Besides which, I don't know of any case where a male has established 
    a right to be addressed or referred to with a specific set of pronouns.
    Do you?  If not, then asserting equality of rights isn't enough.

 3. Surely Mikey Wengler, who was very supportive of your position, 
    had a point too about why the taunting is taking place.  Waving the 
    word "lawsuit" around in a forum like this is an open invitation to
    mayhem.  Do you really feel it helps anything?  I think it obscures
    the issues unacceptably, and drives off reasonable voices (nobody
    wants a legal hassle, well, almost nobody!) who might otherwise
    join in.  

I would guess that most net.readers who are even aware of your gender
in the first place wouldn't particularly mind using what you call the
inclusive pronouns to refer to (not address) you, if asked nicely.
Asking nicely may not be a doctrinally sound, but in this life I find I
often have to resort to it, to cope with the frailties of my fellow
sufferers.  There will always be stiff-necked folk who will disagree,
but I believe it's cooler to leave them alone and go on to the next
thing.

Thanks for listening.  TMN
-- 
Tom Neff			UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff
	"None of your toys	CIS: 76556,2536	       MCI: TNEFF
	 will function..."	GEnie: TOMNEFF	       BIX: t.neff (no kidding)