Xref: utzoo news.admin:3105 alt.flame:2236 soc.women:12120
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!bellcore!rutgers!pyrnj!dasys1!tneff
From: tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.flame,soc.women
Subject: Re: Proposed lawsuit
Message-ID: <5703@dasys1.UUCP>
Date: 23 Jul 88 13:54:11 GMT
References: <12165@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <6272@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> <7181@sigi.Colorado.EDU> <532@pcrat.UUCP> <1203@micomvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff)
Organization: Independent Users Guild
Lines: 56

[Ray, including a copyright notice to try and squelch quoted followups
won't work.  Check the "fair use" clause.]

In article <1203@micomvax.UUCP> ray@micomvax.UUCP (Ray Dunn) writes:
>I have just tried to compose a posting which attempted to show that the
>"correctness" of the form of address is irrelevant to the subject under
                              ^^^^^^^
>discussion, that the controversy revolves around whether a person has a
>*right* to be addressed in the manner of their choice, irrespective of the
>"correctness" or "normal usage" of that form of address.

>Now, assume the supposed victim is female, and she insisting on being
>addressed as he/him.  This form of address is *not* a socially acceptable
 ^^^^^^^^^                          ^^^^^^^
>one nor is it common usage (one can ignore whether it is *gramatical*
>correct or not, that is irrelevant, and is merely an intellectual game).

>The supposed victim is thus being perverse by insisting on being so
>addressed.
 ^^^^^^^^^

As I pointed out in an article several days ago, the issue here is not
one of ADDRESS, but of REFERENCE.  You cannot address someone in a
gender-specific way at all! except by the use of honorifics, which
aren't under discussion.

[ Later ]

>DO NOT RESPOND TO ANY OF MARK'S POSTINGS OR TO ANY POSTINGS WHICH REFER TO
>MARK.  YOU MAY HARASS MARK OR ANOTHER USER OF USENET BY SO DOING.  I SEE NO
>OTHER WAY OF BEHAVING IN A MANNER WHICH MARK WILL NOT TAKE AS HARASSMENT.
>
>PLEASE.  FOR THE ABOVE REASON, DO *NOT* RESPOND TO THIS ARTICLE OR ANY OTHER
>WHICH MAKES REFERENCE TO MARK ETHAN SMITH, IS WRITTEN BY MARK ETHAN SMITH,
>OR DISCUSSES THIS SUBJECT DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY.

You first.  Me, I'm here to discuss stuff.  Cheez, he can't even serve
you up there in PQ can he?

>If we have the discipline to do this, the problem *may* solve itself.

Even granting there was a "problem" in the first place, which I'm not
sure I do, things like this are self-solving by nature.  Mark's pronoun
preferences are an interesting subject, but the lawsuit talk is just
talk and most of us know it -- the flamings of someone who gets
*really* *really* angry and doesn't happen to have vast reserves of
net.wisdom to draw on.  Its nuisance value to the net is that it
generates panicky Mayday postings from folks who think the big bad wolf
is about to blow Usenet down.



-- 
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)