Hot take: person who only speaks English thinks everyone should just speak English.
Where were the students of this teacher’s class supposed to have learned it?“Hello class, I’m mix Jones. I’ll be your teacher this year”
That is the real nuance in this case. A teacher is not allowed to "say gay" to their students under Florida state law. However, an employee cannot be discriminated against for their sex under Federal law.
By a plain reading of the law, a gay teacher cannot be fired for being gay. A reasonable extension of that is that they cannot be fired for explaining to students that they are gay. This should hold true for any sexual characteristics that the teacher holds. Federal law overrules state law, thus, even though the state finds it illegal, they should still be protected under Federal law. It might be different if the teacher talked about other people being gay when they are not, but Federal law protects them against discrimination for their sex.
The question is whether "sex" includes being gay, or non-standard gender definitions. I think and hope it does. I worry that the current Supreme Court might rule otherwise.
Or you know, you could just ask... Why should I learn how to say your name?
These two statements kind of contradict each other. Asking implies you need to learn something new. There's nothing wrong with asking or learning something new, but the person presenting a new idea should be prepared that it is a new idea for people to learn, which people might not immediately accept. That doesn't excuse discrimination, but neither is acceptance demandable.
Once some critical mass of a population has accepted the new terminology, then and only then should acceptance be expected - and even then, that only applies to that specific population.
Yesss that sounds far better.
Even if it sounds close to a word for "toilet" - but then, half the argument revolves around toilets.
Let people piss and shit in peace.
No, but unless someone tells me that they want to be referred to as "Mx" I shouldn't be expected to assume that. Furthermore, when they tell me and my natural response is "Huh?" I shouldn't be vilified for not knowing what they mean - neither should they be vilified for coming up with a personal definition that suits them better.
It's a two way street. You're free to be yourself and to stand out from the crowd, but doing so naturally invites inquesition. Such inquesition is not inherently malicious, even if malicious people are more likely to ask questions.
The reasonable ground is somewhere in between. Noisy people on either side demand that they be seen as right, but the fact is they're both an insignificant minority with an unobjective opinion. One minority is smaller and more vulnerable, and that should be taken into consideration, but that doesn't mean everything they say is right.
"Florida Man" is a representation of all the US. The only difference is that Florida allows the publication of personal information about people for merely being arrested, let alone accused or even actually convicted of a crime. This gives a disproportionate view of how bad Florida is - it isn't that much worse than most other US states.
But it is worse. The whole state is literally a swamp, and Ron DeSantis is a war criminal, alongside his criminal actions as Governor (eg using ringfenced state money to benefit other states and his friend who owns a chartered airline business).
Where was @Alexstarfire@lemmy.world supposed to have learned that definition before this thread? Where were the students of this teacher's class supposed to have learned it?
Given that English adopts definitions based on a critical mass of people using it, why should Mx. be adopted when it is only used by an exceedingly small minority?
The better idea is not to make up terminology that only suits you and an exceptionally small minority and then expect everyone else to adopt it.
By all means, define yourself as you like - but don't expect others to immediately recognise that definition without reasonable explanation.
This case has nuance. On the one hand, a teacher in Florida is not allowed to talk about gay people or anything about alternate genders, per state law. On the other, Federal Law states that no one can be fired over matters regarding sex. Federal law overrules any laws states make, hence the ruling in 303 Creative vs Elenis, however the question is what "sex" covers in the Federal domain.
Apparently it's short for "Mix". I only learned that in this post, which suggests it's far from established - I assumed it was along the lines of "latino/latina -> latinx".
or liberal obfuscations
Now who's using terminology they don't really understand. Just because you're a member of a clique/cult with its own specific definitions for terminology does not make that terminology valid. The bad faith engagement is your own, as you assume your definitions are universal, rather than taking a common sense approach, or even establishing definitions before building an argument.
I dunno, I remember Tesco being dragged through the headlines, but really it was suppliers, and some were quoted saying "everyone does it". As I see it the matter was dropped and left unresolved.
No one. At the same time, people here seem to be getting a little pissy over the thought of asking the question or not immediately accepting any answer - hence my statement in clarification. My statement is confined to the hypotheticals in our conversation, dismissing them out of hand would be hypocritical.
First, my statement that it "doesn’t mean everything they say is right" is meant to cover extreme limits, it doesn't explicitly refer to things we've said but things that could potentially be extrapolated from that. I'm trying to form a concise statement that covers as much as possible.
Second, using a "courtesty title" and even people accepting that does not mean the courtesy title is not "made up bullshit". People accept bullshit all the time - just look at Trump supporters. It's only when the made up idea is accepted by a critical mass that it ceases to be bullshit; and even then, it could still be reasonably labelled as bullshit, particularly if it doesn't have a logical origin.
Maybe "Mx." as an abbreviation for "Mix" has some logical origin, but at the same time it doesn't really fit in line with "Mister, Miss, Missus", and it certainly isn't established like those terms are nor is it immediately apparent what the abbreviation is short for.
Some measure of rejection should be expected when you're asking people to adapt their native language to suit yourself. Your personal expression should not dictate how others express themselves in communication; communicating is a mutual process between people, without an agreement on terminology things are neither right nor wrong, it's all just made up bullshit until we agree - and even then...