It is a minority, but if I go into work and announce that I am trans and will now be transitioning and my name is now X, people will fall all over themselves be supportive and congratulating me. It literally happened recently when Chris became Christina at my work. But, if I come in and announce that I have decided to become Catholic or Evangelical or Mormon there will be a lot of awkward silence with maybe some "okaaaaayyy, anyway, let's continue with the planning for the next project..."
Because no one needs to change the way they act around you. Christianity and Catholicism are strongly majority groups in the US. You were already treated as a Christian because that's what the majority of our society is based on.
Or no one feels like it's a change worth celebrating, whereas there's a strong streak of culture (particularly in more liberal areas) that makes congratulating trans people on their transition/gay people coming out of the closet a social obligation even if you're neither trans nor gay. It's almost gotten to the level of congratulating a couple for having an infant. If you don't think it's worth celebrating you're seen as an asshole.
My wife and I are fairly traditional in that I work full time and she's a housewife/mother. Most people are mildly surprised that she doesn't work, and there's definitely been the occasional awkward social interaction where she was clearly being judged by other women (notably non-parents) for that decision. This is in an extremely blue city, I imagine if we moved out even into the suburbs things would shift.
No, where I live you are considered to be a freak if you are religious. Announcing that you have joined a religion is like announcing you are trans in Alabama 50 years ago.
Agree with the sibling you would have a much higher chance of being discriminated against. Particularly in an interview. If you were wearing a cross necklace or some other visible indicator of your membership in Christianity, you would be way more likely to be turned down for a job in the Bay Area.
Same as you would have been discriminated against for being trans, gay, or black 30 years ago.
What's worse?
Not getting a job or getting murdered?
Not trying to minimize the discrimination of the religious but can't you see why most would try to minimize discrimination against a class who has a history of discriminating? Additionally, the severity is not comparable. Maybe if we were in the Crusades things would be different...do you see what I'm saying?
Having worked in the Bay for ~9 years I never met anyone that cared what religion a fellow employee was. So if we're just running off anecdotes and impressions, there's mine.
This is such a known situation that HBO's Silicon Valley did a whole bit on it in the show. Be thankful you've managed to avoid it in your 9 years in the valley!
I'm using to prove that the allegation, that people are careful being 'out' as a Christian' exists, not to prove that the religious discrimination, which would be illegal, exists. Your point is that it couldn't possibly exist because you've never even heard of such a thing. I'm saying that it's entirely possible for it to exist, because everyone else seems to have heard of it to the point that a popular TV chose to lampoon it.
> Your point is that it couldn't possibly exist because you've never even heard of such a thing.
Oh, sorry if I gave you the wrong impression. The point I was trying to make was not that it doesn't exist, but that it's not widespread and not significant enough to worry about. It exists, but I don't believe being Christian today is like being gay or black in 1990. You're more likely to be discriminated against for your height than your religion at this point.
No, but you would be discriminated against. Announcing you are religious would be the quickest way to be sidelined on projects and slowly forced out of the company. Announcing that your are LGBTQ is the quickest way to advance in the company and receive accolades. And this is a Fortune 100 company that nearly everyone on the planet has heard of. Where I live, LGBTQ is very much the mainstream and the most acceptable lifestyle.
That doesn't mean anything. Discrimination is a matter of degree. Everyone gets discriminated against pretty often to lesser degrees. If you tell me about your horoscope I'll roll my eyes and probably not want to hang out with you very much because of your spiritual beliefs.
Are people refusing to sell you good and services? Calling you names? Throwing bricks through your windows?
Is it putting more of a damper on you living a happy life than the occasional moment of discomfort because someone thinks something you think is dumb? People think lots of my beliefs are dumb, and that's fine, as long as I can go about my day.
> Announcing that your are LGBTQ is the quickest way to advance in the company and receive accolades.
First, I doubt a gay new hire can reach C suite with nothing but a couple of rainbows and dildos for qualifications.
Second, office politics are crappy, but you either cope or move on, with maybe a lawsuit if you have a legal leg to stand on.
I don't think likelihood of violence from a belief has much to do with counterculture status, moreso that the people that don't like queer people are more violent than the other way around.
This is patently absurd. I'm neither trans nor religious but hypothetically I'd much rather announce that I joined a religion anywhere in the US than announce being trans in the small town where my grandparents live today. Let alone Alabama 50 years ago.
Yes in very progressive environments you will get more support for announcing the later but that's because being in the later group is actually a challenge while religion has built up a reputation for maligning groups of people for things out of their control and for generally anti-scientific beliefs. Being part of a group that largely denies evolution and climate change is obviously not going to grant you any favors in groups with an academic (especially STEM) background.
No, what you experience is people who personally aren't pro-religion, often for reasons of personal experience. It's nothing like the brave people hosting home churches in China, or an even better example, the people telling their stories in the bible, where the entire culture/government and it's moral basis is against your religion.
> no one needs to change the way they act around you.
This is only because Catholics and Christians often don’t mention when workplace behaviors make them uncomfortable. I’ve been in multiple situations where coworkers have used names of God as expletives or made jokes about things I consider holy.
And if you’re a Catholic and “trad” and planning lunch with colleagues, things like “is it Friday” or “is it a Friday in Lent” would affect others (except that, today, there’s a lot of vegetarian options for independent reasons).
Abstinence is a form of penance. Frankly if the office doesn't bend over backwards for your self-flagellation every week I'm OK with it. Are you demanding that the entire office fast with you if they can't find a pescatarian option?
You missed the point: if I’m planning lunch with my friends and they want to go to barbecue on Friday, I’m going to be suggesting an alternative so I can get something to eat too. Just like we had to plan lunches around my Jain, Jewish and Muslim coworkers dietary restrictions.
So, in fact, some people will have to do something different to include me in some of their activities.
Queer people also don't mention workplace behavior that makes them uncomfortable all the time...I'm sure it's easy for you to think that queer people don't let transgressions slide, but many times they do so for their own safety or livelihood.
You are not made unsafe because I said the fuck word...
Catholic teaching is that men cannot become women and women cannot become men. Catholic teaching is that lying is sinful. Practicing the Catholic faith by saying "I'm sorry, but I can't 'use your pronouns' because that would be a lie by falsely saying you're a woman when you can't be" will get you reprimanded or fired at most any major US company.
I'm not catholic so please help me out here. If you cannot use requested pronouns, does your religion also ban you from using nicknames? Is it okay for you to be called User23? Is it okay to say someone's cat is cute even if you don't really care for cats? What do you do if your partner asks if they look good or bad in something?
These are all reasonable questions. I'll answer as best as I can, but please understand that I'm not any kind of formal authority.
> If you cannot use requested pronouns, does your religion also ban you from using nicknames? Is it okay for you to be called User23?
I don't know of any Catholic doctrine that says people can't use pseudonyms, nicknames, or even change their name altogether.
> Is it okay to say someone's cat is cute even if you don't really care for cats? What do you do if your partner asks if they look good or bad in something?
Is it a lie, which is to say a falsehood told with the intent to deceive? Then yes it's wrong. Wouldn't you want to be told the truth if you in fact looked bad? Wouldn't you want to know that when you're told that you look good that you really do?
Personally, supposing I didn't think the cat was cute, I wouldn't say I thought it was. I would most likely treat it as a good opportunity to say nothing on the subject. Some theologians put forth a doctrine of "mental reservation"[1] which somehow makes lying OK, but I have to admit I'm not capable of the necessary mental gymnastics in any but the most clear cut cases.
Is it possible to say nothing about a trans co-workers transition then? If Jessica is now Kevin, what's the difference between that and Jacob going "nah call me Jake"? Is it just that you can't call Kevin he/him pronouns? Can you call Kevin as Kevin?
I'm unwilling by act or omission to knowingly indicate that I believe something that the Church teaches to be false. Thus, it depends on whether or not I'm being asked to participate in a deception, which I will not do. On the other hand, unlikely though it may be, if it's somehow clear that "Kevin" has no intent to deceive and is not deceiving anyone about her sex then I don't have an absolute moral objection to calling her that. This scenario is contrived and unrealistic, but it is largely a matter of prudence. Thus if I did surprisingly find myself in a similar circumstance, my actions would depend on the details.
As another Catholic commenter said, we owe Christian charity to all other human beings, including those affected by gender dysphoria. However, charity doesn't mean being "nice" or "accommodating," but it does require respecting the dignity of the human person. One way to respect that dignity is by not encouraging or condoning disordered behaviors or beliefs. I wouldn't offer a recovering alcoholic a drink, even if it was really great stuff.
That leads to another pragmatic matter. No matter what disordered beliefs or behaviors a person has (and I have my own share), we should want to help that person come to a rightly ordered place. There's really no one size fits all approach to that.
To your first point, pronouns and nicknames are not the same thing. Pronouns indicate that a man can become a woman or vise versa which is not what the Catechism teaches. Additionally, calling a cat cute if you don't care for them is lying which is a venial sin (meaning you probably won't be damned to Hell for it but one should confess if they sin regardless).
Catholics are called to Love (God is Love) and to love all sinners but hate the sins. We know that Church is a place for imperfect humans and thus we do seek to purify our souls with prayer, works of mercy and the Sacraments.
So with all the above in mind, we usually tend to avoid pronouns and refer to transgenders by their name instead. However, out of basic respect and good manners we can all call them what they want if they insist.
Jesus commands us that we must be known as his disciples by our love. Christian love begins with basic respect and good manners. Selfless love does not begin with requiring others to conform to our doctrine.
St. Paul said that he became all things for all people so that he may save some. We should do the same.
1 Peter 3:15-16 be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope, but do it with gentleness and reverence,
I know several Catholics who have no problem using a transgender person's pronouns. Trying to use a religion as a cover for bigotry is disrespectful to both the transgender person and other members of the religion.
But who determines what is "OK by the Bible?" A plain reading of it shows a number of clear contradictions, so we naturally can't rely on the verbatim text. Not to mention there is more than one version of the Bible itself.
That leaves it up to personal interpretation and opinion. Considering that the overall message of Christianity is supposedly something about "love and grace" the not transphobic opinions are a lot more compelling.
> Catholic teaching is that men cannot become women and women cannot become men.
People (including Catholics) supporting trans rights agree with that.
Of course, most of the Catholic heirarchy and supporters of trans rights disagree on who are men and who are women to start with, but, I mean, the former at least should be familiar with the idea of an entity having the observable physical characteistics of one thing but being something radically different because of its innate essence.
> Catholic teaching is that lying is sinful.
Catholic teaching is that lying consists of objectively false statements told with intent to deceive. (CCC 2482)
> Practicing the Catholic faith by saying "I'm sorry, but I can't 'use your pronouns' because that would be a lie by falsely saying you're a woman when you can't be" will get you reprimanded or fired at most any major US company.
But this is not something that the Catholic faith teaches is lying, even if some Catholics may see it as lying or some other offense against truth. Why?
(1) As Catholic traditionalists and trans rights activists agree, “gender identity” is not the same thing that Catholics see as binary sex. Acknowledging that a persons gender identity is this or that is not a fact claim about the construct of sex, but also
(2) Preferred pronouns are a distinct (though sometimes correlated) issue to gender identity (people with different gender identity can have the same oreferred pronouns, and vice versa), so even if acknowledging the validity of gender identity waa making a claim about sex, and even if such a claim would be false, respecting preferred pronouns isn’t acknowledging gender identity, its just respecting preferred pronouns.
(3) On top of all of the above, the purpose of use of a person's preferred pronouns by a Catholic in a work environment would, presumably, not be convince anyone of some false claim about the subject's sex, and without intent to deceive, it would not be a lie even if its content were an objectively false claim. (Which, for the reasons discussed previously, it is not.)
If you wanted to make an argument against respecting preferred pronouns that was grounded in Catholic doctrine, you would do better to argue that it is adulation (CCC 2480) from the view that transgenderism is inherently wrongful and doing so, lacking the intent to deceive required for lying, is a form of encouragement; OTOH, you could equally argue that failure to do so, in many circumstances, is detraction (CCC 2477) on the same assumption and calumny (also CCC 2477) without it.
This is some very solid casuistry. Father James Martin, S.J. would be proud.
> Of course, most of the Catholic heirarchy and supporters of trans rights disagree on who are men and who are women to start with, but, I mean, the former at least should be familiar with the idea of an entity having the observable physical characteistics of one thing but being something radically different because of its innate essence.
I'd love to know where you found the teaching that God miraculously transubstantiates people into a body of the wrong sex.
> Catholic teaching is that lying consists of objectively false statements told with intent to deceive. (CCC 2482).
My conscience tells me that it's objectively false and if I say it isn't I'm intentionally deceiving. (CCC 1778)
> (1) As Catholic traditionalists and trans rights activists agree, “gender identity” is not the same thing that Catholics see as binary sex. Acknowledging that a persons gender identity is this or that is not a fact claim about the construct of sex, but also
Motte and bailey.
As an aside what Doctor of the Church has anything to say about "gender identity?" Presumably if this is part of tradition one of them must have had something to say on the subject. In fact, where are you finding any Catholic traditionalist who is leaning on 1970s era radical feminist linguistic novelties?[1]
> (2) Preferred pronouns are a distinct (though sometimes correlated) issue to gender identity (people with different gender identity can have the same oreferred pronouns, and vice versa), so even if acknowledging the validity of gender identity waa making a claim about sex, and even if such a claim would be false, respecting preferred pronouns isn’t acknowledging gender identity, its just respecting preferred pronouns.
More equivocating. Everyone knows the confusion is intentional.
> (3) On top of all of the above, the purpose of use of a person's preferred pronouns by a Catholic in a work environment would, presumably, not be convince anyone of some false claim about the subject's sex, and without intent to deceive, it would not be a lie even if its content were an objectively false claim. (Which, for the reasons discussed previously, it is not.)
Then why would he care when I use pronouns appropriate to his sex?
Do you cast judgement on people that color their hair when it gets gray? Do you cast judgement on people that try and change their body by dieting/exercising?
I've never had random people on the street threaten to beat my ass or make violent threats towards me before my transition, and now it happens a couple times a year. I also way to many trans friends that are homeless because their conservative parents disagreed.
Across every single metric, trans people, especially trans POC face disproportionate adversity. i.e. income, murder rate, housing insecurity, education etc...
At our haircut place there was a husband and wife that worked there, the husband became the wife and the wife became the husband!
And I think the traditional people are doing so in much more subversive ways now - plenty of our friends are going private and Catholic school to get their kids out of the public schools, which are getting pretty wild in the indoctrination.
In a society that actually respected women, people would be falling over themselves to call out his misogynistic delusion that being a woman can amount to a thought in a man's head. But sadly not. That's male privilege for you.
