you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

The decision says bar manager Brian Gobelle was particularly hostile, repeatedly and persistently referring to Nelson with she/her pronouns and with gendered nicknames like "sweetheart," "honey," and "pinky" — a reference to their pink hair.

But these are not gendered nicknames! Lots of people call other people of both sexes "sweetheart," "honey," "luv," "baby," "darling," "sweetie," "doll," "cutie-pie" etc all the time. Many of us call our kids of both sexes such names.

And "pinky" is just a reference to this person's hair color.

It might not be professional to call your workmates terms of endearments, but that's another matter. Yes, some terms like "sweetheart" and "honey" can be used in belittling, sexist ways meant to cause offense. But not always.

Moreover, the standards and protocols in bars and restaurants are often different to those in many other kinds of work settings.

This sort of case and the judgment make a mockery of the fights against genuine discrimination in the workplace that so many people have fought against going back decades.

Also, if one kind of "gendered" nickname or terms of endearment and casual address are to be outlawed in workplaces, then shouldn't all of them like "dude," "guys," "man," "buddy," "buster" and "boy-o."

[–]Femaleisnthateful[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Yes, some terms like "sweetheart" and "honey" can be used in belittling, sexist ways meant to cause offense. But not always.

Agreed. This ruling gives me the impression that those terms are only considered inappropriate because the claimant doesn't identify as a woman. As though if she 'identified' as a woman, the sexist terminology would be somehow appropriate.

[–]MarkTwainiac 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Just for the record, I've called male colleagues, employees and clients/customers "sweetheart" and "honey" at times over the years in the workplace and when socializing outside of work. Not to belittle or to be sexist to them, but because we had become close and were quite collegial and causal with one another at various points. And also to express sympathy when they were ill, disappointed, disgruntled. Sometimes in a jocular way too.

At the same time, I've been called "sweetheart" and "honey" by males in workplace settings in ways that were sexist and seemed meant to be belittling - and I've been called a whole bunch of other misogynistic terms in work settings that definitely had sexist animus behind them (bxtch, battle axe, sweet cheeks, feminazi, "lezzer," cxnt, cow). But at the same time, I've been called sweetie, honey, darling, love, lovey and so on also by both males and females at work in ways that seemed friendly and I took to be not at all sexist or belittling. The specific context is everything.

[–]Femaleisnthateful[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I agree - context matters. It can also be highly subjective. I just get the impression from this ruling that the terms used were deemed wrong solely because the claimant didn't identify as a woman, not because of any other context.