Aussie airline bans staff from using ‘gender-inappropriate’ language

[Musky]

Johan, can you really see Jehovah's organization referring to a homosexual couple as "husband and wife"? Ever?

[Thesauron]

 
Which cultures and/or languages would these be? 

Mainly in matriarchal societies, such as the Mosuo, I believe.

[New World Explorer]

14 minutes ago, Thesauron said:

But in the end, the goal is to make ourselves understood by the people around us.

Husband and wife expressions reflect not only the manner of speaking but Jehovah sanctity of marriage

Godless society  under the influence of Satan and his demons are pushing "neutral gender" agenda twisting original state for marriage.

I will never ever go along with them .. NEVER.

 

I kindly, but strongly disagree with your views.

No offense my dear brother

 

[Thesauron]

Johan, can you really see Jehovah's organization referring to a homosexual couple as "husband and wife"? Ever?

How is that gender neutral? I’m not really sure if homosexual couples would like to be called that anyway. I’m guessing the GB would ask us to use an appropriate and acceptable expression.

[New World Explorer]

Just now, Thesauron said:

I’m guessing the GB would ask us to use an appropriate and acceptable expression.

I am quite surprised with your view.

[Ahuvah]

It's the same thing though Johan being asked to use or NOT use certain terms is contrary to Jehovah's standards - and his standards don't change. The term husband and wife same sex are often used in court settings where  same sex marriage has become legal in that state or country.

Edited March 11, 2018 by Stormswift

[Thesauron]

Husband and wife expressions reflect not only the manner of speaking but Jehovah sanctity of marriage
Godless society  under the influence of Satan and his demons are pushing "neutral gender" agenda twisting original state for marriage.
I will never ever go along with them .. NEVER.
 
I kindly, but strongly disagree with your views.
No offense my dear brother
 

It is the instructions given when translating our literature. The translators (and writers) follow how the language changes as long as it does not reflect a political stance. So, if a change in the language comes because of a political or social movement, we are very weary of such changes. But if they do become the accepted grammatical norm, there is no reason not to follow. We want to make ourselves understood, after all, and not remain in an antiquated, religious language understood by no one.

So far, the RTO in Sweden has not begun to use the gender neutral “hen” instead of he/she, since it comes from a political movement. But if it should one day become a non-political part of the everyday language, I’m sure the translators would start to use it in addition to the gender specific pronouns, if it makes the translated text come across better.

[Shawnster]

23 minutes ago, Thesauron said:

Mainly in matriarchal societies, such as the Mosuo, I believe.

So, some obscure reference. 

 

[Thesauron]

I am quite surprised with your view.

It’s my experience.

[New World Explorer]

1 minute ago, Thesauron said:

The translators (and writers) follow how the language changes as long as it does not reflect a political stance.

Watering down Jehovah's standards? Replacing Husband and wife with "partner" ?

Really?

[Thesauron]

So, some obscure reference. 
 

Yes, it’s quite rare, but occurs. More so historically, it seems.

Watering down Jehovah's standards? Replacing Husband and wife with "partner" ?
Really?

Nope. Read again what I wrote, please.

[New World Explorer]

7 minutes ago, Thesauron said:

Nope. Read again what I wrote, please.

How would they translate this ?

Nevertheless, each one of you must love his wife as he does himself; on the other hand, the wife should have deep respect for her husband

Children, be obedient to your parents in union with the Lord, for this is righteous. 2 “Honor your father and your mother” is the first command with a promise: 3 “That it may go well with you and you may remain a long time on the earth.” 4 And fathers, do not be irritating your children, but go on bringing them up in the discipline and admonition of Jehovah

 

Edited March 11, 2018 by Gregexplore

[Stavro]

If someone chooses to use the term "partner", is it really such a serious sin to respect their wishes? Are we really required to mimic the political and religious extremists who start screaming certain passages of Leviticus at everyone who fails to live up to Scriptural standards?

 

We are advised to become all things to people of all sorts, (1 Corinthians 9:22) and the primary way we do that is by showing respect.

[Shawnster]

35 minutes ago, Musky said:

Johan, can you really see Jehovah's organization referring to a homosexual couple as "husband and wife"? Ever?

 

I don't think this is what Johan is saying. I understand his point of view is that the Slave will, perhaps, eventually, if this system goes on long enough, drop gender specific terms.  Jehovah would no longer be referred to as heavenly FATHER.  Jesus would no longer be the SON of God.  Christ would not have BROTHERS. Those are all gender specific terms along with he, his, etc.... 

 

 

 

So Jehovah would be our heavenly PARENT.  Christ would be Jehovah's CHILD. The anointed would be Jesus SIBLINGS. 

 

 

 

We would accept such term, from what I understand, if or when culture completely removes gender specific terms.  

 

 

 

I question, though, the idea that such translation would be in harmony with the spirit we hold to in translation.  Remember the videos or talks we had about translating the NWT?  Some cultures did not have a word for sheep so, at one time, another animal was used there.  This idea was later viewed as inappropriate and we should not substitute words like that.  The same was true about translating the word bread.  Some cultures did not have a word for bread. The NWT committee decided that the word food was acceptable to use in this case but not some other food specific word.  

 

 

 

I don't think this system will last that long. 

[Thesauron]

How would they translate this ?
Nevertheless, each one of you must love his wife as he does himself; on the other hand, the wife should have deep respect for her husband
 

Who? And what are you talking about? You are asking a very hypothetical question that is impossible for me to answer.

(It might be interesting to note that Bible translators have always been very inventive when they have translated words and concepts unheard of in the target language).

[Shawnster]

1 minute ago, Stavro said:

If someone chooses to use the term "partner", is it really such a serious sin to respect their wishes? Are we really required to mimic the political and religious extremists who start screaming certain passages of Leviticus at everyone who fails to live up to Scriptural standards?

 

We are advised to become all things to people of all sorts, (1 Corinthians 9:22) and the primary way we do that is by showing respect.

 

 

Are we referring to someone we are in conversation with or the translating of God's word?  It sounds like this topic is dealing with both.  

 

They aren't necessarily the same. 

[Thesauron]

 
I don't think this is what Johan is saying. I understand his point of view is that the Slave will, perhaps, eventually, if this system goes on long enough, drop gender specific terms.  Jehovah would no longer be referred to as heavenly FATHER.  Jesus would no longer be the SON of God.  Christ would not have BROTHERS. Those are all gender specific terms along with he, his, etc.... 
 
 
 
So Jehovah would be our heavenly PARENT.  Christ would be Jehovah's CHILD. The anointed would be Jesus SIBLINGS. 
 
 
 
We would accept such term, from what I understand, if or when culture completely removes gender specific terms.  
 
 
 
I question, though, the idea that such translation would be in harmony with the spirit we hold to in translation.  Remember the videos or talks we had about translating the NWT?  Some cultures did not have a word for sheep so, at one time, another animal was used there.  This idea was later viewed as inappropriate and we should not substitute words like that.  The same was true about translating the word bread.  Some cultures did not have a word for bread. The NWT committee decided that the word food was acceptable to use in this case but not some other food specific word.  
 
 
 
I don't think this system will last that long. 

No, this is not what I am saying. This was brought up when doing the nwt and shot down rather quickly. Gender neutral expressions are used only when it clarifies the meaning. Example, where the original text said “son”, the translators can now use “child” or alike, since the meaning of the original word most of the time covers both male and female children.

(However, should a language completely drop such gender specific words, and they would fall out of use, hypothetically, I see no reason to hold on to an antiquated language no one understands).

[Stavro]

1 minute ago, Shawnster said:

Are we referring to someone we are in conversation with or the translating of God's word?  It sounds like this topic is dealing with both.  

 

They aren't necessarily the same. 

 

I was referring specifically to conversations with others, I'm not even going to touch the issue of Bible translations.

[Shawnster]

3 minutes ago, Thesauron said:

No, this is not what I am saying. This was brought up when doing the nwt and shot down rather quickly. Gender neutral expressions are used only when it clarifies the meaning. Example, where the original text said “son”, the translators can now use “child” or alike, since the meaning of the original word most of the time covers both male and female children.

(However, should a language completely drop such gender specific words, and they would fall out of use, hypothetically, I see no reason to hold on to an antiquated language no one understands).

And, yet, that was not how the topic began.  Aussie airline isn't banning the use of gender words when gender neutral words clarify the meaning. In fact, the exact opposite is being done by this Aussie airline rule.  Referring to a child's parent when the mother is meant does not clarify the conversation.  Likewise when referring to a parent's child when their son is the topic does not clarify the conversation. 

 

 

[trottigy]

36 minutes ago, Thesauron said:

(However, should a language completely drop such gender specific words, and they would fall out of use, hypothetically, I see no reason to hold on to an antiquated language no one understands).

 

I suppose if this system lasts another 100 years where this might be the case - there will likely be bigger issues to deal with. 

 

Edited March 11, 2018 by trottigy

[hatcheckgirl]

Getting the context is rather important.  Here is what the boss of Qantas,  says about the corporation he runs:

“as a gay Irishman running a national carrier it absolutely shows the meritocracy Australia is, and that diversity generated better strategy, better risk management, better debates [and] better outcomes.”

 

“We have a very diverse environment and a very inclusive culture,” Mr Joyce said. “And we need to show that as a brand and who we represent. We’re big sponsors of Mardi Gras; we’re big sponsors of marriage equality, Male Champions of Change and the Indigenous Reconciliation Action Plan. We live that, we breathe that, we know it makes a big difference and that is one of the things that helped me though.” https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/in-depth/perpetual/alan-joyce-says-management-diversity-was-key-to-getting-qantas-through-turbulent-times/news-story/5afe123042f7d2e20b8d3a5f001477b8

 

Ok, now we know where this statement is actually coming from.  This man almost singlehandedly turned around the fortunes of Qantas, and he credits these policies of inclusion of all sorts of diversity as the solution to all ills the world is facing.  The world has this as it's current theme, and anyone else who sees this differently are just wrong in their eyes.  They are successful and it looks the right path to go down, so millions do so, and get caught up with the "right" thing to do.

 

We are warned to always take note of these social trends that fly in the face of what Jehovah says is right.  It is a counterfeit version of righteousness, and will mislead many.  This may even be part of "expressions inspired by demons" leading us to Armageddon.  

 

(whether to use genderless pronouns in conversation generally is another discussion, though related to this, but separate.  It is also requires discernment of the situation, as not one size fits all.  We just have to use our Bible-based training and walk that fine line between not offending Jehovah and not stumbling others, just as we always have to do with all things in this system).

[carlos]

I had a workmate who is gay and got married with his boyfriend. My colleagues often referred to that man as "his husband" and from a legal viewpoint that usage is correct: They are legally married and therefore husband and husband. Yet I never called that man his husband. I called him his partner, because partner is accurate and respectful at the same time. I could not call him his husband in a good conscience because even if they are legally married in the eyes of Caesar, they are not in Jehovah's eyes. So we can accommodate to social realities to a degree, but there are lines I would not cross.

 

Now if I refer to my wife, I would never say she's "my partner". That would be like saying: "She's an acquaintance that lives in the same house with me." Of course she's my partner but she's much more than that.

 

If the words husband and wife disappeared from our language, I guess we would have to use whatever words are understood by everybody. But those terms are still safe and sound and very much alive, so I wouldn't be concerned with that.  

[Thesauron]

And, yet, that was not how the topic began.  Aussie airline isn't banning the use of gender words when gender neutral words clarify the meaning. In fact, the exact opposite is being done by this Aussie airline rule.  Referring to a child's parent when the mother is meant does not clarify the conversation.  Likewise when referring to a parent's child when their son is the topic does not clarify the conversation. 
 
 

I was talking about how to follow changes in languages.

[New World Explorer]

30 minutes ago, Thesauron said:

I was talking about how to follow changes in languages.

Changes in languages ...that's fine.

But when we touch on Bible principles.. well, we don't follow satan's messed up world and confusion. 

Jehovah's standard is unchangeable ...  He created them: woman and men  (no "it" )

Satan hates Jehovah and attacks whatever is associated with him.

He is a master of confusion ..unfortunately the "world" falls for it.

[Thesauron]

Changes in languages ...that's fine.
But when we touch on Bible principles.. well, we don't follow satan's messed up world and confusion. 
Jehovah's standard is unchangeable ...  He created them: woman and men  (no "it" )
Satan hates Jehovah and attacks whatever is associated with him.
He is a master of confusion ..unfortunately the "world" falls for it.

As I mentioned, when the change is due to political or social movements, we are very weary of such changes. We are not quick to adopt them. On the other hand, we are not isolated from society, so should they become the normal grammatical way of speaking, we do adopt even such ways of speaking, when they no longer have political or social connotations, without putting any value into it. As we always do.