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

[Stavro]

5 minutes ago, Gregexplore said:

Would we then ..teaching the truth or adding to their confusion regarding gender ...?

 

I wasn't aware that using the term "partner" was causing anyone to be confused about their gender.

[Áine]

4 minutes ago, Stavro said:

 

I wasn't aware that using the term "partner" was causing anyone to be confused about their gender.

Would you like the whole organisation to be gender neutral !!!

[Stavro]

16 minutes ago, skipdaflip said:

And how do you explain this scripture to gay people?

 

Personally, I wait until a study is well established before bringing up Scriptural marriage, and by that time the student will already know that changing their lifestyle is necessary.

[hatcheckgirl]

I think some of this conversation is going round in circles. Aren’t we all on the same page re: firstly, not causing offense to Jehovah, and secondly not causing offense to others? Where appropriate we yield. « As far as it depends on you be peaceable ». But Jehovah’s will first. 

 

All agree? Then no issues 

[Stavro]

Just now, anniebea said:

Would you like the whole organisation to be gender neutral !!!

 

Where is this coming from? Why are you putting words into my mouth?

[Stavro]

My comments were on the same topic as the OP and the attached article, addressing people in conversation. I am not talking about Bible translations, organizational standards, gender identity, or anything else that is being implied here. I am talking about conversing with people on a personal basis.

[carlos]

Friends, we are getting heated because we are not understanding each other. We are talking about several different things here and mixing them.

 

Let's summarize:

 

- If people (in service, at work or wherever) want us to refer to them in gender-neutral terms, that's ok, we comply. On the other hand, if people want us to call them something they are not, we won't comply.

If a mother wants to be called "guardian" instead of "mother", we call her "guardian". If the "guardian" wants their offspring called "a child" instead of "a boy" or "a girl", so be it. If a gay person speaks about his partner, we call him "his partner". No problem with that.

If you have a return visit who is living with a woman without being married, how will we refer to her? Surely we won't say "How's your wife?" because they aren't married. Surely not "your concubine", "your lover", "that woman you commit fornication with" because those terms, although accurate, will upset the person unnecessarily. "How's your partner?" may be the best option, and it's perfectly accurate.

 

- When we speak of ourselves and our relatives, we use the most proper term.

My wife, my husband, my mother, my son, whatever. We are not dropping that.

 

- When translating the Bible or in our publications, the Slave keeps genders clearly specified when it's relevant for the context. For example, we call Jehovah "Father", not "Father/Mother" or "Parent". And the Bible says wives must be submissive their husbands, not "marriage partners must be submissive to one another". Yet gender-neutral terms are often used when their intended meaning is gender-neutral. For example, in the new NWT the term "sons of Israel" as been replaced with "Israelites", and "orphan boy" has been replaced by "orphan child". Or in many places where the original Greek says "sons" the NWT translates "children".

 

*** nwt p. 1724 A2 Features of This Revision ***
Conveying the correct idea of words involving gender. Hebrew and Greek nouns indicate male or female gender, and in Greek, also neuter. At times, though, reflecting the gender of the original-language term may obscure the intended meaning. In both Hebrew and Greek, plural nouns are generally masculine, not only when referring exclusively to males but also when referring to both males and females. For example, though the expression “the sons of Israel” may refer to the 12 sons of Jacob, it more often refers to the entire nation of Israel, both men and women. (Genesis 46:5; Exodus 35:29) So in the revision, this phrase was often rendered “Israelites” to show that it refers to the entire nation. Similarly, the expression “fatherless boy” was rendered “fatherless child” or “orphan” to show that it may refer to a boy or a girl. On the other hand, since the Bible uses the male gender in reference to God and to his Son, as well as to various angels and demons, there is no basis for using genderless terms as is done in some modern translations.

 

I think we all agree on those points and nobody is arguing the opposite, so there's really no reason to become upset, friends.

 

Edited March 12, 2018 by carlos

[Shawnster]

4 hours ago, Stavro said:

 

Personally, I wait until a study is well established before bringing up Scriptural marriage, and by that time the student will already know that changing their lifestyle is necessary.

This is the correct course with any immoral lifestyle choice a Bible student has. You wait until the time is right, until the subject is addressed in the publication before tackling it.  Before then you might mention something brief and explain you will come back to it at the appropriate time. 

 

You are laying a foundation.  In literal construction you cannot replace old foundation with new unless you prop up or supported the existing structure first.  You cannot build load bearing walls until first you provide a solid foundation. 

[Shawnster]

4 hours ago, Stavro said:

My comments were on the same topic as the OP and the attached article, addressing people in conversation. I am not talking about Bible translations, organizational standards, gender identity, or anything else that is being implied here. I am talking about conversing with people on a personal basis.

This is getting lost in the conversation.  The reason is because Johan is referring to Bible translation in addition to common conversation.  The result is two parallel conversations like a tree with a split trunk. 

 

It's difficult for some of us to separate the parallel thoughts especially when said thoughts are perceived to be supporting a movement contrary to Jehovah's standards. 

[Pjdriver]

What Carlos said is a good balanced way to ‘be all things to all people,  but its not without perimeters.

I think the main concern of many of the good brothers and sisters here is that the world is gradually trying to lead us down a certain path. While in some cases some these expressions are harmless and even grammically appropriate, we can’t just dismiss it by saying we need to be all things to all people. That is only useful to a certain extent  ....we still need to be on guard by looking at the bigger picture.

If you’re old enough you can see how the world had gradually devolved morally over the past few decades. We are constantly being pressured to accept the “new morality”. I shouldn’t even have to  go into all the ways this has been happening. So why all this push for gender neutrality? Could  all this talk on gender nuetrality has an agenda behind it? I can’t see what other purpose it would have. 

So while there are some situations where we don’t need to be gender specific....the idea of changing these terms definitely has a political motive behind it. That should be a big red flag for us. So while we proceed....we should proceed with caution.

 

[carlos]

12 minutes ago, Pjdriver said:

Could  all this talk on gender nuetrality has an agenda behind it? I can’t see what other purpose it would have. 

 

Absolutely yes. The reason is to promote the LGBT agenda, obviously. Or as they put it, to acknowledge the diversity. A couple days ago someone was making fun of the multitudinous feminist protests by saying the feminist motto was "Everything offends me". I thought that describes perfectly not only the feminist movement but all of Satan's world at this final stage: Everybody is offended by everything. If you call a woman "woman" she's offended because you are assuming she's a woman just because she looks like a woman. People desperately want a change but they don't know which change they want.

 

As Christians we completely reject those "alternative" lifestyles but that doesn't prevent us from being respectful when we treat with any kind of people. Similarly, we can accommodate to a degree their wishes to be called in a certain way. Of course, we will not pass the limits established by the Scriptures.

[Bob]

14 minutes ago, carlos said:

 

Absolutely yes. The reason is to promote the LGBT agenda, obviously. Or as they put it, to acknowledge the diversity. A couple days ago someone was making fun of the multitudinous feminist protests by saying the feminist motto was "Everything offends me". I thought that describes perfectly not only the feminist movement but all of Satan's world at this final stage: Everybody is offended by everything. If you call a woman "woman" she's offended because you are assuming she's a woman just because she looks like a woman. People desperately want a change but they don't know which change they want.

 

As Christians we completely reject those "alternative" lifestyles but that doesn't prevent us from being respectful when we treat with any kind of people. Similarly, we can accommodate to a degree their wishes to be called in a certain way. Of course, we will not pass the limits established by the Scriptures.

 

Tell me about it. I mean, I've read many accounts of people losing their jobs because they openly voiced support for traditional marriage and "Christian values". One of my co-workers, who knows my bible-based views, tried to get me into the gay marriage issue when it was legalized in the States in 2015. I simply said: "whatever form of marriage the government recognizes is up to them. As long as it isn't imposed on my organization, I have nothing to say about it".

 

Nowadays, it seems you have to voice agreement with the popular view, or you risk your livelihood, or worse. Either that, or keep your mouth shut.

Edited March 12, 2018 by Bob

[GeordieGirl]

19 minutes ago, Bob said:

 

Nowadays, it seems you have to voice agreement with the popular view, or you risk your livelihood, or worse. Either that, or keep your mouth shut.

 

 

A couple of years ago I was having a general converstaion with my manager and I happened to say, obviously as part of the conversation, that I was glad none of my children are gay.  Turns out that one of her daughters is gay. From that moment on she made my life absolute hell till my anxiety about going to work was so high that I had to leave. 

[Thesauron]

Isolated : we are no part of this world
Adopt: I don't think what world is doing with grammatical way of speaking in relation to "gender" is of ANY interest to us.
Just to give you "extreme" example ..profanity is very common in the movies and in fact everyday speech, yet we don't adopt it because is in contradiction to Bible values.
When mankind wants to change fundamental truths about men and woman we do not support it.
 
Well, Johan ..that's how I see it.

We are in agreement there. But I don’t see grammatical changes as wrong, as such, and don’t necessarily add personal values to changes in the language.

Profanity has always been looked down upon by God’s people. What is considered profanity has changed over time and from place to place, and we adapt accordingly, as we should.

My dear, you're are missing the points.
Partner , mate, are just additional terms ..NOT a replacement terms.

Nobody is arguing for replacement, so don’t worry.

[Thesauron]

This is getting lost in the conversation.  The reason is because Johan is referring to Bible translation in addition to common conversation.  The result is two parallel conversations like a tree with a split trunk. 
 
It's difficult for some of us to separate the parallel thoughts especially when said thoughts are perceived to be supporting a movement contrary to Jehovah's standards. 

I am talking about how language changes, what we adopt, why, when, and what we do not adopt. The way we translate our literature is a fine way to highlight that.

We are very careful to not adopt language that has its origin in political or social movements too quickly. But we do change when the society around us does. We do not use a language that reveals political or social bias either way.

[Shawnster]

5 hours ago, carlos said:

 

If you have a return visit who is living with a woman without being married, how will we refer to her? Surely we won't say "How's your wife?" because they aren't married. Surely not "your concubine", "your lover", "that woman you commit fornication with" because those terms, although accurate, will upset the person unnecessarily. "How's your partner?" may be the best option, and it's perfectly accurate.

 

 

 

And this is where we enter the more gray/ambiguous/conscience matter area.  Our return visit may be legally married to a same-sex partner.  Legally their partner, depending on gender, is either their husband or wife.  These individuals may have fought a long time for their equal rights under law.  They may insist upon their marriage mate being referred to as husband or wife.  They may actually be offended by someone NOT using those common terms to refer to someone's marriage mate.

[skipdaflip]

The LBGT movement is getting out of control. On tv programs here some even wants to be called neuter. Cause their feeling tells them one day to act and live like a woman. The other day they wake up as a man. This whole discussion about gender neutrality is getting out of hand.

 

We're representatives of Jehovah and must hate wat he hates. That doesn't mean we must hate the person itself, but we hate their lifestyle.

What if you study with a person that is married with his daughter. It is a despicable thought that makes you wanna puke. He insists you to call his daughter his wife. Will you do that?

 

If you call his daughter his wife, then you, in some sort of way, accept this way of living. Cause you use the term he wants you to use. When it would be my study, I would call his daughter/wife by her first name.

 

Then you're truly neutral and won't give that person a misplaced title that doesn't naturally belongs to them.

And this is exactly the same with LBGT etc. Satan wants to force the world, but especially us into a way of thinking. And love to see us struggle with things like this.

 

As mentioned, this convention will cover this topic. And I hope to see the thoughts after the convention on this topic in this thread. 

 

But as mentioned... if you really wants to be neutral, ask the persons name and use that. Cause when using misplaced titles on persons that don't belong to them, could give them the feeling you sort of approve their way of thinking. 

 

The same is with the name of God. If we study with a person, and he assist us to use another name for Jehovah, we won't allow that. A title like God or Allah is not an issue, it is a title that is not misplaced, because it means the same. But a title that will do wrong to the person or God, that is despicable. And can not be used.

Edited March 12, 2018 by skipdaflip

[GrumpysWife]

That may all be true Shawn, however if he or she continues to make progress in the truth and start to study, go to meetings etc, they will finally have to come to the conclusion that Jehovah does not approve of their lifestyle and their "marriage" is not valid by His standards. Changes must be made if they expect to serve Jehovah because THEY are actually offending Him. 

 

[Pjdriver]

2 hours ago, skipdaflip said:

Satan wants to force the world, but especially us into a way of thinking.

It’s interesting that in times past it was the religious fanatics that tried to force/coerce people into their way of thinking. Now the ones who rejected that are basically trying to do the same. One extreme to the other. 

[cricket246]

This reminds me of the scripture that's speaks of Jehovah's followers having the true language, could our difference in terms/language possibly be one of the things that differentiate us during the Great Tribulation and cause us to stand out from the rest of the world?

[Pjdriver]

5 hours ago, Shawnster said:

These individuals may have fought a long time for their equal rights under law.  They may insist upon their marriage mate being referred to as husband or wife.  They may actually be offended by someone NOT using those common terms to refer to someone's marriage mate.

 

That would be a shame.  

 

Sorry Shawn, I couldn’t resist. Does that make me a bad person? 

Edited March 12, 2018 by Pjdriver

[Stavro]

6 hours ago, Shawnster said:

They may insist upon their marriage mate being referred to as husband or wife.  They may actually be offended by someone NOT using those common terms to refer to someone's marriage mate.

 

Personally, I have never encountered that at all, though I have met plenty of traditional couples (married and unmarried) who prefer "partner".

 

Among Witnesses, the common trend I've seen is that most people will try to pigeonhole the titles of husband and wife to each partner based on who they perceive to be head of the household, regardless of gender, and without actually confirming that such a relationship actually exists. From what I've seen, referring to a man as someone's "wife" has always caused offense, and usually causes them to become a do-not-call.

 

[Shawnster]

Just now, Stavro said:

 

Personally, I have never encountered that at all, though I have met plenty of traditional couples (married and unmarried) who prefer "partner".

 

Among Witnesses, the common trend I've seen is that most people will try to pigeonhole the titles of husband and wife to each partner based on who they perceive to be head of the household, regardless of gender, and without actually confirming that such a relationship actually exists. From what I've seen, referring to a man as someone's "wife" has always caused offense, and usually causes them to become a do-not-call.

 

I'm seeing it on television. If it's not hit mainstream yet, it soon will. 

 

1 minute ago, Stavro said:

 

 

51 minutes ago, Pjdriver said:

 

That would be a shame.  

 

Sorry Shawn, I couldn’t resist. Does that make me a bad person? 

 

Crazy, ain't it? 

 

[Pjdriver]

14 hours ago, anniebea said:

Would you like the whole organisation to be gender neutral !!!

What would we call each other instead of brother and sister....; Annie “my friend in Jesus”? 

 

 

[Tortuga]

17 minutes ago, Stavro said:

From what I've seen, referring to a man as someone's "wife" has always caused offense, and usually causes them to become a do-not-call.

 

I thought that both males were referred to as 'husband' and in a lesbian marriage both women are referred to as 'wife'

Is that not correct?