If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reuters)   Rare funeral home trifecta now in play as the 6th circuit court of appeals rules that you can't claim freedom of religion to fire employees just for being transgender   ( reuters.com) divider line
    More: News, Gender, United States, transgender workers, Appeal, owner Thomas Rost, Law, Stephens, funeral home  
•       •       •

1393 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Mar 2018 at 11:38 PM (19 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



43 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2018-03-07 05:48:58 PM  
Well, then fire them because otherwise your paperwork is incorrect and you wouldn't want to get fined.
 
2018-03-07 05:51:13 PM  
A breath of sanity in this shiatshow of a week.
 
2018-03-07 05:53:47 PM  

Anastacya: A breath of sanity in this shiatshow of a week.


THIS

And I love the court's reasoning when the owner got even more petty: "Rost also said that because his company pays for employees' work clothes, he would be forced to violate his religious beliefs by paying for Stephens to wear women's clothing. But the court said he was not legally required to pay for the clothes, so it would not burden his religious practice."
 
2018-03-07 06:07:15 PM  

Eclectic: Anastacya: A breath of sanity in this shiatshow of a week.

THIS

And I love the court's reasoning when the owner got even more petty: "Rost also said that because his company pays for employees' work clothes, he would be forced to violate his religious beliefs by paying for Stephens to wear women's clothing. But the court said he was not legally required to pay for the clothes, so it would not burden his religious practice."


Is he required to rend clothes over this?
 
2018-03-07 06:08:49 PM  

WelldeadLink: Eclectic: Anastacya: A breath of sanity in this shiatshow of a week.

THIS

And I love the court's reasoning when the owner got even more petty: "Rost also said that because his company pays for employees' work clothes, he would be forced to violate his religious beliefs by paying for Stephens to wear women's clothing. But the court said he was not legally required to pay for the clothes, so it would not burden his religious practice."

Is he required to rend clothes over this?


He must also wail and gnash his teeth.
 
2018-03-07 08:03:44 PM  

Eclectic: Anastacya: A breath of sanity in this shiatshow of a week.

THIS

And I love the court's reasoning when the owner got even more petty: "Rost also said that because his company pays for employees' work clothes, he would be forced to violate his religious beliefs by paying for Stephens to wear women's clothing. But the court said he was not legally required to pay for the clothes, so it would not burden his religious practice."


I'm assuming that the clothes in question are made with mixed fabrics, because the kind of people who get all high-strung about that one rule in Leviticus have a tendency to ignore most or all of the other 612 rules.
 
2018-03-07 11:42:26 PM  
These courts are proving that John Boehner was right: the Civil Rights Act already protects people from discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation and their gender identity.
 
2018-03-07 11:43:10 PM  
So, you'll fire them for 'no cause' instead. At will employment, letting modern workers party like it's 1875.
 
2018-03-07 11:48:24 PM  
Good.

I'm so very glad these bigots are out in the open so they can be shamed properly.
 
2018-03-07 11:54:02 PM  
The Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian legal group that represents the funeral home, said the decision allowed the government to "strong-arm" religious employers.

That's the same thing you said about gay marriage.  And the same thing people like you said about interracial marriage.  And ending segregation.

'Christians' passing off their own personal bigotry onto Jesus have a detailed and storied history of being plain and simply wrong.  Long may they continue.
 
2018-03-08 12:01:09 AM  
Rost had claimed that he viewed his work as a religious service for grieving families, and that employing a transgender woman would distract customers.

Wait a minute - was this guy claiming that he had a religious belief against employing transgender people or that he had a religious belief against employing anybody he can make the completely unverifiable claim that his customer's wouldn't like?

The decision reversed a 2016 ruling by a federal judge in Detroit who had said that Rost was shielded from the lawsuit because he operated his business "as a ministry."

There's more to being a church than just saying you're a church.  Otherwise Bank of America would start mounting every lightning rod they can to their vaults.

Rost also said that because his company pays for employees' work clothes, he would be forced to violate his religious beliefs by paying for Stephens to wear women's clothing.

Okay, so he changed his argument again?  His religious beliefs have now switched from "trangenders are bad" to "my customers might think transgenders are bad" to "I don't like people who don't share the same fashion sense I do"?

I mean, look at this guy:

img.fark.netView Full Size


He's wearing the same housedress his girl is!  I bet if this funeral direction had his way, that guy would be nailed up on a cross or something.
 
2018-03-08 12:04:46 AM  

Shaggy_C: So, you'll fire them for 'no cause' instead. At will employment, letting modern workers party like it's 1875.


I don't think that would work out so well in this case.  If you lose a federal court battle over whether you can fire someone because of their gender and then immediately fire them for anything else then they've got a pretty solid case not only for violation of their civil rights but also retaliation.

Serious Black: These courts are proving that John Boehner was right: the Civil Rights Act already protects people from discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation and their gender identity.


You could make a case that the Civil Rights Act only protects gender and not orientation.  I'd disagree with it, but it is at least debatable.

It's almost impossible to claim that the Civil Rights Acts protections on the basis of gender wouldn't protect transgender people.  Their defense is right there in the term.
 
2018-03-08 12:08:25 AM  
More proof that the Christian religion's main purpose is control. If you think it's for anything else, you're an easily-led buffoon.
 
2018-03-08 12:09:15 AM  
Good, and, FARK the religious and their stupid, stupid ideas.

"I feel very strong about [  X  ]" shouldn't meant jack shiat when it comes to farking over your fellow human being.

Join society and be nice, or just farking kill yourselves.
 
2018-03-08 12:19:01 AM  

Testiclaw: Good, and, FARK the religious and their stupid, stupid ideas.

"I feel very strong about [  X  ]" shouldn't meant jack shiat when it comes to farking over your fellow human being.

Join society and be nice, or just farking kill yourselves.


Cut us some slack! Not all religions are bad.

Some can be quite funny.

Hail Eris & Praise Bob.
 
2018-03-08 12:25:41 AM  

Guntram Shatterhand: More proof that the Christian religion's main purpose is control. If you think it's for anything else, you're an easily-led buffoon.


Yeah, religions in general are such.
 
2018-03-08 12:34:20 AM  
I don't understand the whole transgender thing.  Even though you transition - you are still the same original gender in terms of chromosomes.

However....I also DO understand that there are many things I will never understand until I am in that situation.  And when I have found myself in situations I didn't plan on, the best outcome was always when I had understanding compassionate people to help me.

So, hats off to this person for winning, and although I can't claim to understand what trans people go through, I do know that people are people and deserve to be what they want to be.  If this was my kid, I'd be very happy for them.
 
2018-03-08 12:52:15 AM  

Sharksfan: I don't understand the whole transgender thing.  Even though you transition - you are still the same original gender in terms of chromosomes.

However....I also DO understand that there are many things I will never understand until I am in that situation.  And when I have found myself in situations I didn't plan on, the best outcome was always when I had understanding compassionate people to help me.

So, hats off to this person for winning, and although I can't claim to understand what trans people go through, I do know that people are people and deserve to be what they want to be.  If this was my kid, I'd be very happy for them.


You need to divorce the ideas of sex and gender. They are two completely different things.
 
2018-03-08 01:12:02 AM  
...ruling in favor of a funeral director who was fired after telling her boss she planned to transition to female from male.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said RG & GR Harris Funeral Homes Inc in Detroit unlawfully discriminated against Aimee Stephens, formerly known as Anthony Stephens, based on her sex.

So either Aimee/Anthony is really confused, or TFA of TFA is really confused. God, I remember the days of actual editors... I didn't even have to walk to school in 12 feet of snow, uphill, and against the wind both ways, those days were that recent..
 
2018-03-08 01:16:27 AM  

Mikey1969: ...ruling in favor of a funeral director who was fired after telling her boss she planned to transition to female from male.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said RG & GR Harris Funeral Homes Inc in Detroit unlawfully discriminated against Aimee Stephens, formerly known as Anthony Stephens, based on her sex.

So either Aimee/Anthony is really confused, or TFA of TFA is really confused. God, I remember the days of actual editors... I didn't even have to walk to school in 12 feet of snow, uphill, and against the wind both ways, those days were that recent..


Read it again. In the (possibly distant) past, Stephens told her boss "hey, I'm transitioning, this is my new name." Then she became Aimee. Then, at a more recent time, the funeral home discriminated against her.

Perfectly understandable.
 
2018-03-08 01:16:28 AM  
Well, that's great until the SCOTUS reverses that decision.
 
2018-03-08 01:20:27 AM  
Wow, Ayn Rand's Anthem is almost literally Satanic:


"And now I see the face of god, and I raise this god over the earth, this god whom men have sought since men came into being, this god who will grant them joy and peace and pride. This god, this one word: I."
 
2018-03-08 01:39:06 AM  

Sharksfan: I don't understand the whole transgender thing.  Even though you transition - you are still the same original gender in terms of chromosomes.

However....I also DO understand that there are many things I will never understand until I am in that situation.  And when I have found myself in situations I didn't plan on, the best outcome was always when I had understanding compassionate people to help me.

So, hats off to this person for winning, and although I can't claim to understand what trans people go through, I do know that people are people and deserve to be what they want to be.  If this was my kid, I'd be very happy for them.


While this is in no way an entire explanation, a big thing is what sex your chromosomes state, what bits you have, and what gender you feel internally are all different things.  There are people with three sex chromosomes, there are people who, despite having XX or XY chromosomes, are born with different sex characteristics, and there are people who's brain is a different gender than their characteristics, and for them this often causes severe stress, thus, transitioning to fix this.

(This is just a small slice of everything to be clear, but it's hopefully a good starting point)
 
2018-03-08 01:55:20 AM  
Judge Moore, who wrote for the majority, was my Civil Procedure professor. One of the smartest people I've ever met.
 
2018-03-08 02:00:23 AM  

Guntram Shatterhand: More proof that the Christian religion's main purpose is control. If you think it's for anything else, you're an easily-led buffoon.


Control.....and the acquisition of money....
 
2018-03-08 02:09:10 AM  

Forbidden Doughnut: Guntram Shatterhand: More proof that the Christian religion's main purpose is control. If you think it's for anything else, you're an easily-led buffoon.

Control.....and the acquisition of money....


Control (or, more generally, power) and money are like space and time, or like matter and energy - just different manifestations of the same thing.
 
2018-03-08 02:24:01 AM  

Mikey1969: ...ruling in favor of a funeral director who was fired after telling her boss she planned to transition to female from male.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said RG & GR Harris Funeral Homes Inc in Detroit unlawfully discriminated against Aimee Stephens, formerly known as Anthony Stephens, based on her sex.

So either Aimee/Anthony is really confused, or TFA of TFA is really confused. God, I remember the days of actual editors... I didn't even have to walk to school in 12 feet of snow, uphill, and against the wind both ways, those days were that recent..


I'm not sure where you're stumbling because it reads fine to me.

She (current gender) transitioned from male to female.  Her (again, current gender) name is now Aimee, it was formerly Anthony.
 
2018-03-08 04:08:12 AM  
Why don't all these bigots just write a new chapter to the bible that clearly states god hates certain classes of people for no reason at all and thus forces his believers to treat them like shiat in this life while god follows up with the whole eternal suffering thing after death.

There is literally nothing stopping anyone from adding to the bible.
 
2018-03-08 07:29:26 AM  

Murkanen: Mikey1969: ...ruling in favor of a funeral director who was fired after telling her boss she planned to transition to female from male.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said RG & GR Harris Funeral Homes Inc in Detroit unlawfully discriminated against Aimee Stephens, formerly known as Anthony Stephens, based on her sex.

So either Aimee/Anthony is really confused, or TFA of TFA is really confused. God, I remember the days of actual editors... I didn't even have to walk to school in 12 feet of snow, uphill, and against the wind both ways, those days were that recent..

I'm not sure where you're stumbling because it reads fine to me.

She (current gender) transitioned from male to female.  Her (again, current gender) name is now Aimee, it was formerly Anthony.


No, I've got to agree that it sounds like the writer switched something around.
 
2018-03-08 07:38:18 AM  

monkeydude5656: Why don't all these bigots just write a new chapter to the bible that clearly states god hates certain classes of people for no reason at all and thus forces his believers to treat them like shiat in this life while god follows up with the whole eternal suffering thing after death.

There is literally nothing stopping anyone from adding to the bible.


There is, at least in their own minds.

The kinds of 'Christians' hung up on sexual orientation and gender are the kind that believe that the Bible is the literal Word of God and that every word in it is, and always has been, in every translation, true.

The fact that there are parts that contradict each other do not count.
The fact that some of the idioms which made sense two thousand years ago just don't today*, does not count.
The fact that, as you point out, there have been church conventions where they decide which books do and do not belong in the bible, which means that what 'the bible' was before and after that convention could be off by several hundred pages ... does not count.

If they were smarter, they'd drop that in favor of the Mormom's method of claiming to have a new divine revelation: "Oh, hey guys.  God just called us up - he said that whole racism this is wrong now.  So we're cool, right?"

*Example: the bit about comparing a rich man entering having to a camel passing through the eye of a needle.  It was originally understood as a sewing needle, but then sometime between the 9th and 15th centuries it was reinterpreted as a gate in Jerusalem called the needle that a camel could walk through only after you unloaded it, and by now how many people are familiar with ancient Israeli gate construction?

*Example 2: the color of death's horse.  Everyone knows it's pale right?  There was even a great Clint Eastwood film about it!  Except that in the past it wasn't pale, it was a sickly green color since that was the color people associated with dead bodies at the time.  So what color is the horse, and when's the last time you saw a green horse anyway?
 
2018-03-08 07:54:46 AM  

Karac: Murkanen: Mikey1969: ...ruling in favor of a funeral director who was fired after telling her boss she planned to transition to female from male.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said RG & GR Harris Funeral Homes Inc in Detroit unlawfully discriminated against Aimee Stephens, formerly known as Anthony Stephens, based on her sex.

So either Aimee/Anthony is really confused, or TFA of TFA is really confused. God, I remember the days of actual editors... I didn't even have to walk to school in 12 feet of snow, uphill, and against the wind both ways, those days were that recent..

I'm not sure where you're stumbling because it reads fine to me.

She (current gender) transitioned from male to female.  Her (again, current gender) name is now Aimee, it was formerly Anthony.

No, I've got to agree that it sounds like the writer switched something around.


I realize "keeping track of all 67 genders" is a chore for some among us, but I'm a bit troubled that the ability to grok "to Y from X" as equal to "from X to Y" seems so elusive
 
2018-03-08 09:03:37 AM  

maram500: Mikey1969: ...ruling in favor of a funeral director who was fired after telling her boss she planned to transition to female from male.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said RG & GR Harris Funeral Homes Inc in Detroit unlawfully discriminated against Aimee Stephens, formerly known as Anthony Stephens, based on her sex.

So either Aimee/Anthony is really confused, or TFA of TFA is really confused. God, I remember the days of actual editors... I didn't even have to walk to school in 12 feet of snow, uphill, and against the wind both ways, those days were that recent..

Read it again. In the (possibly distant) past, Stephens told her boss "hey, I'm transitioning, this is my new name." Then she became Aimee. Then, at a more recent time, the funeral home discriminated against her.

Perfectly understandable.


Okay... So... If you are going to suggest that somebody needed to read more carefully, you should be sure youve read everything carefully.

"Female to male"
"Aimee, formerly Anthony."

See the confusion now?
 
2018-03-08 09:10:56 AM  

monkeydude5656: Why don't all these bigots just write a new chapter to the bible that clearly states god hates certain classes of people for no reason at all and thus forces his believers to treat them like shiat in this life while god follows up with the whole eternal suffering thing after death.

There is literally nothing stopping anyone from adding to the bible.


Technically, no, but there's a passage in Revelation that says anyone who adds or takes away from it will have their name removed from the Book of Life.  Something like that.  Highly likely it only refers to Revelation but gets taken out of context, like most of the rest of it...
 
2018-03-08 09:37:06 AM  

BeesNuts: maram500: Mikey1969: ...ruling in favor of a funeral director who was fired after telling her boss she planned to transition to female from male.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said RG & GR Harris Funeral Homes Inc in Detroit unlawfully discriminated against Aimee Stephens, formerly known as Anthony Stephens, based on her sex.

So either Aimee/Anthony is really confused, or TFA of TFA is really confused. God, I remember the days of actual editors... I didn't even have to walk to school in 12 feet of snow, uphill, and against the wind both ways, those days were that recent..

Read it again. In the (possibly distant) past, Stephens told her boss "hey, I'm transitioning, this is my new name." Then she became Aimee. Then, at a more recent time, the funeral home discriminated against her.

Perfectly understandable.

Okay... So... If you are going to suggest that somebody needed to read more carefully, you should be sure youve read everything carefully.

"Female to male"
"Aimee, formerly Anthony."

See the confusion now?


Reread it.  It says to female (current) from male (former), which means she is an MtF transgender.
 
2018-03-08 10:48:11 AM  

Murkanen: BeesNuts: maram500: Mikey1969: ...ruling in favor of a funeral director who was fired after telling her boss she planned to transition to female from male.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said RG & GR Harris Funeral Homes Inc in Detroit unlawfully discriminated against Aimee Stephens, formerly known as Anthony Stephens, based on her sex.

So either Aimee/Anthony is really confused, or TFA of TFA is really confused. God, I remember the days of actual editors... I didn't even have to walk to school in 12 feet of snow, uphill, and against the wind both ways, those days were that recent..

Read it again. In the (possibly distant) past, Stephens told her boss "hey, I'm transitioning, this is my new name." Then she became Aimee. Then, at a more recent time, the funeral home discriminated against her.

Perfectly understandable.

Okay... So... If you are going to suggest that somebody needed to read more carefully, you should be sure youve read everything carefully.

"Female to male"
"Aimee, formerly Anthony."

See the confusion now?

Reread it.  It says to female (current) from male (former), which means she is an MtF transgender.


Once again, an editor wouldn't have let this farking word salad get printed.
 
2018-03-08 11:04:12 AM  
Mikey1969:

Once again, an editor wouldn't have let this farking word salad get printed.

I'm disagreeing that it is word salad.  They were just consistent in how they referred to the current gender/birth gender paradigm by putting the emphasis on who she is at present.
 
2018-03-08 11:43:16 AM  

Sharksfan: I don't understand the whole transgender thing.  Even though you transition - you are still the same original gender in terms of chromosomes.

However....I also DO understand that there are many things I will never understand until I am in that situation.  And when I have found myself in situations I didn't plan on, the best outcome was always when I had understanding compassionate people to help me.

So, hats off to this person for winning, and although I can't claim to understand what trans people go through, I do know that people are people and deserve to be what they want to be.  If this was my kid, I'd be very happy for them.


Chromosomes are complicated. The "X" vs "Y" thing is the tip of the iceberg. Sexual traits include both physical and mental characteristics, and, typically, all such characteristics are due to the entourage effects of a whole mess of genes working together. It's similar to a computer system, where bits of each program are stored in and "called" from random places.

So it seems that nature occasionally creates a female or male body with mental traits that align with the other gender. This creates issues for the individual involved. They tend to be HUGE issues because sex alignment is a huge part of our identities.

Since we don't know how to safely modify the mental characteristics (not to mention the whole question of "should we modify mental characteristics" which sounds more than a bit mind-controllish and Orwellian) we modify the physical characteristics, which we have a better handle on.

Do you understand how much more complex this is than just "ZOMG Y = male; X = female"?
 
2018-03-08 11:59:48 AM  

Sharksfan: I don't understand the whole transgender thing.  Even though you transition - you are still the same original gender in terms of chromosomes.


True, but chromosomes aren't always a 100% guarantee that you'll end up one sex or another.  There are a lot of intersex conditions that prove that.  After a point, hormones are the more powerful factor in determining your sex characteristics.  Some people don't even discover that they're intersex until they're teenagers or adults.

Besides, if someone initiates HRT before the onset of puberty, it would be close to impossible to know that they had transitioned unless you look inside their pants.  Their voice, height, build, body hair, and personality develops that same as a normal person of that genetic sex.  Eventually, the "...but their chromosomes" argument kind of becomes pointless.

How would you feel if this person was legally required to use the men's changing room at the gym because of their chromosomes?
img.fark.netView Full Size

(Kim Petras)
 
2018-03-08 12:29:53 PM  

Murkanen: Mikey1969:

Once again, an editor wouldn't have let this farking word salad get printed.

I'm disagreeing that it is word salad.  They were just consistent in how they referred to the current gender/birth gender paradigm by putting the emphasis on who she is at present.


And normal people work in normal time references, from the past to the present or future.

You don't say "He's an adult who was previously a child", you say "He grew from a child to an adult.". She transitioned from male to female, not "She transitioned to male from female.". It's bad writing, and an editor would have not allowed it. Sure, it's correct, but it isn't laid out in a way that makes sense. Look ay how many people got tripped up by it, I'm not the only one. It's poorly written, part of writing news stories is to not confuse people.
 
2018-03-08 04:15:45 PM  

Mikey1969: Murkanen: Mikey1969:

Once again, an editor wouldn't have let this farking word salad get printed.

I'm disagreeing that it is word salad.  They were just consistent in how they referred to the current gender/birth gender paradigm by putting the emphasis on who she is at present.

And normal people work in normal time references, from the past to the present or future.

You don't say "He's an adult who was previously a child", you say "He grew from a child to an adult.". She transitioned from male to female, not "She transitioned to male from female.". It's bad writing, and an editor would have not allowed it. Sure, it's correct, but it isn't laid out in a way that makes sense. Look ay how many people got tripped up by it, I'm not the only one. It's poorly written, part of writing news stories is to not confuse people.


Bullshiat. Your reading comprehension issues are the problem here. Not every sentence has to be chronological; sometimes the final condition is more important than the point of origin.

/professional editor
 
2018-03-08 05:49:04 PM  

LibertyHiller: Mikey1969: Murkanen: Mikey1969:

Once again, an editor wouldn't have let this farking word salad get printed.

I'm disagreeing that it is word salad.  They were just consistent in how they referred to the current gender/birth gender paradigm by putting the emphasis on who she is at present.

And normal people work in normal time references, from the past to the present or future.

You don't say "He's an adult who was previously a child", you say "He grew from a child to an adult.". She transitioned from male to female, not "She transitioned to male from female.". It's bad writing, and an editor would have not allowed it. Sure, it's correct, but it isn't laid out in a way that makes sense. Look ay how many people got tripped up by it, I'm not the only one. It's poorly written, part of writing news stories is to not confuse people.

Bullshiat. Your reading comprehension issues are the problem here. Not every sentence has to be chronological; sometimes the final condition is more important than the point of origin.

/professional editor


Good thing that I'm the only one tripped up by this. You must be a pretty bad "professional editor"(Or just making things up to sound cool) if you think a sentence that keeps reading incorrectly to MULTIPLE people is perfectly cromulent. That sentence is written like shiat, and the amount of confusion it caused is the evidence of that.
 
2018-03-08 06:18:55 PM  

Mikey1969: LibertyHiller: Mikey1969: Murkanen: Mikey1969:

Once again, an editor wouldn't have let this farking word salad get printed.

I'm disagreeing that it is word salad.  They were just consistent in how they referred to the current gender/birth gender paradigm by putting the emphasis on who she is at present.

And normal people work in normal time references, from the past to the present or future.

You don't say "He's an adult who was previously a child", you say "He grew from a child to an adult.". She transitioned from male to female, not "She transitioned to male from female.". It's bad writing, and an editor would have not allowed it. Sure, it's correct, but it isn't laid out in a way that makes sense. Look ay how many people got tripped up by it, I'm not the only one. It's poorly written, part of writing news stories is to not confuse people.

Bullshiat. Your reading comprehension issues are the problem here. Not every sentence has to be chronological; sometimes the final condition is more important than the point of origin.

/professional editor

Good thing that I'm the only one tripped up by this. You must be a pretty bad "professional editor"(Or just making things up to sound cool) if you think a sentence that keeps reading incorrectly to MULTIPLE people is perfectly cromulent. That sentence is written like shiat, and the amount of confusion it caused is the evidence of that.


People misread things all the time.  You're the only one still complaining about it; the other two stopped when it was pointed out they were flipping what the author wrote mentally.
 
2018-03-08 08:22:49 PM  

Murkanen: Mikey1969: LibertyHiller: Mikey1969: Murkanen: Mikey1969:

Once again, an editor wouldn't have let this farking word salad get printed.

I'm disagreeing that it is word salad.  They were just consistent in how they referred to the current gender/birth gender paradigm by putting the emphasis on who she is at present.

And normal people work in normal time references, from the past to the present or future.

You don't say "He's an adult who was previously a child", you say "He grew from a child to an adult.". She transitioned from male to female, not "She transitioned to male from female.". It's bad writing, and an editor would have not allowed it. Sure, it's correct, but it isn't laid out in a way that makes sense. Look ay how many people got tripped up by it, I'm not the only one. It's poorly written, part of writing news stories is to not confuse people.

Bullshiat. Your reading comprehension issues are the problem here. Not every sentence has to be chronological; sometimes the final condition is more important than the point of origin.

/professional editor

Good thing that I'm the only one tripped up by this. You must be a pretty bad "professional editor"(Or just making things up to sound cool) if you think a sentence that keeps reading incorrectly to MULTIPLE people is perfectly cromulent. That sentence is written like shiat, and the amount of confusion it caused is the evidence of that.

People misread things all the time.  You're the only one still complaining about it; the other two stopped when it was pointed out they were flipping what the author wrote mentally.


Well, I have to admit that a little part of me died today when I discovered that modern "editors  aren't actually any better than modern "journalists".
 
Displayed 43 of 43 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report