mandymoochops

Well no because even I can see that he's not a lezzer, so wouldn't be as offended by that as by something that directly relates to him.

I reckon if there were any lesbians participating in this thread then they would (or might) speak up, and there you would have your "I find that offensive" person. Seeing as there isn't then it's probably ok to go open season.

Same principle as the tree falling in the forest, and not making a noise if no-ones there to hear it.

JamesM

Bible Basher!

London-England-Lads

That Hell Yeah was to a different post.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Shard View Post
Absolutely. People have a right to be offended if they so choose.

But tell me LEL, you weren't ACTUALLY offended at the Rick Gervais spoof were you ? ? ?
Hell Yeah !

Deficient

I'm not a lesbian but I did raise an eyebrow at the use of 'lezzer'. I didn't think it worth raising when there are bigger fryable fish in this thread. I'm not offended by it but I also don't really approve.

Is saying offensive things when the potentially-offended party isn't present acceptable? I mean, I get that it would be in the relevant company, but if someone's perpetuating dodgy stereotypes and whatnot, it could be an issue.

Asking the question makes it seem like I care more than I do, but the thought just popped into my head.

dbd33

The phrase was "big fat lezza". I don't know if the person in question would be offended by the use of "lezza", she's not out and, I suppose it's possible that she has the crop and masculine clothes for some reason other than being a bull dyke. She would, however, scream for a representative from the HR department if she caught someone describing her as "big" or "fat".

jimf

Her name isn't Millie Tant by any coincidence is it?

dbd33

Ha! But, although her views aren't mainstream on this board, I think the objection to gender specific language is typical of corporate environments in Canada. What she's guilty of is simple minded literalism. Corporate HR departments do stipulate that terms such as "brain storm", "lady" and "grandfathering" be avoided. Corporate communications wouldn't contain such expressions. The objector's mistake is in thinking that there's an expectation that people actually follow corporate policies in verbal communication. She's being naive, I suspect willfully so. (This last sentence is, btw, flagrantly in breach of the corporate communications policy almost everywhere I've worked; there's no need to identify the gender of the speaker).

While I roll my eyes at all of this, I save most of my derision of HR departments for their Scent Reduction policies and the staff they send to shuffle along the aisles sniffing people.