In February 2014, the former catering worker Valeria Jones sued her employer, the Bon Appetit Management Co. in Oregon, United States, after co-workers numerous times referred to her as "female". Jones felt offended by this term since she identified as "gender-neutral" (Andersen 2014). US$ 518,682 were adjudged to Jones as compensation money for "pronoun pain and humiliation" (Owens 2014).
This lawsuit , in which a particular usage of language was punished, demonstrates how quickly the idea of a genderised language can be exaggerated and thus discredited. However, it does not mean that a language which is sensitive towards sex and gender should be abandoned for its realisation might so easily be distorted. An enlightened society is indeed in need of a language that is gender-inclusive. Yet, taking into account the case of Valeria Jones, the inevitable question must arise whether and when such a language should be enforced by law and policy. In the following paragraphs, it is to be shown that a gender-inclusive language has to be enforced (only), when its non-application causes legal consequences by excluding people from rights. In all other cases, common sense is likely to be more thoughtful an adviser.
Therefore, this paper is dedicated to the practical aspects of a gender-inclusive language and its realistic implementation. Hopefully, it will have a share in reconciling the still ongoing differences between proponents and opponents of a genderised language.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Definition of gender-inclusive language
3. The problem with assumptions
4. Controversy and the dilemma of freedom of expression
5. Legal enforcement and the limits of the state
6. Legal limbo and practical implications
7. Revisiting the Valeria Jones case
8. Conclusion
Objectives and Topics
The paper examines the necessity and limits of enforcing gender-inclusive language within a modern society, arguing that while such language is essential for upholding human rights against discrimination, it should not be mandated by law when the issue is merely one of social etiquette or personal annoyance.
- The distinction between misleading and discriminating language.
- The legal tension between equal opportunity and freedom of expression.
- Practical implementation of inclusive language in professional and legal settings.
- Analysis of the Valeria Jones lawsuit as a case study for "frivolous" litigation.
- The threshold for state intervention in private communication.
Excerpt from the Book
The strange case of Valeria Jones
Before drawing a final conclusion, it must be come back to Valeria Jones' lawsuit mentioned in the preliminary paragraph of this paper. Carefully taking into account the argumentation presented in this essay, it is now demonstrable that the litigation and its outcome were not thoughtful. Jones sued the company for US$ 518,682 by referring to the Oregon state anti-discrimination laws which include "gender identity". According to this law, companies must accommodate people based not on their biological sex, but on their chosen gender, which means, on their sexual preference. Superficially, Jones justifiably referred to an applicable law that has been established to guarantee equal opportunity and non-discrimination as human rights. However, Robert Levy, a well-respected legal expert from the Cato Institute, called Jones’s lawsuit "frivolous" by mentioning the strict legal definition according to which a frivolous lawsuit is one that has no basis in fact or in law (Andersen 2014). Indeed, Jones never had to face (legal) consequences. She got the job for which she had applied, worked under the same conditions as her fellow workers, and could not report any inequalities at work, apart from not being called by some gender-neutral word. Therefore, discrimination in terms of sexual preferences could never be proved so that a legal basis for the litigation was missing in the first place. Nevertheless, the lawsuit has set a precedent so that such cases could nationwide become commonplace, which would be alarming. If a sexual preference really becomes enforceable, it could be "changed" all the time in order to unpredictably gerrymander situations. Moreover, such laws and lawsuits would bedevil communication in all its forms by arbitrarily challenging every reference to our fellow human beings.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Presents the case of Valeria Jones as an entry point to analyze the tension between language use, social offense, and legal consequences.
2. Definition of gender-inclusive language: Clarifies the terminology used in the paper, distinguishing it from "non-sexist" or "gender-neutral" labels to emphasize the goal of inclusion.
3. The problem with assumptions: Examines why assumptions based on biological sex or gender can become discriminatory and violate principles of equal opportunity.
4. Controversy and the dilemma of freedom of expression: Discusses the conflict between proponents and opponents of inclusive language, centering on the human right to freedom of speech.
5. Legal enforcement and the limits of the state: Argues that the state should only intervene when language impacts the equal application of laws and human rights.
6. Legal limbo and practical implications: Analyzes the difficulties of applying these principles to everyday scenarios like job advertisements.
7. Revisiting the Valeria Jones case: Re-evaluates the case study through the lens of the paper's findings, concluding the legal action was not justified.
8. Conclusion: Summarizes the final stance that inclusive language should be compulsory only when discrimination poses a risk to legal rights.
Keywords
gender-inclusive language, discrimination, human rights, freedom of expression, legal enforcement, Valeria Jones, equal opportunity, gender identity, legislation, communication, social policy, linguistics, pronoun, litigation.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core subject of this paper?
The paper explores the debate surrounding the use and legal enforcement of gender-inclusive language, specifically focusing on when it is necessary to mandate such language and when it should remain a matter of individual choice.
What are the primary themes discussed?
Central themes include the distinction between annoying language and discriminatory language, the conflict with the human right to free speech, and the role of the state in regulating professional communication.
What is the main objective of the author?
The author aims to reconcile the differences between proponents and opponents of gender-inclusive language by proposing a practical, criteria-based approach for its enforcement.
Which methodology is employed in the work?
The author uses a socio-legal approach, combining an analysis of current legal theories on human rights with a case study examination to illustrate the potential dangers of over-regulating language.
What does the main body cover?
The body addresses definitions of inclusive language, the philosophical conflict between equal rights and free speech, and the practical difficulties of implementation in areas such as employment law.
What are the essential keywords defining the study?
The study is characterized by keywords such as gender-inclusive language, discrimination, human rights, freedom of expression, and legal enforcement.
Why does the author critique the Valeria Jones lawsuit?
The author views the lawsuit as "frivolous" because the plaintiff suffered no real inequality or loss of opportunity, suggesting that using the legal system for mere personal offense is detrimental to society.
What is the author's final conclusion regarding state enforcement?
The conclusion is that while inclusive language should be promoted, it must only be legally enforced when its absence creates a clear, discriminatory barrier to equal rights, avoiding interference in non-legal, private spheres.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Dominik Jesse (Autor:in), 2015, The strange case of Valeria Jones. Argument over a thoughtful enforcement of a gender-inclusive language, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/294749
