What are your thoughts on a member of a certain demographic using a phrase that is a slur towards that same demographic?

[-]

xovrit@reddit

Dykes On Bikes is an actual formal club and you often see them on their motorcycles in Pride parades. They get a huge cheer when rumbling past

Reply

[-]

Impala67-7182@reddit

Don't they often least the parades off? I know they did when I was at Sydney in...eek...04/05 and the many Lomdon Prode parades ive been to

Reply

[-]

xovrit@reddit

In LA they lead, the circle back on another street and finish.

Reply

[-]

pintsized_baepsae@reddit

This needs to be so, so much higher up. OP's colleague who was offended has all the right to not want the term to apply to her, but she does not have the right to demand this apply to ALL lesbians.

Reply

[-]

Right, but the presentation wasn't about that group so it's irrelevant. There's a musical group called N*ggaz wit Attitude but people are rightly going to get offended if I start using the N-word in the office

Reply

[-]

PerpetuallySouped@reddit

>the presentation wasn't about that group How do you know?

Reply

[-]

doctorgibson@reddit

The OP said that the presentation was about urban planning and not about a motorcycle club

Reply

[-]

PerpetuallySouped@reddit

Perhaps not primarily, doesn't mean they can't be part of it.

Reply

[-]

duskfinger67@reddit

> **The maxim of quantity**, where one tries to be as informative as one possibly can, and gives as much information as is needed, and no more. Communication breaks down if we are constantly assuming that relevant context is omitted.

Reply

[-]

pintsized_baepsae@reddit

Do we KNOW that it wasn't? Or are we implying that? We don't know if she referenced them or not. She might be a lesbian cycling to work and have used that as her 'in' - and jokingly labelling herself with that term is MORE than fair. My (white, straight) colleagues frequently make jokes about themselves and their identities in presentation titles, and some of them are really out of pocket. Do they get into shit? No. They might get a private 'don't do that again', if someone complaints, but that's it. And that's what would've been appropriate here, too. A private 'hey, I don't think that was a good idea' is far more successful, especially if you're both from a marginalised community and are at odds over reclaiming terms.

Reply

[-]

doctorgibson@reddit

The presentation may have referenced the group, which is fine. But OP said it was about urban planning so I'm 99% sure the presentation wasn't about the motorbike club

Reply

[-]

BurntMarvmallow@reddit

This reminds me of the "Queer" debate. Some still find it offensive. Some are taking it back and owning the label. The term f*g is offensive but faghag is used freely. There are a lot of terms in use atm that are still trying to figure themselves out. I think most of the time it entirely depends on context and delivery.

Reply

[-]

DanielReddit26@reddit

But it's the person using it in a presentation that's trying to apply it universally, not the one who was offended. To allow for individual preference you have to not use the word universally as was done in the presentation.

Reply

[-]

pintsized_baepsae@reddit

But we don't know if she is applying it to everyone, and unless OP gives more detail, we won't. We don't even know which other groups OP's colleague was talking about. Right now, in the context we've been given, it's coming across as 'this is a slightly jokey title, referencing an iconic lesbian group' *to me*, which is fair - ESPECIALLY if she's also someone who confirms to what the word originally means (eg she presents as androgynous / more masculine / butch). For all we know she might well be a member. Clashes like this, in my experience, *mostly* stem from different 'sub groups' clashing. Was it the ideal choice for a title? Probably not. But people like her and me are also allowed to make jokes about or reference our own identities, just like straight people are. OP's other colleague should also have brought it up to her colleague in private. I don't say this lightly, and a lot of the times I wouldn't be in favour of this at all, but if she knew they were both lesbians, bringing it up like this feels like undermining the presenter - someone you share a community with - just because you don't like that she's reclaiming the term. That's not exactly the height of professionalism either. Sorry for the essay, but this isn't an easy topic and I think it deserves nuance 😅 obviously it all hinges on OP's presenting colleague being a lesbian. If she isn't, the argument is off the table.

Reply

[-]

twirlinround@reddit

Regardless, in a WORK situation and context, using a slur is unacceptable.

Reply

[-]

pintsized_baepsae@reddit

So should alls LGBQT+ networks using the Q change their name? Considering the Q references a slur? Should I, and other people, no longer be allowed to describe our identities as queer in a work context? (Which, for a lot of people who use it, is a polite way to say 'I don't want to give you more information than the fact that I'm not straight, so stop asking') Should some of the gay men in my office no longer be allowed to jokingly say things like 'as an old queen myself', even when they use it in appropriate settings, because that word was and still is sometimes used as a slur? Someone else has written an excellent, long reply about this, but by saying 'well, this was used as a slur once so you shouldn't say it in a work context' raises issues about visibility and about policing people's identities.

Reply

[-]

Slothjitzu@reddit

It's not about being "allowed" to do anything. You can do whatever you want. But if you describe yourself as Queer and another employee takes offense at hearing a slur, you're the person at fault in that scenario. Unless you're making the argument that you should get to say what you want and fuck their feelings, in which case I think you can clearly see that the argument doesn't hold water as soon as we move on to other slurs that are more universally disliked.

Reply

[-]

auntie_eggma@reddit

One person in a group being offended by how another person in the same group refers to themself does not actually have the high ground or deserve to be accommodated. I get to decide how I self-refer. In all contexts.

Reply

[-]

Slothjitzu@reddit

In a work context and if the word they're using is a recognised slur, yes it does. You simply can't throw a slur around (even in self-reference) in a place of employment and then demand everyone else accepts it. Someone's desire to refer to themselves as a slur does not trump the fact that their colleague doesn't want to hear slurs in the office.

Reply

[-]

pintsized_baepsae@reddit

>You simply can't throw a slur around (even in self-reference) in a place of employment and then demand everyone else accepts it. So answer my question that started this discussion: Should LGBTQ+ employee networks delete the Q out of their name and, in doing so, explicitly erase a legitimate identity they are supposed to represent? Should they essentially, through doing this, tell colleagues they are supposed to represent that their identity is not acceptable in the workplace?

Reply

[-]

Slothjitzu@reddit

There's no "should" about it. I've said this elsewhere and I don't know why multiple people can't understand it, but none of this is about being banned or forced to do anything. You do, quite literally, whatever the hell you want. If a colleague says "I'm not comfortable with that in the workplace" and your response is "I don't care, I'm doing it anyway" then you guys are going to have a HR meeting. In that meeting, you will have your arguments heard and depending on how reasonable the other person's complaint is, you might lose the argument. I'm not telling anyone they should do anything. I'm pointing out that if you say "I should get to call myself a d*ke" is not going to win the argument when a colleague doesn't want to hear a slur in the workplace.

Reply

[-]

pintsized_baepsae@reddit

>I've said this elsewhere and I don't know why multiple people can't understand it, but none of this is about being banned or forced to do anything. People do understand. You just refuse to see the actual points made, and as a result refuse to say 'yes, the Q should be removed from employee network names'. I don't know why you refuse to directly answer the posed question. Maybe because it'd make you look bad, and like someone who happily erases some people's identity. >In that meeting, you will have your arguments heard and depending on how reasonable the other person's complaint is, you might lose the argument. This is very different to your other comment, where you were all 'you will lose that battle in a HR meeting' - which, to repeat myself, I have been in that battle and I have won. Because I describe *myself* as queer, not anyone else unless I know that's the word they use for themselves. The colleague who reported a grievance did exactly what you said - 'I don't like that word, I find it offensive to be described like that'. Except nobody ever described him like that. He just didn't like that other people used the term for themselves, and HR very rightly told him that sexual identity is a protected feature and that I am allowed to describe *myself* as queer without it being a slur, because the context it is used in is NOT the context that makes it into a slur.

Reply

[-]

Slothjitzu@reddit

> I don't know why you refuse to directly answer the posed question. I have answered it, multiple times over. The answer is, they can do whatever they want. Include it, remove it, who gives a fuck. But when someone *does* give a fuck, you will have to defend that choice in a HR meeting. If you can defend it, great, crack on! If you can't, then you will be told to stop doing it. For certain words, like the OP example, you're obviously going to get told to stop doing it. As you're the same person arguing in both comments, I'll save my time by just replying to this one. If the word you argued for use of was Queer, then I can see why you won, because it's not really seen as a slur by *most* people and is largely normalised. Because you seem to be under the impression that there's an absolute right to self-reference, I encourage you to text it. Start calling yourself something universally horrendous (whatever could logically apply to you) and then argue that it's your right to do so in a professional setting, it isn't going to go well for you that time around. As I said elsewhere, a black person isn't going to win the argument that he should call himself the N word in an office because it's simply not work-appropriate.

Reply

[-]

auntie_eggma@reddit

Whether this particular word is a slur in function is heavily contextual. As in *how* it's used, not where. Self-reference *must* be seen as a protected context.

Reply

[-]

Slothjitzu@reddit

I don't think that's the case at all. You're genuinely arguing that a black person should be able to refer to themselves with the N word as much as they want in the office, and no other black people have the right to complain about that. Fuck me it's like some of you have never had a job before.

Reply

[-]

pintsized_baepsae@reddit

>But if you describe yourself as Queer and another employee takes offense at hearing a slur, you're the person at fault in that scenario So what if an employee takes an issue with the word gay? Bisexual? Should those words also no longer be said in the workplace? You KNOW this opens the door for a more than slippery slope that forces people back in the closet. The argument about other slurs is moot too - I deeply dislike the n-word, but I'm not going to stop Black people who refer to themselves like that from using it for themselves. That's overstepping so many lines. How *I* describe myself is up to *me*. If I use the term queer to describe as person and they don't want that, it's my obligation to apologise and never to refer to them like that again. But I am allowed to refer to myself like that. They do NOT get to impose their demands on anyone else but themselves; they do NOT get to erase other people's identities.

Reply

[-]

Slothjitzu@reddit

When did "gay" and "bisexual" become slurs? And to use your other example, a black person absolutely has the right not to hear the N word thrown around in the office. The fact that the person saying it is describing themselves rather than their colleagues doesn't change that. Describe yourself however you want. Frankly, most people simply don't care. But if the way you describe yourself is a slur and a colleague who it could be applied to doesn't want to hear it, then you are not going to win that battle in your HR meeting.

Reply

[-]

pintsized_baepsae@reddit

>When did "gay" and "bisexual" become slurs? ... Do you really, genuinely, not know this? Gay specifically has been used as a slur for AGES. 'That's so gay!' to demean something is one example. It's been used as an insult and a joke far too much for people to be oblivious about it. There ARE people out there, and more than you think, who think being called gay or lesbian instead of homosexual is offensive and a slur. So if someone like that is in your office and insists the word gay is a slur, should the word be banned? If you say no, your argument doesn't hold up. >Describe yourself however you want. Frankly, most people simply don't care. But if the way you describe yourself is a slur and a colleague who it could be applied to doesn't want to hear it, then you are not going to win that battle in your HR meeting. Well, this is where you're wrong - I HAVE won this battle in a HR meeting.

Reply

[-]

Slothjitzu@reddit

> There ARE people out there, and more than you think, who think being called gay or lesbian instead of homosexual is offensive and a slur. Genuinely didn't know those people existed. Seems insane to me, but people get offended over all sorts of shit. > So if someone like that is in your office and insists the word gay is a slur, should the word be banned? Again, I'm not saying anything should be banned. I'm not sure why you don't understand this. I don't give a shit what people call themselves, or even each other. I'm just a sensible adult. If someone calls themselves gay and a second person complains to HR, they'll solve it one way or the other. Given how tame that is, I imagine that HR would say that they're allowed to use the word "gay". > Well, this is where you're wrong - I HAVE won this battle in a HR meeting. Your HR department is insane then. No HR department in their right mind would be happy to let an employee call themselves a d***, f**, or use the N word freely in the workplace. Unless the "slur" you used was incredibly tame, like gay, then that's ridiculous.

Reply

[-]

pintsized_baepsae@reddit

The word I used was queer. For myself. You know. The widely reclaimed slur you've been arguing against, the word that's in employee network names up and down the country. My HR department is absolutely not insane for backing an employee like this.

Reply

[-]

WatermelonCandy5nsfw@reddit

Call a straight man gay and see how angry he gets. It’s a slur to some. Hell there’s a huge group of people who say cis is a slur, Elon musk for one. When it’s just the equivalent of calling someone straight, it means non trans.

Reply

[-]

Pieboy8@reddit

The problem is about defining where lines are drawn. Do you feel the same about racial slurs in the office? What about ableist ones? Sexist ones? Would Cunts on Punts fly in the office?

Reply

[-]

Albert_Herring@reddit

I've recently had a (slightly) humbling lesson on being careful with titles/subject lines/headings that may be read without reference to the actual content or context. So I'd be pretty careful in this instance.

Reply

[-]

DanielReddit26@reddit

I think you make a lot of interesting points and you have experience which I don't. However, I do think that the assumption should be this work presentation was going to a wide audience and in a professional setting and as such isn't the time and place for slurs, whether being reclaimed or otherwise. Honestly, if I had seen this in a work context I'd have assumed the word wasn't actually a slur. It's not a word I come across often or really know exactly what it's meant to mean (by your post, I assume now it's a particularly butch lesbian?) or if it's offensive or technical. Jokes/references to identity still need to be used appropriately. I wouldn't present something called "straights for gates" if I was talking on behalf of the department for hinged access in the community.

Reply

[-]

First-Lengthiness-16@reddit

But she does have the right to demand it isn’t said in the workplace. The fact that NWA exist does not mean a black dude can do a presentation with the n word in the title at work without pushback

Reply

[-]

red_black_red0@reddit

*"Some people aren't offended, so you can throw it around willy-nilly"* That's not how offensiveness works; doubly so in a work environment.

Reply

[-]

pintsized_baepsae@reddit

That's not what I said, though. The presenting colleague was referencing an existing group in her presentation title - a title we seem to only know part of. She also seems to also be a lesbian (if she isn't, the argument is off the table and she should categorically not have used that term.) Unless her presentation was littered with the word, she wasn't exactly throwing it around willy-nilly. As far as we know she was referencing one specific, incredibly well-known and loved, group of members of her community, *probably* talking about cyclists instead of motorbikes considering it's about urban planning. Is it the height of professionalism? No. But neither are a lot of 'jokey' presentation titles I've seen at work.

Reply

[-]

Bgtobgfu@reddit

Also it’s a funny name

Reply

[-]

cwningen95@reddit

As a lesbian, I don't know why I haven't heard about this by now and now I *really* need to learn to ride a motorbike. Wonder if there are any muscly, leather-clad women around who could teach me.

Reply

[-]

BreqsCousin@reddit

Yeah this isn't someone choosing to use the word that's a very long established official name for a group.

Reply

[-]

Time-Mode-9@reddit

It could be worse, she could have said shirtlifters on grifters.

Reply

[-]

Time-Mode-9@reddit

Only 1 dowvote? Come on, that was terrible !

Reply

[-]

GildedWhimsy@reddit

Im my community most slurs are seen as acceptable if you're a member of that group. Never heard anyone complain. (I'm a straight white woman so I can't say any but I hear them from my queer/POC friends and nobody cares.) I do think your team member who got offended was definitely overreacting if the person who used the slur was lesbian too.

Reply

[-]

abitofasitdown@reddit

You've just said you are straight, but you've just described a whole community as "queer". But you've also said that slurs are only acceptable if you are a member of that group. "Queer" is a really nasty slur to many of us, because we first experienced it accompanied by violence.

Reply

[-]

GildedWhimsy@reddit

I just realized this is AskUK lol. I'm American. "Queer" is not a slur here

Reply

[-]

abitofasitdown@reddit

I guarantee you that "queer" will be a slur there, just perhaps not to people you don't personally know. Too many straight people in the UK also appear to be under the misapprehension that "queer" is no longer a slur.

Reply

[-]

GildedWhimsy@reddit

I think people under 25 have a different perception of the word because for our generation it wasn't really used that way. It is part of the acronym now.

Reply

[-]

abitofasitdown@reddit

That's why I use the word "appropriation" as you can't "reclaim" a slur if it was never used against you. Anyone under 25 should be aware that their thoughtlessness in this is hurting too many of the older members of the community who really were on the front lines of change.

Reply

[-]

andrinaivory@reddit

Some people still consider 'queer' to be a slur. But it seems to be everywhere these days, even to its use by straight white women.

Reply

[-]

GildedWhimsy@reddit

Yeah lol I'm a bit confused by that but it might have to do with the fact that I'm gen Z

Reply

[-]

bananabastard@reddit

See, I find this idea that I suddenly have to be okay with being called "queer", deeply offensive. How about I just start calling all gay people "faggots", and then say, "oh, I've reclaimed it, it's fine now"? No, it fucking isn't. "Queer" is a slur, always has been, always will be.

Reply

[-]

Used_Captain_3131@reddit

We had an.... "Incident" last year where a colleague (UK/Carribbean heritage in his 30s) used the N-word in front of another colleague (UK/African heritage in his 50s) and the older guy was furious and filed a grievance. Younger guys opinion- it's a word used to hurt me so if I use it to describe myself it makes it powerless Older guys opinion- if you describe yourself as it the people who want to use it to describe you will take that as permission to use it in general. A lot of meetings were had

Reply

[-]

r_search12013@reddit

isn't the essential point that that exact slogan is living pride history by now? it's quoted in "queer as folk" for example, so it's at least that old, I would suspect it's a few decades older even

Reply

[-]

No-Tangerine-246@reddit

as with all cultural values and norms, its completely arbitrary, any attempt to reason about it is a waste of hot air

Reply

[-]

itsYaBoiga@reddit

Slurs should definitely not be used in a presentation, or a professional setting (ideally, not at all) but also one member of a group doesn't speak for the whole group and can't tell them what they can or can't be offended by. They don't know their history with these slurs.

Reply

[-]

Apidium@reddit

The dykes on bikes club accountants and website managers are going to be in a bad spot then.

Reply

[-]

greencarrotpeeler@reddit

Sure, but this wasn't the dykes on bikes accountants and managers. For a straight person to use those terms is not maybe the most PC thing to do and she should be respectful of the lesbian colleauge's perspective. It is similar with the n- word. It is okay for blacks to use it but obviously comes across competely different if a white person uses it.

Reply

[-]

glasgowgeg@reddit

> For a straight person to use those terms is not maybe the most PC thing to do and she should be respectful of the lesbian colleauge's perspective. > > Where does it say in the post that the person hosting the presentation is straight? OPs title would suggest that the person hosting the presentation is also a lesbian.

Reply

[-]

greencarrotpeeler@reddit

Yes you're right, I read it too quickly so interpreted it wrong.

Reply

[-]

itsYaBoiga@reddit

Going by title, the person who said it appears to belong to the demographic

Reply

[-]

aredditusername69@reddit

Maybe the "Dykes on Bikes" is inappropriate in general then? It's all well and good groups trying to reclaim words, but if people remember them being used as a slur (not a lesbian, or even female, but I certainly remember it being used a lot), then is it better that they fall out of usage, rather than be "reclaimed"?

Reply

[-]

itsYaBoiga@reddit

Yeah, seen about this after – admittedly, wasnt aware of their existence. However, it still doesn't really diminish my point on slurs not being appropriate in the workplace, or any of my other points.

Reply

[-]

StrangeArcticles@reddit

You can call yourself a d*ke, or queer, or a fagg*t. You can not call the entire demographic that, and most definitely not for a workplace presentation. Reclaiming slurs doesn't work that way. It is *you* reclaiming that slur for *yourself* because you find it empowering to do so, it is not forcing everyone around you to be comfortable being called that. I'm proudly queer. I would not tell the 60 year old dude at the gay bar he's a queer and assume he has to be happy with that label.

Reply

[-]

stevebucky_1234@reddit

Can i ask, is it ok to use the term 'gay' in a professional setting in the UK?

Reply

[-]

StrangeArcticles@reddit

I would. I've never met a gay person who didn't refer to themselves as gay. That really is just a descriptor of same-sex attraction that's completely normalised. Obviously, there are ways to still use that in an insulting way (don't call the lunch menu gay cause you don't like what's offered, that'd be rude).

Reply

[-]

stevebucky_1234@reddit

Thanks! Yes, obviously not in a derogatory way. It was interesting reading above debates about whether the term queer as a descriptor is offensive or not.

Reply

[-]

StrangeArcticles@reddit

Queer is heading where gay is at right now, it's becoming much more broadly used and accepted. But in the undying words of an older bear I got chatting to at pride once "that's what they used to yell before kicking my face in, not a fan". Language evolves. Sometimes, people have history that gets in the way of embracing new terms and it takes a few generations for everyone to be on board.

Reply

[-]

stevebucky_1234@reddit

Absolutely!! You are right that language is dynamic, it's getting harder to figure out as we get older that what was ok is now not and vice versa. I'm Indian (mental health professional) who worked in the UK for around a decade, am now mid forties and back in India over a decade. People in India were definitely more closeted when I went to Uni, so I had never talked to someone who was out until I started working in the UK. I am very liberal about sexuality and gender identity, but had never had any discussion with anyone who was lgbtq in India. And in the UK, I was the brown outsider, so very hard to even inquire about issues for fear of causing offence. Reddit is giving me an education now!

Reply

[-]

Jin-shei@reddit

Some words get to be used by members of a group but not by others. I can call myself mad or a crip but nobody else gets to. That said, two people from the same group will disagree about the use of language - queer is a good example. I use it, but sooner others hate it so... Maybe not in a work presentation...

Reply

[-]

No_Sugar8791@reddit

| I can call myself mad or a crip but nobody else gets to. Both of these are incredibly tame. Perhaps you need more confidence not to be effected by such minor things?

Reply

[-]

InkedDoll1@reddit

You think crip is minor? Do you too have a mobility disability? Because I was bullied at school using the word cripple and I hate it. (Whivh in itself proves that no marginalised group is a monolith)

Reply

[-]

Flimsy_Ad_5117@reddit

I’d have to agree with you here. I’m in the same boat as yourself, I was bullied and heard that word many times as a kid. I personally hate the word. I appreciate ‘each to their own’ but I believe using these words somewhat gives permission for others outside of that group to use it. “Ah if he’s alright with it then surely they’re all ok with it” sort of thing. Just my opinion though

Reply

[-]

Jin-shei@reddit

Yeah, I use it in context of academic theory. I def would not use it casually outside of that. I do with queer because it is in a slightly different position.

Reply

[-]

abitofasitdown@reddit

No, "queer" is every bit as much of a slur as "crip".

Reply

[-]

Jin-shei@reddit

For you. For my friendship group, it is an accepted term to acknowledge that some labels don't quite fit others. It's a "your milage may vary" thing.

Reply

[-]

abitofasitdown@reddit

And that's fine for your friendship group, as long as you understand and acknowledge that it hurts people when it's used in public, by corporations and arts bodies and all the rest of it, as well as when it's casually overheard from individuals. I mean, I couldn't even visit Kew Gardens for my birthday without the visceral punch of seeing "Queer Kew" adverts everywhere.

Reply

[-]

Jin-shei@reddit

Exactly - crip carries a lot of weight and is early in the "reclaim" movement so for some it comes with WEIGHT. I use it in the context of academic theory, and I use it mindfully to my audience but previous poster proves the point nicely

Reply

[-]

No_Sugar8791@reddit

Oh. I honestly have never heard that and assumed it was a reference to the US gang. Your explanation makes much more sense. Thanks. And yeah, that completely changes my mind. Used like that it's completely offensive. Sorry you had to go through that.

Reply

[-]

KermitsPuckeredAnus3@reddit

Holy shit, I thought you were an LA gangster. Only just realised you were a raspberry

Reply

[-]

TheGreatBatsby@reddit

> I can call myself [...] a crip Only if you're wearing blue.

Reply

[-]

seasickwolf@reddit

I describe myself as queer and I'm happy to be described as such by other members of the queer community. Outside of that context, it's still a slur. Using it in a work presentation seems a bit too much like inviting others to use it?

Reply

[-]

itsmetsunnyd@reddit

Literally the whole point of the Q in LGBTQ is to claim ownership of the word that applies to so many in that umbrella. I have no issue with cishet people referring to me as Queer, because that it what I am.

Reply

[-]

Katharinemaddison@reddit

With the word you mention there’s a whole branch of literary criticism that uses it extensively as a technical term with analysis and it’s a bit jarring but works in context when people do use it because of the conjunction of its older meaning and the new.

Reply

[-]

Jin-shei@reddit

I can imagine. For me, I use crip theories on my work and talk about mad people. People look a little startled the first time you say it

Reply

[-]

Katharinemaddison@reddit

Yeah I think with both these words they have a useful critical and analytical function and the jarring nature of them can actually be effective. Very much dependent on who is using them, how, and why.

Reply

[-]

Jin-shei@reddit

Context is all, absolutely. For me, it's a lens my research in a world that has a ton of sigma to the areas I research, which I am also part of. It forces the able readers to see the extra labour I have to do to exist. Think that is so well illustrated in this thread! https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/display/document/obo-9780190221911/obo-9780190221911-0109.xml

Reply

[-]

Creative-Ask-5648@reddit

In a workplace environment it's best to err on the side of caution You can't predict peoples reactions It's valid to not want to hear slurs being thrown around

Reply

[-]

amazing_millie@reddit

It really comes down to context and respect. Even if someone from a group reclaims a slur, it doesn't mean everyone in that group is comfortable with it. Dismissing someone else’s discomfort especially in a professional setting isntt okay. It’s totally possible to start important conversations without stepping on others in the process

Reply

[-]

Vivirin@reddit

This. Some people have trauma over the word, having been bullied by people using it for years. Just don't use divisive language when speaking on behalf of others. Use it for yourself - by all means. Have fun with it. But don't make that decision for others.

Reply

[-]

pajamakitten@reddit

> This. Some people have trauma over the word, having been bullied by people using it for years. My dad is happy to use racial slurs with abandon. Use the R word in front of him and he will flip though. His brother had Down's Syndrome, both he and my dad had that thrown at them a lot when they were kids in the 60s. You honestly do not know how a word could impact someone.

Reply

[-]

RayaQueen@reddit

If the R Word is what I think , I can't imagine anyone not being offended. No-one's reclaiming that shit. Why would anyone ever use that?

Reply

[-]

glasgowgeg@reddit

> Some people have trauma over the word, having been bullied by people using it for years You could say the same of the word "gay" though, historically used as a homophobic pejorative.

Reply

[-]

mtmp40k@reddit

Or the word “queer” - reclaimed by some, but others, especially older gay guys still utterly detest the word

Reply

[-]

lifetypo10@reddit

My uncle hates that "queer" has been reclaimed and people describe themselves as such. He's 70 and was called it most of his young adult life and can't get on board with that one. I don't mind it but I wouldn't use it around him.

Reply

[-]

mtmp40k@reddit

Yeah - exactly, my ex used to be visibly uncomfortable when the word was used to describe the “gay community” in general. It’s just about trying to be kind to people, as individuals. I identify as gay - but there’s a world of difference between overhearing “that gay couple are so cute” & being out with a partner and overhearing “look at those fucking gays” It’s nuanced, context dependent and deeply personal - so it’s just about trying to be kind

Reply

[-]

glasgowgeg@reddit

People who are uncomfortable with it don't need to use the word. When I was at school, "gay" was by far the most commonly used as an insult, would you stop using it if someone said it made them uncomfortable using it to describe themselves?

Reply

[-]

mtmp40k@reddit

I was really thinking about a specific ex of mine who attended some of the earliest Pride marches in the UK in the 70s - and being beaten up/having bricks thrown at him whilst being called a queer kinda left more of a mark that some kids calling me gay/a puff etc at school.

Reply

[-]

glasgowgeg@reddit

> and being beaten up/having bricks thrown at him whilst being called a queer kinda left more of a mark that some kids calling me gay/a puff etc at school When I was at school people got beaten up and called gay, all you're doing is ignoring the actual point of discussion. You may be uncomfortable with the term, nobody is forcing you to use it to describe yourself. If someone who was beaten up and called gay said the term made them feel uncomfortable, would you stop using it to describe yourself?

Reply

[-]

mtmp40k@reddit

Well I wouldn’t use that term in regards to them, and try not to use it around them. Just as I did with the word “queer” for my ex who was offended by that term. I don’t personally find that word offensive myself. I mean isn’t it just “do your best, and if someone says they’re uncomfortable with anything you try not to do it”?

Reply

[-]

glasgowgeg@reddit

> I don’t personally find that word offensive myself. Have you considered that's how many people feel about the word "queer"? >I mean isn’t it just “do your best, and if someone says they’re uncomfortable with anything you try not to do it”? If someone says they're uncomfortable with calling themselves a term, I won't use it to describe them. I won't change the term I feel most comfortable using about myself to suit them though.

Reply

[-]

mtmp40k@reddit

I was talking about the word “queer”. I don’t find it offensive at all. It’s not how I’d identify myself though, as I think it’s more apt for people with wider ranges of attraction/ fluidity to their sexuality - whereas I’m bent as a nine bob note

Reply

[-]

glasgowgeg@reddit

>I was talking about the word “queer”. I don’t find it offensive at all. Yet you still advocate that people not use the word they're most comfortable with if someone else doesn't like that word.

Reply

[-]

mtmp40k@reddit

Well - I really don’t see the issue. It’s not like you have to refer to your sexual identity that often- it’s usually a one & done thing with a particular person. Usually if people have issues with labels they dislike it’s a “please don’t refer to me as X”, which is just common courtesy to respect. If someone says “the very sound of this word causes me distress” - I’d minimise my use of that word as best I could. I wouldn’t change my internal identity- or change how I described myself to everyone all the time. I’d just try to act kindly around that particular person.

Reply

[-]

DaveDavidTom@reddit

Yup, that's the basic rule I always go by. I can call myself a queer or a fag all I want, but it's generally shitty to call someone else that. Even if they've used it for themself before, it can feel different coming from someone else. Doesn't matter if we're in the same group, because I don't know what baggage they might be carrying that relates to that word.

Reply

[-]

aeoldhy@reddit

Also some slurs can apply to multiple groups e.g bitch. Some gay men seem to reclaim it but it was applied to gay men because it was a sexist insult for women. The homophobic version exists because of the sexist version and the inherent assumption that nothing could be more insulting to a man than being compared to a woman.

Reply

[-]

PepsiThriller@reddit

Tbf, that's all homophobia toward males.

Reply

[-]

AtLeastOneCat@reddit

Or it's all misogyny, implying that being a woman is a bad thing.

Reply

[-]

PepsiThriller@reddit

That's what I was saying?

Reply

[-]

duskfinger67@reddit

And half the insults to straight guys are just various forms off calling them a girl.

Reply

[-]

Jack-Rabbit-002@reddit

To be honest I'm a straight man and I will often tell everyone I'm in one of my bitchy moods But female friends and cousins have said I can be a real bitch too I've even been called one of the girls 😄 You know it's 2025 it doesn't affect my masculinity 💪🏻

Reply

[-]

WingNo4666@reddit

Course you can predict people’s reactions, it’s called “gauging the room”. It’s even easier at work where you are familiar with the people.

Reply

[-]

Creative-Ask-5648@reddit

Maybe OP's colleague just needs to work on their psychic abilities then

Reply

[-]

JunoHu4287@reddit

Queer used to be a slur. Now it's literally part of the extended acronym.

Reply

[-]

PineappleFrittering@reddit

Some people still find it offensive. Not one for the workplace I'd say.

Reply

[-]

pintsized_baepsae@reddit

Genuine question - how are some of us supposed to describe our identities then? Or is that an acceptable use in the workplace? For many, 'queer' is the 'I'm not straight or cis, but I don't want to give you more details' answer to questions around sexuality and identity. Also, uh, a lot of companies' LGBTQ networks have the Q in the name. If it's not 'for the workplace', do you think they should change their names? Because once you say 'not for the workplace', these are the questions you need to consider, and the lines you need to draw.

Reply

[-]

PepsiThriller@reddit

I'm gay and would complain at work if a colleague gave a presentation that referred to me (even indirectly) as queer without asking.

Reply

[-]

pintsized_baepsae@reddit

But do you feel offended by *someone else* defined themselves like that? Because that's the whole point.

Reply

[-]

PepsiThriller@reddit

The whole point is your words effect others even if you don't intend it and why should gay people who don't like it have to suffer in silence about it when the word is being used to refer to them too?

Reply

[-]

glasgowgeg@reddit

So hypothetically if someone told you that they don't like the word gay because they were called that and bullied at school, how would you subsequently refer to yourself?

Reply

[-]

PepsiThriller@reddit

Homosexual in their presence. Queer was always an insult when I was young gay was not. "He's really gay" could be a description of camp people. "He's queer" was always rude. I still think it is an insult when preceded by a. A queer sounds much worse to me.

Reply

[-]

DeinOnkelFred@reddit

Totally agree with your last sentence. Use of the definite (the) or indefinite (a) article *literally* objectifies.

Reply

[-]

glasgowgeg@reddit

>Homosexual in their presence. And if they said the same about that?

Reply

[-]

PepsiThriller@reddit

I'd explain thats a medical term and wholly neutral in basic every possible scenario. Then I'd ask what dont they mind.

Reply

[-]

glasgowgeg@reddit

>I'd explain thats a medical term and wholly neutral in basic every possible scenario. That sounds quite dismissive, why not just go straight to asking what they don't mind? Would you be happy if someone explained to you that it's no longer the 90s and queer is a commonly accepted term within LGBTQIA+, or would you consider that dismissive of your feelings? Hypothetically, they say "queer" is what they feel most comfortable with, at what point do you just say "Well how I refer to myself is none of your concern"?

Reply

[-]

PepsiThriller@reddit

Yeah because if you're not willing to describe yourself with medical terms you're being a ninny. I would reply "ah cool. Doesn't mean I will ever accept homophobic language being used to describe me". At the point you dont refer to other people that way. You're ignoring I outright said "refer to me". You do expect gay people to shut up and put up with it, it seems.

Reply

[-]

glasgowgeg@reddit

>I would reply "ah cool. Doesn't mean I will ever accept homophobic language being used to describe me". It's no more inherently homophobic than gay is to someone who was bullied and called gay. >At the point you dont refer to other people that way. This entire thread is about people referring to themselves, you said you shouldn't have to put up with other people referring to themselves as queer because you don't like the term.

Reply

[-]

PepsiThriller@reddit

It quite literally means weird and was used to denote "other" the entire existence of the word. Unlike gay. I think they should be allowed to refer to themselves. I never said they couldn't. I said if I were to sit through a presentation like "bikes for dikes" as was given as an example I would complain. Because that's collectively referring to others with such terms. That's different because that's only an insult because it was a medical term. Same applies to lame, cripple, moron, idiot, imbecile, hysterical, lunatic, maniac etc. None of them are anything but insults anymore.

Reply

[-]

glasgowgeg@reddit

>I think they should be allowed to refer to themselves "The whole point is your words effect others even if you don't intend it and why should gay people who don't like it have to suffer in silence about it"

Reply

[-]

PepsiThriller@reddit

Ignoring thats in reference to a work presentation about LGBT issues?

Reply

[-]

glasgowgeg@reddit

>Ignoring thats in reference to a work presentation about LGBT issues? A work presentation using the name of an existing group, yes.

Reply

[-]

PepsiThriller@reddit

The name? A name and not one all people it applies to accept. Why should you be forced into that situation at work? The onus is on the other person to be more diplomatic than that. This isnt grindr, you should have some expectation of not having to confront these kinds of feelings at work imo.

Reply

[-]

glasgowgeg@reddit

Again nobody is forcing you to use it to refer to yourself >A name and not one all people it applies to accept. It is the name of a long existing established group, not just something made up on the spot

Reply

[-]

PepsiThriller@reddit

If you sit there silent and say nothing about such a thing your workplace, would it be unreasonable for your colleagues who dont know any better to refer to you that way? They would naturally assume its OK without the nuance of the community. I don't think that's fair. It's about 50 years old. 30 years to be reclaimed. I'm older than the attempts at reclaiming it. Many slurs are vastly older. Negro dates to the 15th century.

Reply

[-]

glasgowgeg@reddit

Mate, it's a [group by that name](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dykes_on_Bikes), it's a registered trademark for the name of the group, it's not just a name someone has made up on the spot in a meeting. >It's about 50 years old. 30 years to be reclaimed. I'm older than the attempts at reclaiming it. And nobody is forcing you to use the words if you don't want to, you can't force other people not to use words in reference to themselves though.

Reply

[-]

PepsiThriller@reddit

And what makes you think I would approve of such a thing? That article mentions a legal battle where they only won the rights to their name because of demonstrating in law queer to refer to gay people. Aka a self referential argument for our purposes lol. That's legal precedent, not moral precedent lol. I can't and don't want to. I can however prevent slurs from being normalised in my workplace and I would. Like I said; it wouldn't even be hard. One Teams call and that's stopped. Same to you. A lot of whataboutism and reductio ad absurdum about language.

Reply

[-]

OkIndustry2818@reddit

100% this. It was used as a really awful slur here when I was growing up too, I still wince hearing it thrown around as a 'reclaimed' word.

Reply

[-]

pintsized_baepsae@reddit

>why should gay people who don't like it have to suffer in silence about it when the word is being used to refer to them too? From my first comment you replied to (italics not in first comment but added for emphasis) >Genuine question - how are *some of us* supposed to describe *our* identities then? From my second comment, in reply to you: >But do you feel offended by *someone else* defined themselves like that? At no point - NOT ONE POINT - was this comment chain about calling people things they don't want to be called. It was, and is, about people identifying themselves, and that saying 'queer is not a word for the work context' is actively excluding people who use it to describe *themselves*. Not others. Themselves. My words affect others, but I'm using the word *for myself*. You are perfectly fine disliking it, but at least make an effort to actually read the comments you're replying to. Funnily enough we DO agree on something - the A before 'queer' making it sound like an insult - but you cannot genuinely have misunderstood the point this whole comment chain was making. In fact I'd go so far as to say you're deliberately misunderstanding, which is genuinely sad to see. Just in case it needs a final repetition: *This is not about referring to a group. This is about individual people choosing the word queer to refer to their individual identity, and that word being acceptable in the workplace in that specific context, as well as in the context of LGBTQ+ networks*.

Reply

[-]

PepsiThriller@reddit

A member of the LGBT community. Thats a good description. It's one I've used online plenty of times when I dont feel like disclosing I'm a gay cis male. I'm totally fine wirh people using it to describe themselves in a work context. The thread example was "bikes for dikes", no? That is why I am saying you cannot throw around potential slurs when referring to others in a professional setting and be surprised when others (who the term applies to) complain about such thing. Privately with a colleague, thats nobody else's business ofc. It's only HR worthy when it's being used to refer to others. Call yourself whatever you wish.

Reply

[-]

WanderlustZero@reddit

The Q in LGBTQ is for Questioning, isn't it?

Reply

[-]

AtLeastOneCat@reddit

Yes, originally.

Reply

[-]

pintsized_baepsae@reddit

Sort of! The Q has a double meaning, just like the A (and like the black stripe in the Progress Pride flag) Q - queer *and* questioning A - Asexual / aromantic *and* ally

Reply

[-]

DogSuicide@reddit

>Genuine question - how are some of us supposed to describe our identities then? You ever thought of just doing your spreadsheets and chatting about the weather? I don't think the concept of how one expresses their identity really comes up. Just talk about the things you do and the things you like doing and someone will work out if you're queer or not.

Reply

[-]

bonjourmarlene@reddit

I personally also identify as queer but if a person tells me they find that word personally offensive (especially the older generation that have been called queer in a derogative way), I voice my sympathies and tell them that I'm also happy to be identified as bi, pan, whatever. I used to want to label myself to feel an identity towards my sexuality, but I'm 28 now and don't really care anymore.

Reply

[-]

changhyun@reddit

I personally think the line is who you're using it for. To describe yourself or someone who you know identifies with the term? That's OK. To describe someone else whose stance on the word you don't know? Best to not do that unless you know they're OK with it.

Reply

[-]

AberNurse@reddit

I feel empowered to identify however I chose, but that doesn’t mean I apply that identity to others. I’ve always liked queer because it’s vague. It others me without explaining. I wouldn’t apply it to someone I didn’t know well enough to know how comfortable they are with it.

Reply

[-]

winobeaver@reddit

I think it's more offensive that you'd tell people who identify as queer to hide this aspect of them in the workplace. Gay was a more commonplace insult much more recently than queer, and frankly I've never seen anyone other than disingenuous transphobes get offended by people self-identifying as queer.

Reply

[-]

Timely_Atmosphere735@reddit

I’m 43, queer was used regularly as an insult in the 80’s and 90’s

Reply

[-]

winobeaver@reddit

you really ain't much older than me, in fact you're the same age as my fiancee. And she doesn't remember a whole lot of the 80s, as in 1990, she was only 8. Gay was used leagues more than queer when you were a kid, unless you lived in a very insular community that was not like everywhere else on the Anglosphere

Reply

[-]

PepsiThriller@reddit

Usage doesnt dictate offence necessarily. If the only time you were ever called a word was when you were attacked, its likely you'd find it more offensive than a more common slur with a less personal meaning.

Reply

[-]

winobeaver@reddit

it makes sense that the redditor remembers it being used in a particularly offensive / personal / targeted context

Reply

[-]

AccuratelyHistorical@reddit

Tbf queer would've been more a noun than an adjective so it wouldn't have been used in those sentences

Reply

[-]

winobeaver@reddit

if you can't even linguistically use it like that without it sounding clumsy then it surely wouldn't have been used a whole lot

Reply

[-]

Phospherocity@reddit

I'm 46 and never heard it as an insult outside of period dramas even one single time. "Gay", all the time.

Reply

[-]

seventhcatbounce@reddit

Queer bashing was still a thing well into my early 20s , not gay but worked with a lot of itinerant gays up in Blackpool who had literally been kicked out of home and disowned at the age of 16 for coming out/parents finding out, they’d warn us if there were any homophobic gangs operating in area/ streets to avoid because queer bashers and black bashers and paki bashers tended to be the same violent assholes looking for a target of opportunity

Reply

[-]

CrewKind4398@reddit

I’m 24 and it’s still the slur I hear most like on a literal daily basis

Reply

[-]

winobeaver@reddit

which one? queer or gay?

Reply

[-]

itsmetsunnyd@reddit

If I'm not allowed to use the word Queer in the workplace, I cannot describe my identity.

Reply

[-]

auntie_eggma@reddit

No. Just don't call *someone else* queer until you know that's a term they embrace. Calling *yourself* queer (only if you are, of course) should not be censored in any context.

Reply

[-]

hamstertoybox@reddit

I’m confused by when it’s okay to use this term - you get queer theory. So presumably that’s okay to say as it’s used by academics?

Reply

[-]

abitofasitdown@reddit

"Queer" is still a slur to many of is - it's been appropriated mostly by people who are too young to have had it accompanied by a punch. People can call themselves what they like, of course, but it should not be a term anyone applies to anyone else without their consent, or to a group. It's still like a punch to the stomach when I see and hear "queer" being thrown around casually, as if it's a positive thing, by corporations and straight "allies".

Reply

[-]

Rosekernow@reddit

Growing up in the 90s and early 2000s, gay was the always the one that came with a sneer if you were lucky or a kicking if you weren’t. Queer was generally from an ally or someone who knew a bit of history and would probably give you a safe place to hide. Gay makes me cringe away to this day.

Reply

[-]

FloydEGag@reddit

Some people feel about the term queer the way you do about gay, because they had those experiences too, but accompanied by a different word. So it’s not surprising they don’t like it. Personally I think it’s fine to refer to *oneself* as queer (or whatever you like, really) but don’t assume other people will necessarily be comfortable with referring to themselves in the same way. And it goes both ways, a bit of tolerance and understanding goes a long way

Reply

[-]

itsableeder@reddit

\> it's been appropriated mostly by people who are too young to have had it accompanied by a punch. Queer Nation were using it in the 1980s. You've really never heard the phrase "we're here, we're queer, get used to it"? In my experience the vast majority of the people who think "queer" is an offensive term are the younger generations who've spent too much time online. 'Q' has been a part of LGBTQ+ for almost as long as acronyms have been around.

Reply

[-]

MissingLink101@reddit

Yeah I can imagine some of these terms have a very different meaning for older people in the community who have experienced it being used as s slur against them. I wonder if there was a generational gap between the two people in OPs story.

Reply

[-]

cardiffman100@reddit

It can still be a slur. Depends on how it's used and the intent behind it.

Reply

[-]

SitDownKawada@reddit

I'd imagine there was no intent by the person in the OP. Was the other person wrong to be offended? I'd see it as the sort of thing you just shouldn't say in work. There are things I'd say in private that I just wouldn't bother with in work because if I was called out in private I would be ok with explaining myself but I think in the workplace, like in politics, if you're explaining then you're losing Plus there are laws and rules that apply to workplace communications that don't apply to normal talking

Reply

[-]

AtLeastOneCat@reddit

I still view it as a slur, personally. I'm fine with others self-identifying that way but if someone uses it to describe me I am 100% taking it as a slur.

Reply

[-]

banxy85@reddit

Yes but so what 🤷 D*kes is still a slur

Reply

[-]

Fuzzy_Cranberry8164@reddit

Black/african-american reclaimed their slur(to an extent) if everyone simply reclaims the slur and make it their own, there’s no more slurs!!

Reply

[-]

PassiveTheme@reddit

The main issue with this sort of thing, imo, is that if one member of staff uses the word casually, other members of staff (who aren't part of the potentially offended demographic) may feel that it's ok to use the word.

Reply

[-]

teerbigear@reddit

This is only a tiny part of the answer though right? So yes, I agree, I wouldn't do it (which is relatively easy for a white cis male to say). But what should we do about it? If the first woman apologised then most of us would say that's the end of it. But it would be different if she had said the n word. What if she didn't apologise and refused to stop saying d*ke? Then maybe we'd feel she should be formally reprimanded. What if someone had a request you thought was ridiculous, say I was offended because people referred to me by name rather than Sir Hotbottom? My point is you have to make some sort of value judgement about the specific thing that someone claims to be offended by. And fuck knows how HR decide that for things like this.

Reply

[-]

Decent-Chipmunk-5437@reddit

A HR lady on a night out once asked the group to name their favourite racial slur "for fun". You've never seen a table of drunk people sober up so quickly.

Reply

[-]

butwhatsmyname@reddit

Ah it's so difficult. On the one hand I agree with you, I'm a cautious type. On the other hand this can do quickly shit down conversation and visibility of a topic. I'm queer. I'm trans. You probably wouldn't guess it to look at me at work. So if it's not acceptable to talk about those things - because people are afraid to offend or afraid of being reprimanded - then you'd likely never know that our office contained queer or trans people at all. And then it would look unwelcoming to queer and trans people. And the not queer, and not trans people would likely put a lot less thought into considering the queer and trans community in the daily workings of the business - which is fair. Why would you put time and effort into making sure there are accommodations in place for people who aren't there? And the words continue to be taboo, when they don't need to be. They're just descriptions. But it's not easy when plenty of people will still only use those words as slurs. It's so hard to balance visibility and protection when it comes to language.

Reply

[-]

RepublicofPixels@reddit

There's a difference between "use professional and appropriate language", where using the accepted labels of queer, trans, gay, bi, lesbian, etc. are allowed because that's the term used even if a small minority still use them as slurs, but you wouldn't be allowed to use slurs like, in the post, f**, or t****y, because those aren't suited to a professional environment. It would still be possible to have professional conversations about LGBTQ+ using relevant terms for each group - it's not like people refer to het men as "studs" in an office environment and there's still plenty of discourse about that group.

Reply

[-]

Weirfish@reddit

But at the same time, the use of a slur can be rhetorical, forcing the listener to engage in a certain way. It depends on the audience and context.

Reply

[-]

sputnikconspirator@reddit

Yeh, a little naive to use such a word in a work based context. If someone else is offended by it, that's a problem and can rightly be construed as harassment, at least according to the harassment seminar we had to go to.... Best to avoid any potentially inflammatory language, unless you're banking on HR finding it as witty as you did.

Reply

[-]

pharmamess@reddit

*"It's valid to not want to hear slurs being thrown around in a workplace"* Agree to disagree.

Reply

[-]

SitDownKawada@reddit

It's not valid to not want to hear slurs? Or it's valid to want to hear slurs? You believe it's ok to use slurs in the workplace?

Reply

[-]

pharmamess@reddit

Some people believe it's ok to use slurs in the workplace. As I am tolerant, I accept this as valid.

Reply

[-]

Iwantedalbino@reddit

In the workplace it doesn’t matter how the comment was intended but how it was received. This presentation title should never have seen light of day given the potential to offend or upset.

Reply

[-]

Strong_Web4036@reddit

\> This month at work, we've had plenty of really interesting and eye opening conversations/exercises around pride. It's been really good. I come here to work and earn money, not to be politically shaped by dumb people. What next? 30 minutes a day chanting how great the leader is? No you can't say things other people will get offended by in workplaces if women are there. If it's blokes only, say whatever you want.

Reply

[-]

Track_2@reddit

I'm more interested in how you make cycling more inclusive, how are they being excluded?

Reply

[-]

TheGreatBatsby@reddit

Because most cyclists are middle-aged men in lycra, swigging electrolyte drinks and hogging the road. They look like a bunch of retired superheroes attempting the TRour de France.

Reply

[-]

Strong_Web4036@reddit

You too will get to an age where you where you will do things you enjoy and not avoid things other people won't think you aren't awesome/cool.

Reply

[-]

Catching_Rays@reddit

Hello! My job is to encourage people to cycle or walk for short journeys and just yesterday I was organising an event with a local LGBTQ+ group because they (I'm also more than one of those letters lol) are underrepresented for a few reasons: 1: Cyclists can face abuse even if they are doing everything within law and guidance. Cycling while being visibly "different" (anything from race to a wearing a rainbow pin badge) can make people feel even more vulnerable so they just don't bother cycling because it's not worth the risk of a bad situation with a driver or pedestrian escalating into hate based on an inherent characteristic (this is also a reason why fewer women cycle). 2: There is a high rate of economic disadvantage and disability in the LGBTQ+ community compared to the cishet population. It can make accessing a suitable bike for financial or physical adaptive needs very difficult. The "right" bike for an individual that allows them to cycle safely and with confidence can run into the thousands. Also two people I was speaking with yesterday had experience of being in emergency accommodation but there was nowhere to store a bike. That's not unique to LGBTQ+ people but lack of storage space is a factor for a lot of people. 3: Many LGBTQ+ people simply never learned to ride a bike because of bullying in childhood, and by the time they're in their teens and early twenties, the resources for teaching basic skills are unavailable to most people of all demographics. It's a postcode lottery if there are organisations locally that support adults learning or returning to cycling. Even the national scheme for kids, Bikeability, doesn't actually TEACH them how to ride a bike - they already have to be able to pedal to sit Level 1. Bikeability is also centered around learning to cycle with traffic on the road because the UK has virtually no segregated infrastructure at scale, so there's often nowhere safe for adults to teach themselves. It can be embarrassing for an adult to be seen in public trying to ride a bike for the first time. Now double the embarrassment if you're a minority. Happy to have a (civil!) discussion about this :)

Reply

[-]

Matthew94@reddit

> There is a high rate of economic disadvantage and disability in the LGBTQ+ community compared to the cishet population. It can make accessing a suitable bike for financial or physical adaptive needs very difficult. The "right" bike for an individual that allows them to cycle safely and with confidence can run into the thousands Other than having a physical disability, there is no way your economic group or LGBT status makes it difficult to get a bike. You can get a decent bike for a few hundred quid. None of the things you've listed are in any way unique to minorities.

Reply

[-]

Catching_Rays@reddit

I'm going to have to disagree based on: 1: A few hundred quid is not affordable to a lot of people. 2: When I say the "right" bike I mean one that they not only feel comfortable riding, but also one that keeps them cycling and is suitable for their needs. People cycle for all different reasons. A person who needs a bike that can carry a week's worth of shopping might need something different from a standard hybrid with a couple of panniers. A "decent" bike is not the same thing as the "right" bike. A decent one will do if it's a supplement to other modes of transport, but for people who rely on a bike for independence, it can be more complicated. 3: I did not claim anything was unique to minorities. I said that they are more likely to face certain barriers to participation. Here's some reading (on transport and minority poverty in general): https://content.tfl.gov.uk/barriers-to-cycling-for-ethnic-minorities-and-deprived-groups-summary.pdf https://www.transport.gov.scot/publication/social-and-equality-impact-assessment-seqia-nts-delivery-plan/2-key-issues-and-evidence/ https://www.gmmoving.co.uk/data-and-learning/unmet-demand-for-cycling-from-ethnic-minority-and-other-disadvantaged-groups/ https://lgbtqwelfare.stir.ac.uk/

Reply

[-]

Matthew94@reddit

> 1: A few hundred quid is not affordable to a lot of people. Most people are not in such bad financial shape. The savings from not using public transport would quickly balance out the initial cost. A used bike can be had for <£100 and perform the task just fine. I would know, I commuted on a used £15 mountain bike for about a year without issue. >A person who needs a bike that can carry a week's worth of shopping Perhaps the first step is to realise that a bike is not a car and that you probably shouldn't take a week's worth of shopping on one. Either do smaller trips or use a delivery service if you live far away. Tesco delivers for £3-7. Also, if this hypothetical person was doing a week's shop in a car then they clearly have money for a car. If they were using public transport then they'd never have had the capability to carry a week's worth of shopping. >I said that they are more likely to face certain barriers to participation All of your links are the same thing: the day-to-day challenges are the same but because minorities can be discriminated against, it could be worse for them. It's nothing unique to cycling. It's like saying we need special consideration for dehydrated people because cycling + dehydration can be worse than just plain ol' cycling. For instance your gmmoving link just asserts "research suggests that many people are excluded from cycling" without any evidence. They work backwards from the numbers and go "they cycle less so someone must be stopping them." The recommendations in one of the linked papers are the same that are made for cyclists in general. They're also ridiculously patronising: >residents in deprived areas may not understand that cycling can improve health and fitness It's like they're talking about small children.

Reply

[-]

Catching_Rays@reddit

I'm quite impressed that you've managed to read through those links in less than five minutes. I'm going to leave my feedback to you as this: You have provided no professional or independent evidence to justify your opinion. We can agree that a car is not a bike. We also can agree that nothing I've said is unique to cycling. If you can share any publications, surveys, data sets, verifiable accounts that strengthens your views other than sharing a screenshot of Tesco delivery home policies I'd be happy to take a look. I'm afraid I don't have it in me to consider the similarities between being dehydrated and being black.

Reply

[-]

Matthew94@reddit

Good luck with your grift 👍

Reply

[-]

Cannonbal69@reddit

People never learned to ride a bike because of bullying? Surely that's something your fmail teaches you, Im not sure about that, certainly not as a common issue for LGBT people (or anyone who's bullied). Not having a go, of people genuinely need extra help then all for it, but never heard of that before.

Reply

[-]

Catching_Rays@reddit

Kids with parents who can't ride or don't have access to a bike are less likely to be taught at home. There's other reasons families might not be able to teach their kids how to cycle including cultural background, lack of storage, kids being between homes etc. LGBTQ+ kids are also more likely to be bullied (some stats here: https://justlikeus.org/news/2021/11/25/research-report-growing-up-lgbt-bullying/) I never rode my bike at school as I was constantly bullied and had my stuff stolen specifically because it was mine. Sure everyone runs the risk of having their bike stolen or being assaulted while riding, but there's a difference between it happening at random and being targeted because you're different. Here is a 2024 report on the barriers LGBTQ+ people might encounter while cycling: https://www.sustrans.org.uk/media/xsed4me1/out-and-about-lgbtqiaplus-experiences-of-active-travel.pdf it's quite long but the conclusion is worth reading and also, it focuses more on people who already cycle however the issues around safety and visibility can be more acute in kids and teens which leads to choosing not to cycle at all.

Reply

[-]

DannyBrownsDoritos@reddit

>Many LGBTQ+ people simply never learned to ride a bike because of bullying in childhood ...How?

Reply

[-]

Track_2@reddit

Thank you, that explains it - I'm pleased I asked

Reply

[-]

Icy-Tear4613@reddit

Because there are bi-cycles but no gay ones.

Reply

[-]

Agile-Day-2103@reddit

Can’t believe you’re the only other person I’ve seen say this… like do people need different cycle paths depending on their sexuality?

Reply

[-]

rosstafarien@reddit

Do your best to not use offensive terms. Don't get offended on behalf of others. Support those who are persomally insulted. I.e. not the loud white guy getting incensed on behalf of blacks or...

Reply

[-]

PrincessStephanieR@reddit

Not something I’d say at work. In fact, I keep my mouth shut at work. People can be cancelled for anything and that not a risk I’m willing to take.

Reply

[-]

ignatiusjreillyXM@reddit

I don't believe in policing other people's language (or allowing other people to police mine). I have student feelings about different terms, some of such I approve of, others of which I disapprove. But I would listen, make my own judgements and draw my own conclusions (and act on them), but essentially while keeping my opinion to myself

Reply

[-]

Vivid-Blacksmith-122@reddit

we see this alot with younger generations using what older generations consider to be (and experienced) very serious slurs. I've also seen this kind of "its not offensive, its you who is wrong for being offended" response. Its interesting to me (translation: annoying) how younger generations are very vocal about things they think are unacceptable but dismissive of older people's boundaries. If you want to be treated with respect then you need to treat others with respect.

Reply

[-]

FloydEGag@reddit

There was a guy at my work, an older gay guy, who objected on our work social media site (viva engage) to the term queer because he’d experienced it as a slur in his youth so didn’t like it, and got piled on by a bunch of much younger people, not all of whom were LGBTQ+, hectoring him that he needed to get over it. No understanding or respect for his boundaries or what he went through in his youth when it was harder to be gay than it is now. He complained and was backed up by HR, but he hasn’t used the site since.

Reply

[-]

verycoldpenguins@reddit

A word is a word, in my opinion. The way in which it is used creates the problem. Last month, I was saying to a (white) colleague that "Lenny Henry wasn't being racist when he said N****r as part of his comedy sketches." I said the word because it is just a word in the context of the sentence above. My colleague was visibly uncomfortable that I said it, though. Their view was it should never be used due to the connotations. I think it was an overreaction personally, but if there is a risk of it being of upset to someone, it is best to /try/ and avoid it.

Reply

[-]

Ozzimo@reddit

If you find yourself outside the culture being discussed, it may be advised to just listen, rather than speak.

Reply

[-]

Substantial-Chonk886@reddit

Reclaiming derogatory terms doesn’t always work, and won’t work for everyone in a group.

Reply

[-]

Insideout_Ink_Demon@reddit

I made a similar statement once, but also added that if only certain demographics using the word is fine, and other demographics using it is still bad, is the word even reclaimed? I got downvoted to oblivion and told I was just trying to get the ok to use the slur

Reply

[-]

TheCursedMonk@reddit

Yeah, I had someone (politely) call me queer. I just asked if they could please not call me that. I am sure other people feel fine using it, I do not, and I do not use that word to describe myself.

Reply

[-]

Remarkable-Ad155@reddit

And presumably the person using that term said "of course, apologies for offending you" instead of just telling you to get over it, like the person in the post? That's a big part of this that's being missed in this discussion. Using the term is one thing, ignoring and trying to invalidate someone's feelings about it is another. Had the response been "I'm really sorry, I genuinely didn't realise you would find it as offensive as you did - lesson learned", i wonder if we'd even be seeing this on reddit at all.

Reply

[-]

Key_Prize217@reddit

I think all slurs should be acceptable. Sounds made with your mouth only offend if you give a fuck..

Reply

[-]

Xanyla@reddit

I'm friends with a few lesbians who call themselves dykes quite proudly, but I would find it offensive if someone said that to me (bisexual) if I was dating a woman. It's quite derogatory in my opinion, especially when there are so many other words you could use!

Reply

[-]

Immediate-Escalator@reddit

Just because one person isn’t offended by a particular term doesn’t mean others won’t be. That word is still used as a pejorative by a lot of people and it’s reasonable to be offended by its use if it’s being used when you have years of it being used against you. Ultimately, if you have a choice between causing hurt to a marginalised group or not doing so why would you choose to cause hurt? It seems like being edgy for the sake of it. Fair enough they made a choice but if someone raises it as an issue the more appropriate thing to do is apologise rather than double down.

Reply

[-]

glasgowgeg@reddit

> That word is still used as a pejorative by a lot of people So is "gay", but you would hardly argue that someone can't call themselves gay.

Reply

[-]

EntryCapital6728@reddit

Just stay away from slurs in general.

Reply

[-]

WanderlustZero@reddit

Tricky one, really, we all have our own experiences with words and 'reclaiming' them. For me, having been called 'queer' constantly as a child in the Irish setting I grew up in, I will never see that as anything other than the vilest and most triggering of words. But at the same time there's a movement to have it replace 'LGBT+' as a catch-all term.

Reply

[-]

BeersTeddy@reddit

This is just sad. Everyone gets offended just by everything

Reply

[-]

Intrepid_Bearz@reddit

Not appropriate in a workplace. I refer to myself as being queer but I wouldn’t use that term at work. I’ve had gay friends use the word fag to describe themselves and even yesterday a friend was talking to me about a past dinner party he hosted said “they were all fags of course”. I would not expect him to (nor would he) say that in a workplace environment.

Reply

[-]

Emitime@reddit

I'd have thought queer was probably totally fine in a workplace considering it's pretty prominent in LGBTQ.

Reply

[-]

FloydEGag@reddit

There are still a lot of people around whose experience of the word queer was hearing it shouted at them as they were getting their head kicked in for being gay, so not everyone likes/uses it. It comes with baggage for many older people

Reply

[-]

Grotbagsthewonderful@reddit

>There are still a lot of people around whose main prior experience of the word queer was hearing it shouted at them as they were getting their head kicked in for being gay. I'm gay and can't stand that word specifically for that reason.

Reply

[-]

butwhatsmyname@reddit

I could say the same of the words gay and lesbian though. Those were slurs I had flung at me daily. If I refused to use any word that had been said against me as a slur I'd have nothing left to describe myself with anymore. There isn't an easy answer to this, I don't think there ever will be, but I'm not keen on letting hate have all the power over the words we use. That puts all the control of our language, and the things we can use it to do, in the hands of the people who least deserve it.

Reply

[-]

AtLeastOneCat@reddit

Gay and lesbian were never slurs to be reclaimed, though.

Reply

[-]

Apidium@reddit

Did you live through 2000-2010? Gay was one of the default insults.

Reply

[-]

AtLeastOneCat@reddit

It's still not a slur, though. In the same way that "disabled" or "autistic" isn't a slur but has been used as an insult by ableists.

Reply

[-]

SongsAboutGhosts@reddit

Insult and slur are different, though.

Reply

[-]

Phospherocity@reddit

They absolutely were.

Reply

[-]

EmMeo@reddit

Gay was like, the most popular insult back in the 2000s. Seemed like anything bad was referred to as gay, whether a situation or a person. The R word was also very popular back then.

Reply

[-]

FloydEGag@reddit

I totally agree, but it’s also important to be mindful not everyone feels the same. I don’t know the answer either

Reply

[-]

SongsAboutGhosts@reddit

That's true, and I'm not saying we shouldn't be sensitive to other people's experiences, but when queer can sometimes be *the* word people feel comfortable using for their own identity, it's not really appropriate to ban it. I'm talking about people who don't feel they neatly fit into another category of LGBT+, but aren't cishet - if there isn't really another term that fits them, are they just not allowed to self-identify because it has negative connotations for other people? If both sides show understanding and respect then there shouldn't be any issues. As the commenter above said, it's been pretty widely reclaimed and is a key part of the LGBTQ+ acronym now, it is acceptable in the workplace when used appropriately.

Reply

[-]

FloydEGag@reddit

I don’t think it should be banned; just that if someone objects to it for good reason based on their own experiences, some sensitivity should be applied. I guess there’s a need for compromise; for example if you identify as queer then call yourself that but don’t apply it to someone else without checking first

Reply

[-]

abitofasitdown@reddit

Yeah, exactly. I hate it as a word that's thrown around like it's nothing, by corporations, even national museums. It's a real visceral hurt.

Reply

[-]

Ok_Aioli3897@reddit

And you haven't listened to what anyone has said

Reply

[-]

I-hear-the-coast@reddit

I had a coworker once state: “I’m, as people used to yell at me on the streets, Bent”. He was born in the early 50s. He specifically chose, at work, to use the word people offensively yelled at him. I’ll call him bent because that’s what he called himself, but I definitely am not using that for others unless they ask it.

Reply

[-]

SlackersClub@reddit

As a cigarette I find that word extremely offensive.

Reply

[-]

CuriousNowDead@reddit

Who the fuck does this at work?! In the wider world, I never directly call others words like that but do use them to refer to myself and the group as a whole. I get that a word that’s positive to some can be negative to others and I try not to be a dick about it.

Reply

[-]

RedditWishIHadnt@reddit

I worked with Oedipus and he used “motherfucker” all the time.

Reply

[-]

PristineAnt9@reddit

You see the difference is that’s his word!

Reply

[-]

gnufan@reddit

Everyone talks about what Oedipus did with his mother, no one ever mentions what he did to his father.

Reply

[-]

EidolonLives@reddit

"But do they call me Oedipus this boatbuilder? Nooo."

Reply

[-]

sock_cooker@reddit

That elicited such a loud snorty laugh from me

Reply

[-]

Distinct-Brilliant73@reddit

But I think the issue is that Dykes on Bikes is an established motorcycle group and has been around for a good 50 years now? So basically imo we have presenter lady (who is a lesbian) referencing the motorcycle club, and the audience lady (who is also a lesbian) getting offended the word was used at work. I see both sides, but I lean towards the presenter’s a bit more considering the group has been around for ages. It’s a tough situation, and I def would’ve reacted with more kindness to the audience lady who was offended bc I see both sides.

Reply

[-]

CuriousNowDead@reddit

I still don’t think it’s a good idea to reference it as the title of a presentation. Again, there are plenty of groups for various things with swearing in the name and I wouldn’t make it the title of the presentation even if I referenced them in it.

Reply

[-]

JimmyJonJackson420@reddit

I was thinking how is this person that tone deaf that they thought this would be ok 😂 I’m black but if you think I’m gonna go around saying the n word at work your outta your mind

Reply

[-]

VioletsSoul@reddit

Depends where I am in the workplace. In a meeting? No. In a break room with a colleague I'm friends with and nobody else is around? Maybe.

Reply

[-]

Douglesfield_@reddit

Fiver says that person thinks of themselves as a 'bit of a character'.

Reply

[-]

E5evo@reddit

I often greet my (gay) son with, ‘Hiya ya big puff’, & he’ll reply with something like, ‘Hi Fatty’, or, ‘Hiya you old fart’. Is that the same?

Reply

[-]

6033624@reddit

If the humor is ‘self-deprecating’ then you can say what you want BUT at work you just can’t say anything that you wouldn’t want said TO you either..

Reply

[-]

MrPogoUK@reddit

A guy in a wheelchair got called into HR because someone took offence to him referring to himself as a cripple, so it’s definitely not a good idea even if you have nothing against it!

Reply

[-]

BlackBerryCollector@reddit

It's hypocritical.

Reply

[-]

Fragile_reddit_mods@reddit

I don’t think it really matters outside of professional situations what words people use.

Reply

[-]

WetDogDeodourant@reddit

In a social scenario use what ever words you’re comfortable with, and those around you are comfortable with. In a work place scenario don’t use any slurs at all, because if someone makes a formal complaint, HR can’t be like it’s alright for members of [group] to use [relevant slur] but no one else. The specific slur used is an odd one because especially amongst younger people it’s hardly even used as a slur anymore as non-ironic usage pretty much died out years ago.

Reply

[-]

FourExcitedSpiders@reddit

Literally every word for LGBTQ people has been used as a slur. There's no meaningful distinction between appropriate and offensive terms because homophobes think what we are is inherently offensive and will use any word that describes us as an insult, no matter its origin. The whole discussion of what has been reclaimed and for whom doesn't work for us. People are absolutely entitled to not use certain words to describe themselves if they're uncomfortable with them, but it's too subjective to form a rule for what should or should not be said by anyone. All our words have a history of being identities, euphemisms, terms of empowerment, insults used against us, and insults reclaimed with pride. But they're all fundamentally ours to use.

Reply

[-]

Ok-Chest-7932@reddit

I think it's fine, within the same bounds as any other rude word is. Slurs are bad both because they're prejudiced and because they're unprofessional. Using a slur against yourself isn't prejudiced, but is still unprofessional.

Reply

[-]

Remarkable-Ad155@reddit

Honestly, this whole thing sounds incredibly tedious and self indulgent. The real simple answer is that in a professional context it's not OK to use these words, regardless of whether you are or aren't a member of said community, because it can cause offence and overall comes across as unprofessional. It's not complicated and comes across as deliberately provocative from your colleague. Imagine a black colleague did a presentation called N****s with attitude? Or a British Asian person did one with P**i in the title? Strongly doubt most people would be as relaxed about it.

Reply

[-]

SlackersClub@reddit

Or if a person of white heritage did one called "Crackers love cheese"

Reply

[-]

Bgtobgfu@reddit

See I think that’s funny too!

Reply

[-]

Remarkable-Ad155@reddit

I *do* love that cheddar though, come to think of it 🤔 only thing that keeps me in this job tbh

Reply

[-]

Distinct-Brilliant73@reddit

But I think the issue is that Dykes on Bikes is an established famous motorcycle group and has been around for a good 50 years now? Like, I’m bisexual, and when researching queer history, the group actually comes up quite a lot! But, most people don’t know about them. So basically imo we have presenter lady (who is a lesbian) referencing the motorcycle club as a promo idea for work, and the audience lady (who is also a lesbian) getting offended the word was used at work. I see both sides, but I lean towards the presenter’s a bit more considering the group has been around for ages. It’s a tough situation, and I def would’ve reacted with more kindness to the audience lady who was offended bc I get why she’s upset, but it’s their name…would putting d*kes on bikes be any better? Then she’d have to explain what got asterisked out and I feel like that would’ve been way worse.

Reply

[-]

Remarkable-Ad155@reddit

I'd say you're stretching the term "famous" to breaking point there and I still don't think it would change the position even if they were world famous. The bottom line here is the person used hate speech and it upset somebody from a relevant minority group. Doesn't matter what the background is, people should not have to go to work and experience that and then also be gaslit by the offender.

Reply

[-]

Apidium@reddit

It's a bit silly to bring up minority groups when it seems both folks here belong to the exact same minority group. Relative to one another neither is a minority.

Reply

[-]

Remarkable-Ad155@reddit

Does that matter? It's known what that term means and I would be very surprised if the company doesn't have a policy which requires employees not to use terms which are associated with hate speech in a work context. You can't pick and choose when to apply things like that.

Reply

[-]

EyeAlternative1664@reddit

Explaining to a woman that she’s just being “emotional “ has never failed to yield positive results.

Reply

[-]

Bgtobgfu@reddit

My office is about 50% ‘certain demographic’ (my industry skews gay) and we would find that funny.

Reply

[-]

grimm_the_opiner@reddit

I'm mostly wondering why this subset of cyclists/ motorcyclists apparently have a distinct set of requirements for road design.

Reply

[-]

Inevitable_Driver291@reddit

Yeah, everyone needs to stop being offended at everything.

Reply

[-]

Mental_Body_5496@reddit

Why? Maybe some people should stop being offensive 🤔

Reply

[-]

Els236@reddit

Because it's getting to the point where, especially in an environment such as an office, everyone is walking on eggshells around everyone because they might use a word that causes offense to someone, which then ends up being dragged into a meeting with HR and doing "inclusivity training", or risking a disciplinary. It also doesn't help that the list of words that may or may not cause offense is growing and changing seemingly every other day. I'm only 30 and the word "queer" (example) has changed countless times over my short lifespan. First it meant someone who was a bit weird, then it was used to refer to LGBT people, then it was a slur, then it started getting reclaimed, and now it seems OK for a lot of LGBT people, but not for others. There will always exist dickheads in society - what happened to just "ignore and move on".

Reply

[-]

Mental_Body_5496@reddit

Because words can hurt a death by a thousand paper cuts. Im not disagreeing with you, but maybe people just shouldn't use slang at work. I cant think of any words that people might genuinely use at work when aimed at other people. Its not difficult really is it - just font be a dick !

Reply

[-]

Inevitable_Driver291@reddit

Well agreed, it would be nice if people would be careful with their language. But honestly, what's easier, change everyone in the world to match your sensitivities? Or to change yourself, to just relax a little? Only one of those options is feasible.

Reply

[-]

Mental_Body_5496@reddit

If nobody changes the world by their actions we would still be casually using the N word and using slaves !

Reply

[-]

Inevitable_Driver291@reddit

There's probably an understanding to be found in what I'm saying that isn't quite so ridiculous.

Reply

[-]

Mental_Body_5496@reddit

What's ridiculous if people had challenged anti-semtic comments earlier maybe WW2 wouldnever have halpened and now we are on the brick of WW3 !

Reply

[-]

Inevitable_Driver291@reddit

You chose your name well.

Reply

[-]

Mental_Body_5496@reddit

I didnt choose it reddit did !

Reply

[-]

Inevitable_Driver291@reddit

Coloured is another one, perfectly acceptable and around BLM(?) it changes meaning. Half of old people declared racist, I swear they are just people who refuse to change their language because they know they mean no harm by it. Maybe only half tho ha.

Reply

[-]

CarpeCyprinidae@reddit

I'm not going to take offence on behalf of groups of which I'm not a member but its basic commonsense not to use slurs in a work environment, so if I'd heard that I'd have spoken up and criticised it as unprofessional. The thing with slurs is, if you hear it and don't say something you'll be judged to have accepted or endorsed it. In a related topic I recall seeing an elderly Black lady on TV stating that she'd been called a certain word too many times in her life and she would *never* accept hearing members of her own group use it about each other

Reply

[-]

Think_Treacle_2348@reddit

It's cultural appropriation, those aren't their words to use!

Reply

[-]

cwningen95@reddit

There's a steadily dying argument that the word "queer" is a slur, but it's been reclaimed to the point of being used in academia as an umbrella term to refer to the community, since it's inclusive without needing to remember a bunch of extra letters or bicker over which letters to include. There are still people who use it prerogatively, but I think it's quite old-fashioned. The word d-ke isn't *quite* there yet. Many lesbians have reclaimed it and use it for themselves (like D-kes on Bikes or the bull d-ke archetype), and as a lesbian myself I use it for myself all the time lol, but I don't think I would be comfortable using it for another lesbian/sapphic person unless I knew they were okay with it. It remains the most well-known slur against lesbians, after all; as others have said, it's probably best to err on the side of caution in a workplace context. I came across something similar in my old job (local authority) with the word g-psy, which is technically a slur but many Roma/travellers don't mind the term and use it to refer to themselves. My colleague referred to the charity G-psies and Travellers Wales as a potential partner we could signpost service users to and our line manager said "maybe don't use *that* word, though", to which my colleague just motioned to the screen and said "but that's what it's called!"

Reply

[-]

Goat1862@reddit

Fine as long as I can say it too

Reply

[-]

km6669@reddit

Mild surprise that this is about Lebians and not Jhonny Three Necks wanting to say the N word because he once listened to a Jay Z song.

Reply

[-]

clinton7777@reddit

"Horrendously offended" wow.

Reply

[-]

Zavodskoy@reddit

In a closed group of friends where you've al agreed you don't mind the term provided it's not used as an insult it's fine With strangers / people you don't know well and don't have prior consent from, you shouldn't be using it

Reply

[-]

Dinbar@reddit

Its all bollocks, there is far more important things to worry about these days than bloody words.

Reply

[-]

allthemodsarenonces@reddit

Using slurs in a workplace environment is always unacceptable. Especially homophobic slurs. Everyone can give it the whole “everyone needs to stop being offended by everything” spiel, but ffs surely as a society we can draw the line at racist, homophobic or bigoted comments at work, surely?

Reply

[-]

mt_2@reddit

And the problem with this is defining "what is a slur"? Queer is one we can all agree used to get used as a slur, but is now incredibly commonplace with every organisation being pro-LGBTQ+, and many people using the queer label to avoid giving away personal details they'd like to keep private. If everyone wants to agree that in a workplace scenario queer is still a slur, then should we tell organisations to "drop the Q" so to speak? How about "gay"? Gay was used extensively as a slur, probably \*the\* most popular slur in the 00's. It would be silly to tell people they can't call themselves gay anymore. So where is the line drawn?

Reply

[-]

Apidium@reddit

Dykes on bikes though is a real organisation. It's one of the more popular known ones for lesbains and makes a lot of sense to mention when bringing up urban planning in relation to minority sexual orientations. It's not just 'ohh that sounds funny'

Reply

[-]

ReddyBlueBlue@reddit

Why *especially* homophobic slurs over racial slurs?

Reply

[-]

CombinationBorn7662@reddit

I swear to god like 95 pc of what's happening in America for the last fifty years is that white folk want to be able to call their black waiter the N word and no one bats an eye.

Reply

[-]

OverlordOfTheBeans@reddit

I don't think it would go down well if a black farmer/construction worker did a presentation named "N*****" on diggers," in a professional setting, so I don't think it was the best idea, tbh. I understand the offense.

Reply

[-]

Tattycakes@reddit

Sorry but that’s hilarious. The kind of joke you’d see someone make about themselves on TikTok like they used to on vine “you’ve heard of cat in the hat, but are you ready for N…”. But definitely not for the workplace!

Reply

[-]

Apidium@reddit

That isn't an existing organisation though.

Reply

[-]

240psam@reddit

My real view on this is that pretty much anything like this is out of bounds at work. Its not just even about offending people or whatever, it's just sorta cringe too when you could just be not edgy and get on with it. Not long ago a new colleague made a weird comment about a completely normal woman who was riding a horse and it just painted him as a creep from the get go. Out of work, I don't care if someone says something as part of a joke, as long as I know their intent is purely comedy. Although it is a red flag to me when someone is very comfortable saying things seemingly as a joke to people they have just met or don't know, because it shows a lack of awareness. Being like "OMG PEOPLE ARE SO OFFENDED NOWADAYS" is only valid for a small number of these things, it's about common decency and making life easier for eachother. Know your audience kinda thing.

Reply

[-]

Apidium@reddit

It's a real biker organisation. Which seems pretty pertinent to GSRM inclusive urban planning. Not just some edgy thing.

Reply

[-]

Corrie7686@reddit

Not acceptable and more importantly is discriminatory towards a protected characteristic. Doesn't matter that the person being discriminatory is in that same charachteristic. Still discrimination. Specifically harassment under the 2010 Equalities act. Failure by the company to act could bring a claim / complaint by the affected employee. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents

Reply

[-]

Apidium@reddit

It's a real biker organisation. Which seems pretty pertinent to GSRM inclusive urban planning.

Reply

[-]

Paintingsosmooth@reddit

I do this, with the same slur, so I can give some slur specific context which I think maybe important. Last weekend, there was a ‘D*ke march’ through London. That’s what it’s called. We’ve taken the slur and use it ourselves in the community and outwardly - many don’t think of it as a slur when we use it amongst ourselves, but if someone from outside the community says it to us we would assume it’s not meant kindly. My workplace is very casual (a workshop). I mentioned the march to someone at work, using the full title, kind of forgetting it’s a slur (this person is cis and straight). She’s a good friend, and I realized she wasn’t comfortable repeating the slur word, even though we were having a conversation about the march. I was reminded that people are rightly cautious about offending me, which is a kindness. That said, if someone cis or straight took issue with me using my word for my community and myself, and was willing to complain and *put my job and therefore income at risk* - that person is no ally, and is more interested in posing political correctness than actually doing good political action.

Reply

[-]

Apidium@reddit

This. It's literally the name of an org that is relivent to the conversation at hand. I don't think it's anyone's fault that offended lesbian lady is lacking in her gay history education other than offended lady who wasn't willing to listen before she got upset. From the sound of op and a lot of other folks in this thread the group isn't as well known as I thought but isn't the whole fucking point of pride to learn shit so you are less of an arsehole to people?

Reply

[-]

Asayyadina@reddit

I wonder if this is a generational issue? With various LGBT related slurs there is often a bit of a divide between younger and older community members about their use, with the younger often seeing them as reclaimed. However, slurs don't have a place in a professional setting, even if you personally are happy with it and the title of the presentation was a big no-no and the staff member who gave it needs to take this as an opportunity to reflect.

Reply

[-]

dont_thr0w_me_away_@reddit

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dykes_on_Bikes Am I the only one who knows she was referencing a long standing lesbian organisation?

Reply

[-]

pintsized_baepsae@reddit

There's very few of us in here who do... And clearly OP's colleague didn't either

Reply

[-]

Apidium@reddit

They were talking about inclusiveness in urban planning. It's pretty relivent there no? They are a prominent group in that regard

Reply

[-]

Icy-Tear4613@reddit

Don’t think motorbike group is relevant about cycling?

Reply

[-]

Full_Change_3890@reddit

Queer is also a slur and part of LGBTQ. Reclaiming slurs is completely normal and not at all offensive when members of the community the slur is targeted at use it whether others get offended or not.

Reply

[-]

abitofasitdown@reddit

What if those others who are offended are also members of the community, ones who have been personally more hurt by that slur, as they associate it with physical attack?

Reply

[-]

Full_Change_3890@reddit

Their opinion does not override how others in their community identify.

Reply

[-]

Effelumps@reddit

"Cycling for colleagues", could be a good short presentation with optional attendance for those who are interested and encouragement from colleagues to others who think it would be a nice thing for those who are a little less confident in such to do, no matter. That's inclusive. In a conversation of encouragement Eg, Oh, you might enjoy it, everyone is welcome to attend and teach the basics. As for Op using the word 'lass', well, oh dear op, welcome to the job centre experience. And no it's not ok to yell 'oi I got a prezzer from a lezzer at your secret santa' either. /s FGS. It's bonkers, glad I don't have to deal with drivel anymore.

Reply

[-]

thagangstafag@reddit

Intention's all that matters. If you're triggered by words, you don't belong in the world. You're too soft to survive and insisting that the entire world be pussified to accomodate the weakest among us is a bad idea, a pussified populus isn't healthy. We already know how to take the sting out of these words and that's use them as liberally as possible until they just don't pack the same punch anymore. If you put them in a black book then it only serves to make them more powerful and that's really fantastic if you're a nasty biggot who wants their slurs to go down like a nuclear explosion. You shouldn't have the right to not be offended. Unfortunately, in the UK, you can literally have someone's freedom taken away for offending you and that makes me sick to my fucking stomach.

Reply

[-]

Apidium@reddit

Dykes on bikes is genuinely a real organisation It makes sense to mention them in a pride focused presentation against car dependacy. Your lesbian coworker needs to brush up on their gay lore instead of shouting at people.

Reply

[-]

No-Presentation-616@reddit

Your sensitivities are your responsibility. 🤷

Reply

[-]

Thomsacvnt@reddit

Was the one who used the slur a lesbian? I can't see a mention of that, only the one that got offended being one

Reply

[-]

Witty_Entry9120@reddit

As old timer in the community I've seen, and hated, this for years. It's a power play. We use language to set traps for well meaning straight people to fall into. Using a word could make you part of the 'in' crowd in one context, and result in instant dismissal in another. We make sure the rules are unclear and ever changing, while making sure the consequences are dire. It's a sickness and it needs to stop.

Reply

[-]

sammi_8601@reddit

I slur myself all the time but I won't slur others if that makes sense? Mostly becouse it challenges people's biases.

Reply

[-]

TheDanjinSpear@reddit

I would say anyone who gets offended by words needs to have a word with themselves.

Reply

[-]

Unacceptable_tragedy@reddit

Whether you believe yourself in the right or not, your first response in that scenario is to listen to someone who says you've hurt them, and take what they have said at face value. If she says she finds that particular word offensive, you don't have the right or the ability to erase that feeling. It is, after all, definitely a slur and could have associations with traumatic experiences for people. I'd apologise for any offence, explain that many people feel comfortable with reclaiming the word and you hadn't considered some people might not be, but since she feels strongly about it then we'll consider an alternative title.

Reply

[-]

stonedPict2@reddit

It's the classic slur Vs reclaimed debate, it's pretty complicated and quite personal. It's even different depending on words, like I hate being referred to as queer or how ubiquitous (especially in cishet media) the term has become, but other people identify as queer explicitly and I wouldn't stop them or tell them off or anything but equally if expect them not to call me that of I asked. On the other side, I've referred to myself as a fag more then once even though that's more explicitly an insult these days. I think ultimately, it's fine to refer to yourself as something, but you can't be mad that someone else doesn't want to be referred to like that and you shouldn't default to it.

Reply

[-]

aintnogodordemon@reddit

I mean, people still use the word "gay" as an insult. Where do we draw the line between what is considered a slur and what is a word that people identify with but is used by some as an insult?

Reply

[-]

Lazy_Age_9466@reddit

Dykes is a common word for older lesbians to feel comfortable about. What a lot do not like is the word queer. In young lesbians this is reversed. I would just say to her I know you do not find it offensive and that is fine. But in a workplace we have to be a bit more careful, so please do not use it. Do not be surprised though if she counter complains about the use of the word queer that everyone younger seems to think is perfectly fine.

Reply

[-]

e-pancake@reddit

reclaiming is for yourself not to use for others

Reply

[-]

JsquaredCA@reddit

https://preview.redd.it/rvofyr4ox19f1.jpeg?width=933&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3c4efd9bdcf22dcbc380ae00d310baae7e2609c7

Reply

[-]

BardyWeirdy@reddit

I think we should all take as much offense as possible, as frequently as possible. That way lies power

Reply

[-]

BigAlpaca3643@reddit

Taking offence to something is personal to each individual. I am not personally offended by any word, it only depends on the person saying it and in what context. If someone wants to call me a faggot, I’ll either get turned on, or just laugh in their face 🤣 having said that, the specific example of “Dykes on Bikes” is actually a legit motorcycle club in the US, which apparently have appeared at pride parades for donkey’s years 🤷‍♂️

Reply

[-]

Same_Grouness@reddit

You mean like how in the US some black people use the N-word to refer to themselves? Similarly here in the UK I've often heard members of the Pakistani community using a well known slur to refer to themselves. At work things are different, but in general people should be able to call themselves whatever they want.

Reply

[-]

wearecake@reddit

Context dependent I use that word. I also use the f-slur However, that’s only to refer to myself, with people who I know don’t mind, care, or who also use those terms for themselves. But with people I’m not sure about, or a more professional setting? I wouldn’t. Just a bit of an unwritten rule that your coworker broke. Not end of the world I’d hope, but not ideal

Reply

[-]

ASheerDrop@reddit

Be careful in an office, but generally speaking if a word is about a demographic they are part of they have the right to use it however they want. This one in particular has been reclaimed by a lot of lesbians, the same way lots of us have opted to reclaim 'queer' which used to be considered a slur.

Reply

[-]

tntlols@reddit

Eh, feels like a major Know your Crowd jobby. I'm queer and will regularly still loudly describe things as "a bit gay" for various reasons - but I work in a pub, our team is close knit and my manager is three years younger than me.

Reply

[-]

sawbonesromeo@reddit

Something of an absolute non-issue in my faggy opinion, but some people are a bit more sensitive to it than others for various reasons. A better response would be more along the lines of "for future reference, please don't refer to me by that word" rather than "how dare you use that word", and of course it would be polite to abide by that request.

Reply

[-]

MrP2471@reddit

Some people use slurs as a shade of or hint of humour in their sentences, comments, etc. At work or not at work, when said slur is directed to a specific person, I would think it could, at times, be taken as an insult. If the slur is used as ....thrown out there....without a specific person as a target, then I would probably enjoy someone who speaks using humour, escaping from the political correctness which has really gone far too far in recent years. I worked in construction for many years. You would be surprised how many slurs are taken as a term of endearment these days. I learned over the years to differentiate between pure racism, and pure humour.

Reply

[-]

ALFABOT2000@reddit

Unprofessional in the workplace Outside the workplace, I tend to run on 'I have to live with it so I get to make the joke'

Reply

[-]

nfurnoh@reddit

Some words and phrases are unacceptable. People saying others shouldn’t be “so sensitive” or to “stop being offended” just want free license to be bigoted and not have consequences for their inappropriateness.

Reply

[-]

ReddyBlueBlue@reddit

Yeah, those damn bigoted Lesbians, and their Lesbian-hating beliefs...

Reply

[-]

LochNessMother@reddit

I think you are missing the point that the person giving the presentation was also a lesbian, so they weren’t bigoted. They were reclaiming the term because it makes a punchy title.

Reply

[-]

red_black_red0@reddit

>the person giving the presentation was also a lesbian An idiotic excuse and attempt to wriggle out of it. Down that path leads to the American-style Vocabulary...

Reply

[-]

nfurnoh@reddit

No, I was responding to the general query at the end of the post, “just wondering where people stand on it”. Also, the OP never says the presenter was a lesbian.

Reply

[-]

True-Pea-7148@reddit

Is this a rare instance of someone reading the post content and not the title lol

Reply

[-]

nfurnoh@reddit

Lol, yes.

Reply

[-]

itsYaBoiga@reddit

The title alludes to it. However, people are so caught up in whether they can say something that they lose sight of whether they should. It costs nothing to not be a dick. Ironically, complaining about everyone being offended by everything because they're offended by people pushing back at their use of slurs and general hate speech.

Reply

[-]

ReddyBlueBlue@reddit

While I find the title humorous I do not think it is suitable for an office environment.

Reply

[-]

JamsHammockFyoom@reddit

I mean… just because you’re a member of a specific group, it doesn’t mean you can use offensive terms and tell others they have no right to be offended. I’m a bisexual man on the spectrum with a physical disability, I wouldn’t go into work and tell people they can’t be offended that I’ve referred to myself as a snazzy bender because I’m one of the people these terms are aimed at usually? (Not that I ever would, but you get my point) Dykes on bikes is just edgy for the sake of it, and definite isn’t workplace appropriate.

Reply

[-]

ANUFC14@reddit

Massively depends on the audience. At work is just silly among friends is fine if they’re fine with it

Reply

[-]

LitmusPitmus@reddit

Interesting to see how nuanced the takes are on this. Saw the title and assumed it was about the n word and I have a strong inkling the level of nuance would not have been the same if that was said. Pretty obvious to me people can see the logic when applied to other groups

Reply

[-]

Shoddy_Juggernaut_11@reddit

I'd be worried about someone saying "horrendously offensive"

Reply

[-]

BoltersnRivets@reddit

Obviously the histories are very different but on a functional level It's the same as other community/group specific slurs like the N-word. If you aren't a part of the group, keep the word out of your mouth. No group is a monolith, there are people that use it and people that don't and they will each have valid reasons for doing so. I'm queer, but I have an LGBTQIA friend who doesn't want to be referred to by that label, we both decided it's not worth our energy to fight over it because there are far more important issues in the world right now.

Reply

[-]

KeyJunket1175@reddit

>urban design could be more inclusive for other groups I am confused. More inclusive urban design for what groups? I assume we are not talking about handicapped people and accessibility?

Reply

[-]

ARobertNotABob@reddit

An Assault occurs when a party is Injured, the Assaulter does not get to decide if the Injury is real or not. The presenter is a hypocrite if she too is lesbian, and out of order if not.

Reply

[-]

Seanacles@reddit

Stinks and stone

Reply

[-]

Outside_Tadpole5841@reddit

Even if the presenter meant it as a nod to the Dykes on Bikes group, workplace settings aren’t the place for reclaimed slurs unless everyone’s explicitly comfortable with it. Intent doesn’t always override impact, especially when colleagues have voiced their discomfort. Maybe a quick chat about boundaries could’ve avoided the whole mess.

Reply

[-]

Scarboroughwarning@reddit

"how urban design could be more inclusive”....in the context of the piece is the most offensive part. WTF! However, I can't believe someone in a business setting used the Dykes on Bikes title. It sounds awful.

Reply

[-]

bringandbuysale@reddit

You can't use the word dikes when talking about lesbians at work, even if you are a lesbian. Mental. As someone raised in the 90s hearing members of the LGBTQ+ refer to themselves as queer at work makes me deeply uncomfortable, as we were all educated that the term queer was properly offensive to homosexuals. I'd suggest, generally, don't say anything, ever.

Reply

[-]

Still-Syrup3339@reddit

It's not appropriate in the workplace imo because you are presenting it to a bunch of different people who ought to be able to engage with the ideas and content presented on an even footing but in this case many people are going to feel uncomfortable even saying the name of the presentation. However, lesbians calling themselves dikes outside of work is their perogative. It's not quite right imo to say the title of the presentation is offensive, just that introducing it into the workplace will lead to problems.

Reply

[-]

Justboy__@reddit

I can’t speak for LGBTQ+ but as a black person I would never ever use the N word and I really wish people would leave it in the past.

Reply

[-]

handtoglandwombat@reddit

I think it’s often useful and healthy for maligned groups to reclaim slurs that are used against them, but crucially it needs to be phased out. It needs to go from slur, to ironic joke that says fuck you, to just another dead word. It shouldn’t become identity, or way to enforce a crabs in a bucket effect. As for using that language at work, absolutely not.

Reply

[-]

Norman_debris@reddit

Seems wholly inappropriate language for a workplace presentation.

Reply

[-]

IsyABM@reddit

Hate it. If those around you can't use it, you can't use it either. We're an equal society.

Reply

[-]

TheLadyHelena@reddit

Anywhere other than work: talk it out, ladies - one person's 'fine' is another person's 'mortally offended'... I was pulled up recently by a better-educated friend, for sharing an infographic headed "why is there no straight pride?" on social media, because 'straight' implies that non-heterosexuals are in some way 'wonky'; not only had this not occurred to me, in that moment I couldn't actually remember that there is a word for 'heterosexual' (despite still vaguely claiming to be one haha...) Anywhere at work: JUST DON'T.

Reply

[-]

alphahydra@reddit

> I couldn't actually remember that there is a word for 'heterosexual'. Balking at "straight" is a step too far imo. Yes, the word "heterosexual" exists, but gay people don't have to refer to themselves by the equally cumbersome and clinical term "homosexual", do they? I understand the inference that "straight" was once the counterpart to "bent", which is obviously not an acceptable term to call anyone. But since "heterosexual" is the counterpart to "homosexual", I'm sure some would argue that that is a term closely associated with the historical medicalisation and treatment of gay people as psychiatric cases, and is a preferred term for gay and lesbian people (and beyond) among religious fundamentalist homophobes. And "hetero" is the opposite of "homo", itself an anti-gay slur. If you dig hard enough you can eventually find a reason that using almost any word to describe sexuality could be considered desrogatory, so maybe it's time to stop digging quite so hard.

Reply

[-]

TheLadyHelena@reddit

I was mostly amused by the fact that I genuinely couldn't remember the word 'heterosexual' 😂

Reply

[-]

PlayfulEngineering64@reddit

I don't give a shit. They're just words.

Reply

[-]

homelaberator@reddit

Did Jay intervene and suggest they resolve it with a lez off? Because that might be offensive. I think the culture has changed a bit with social media constantly feeding our outrage. Something like this, not so long ago, would have probably been seen as a bit of whimsy and given a pass because they are "in group" using the turn. I think it's probably still the case that any controversy would still be seen as an issue "for them" and HR would struggle to deal with it, probably insist on a private apology or something. Personally, that specific term I wouldn't have an issue with simply because it has a specific history. It isn't "dykes", it is "dykes on bikes", and the former's ambiguity might allow a more "malicious" perception than the latter. As that guy said, everyone has the right to be offended by anything they like.

Reply

[-]

Juniper2324@reddit

Obviously that's inappropriate, and it speaks to a complete lack of judgement using that wording. Tomorrows presentation is on disabled access, entitled ‘retard doors and where to find them’

Reply

[-]

megasin1@reddit

Reclaiming is great. I support anyone who wants to be known as a derogatory term. It's empowering. It's not appropriate for work. No matter how casual your boss is. Having said that, I believe dykes on bikes is an official group involved with pride. So, referring to that organization's name is obviously fine.

Reply

[-]

DeadLetterOfficer@reddit

Politics aside it's just unprofessional. My partner's informal cross-stitch and knitting group at work dwindled to just two people so she put up some flyers in the break room advertising her "Stitch and bitch" group and was told to change it. Her reaction was a shrug and a "fair enough" , changed it to Knit and natter" and nothing else was done. That's how this should have gone. As a slightly older LGBT person I do find situations like this a lot. Young people in the scene aren't even really reclaiming some of these words, they've been neutral to them the entire time they've realised they're LGBT and have never had them used against them or very sparingly and not seriously. For example I'm still conflicted about the term queer. It's a handy catch-all informal term and for most it's pretty neutral. On the other hand, I had it repeatedly shouted at me while me and another boy, who I got caught holding hands with outside of school when we thought we were alone, had the shit beaten out of us. My nose is still slightly crooked, my jaw clicks when I chew and I have a scar on my eyebrow. Then when I got home from the medical centre looking like I'd been hit by a car, I got called it again by my Dad who said I basically brought it on myself and not to take it further with the school or police. I shouldn't have to tell that story all the time but I do. Just me a simple polite request asking people not to refer to it gets ignored and pushed back on all the fucking time until I explain why I don't want to be called something that was an insult most of my life. I can imagine lesbian and bi people have similar experiences with the word dike and then to be told to not be offended or emotional, well if that was me I'd get really offended and emotional.

Reply

[-]

Dependent_Phone_8941@reddit

If it can be used offensively, then it shouldn’t be the name of the presentation at work, that just feels too obvious to have to type?

Reply

[-]

CptPJs@reddit

I'm queer, I use whatever words that have been used to describe us however I like, in front of an audience that I know would do the same. I'm overly cautious at work and don't even swear unless it's limited to very specific people. workplace rules are different

Reply

[-]

golosala@reddit

I think it doesn't matter what people who are offended by words think because even if they stop being offended by words they will find something else to be offended by. It's a personality problem, not a sociological one.

Reply

[-]

Onewordcommenting@reddit

Sometimes, although I'm sure you will agree that there are words that are universally offensive.

Reply

[-]

golosala@reddit

Yes but then I'd argue that people are offended by people being offensive. Which isn't the same as being offended by people who aren't.

Reply

[-]

itsYaBoiga@reddit

No, because if they're using an offensive word, they're still being offensive.

Reply

[-]

golosala@reddit

People are offensive. Words aren't offensive.

Reply

[-]

itsYaBoiga@reddit

They absolutely are. Words have meaning, meaning can equal offense.

Reply

[-]

golosala@reddit

People give words meaning. Words are things people make up. They have no power by themselves.

Reply

[-]

sayleanenlarge@reddit

Did you know that swear words activate different parts of the brain to normal words? So it's not as black and white as that. We evolved language so long ago and our brains have constructions for it. They're 'made up', and they're arbitrary in a sense, but not as simply as "they're all invented so you shouldn't be affected". We're literally wired to process offensive words differently. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002438412200170X

Reply

[-]

Onewordcommenting@reddit

>black and white I actually find that language very offensive

Reply

[-]

golosala@reddit

Yet not every language even has a concept of "swear words". Japanese has rude and vulgar words, but nothing comparable to curses or swears like English has. Your brain is wired to be like that because of your culture and history, not because of some neurological evolutionary benefit to process offensive words differently. Context gives words meaning, words have no meaning.

Reply

[-]

sayleanenlarge@reddit

The fact that Japanese swearing differs from English doesn’t negate the neurological data that taboo or emotionally charged words activate areas like the amygdala. The pathways are real. Different cultures wire them differently, but the wiring still happens.

Reply

[-]

golosala@reddit

Yet the wiring doesn't force people to cry about people not being able to reclaim slurs.

Reply

[-]

sayleanenlarge@reddit

I didn't know say the wiring “gives” words meaning in a vacuum. The point is that meaning emerges from a mix of culture, context, and neurobiology. You're oversimplifying and being reductive. You're downplaying neurobiology and the social reality of language.

Reply

[-]

itsYaBoiga@reddit

Yes, so therefore they are offensive as they have meanings. They don't suddenly lose all meaning and gain it again when used by someone who is offensive. While context is a thing, slurs always have meaning because they have previously been given meaning by offensive people. That meaning doesn't go away, and the word now has power whether someone means to be offensive or not. Let's say this person was mercilessly bullied, discriminated against, etc, using that word. It has meaning, it has power. Someone using it in a presentation going it's only a word, stop being so offended doesn't remove the power.

Reply

[-]

sayleanenlarge@reddit

So for you it's about the intent behind the word and not the word?

Reply

[-]

Mental_Body_5496@reddit

I would agree with that. Also language changes faster than people can keep up with - my dad who had non-white friends all his life used the term coloured from time to time and we tired to reteach him but he couldn't grasp it in his twilight years - when he was young coloured was the polite respectful term.

Reply

[-]

Onewordcommenting@reddit

This is why debate still exists - because offensiveness is subjective.

Reply

[-]

Angel81010727@reddit

Everyone’s a hypocrite

Reply

[-]

SingerFirm1090@reddit

The famously 'right on' comedian Alexei Sayle in his 1988 show, "Stuff," had a sketch which featured two lesbians running a bike shop called "The Menstrual Cycle". I think you have found out that time's change.

Reply

[-]

GaldrickHammerson@reddit

The reality here is the person doing the presentation should have said "I'm sorry, I didn't intend to offend but instead make a joke by referring to the lesbian pride club 'dykes on bikes', I will bare your opinion in mind and make sure I am a little more sensetive in future." then walk out and call the offended a sanctimonious prick in their own head. Then send an email with a little summary to HR with the offended and another person who was present CC'd in so that they hear about if from her first before facts get twisted. The reality is, that in a modern professional setting without an external client present, this is a humourous reference to a group that advocates for LGBT rights. It's completely different to saying, say "Getting around on the village dyke - how urban design should be more inclusive" as this uses the offensive term for lesbians while also pulling on sexist trope that gay and lesbian people are just doing it out of some kind of perversion by rhyming with village bike and has no relation to existing groups. Unfortunately there are professional victims out there who do everything they can to make normal conversation weird. My wife had someone work for her who wanted her to remove the "fire retardant" lables from the furnature because "retard" was an offensive term.

Reply

[-]

drivingagermanwhip@reddit

being a lesbian doesn't mean you're not a square

Reply

[-]

illarionds@reddit

I would say the workplace might not be the place for reclaiming terminology in the first place. But if you are, it's more OK to apply it to yourself - that's your choice - than applying it to others, who may not be OK with it.

Reply

[-]

Visible_String_3775@reddit

Well, I just finished my annual ethics and inclusion refresher training at work last week. It's pretty thorough. Using slurs or potentially offensive language of any kind regarding members of Protected groups in the workplace is an **absolute no**. There is no wiggle room. It doesn't matter if the offender is also a member of a -even the same- Protected group themselves that they are slurring. There is no hall pass. You are not the arbiter of the experience of every other person sharing your Protected characteristic. You may be inclined to argue what you believe is right or wrong, morally and socially The fact of the matter is: The Equalities Act doesn't grant any hall passes, your HR won't grant any hall passes and a tribunal won't grant any hall passes.

Reply

[-]

Mental_Body_5496@reddit

Is there a list somewhere of "potentially offensive" words to avoid? Im old and tired and don't want to cause offensive but language is evolving so fast its hard to keep up.

Reply

[-]

Visible_String_3775@reddit

Yes. The Equalities Act lists out its protected characteristics (sex, age, sexual expression, etc.) In the workplace, use the terms used in the Equalities Act when referring to these groups or people in them. There will be an infinite number of digestible learning materials on this topic, free on the internet. The law doesn't care that you're old and tired, my friend.

Reply

[-]

Mental_Body_5496@reddit

The Equalities Act does not as far as im aware contact a list of banned or problematic words. Its nothing to do with the law but with common decency. Im asking so I can upskill and remove any words from my brain so as not to cause hurt to anyone. Actually I covered by my own protected characteristics one of which is age !

Reply

[-]

zig131@reddit

They didn't actually call anyone it though. They just named a scheme for it. This is a different situation from saying something like "me and the other dykes in the office" where you are clearly referring to colleagues with a slur.

Reply

[-]

Visible_String_3775@reddit

I'm not necessarily debating the social nuances of how these words are actually used. I'm saying that in the workplace, people are effectively protected by law from hearing these words whatsoever in any context. Just don't go there.

Reply

[-]

Routine_Ad1823@reddit

Is a hall pass like a shit chit?

Reply

[-]

FoxGranite@reddit

I would probably avoid all types of potentially offensive vocab in the one place you make your money, even if you're part of that group.

Reply

[-]

idontlikemondays321@reddit

I think people should be able to joke openly about their own age, culture, sexuality etc. Making light of things is a healthy way of accepting yourself. I often see disabled people online for example, making fun of themselves and to me that is them taking control of their situation. It’s different if it’s somebody else saying it but even then, you know your audience and lots of people enjoy others not tip-toeing around them.

Reply

[-]

Bam-Skater@reddit

Outwith threats of violence we should be free to say what we want without any government interference no matter who's offended. If society decides to cancel us for saying a thing, or employer sack us, that's just consequences of our actions but government shouldn't be involved

Reply

[-]

maikroplastik@reddit

I have strong feelings that I don't want to work in your office :)

Reply

[-]

BobBobBobBobBobDave@reddit

Generally, you can't really police how people in a community want to talk about themselves, but at work it is a bit different and if people are offended by it you do have to be a bit careful. This is probably a situation where it needs to be acknowledged that no one meant to cause any offence and it isn't a disciplinary matter, etc., but probably best not to use that sort of language on future.

Reply

[-]

SigourneyReap3r@reddit

Overall if its not my immediate community so not my business. Do I think it's appropriate at work? Depends on the job, at mine it'd be fine but we do construction of sorts and the culture is relaxed banter, but other places maybe no.

Reply

[-]

xSEARLEYx@reddit

People pretend to get offended at everything these days. Best to just ignore them, let them scream into the void. Their thoughts and feelings are effectively irrelevant. Now, if you purposefully used a term with the intention to cause offence like verbally abusing someone, it’s a different matter.

Reply

[-]

notouttolunch@reddit

A recent court ruling endorses this and said if no actual harm is done, there’s no case to answer.

Reply

[-]

Mental_Body_5496@reddit

Do you have a link please for interest?

Reply

[-]

notouttolunch@reddit

No. But it’s a recent video from the Blackbelt Barrister. Easy to spot if you’re on a computer rather than a cell phone.

Reply

[-]

mrdibby@reddit

It's not even pretend. Many people have so little agency in their lives that they pursue being a victim (being someone easily offended) as part of their identity. We're allowed to be sensitive and want people to speak to us in a specific way. But we really don't need to be so dramatic about it.

Reply

[-]

two_beards@reddit

I hate that I have to say this, but different people within the same demographic have different experiences, worldviews and perspectives. To use a silly example, red-haired people are often called ginger with a hard G. If you were bullied at school for being ginger, you might have become quite sensitive to it being said that way or you might have become extremely resilient to ginger jokes. If you weren't bullied for it, then you might be extremely sensitive or it might not bother you. Lesbians, to use your example, may have had incredibly supportive environments or incredibly difficult ones. They may have experienced extreme trauma or massive amounts of privilege, depending on a whole host of events and situations we probably know nothing about. The word d\*ke might be a joke to them or it might be tied in to a whole world of hurt. If I think a phrase is innocuous but someone tells me it hurts them, as a decent human being, I will not use that phrase around them - even if I think it is okay or I am somehow entitled to use it. My wife has bad experience of music by Nirvana, despite the fact that I quite like Nirvana, I never put it on when she is around, if I can do that, then not using certain words is pretty easy. Making small changes to avoid hurt towards other people is a pretty basic standard to live by - in my opinion. Now, I'm not a lesbian, so I wouldn't use that word, even though my best friend is a lesbian and is a member of an organisation called D\*kes on Bikes (lesbian motorcycle club). I don't even call it that, I just call it 'her bike club', not that I think it would bother her if I did use it, I just know that my demographic using that word has caused a lot of hurt, so I don't. I also wouldn't use the N word or the P word as a white person, even if someone tells me that it is okay. I have black friends who use the N word and I have black friends who hate the N word, even when black people use it. It all stems from their experiences and worldview. I have seen these friends argue and get quite angry with each other about this word - they eventually calmed and agreed not to use it in each other's company - which I think is the best solution going. I have a Pakistani friend that tried to give me the 'P card' once - I still wouldn't use the word and I actually think people who use these slurs because their friend said they could are morons. I think stick to your own demographics slurs is pretty basic - not that this is what you asked. TLDR: Just be nice, if someone says they don't like a word then apologise and don't use it around them again. In the event that mankind ever discovers the centre of the universe, many will be shocked and perplexed to find that it was not them.

Reply

[-]

FatBloke4@reddit

"Dykes on Bikes" is a motorcycle club for lesbians. One of my friends was a member for a while and went on some of their events/rides. But it's probably unwise to use such a term in the context of work, unless you are actually referring to the club.

Reply

[-]

Fruitbatstar@reddit

I’ve had lesbian friends for years refer to themselves as Dykes. It’s incredibly common usage.

Reply

[-]

pintsized_baepsae@reddit

As someone else already pointed out, OP's colleague was also referencing an existing organisation. Dykes on Bikes is the international lesbian motorcycle club.

Reply

[-]

Fruitbatstar@reddit

Yup

Reply

[-]

Away_Swim1967@reddit

I was told years ago by an old colleague that at work, you have to be polite to people you can't stand, and talk to everyone as though it's a room full of your grans and you can't go wrong. Or, as I put it, "beige is the way" In answer to ops question no, they shouldn't use a slur even if they are part of that group as offensive language is in the ear of the listening person, not who is saying it.

Reply

[-]

cardiffman100@reddit

I think it's best to avoid. There's plenty of other terms with the same meaning that can be used which nobody will find offensive, so why even risk an HR issue and possibly getting fired?

Reply

[-]

Zak_Rahman@reddit

I think the group intentionally called themselves that, so this it falls under reclamation. I think the woman being offended by that has main-character syndrome. Intention is everything in this scenario.

Reply

[-]

Great_Cucumber2924@reddit

I would say the issue is how she handled the feedback. I would have said, as a lesbian myself I don’t find it offensive but perhaps we have different experiences of the word. Could you tell me more either now or later on in private so that I can understand your perspective?

Reply

[-]

dazb84@reddit

I think people can often become offended at things that don't really warrant getting offended by when you look at the situation rationally. As a simple example I don't understand how some people won't say shit but will use poo, or excrement. What difference does it make? They all refer to the same concept and conversations are about exchanging ideas and concepts. The specific word is irrelevant unless you want to make it relevant for no rational reason. In your example the word dike and lesbian refer to the same concept at a fundamental level. What matters is the context around how a specific word is used. You can use what many would consider to be an offensive word positively and you can also use what most would consider a benign word negatively. If someone makes a presentation called "dikes on bikes" and the presentation embraces and celebrates lesbians then you shouldn't be offended. If the presentation is titled "cycling infrastructure for lesbians" and proceeds to go on about how lesbians don't deserve it and should be in jail or something to that effect then you should be offended. Forget about specific words because people can innocently choose a sub optimal word. Additionally a word can mean different things to different people. Focusing on words over context is a recipe for getting upset and angry more often than you should and it's not good for nurturing understanding between people. Focus on the content and concepts being conveyed and how they're being applied to a given situation instead.

Reply

[-]

Kyber92@reddit

It's very varied with slurs. Dykes is I reckon mostly reclaimed alongside Queer. The N-word in this country is not very reclaimed as a counter example. Regardless I think it's a wee bit unprofessional having it in a formal work thing.

Reply

[-]

ASY_Freddy@reddit

In a work place, they shouldn't be using the term despite there actually being a group that pride themselves for being dykes on bikes. Out of work, it comes down to context and ownership, if you look at pretty much any standup they will play on the fact that they can refer to their selves as X e.g. Chris Rock, Julian Clary

Reply

[-]

Repulsive-Echidna-74@reddit

Some people just want to be offended. If you're in work it's best to avoid anything that gives them the opportunity

Reply

[-]

EldritchElise@reddit

In the video game disco elysium slurs are featured both directed with hatred and in a self referential manner, including a jacket that can be worn with the words "piss f*got" on the back. The genius of this game is that the word is censored or spoken depending on the player characters own choices so far and how they percive themselves. It's beautiful imo. I'm trans and use slurs with friends and partners, anyone queer will know the difference between a slur said with venom and one from the group and not understanding that is a fairly good insight into if someone understands the queer/minority experience or not. If someone has specific trauma around a word and didn't want to hear it, that's understandable but when someone can't differentiate the intent I don't think we're on the same page.

Reply

[-]

RaymondBumcheese@reddit

Where I stand on it how? Saying it generally, saying it at work or two people arguing about it?

Reply

[-]

Mental_Body_5496@reddit

All 3 i guess

Reply

[-]

No_Job_515@reddit

Some people dont mind some people do . if u gona use slurs in a positive way then use them with ur friends not work colleagues . My brother is black and im white and be both hate hearing other black people call each other the N word even tho its done with love . we both agree that words that are only acceptable for one group to use cause's segregation even if its used in a positive way.

Reply

[-]

PigHillJimster@reddit

That's the name of an actual chartered motorcycle group made up of members of that community: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dykes\_on\_Bikes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dykes_on_Bikes) However I note from the Wikipedia article that not all members of that community are happy with the group's name.

Reply

[-]

pintsized_baepsae@reddit

>However I note from the Wikipedia article that not all members of that community are happy with the group's name. Which is always the case; stuff like this has been a point of contention within communities for years. Some queer people refer to ourselves like that - others still find it offensive, even when it is said by another person. The same applies to gay men, to black people, lesbians,... People have the right to reclaim slurs, but they don't HAVE to, because in the end these terms are often still used in hurtful or even violent contexts. That said, considering both people in OP's scenario are lesbians, they're both right... But one of them either needs to read up on her lesbian history or, and I say this very gently, get over herself a, little because Dykes on Bikes, as you say, is an existing organisation. She has the right to say 'I don't want to be referred to like this', but she doesn't have the right to demand all lesbians feel the same.

Reply

[-]

H16HP01N7@reddit

I hate double standards. So either decide a word is offensive, and can't be used, or that it's not, and it can. Then tell me, so I can react accordingly.

Reply

[-]

LoccyDaBorg@reddit

That's too simplistic. I might, in a self deprecating humorous sort of what, refer to myself as a short fat bald white bloke. I'm allowed to. If someone else called me that then I might be pissed off. It would depend on the context of the conversation, my relationship with the person involved, how well they know me etc. It could be anywhere from banter between friends to a genuine wish to insult and hurt. Language is a complicated thing and part of that complexity lies in who is saying the words involved.

Reply

[-]

H16HP01N7@reddit

I agree with all of this. I was being simplistic because typing is a chore 😂. I have fat fingers and have to spend 45 minutes fixing all the typos, if I don't keep my comment short.

Reply

[-]

SamVimesBootTheory@reddit

For context that phrase is the name of[ a group of lesbian bikers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dykes_on_Bikes) however it is a dicey phrase to use in a workplace unless you are working in somewhere that's using the term in a relcaimed sense. Queer for example on the other hand has been reclaimed for quite a long time and has had academic professional uses for quite a while so that tends to be seen as less of an issue.

Reply

[-]

sullcrowe@reddit

My 'Chores for Whores' presentation to the Board didn't go too well either.

Reply

[-]

KermitsPuckeredAnus3@reddit

How are lesbians specifically affected by traffic infrastructure? Also, Dykes on Bikes is a lez motorcycle group, as is Dykes in Nikes a lez running club based in Exeter. Dykes on Hikes is, you've guessed it, a rambling club in the north east and Dykes on Mics is a brighton comedy night specifically for our carpet munching friends. The phrase is well recognised

Reply

[-]

BeatificBanana@reddit

I belong to a few different demographics that have slurs related to them. (female, queer, trans, autistic) My view is that I would and do use slurs pertaining to groups I'm a part of (either to 'reclaim' them, or just as a joke) when I'm referring to myself, or among close friends whom I know don't have an issue with those words. But I would not use those slurs to refer to other people, if I didn't know they were also OK with those terms. For example my best friend is trans and he knows it's a joke if I use the term tr***y. But I would never dream of referring to trans people by that term in public, as it's a term that can really hurt some people to hear, and I don't want to inadvertently hurt people.

Reply

[-]

zig131@reddit

I think you've hit the nail on the head that the line to not cross is where you address strangers, or those you have a professional relationship with the slur. I feel like then that OP's situation is a grey area then, because they used a slur/ex-slur in the name of a scheme. It really wasn't directed at anyone specifically, but more broadly.

Reply

[-]

Royal_IDunno@reddit

Cringey

Reply

[-]

Psittacula2@reddit

The Office strikes again. It is effectively a lot of different people who have different world vision, values, backgrounds and all sorts of cultural and personal differences being mashed together by some sort of BS mock-you-up week from HR.

Reply

[-]

caractacusbritannica@reddit

I would in a disgusting corporate environment. If someone said dykes on bikes in a presentation, I think someone would hit the fire alarm. Yeah it’s words, but words hurt. This ain’t school. This matters. Grow up and don’t be a shit. That said, funny as fuck. The balls on her. But GTFO.

Reply

[-]

MonsieurGump@reddit

“Dykes on bikes…a cycling tour of the water management systems of the Netherlands”

Reply

[-]

MonsieurGump@reddit

Just a good job she wasn’t presenting about inclusivity in the rowing community. I can only think of a couple of words to rhyme with “in punts”.

Reply

[-]

Atomlad360@reddit

There's no correct answer, different people will have different views and that will vary on situation and context. That said, I suspect most people would consider any such slur in a professional situation to be highly inappropriate. The general principle of a demographic reclaiming a slur is fine though. I'm gay and often playfully use certain slurs with my friends. But that's because I know everybody is in on the joke. That's quite different to using the same words at work.

Reply

[-]

ForgetTheRuralJuror@reddit

You can't say that at work lol

Reply

[-]

shredditorburnit@reddit

Once, it's a conversation about not making other people uncomfortable at work. Multiple times, with warnings, then I'd shitcan them.

Reply

[-]

BarNo3385@reddit

Honestly unless you're business is in urban planning I'd be asking how a presentation on lesbian bicyclism is contributing to your team and business objectives..

Reply

[-]

Old_Distance6314@reddit

Sticks and stones

Reply

[-]

mrdibby@reddit

if they own it, its fine if a person receiving it feels offended and asks them to stop referring to them as it, they arguably should stop – but if you're referring to a general group of people who do commonly accept it coming from their own, that's a debatable position in your scenario... I'd the workplace should be more tame, I think if someone says it offends them, the presenter should apologise in some performative manner and just continue and deliver the presentation, then maybe at the end of the presentation acknowledge they could be more considerate in the future but yeah, I can only assume the offended lesbian just doesn't really hang out with many other lesbians if it's strong enough a stance for her to kick up at work (with another lesbian) about

Reply

[-]

TheDayvanCowboy_@reddit

I think it’s a very different thing when people use a term that is derogatory if aimed at them as a slur, and reclaim it. People like to treat the use of terms like d*ke or the n word as if it is a simple question of this word is bad and therefore should not be used by anyone, when it is in fact a very complex situation that is heavily influenced by power dynamics. If a lesbian wants to describe herself as a d*ke, it is not my place, as a heterosexual man, to tell her she can’t. There is a power gradient in play, and I am very much at the top of it. As a general rule of thumb you can assume that any white person who says that if they can’t say the n word then it’s wrong for black people to say it, is at best ignorant and af worst racist.

Reply

[-]

TheOriginalWindows95@reddit

I have absolutely no problem with someone using any language they want about themselves, even if traditionally it would be offensive to be called that. I call myself the F slur a lot. But context matters. I don't call other people that slur, and I don't use it in inappropriate environments. I haven't got a problem saying fuck. Probably best to try and avoid saying fuck in the office, though. If a potentially offensive term makes someone uncomfortable, it is not appropriate for the office.

Reply

[-]

Valten78@reddit

It's entirely down the members of that demographic and non of the business of anyone else.

Reply

[-]

bestorangeever@reddit

Soft ass world we live in

Reply

[-]

CooStick@reddit

What if the person who said it identified as a Dike? Does that make a difference? Was the person who complained assuming something about the person who said it?

Reply

[-]

Sea-Still5427@reddit

For me, people within that demographic have priority and, as an outsider, I can't tell them what they should or shouldn't find offensive. Some people like to own or redefine slurs, some people still feel the sting. Not sure the workplace is where that conversation should happen, though, as it's likely to make some people feel unsafe or uncomfortable, and it creates legal risk for the company. HR should put a stop to it.

Reply

[-]

it_is_good82@reddit

If you're friends then anything goes. If you're not friends then be very careful. As a middle aged white guy, I wouldn't call another random whit guy 'gammon'.

Reply

[-]

NotHumanButIPlayOne@reddit

"That's OUR word"

Reply

[-]

AdCharacter1715@reddit

People need to lighten up. Too.many Snowflakes

Reply

[-]

RevolutionaryDebt200@reddit

I get annoyed at the double standards

Reply

[-]

IansGotNothingLeft@reddit

If I'm not part of that demographic, it's not my business.

Reply

[-]

Hakizimanaa@reddit

I’m not a lesbian so not sure I’m very qualified to discuss if the word is offensive or not

Reply

[-]

Ok-Train5382@reddit

I’ve got some gay mates who’ll say faggot a lot. Personally I wouldn’t but I’m not gay. I think if you’re part of the community the slur was used against you can say it fine, if someone else gets offended they’re allowed to be offended but that’s about as far as it can go. What are they going to do? Claim another lesbian is committing a hate crime by using it?

Reply

[-]

No_Assistance_14@reddit

It just sounds unprofessional if nothing else

Reply

[-]

Pale_Slide_3463@reddit

I always found weird people tell me someone they know with lupus but I’ve actually never meet them or anyone with lupus outside a day ward hospital. I was in hospital for 3 weeks and only met 2 others with lupus the rest was RA and MS. (I live in the country small town you think I’d bump into them) When I was younger people kept telling me about this girl that is in a wheelchair because of lupus and I’m thinking right but she probably has more things wrong with her. Tbh I did go to a charity event because a guy did die of lupus locally but he didn’t take his medications and really didn’t look after himself. Even his friends were like he could have took it more seriously. Yeah it always seems to be bad story’s about people they know with lupus like needing transplants or passed away. Given that lupus isn’t as common as social media and all makes it out to be it’s just weird everyone seems to know someone with lupus.

Reply

[-]

Home_Assistantt@reddit

In open conversation this can be contentious but Ina workplace it’s never going to go down well.

Reply

[-]

HeartyBeast@reddit

It’s not punching down, even if it’s punching yourself in the face, so it doesn’t bother me.

Reply

[-]

bdonldn@reddit

If you’re of the minority then you can use the slur (although some people may not like it), if you’re not that minority then *absolutely not* See Black people using n* with each other.

Reply

[-]

SensitivePotato44@reddit

Has OP never listened to hip hop? Probaby best not to be doing it at work though

Reply

[-]

gitsuns@reddit

God I don’t care

Reply

[-]

Brave_Minimum9741@reddit

Offensive things are said all the time. We can all lighten up a bit about it.

Reply

[-]

RainbowPenguin1000@reddit

I think using the world in general chat or conversation isn’t an issue but putting it in a presentation at the office is incredibly unprofessional.

Reply

[-]

AutoModerator@reddit

**Please help keep AskUK welcoming!** - When repling to submission/post please **make genuine efforts to answer the question given**. Please no jokes, judgements, etc. - **Don't be a dick** to each other. If getting heated, just block and move on. - This is a strictly **no-politics** subreddit! Please help us by reporting comments that break these rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Reply

Reply to Post

462 Comments