Texas mom kicked off plane for accidentally misgendering flight attendant.

Hopefully that act of stupidity will cause enough of an outcry to finally put the ridiculous pronoun nonsense to rest.

I expect United to get even more backlash than Bud Light over this. I hope whatever huge amount of money they lose over this is woth it to them.

Adam56 said:

Texas mom claims she was kicked off United plane for accidentally misgendering flight attendant

A Texas woman traveling with her 16-month-old son and mother claims she was kicked off her flight home Wednesday after she accidentally misgendered a flight attendant. Jenna Longoria, a women&#8217…

nypost.com

Click to expand...

When you hand the keys of social standards to the fringe you get fringe sensibilities. It's a simple thing. Like if you hand over social standards to religious fanatics you get fanatical sensibilities.

I hope the mom sues, not for the money but to restore normalcy back to society which has moved too far fringe. To set a precedence.

Title is wrong.
Not "Texas mom kicked off plain" because you have an article that claims that a texas mom claimed that she was kicked off for reasons".
Correct title should be "NYpost claims Texas woman claims ...."

And if you want to talk about this topic to a friend, you'll need to add another layer: "someone on internet says that an article says that a woman claimed that....".
Gives it the right level of credibility.

Thanks.
Now, if it is all true and she did get indeed kicked of because of accidentally misgendering, i'd agree it is ridiculous and that she would get compensation. IF!
But i just can't believe it. A commercial company risking so much image damage in the world for their brand by throwing her off the plane vs let it slip and nobody knows about it and everybode has a nice flight. Hm.... If however the woman was causing a scene and could not be calmed down, now that is a valid reason for getting her off the plane.

I wasn't there though. I just read an article that said some things a woman said, and the airline said something else.

When you accept absurdity the absurdity only gets worse. What we have is tyranny of the minority.

Between a professional social media personality and a testy flight attendant, idk who I trust less to give me the truth.

I’m going to withhold opinion on this story until there is more information and a more credible source. it takes more than just accidental misgendering to get removed from a flight.

comana said:

I’m going to withhold opinion on this story until there is more information and a more credible source. it takes more than just accidental misgendering to get removed from a flight.

Click to expand...

And if it was accidental misgendering only, then it is the pro-trans side that has the most interest in getting the employee sacked and United's policy discredited.

Don't airlines kick people off their planes for dumb reasons all the time?

Nithavela said:

Don't airlines kick people off their planes for dumb reasons all the time?

Click to expand...

And United seemingly has done it more than most, as well as other stupid customer service missteps, to the point that people have made a slight change to their old slogan, "The Unfriendly Skies."

Also, one thing I'm curious about is if the flight attendant was female or a transgendered individual.

SimplyMe said:

And United seemingly has done it more than most, as well as other stupid customer service missteps, to the point that people have made a slight change to their old slogan, "The Unfriendly Skies."

Also, one thing I'm curious about is if the flight attendant was female or a transgendered individual.

Click to expand...

Sounded to me like a man who looked like a man wearing a skirt. If a stranger looks like a sir for the most part, people are going to call him sir. It's ridiculous to expect otherwise.

Ceallaigh said:

Sounded to me like a man who looked like a man wearing a skirt. If someone looks like a sir for the most part, people are going to call him sir.

Click to expand...

Nowhere does the article state that and, interestingly, it appears this passenger never got a picture or included this flight attendant in her video.

I looked for a different source for information about this occurrence because I do not find The New York Post to be a credible news source. I found this article which shares United's side of the story. True, United has a poor track record for incidents with consumers, but here is what they said about this one:

Link to blog article of "View From The Wing"

SimplyMe said:

Nowhere does the article state that and, interestingly, it appears this passenger never got a picture or included this flight attendant in her video.

Click to expand...

"On board, she asked another male flight attendant for assistance, telling him that “he” — referring to the first flight attendant — had kept her mother, who had been helping her with her son, at the gate.

“He said, ‘”He”?’ and I said, ‘Yeah.’ He then said, ‘She’s wearing a dress".

It's a forgone conclusion the person in the dress looked like a man. And the odds of her putting her reputation on the line by making up and easily verifiable story like that seems pretty unlikely. I think people just don't want to believe how out of control the transgender/pronoun nonsense has gotten.

Did the parties ever actually board or were they prevented from boarding. The stories conflict.

DaisyDay said:

Did the parties ever actually board or were they prevented from boarding. The stories conflict.

Click to expand...

From what I have read, the woman was able to board but not her mother and child. Too much detail is missing to fully understand what actually happened. And I think that is the objective- to cause outrage on minimal information and when (or if) the whole story comes to light, the outrage is already living a life of its own outside of the truth.

Ceallaigh said:

"On board, she asked another male flight attendant for assistance, telling him that “he” — referring to the first flight attendant — had kept her mother, who had been helping her with her son, at the gate.

“He said, ‘”He”?’ and I said, ‘Yeah.’ He then said, ‘She’s wearing a dress".

It's a forgone conclusion the person in the dress looked like a man. And the odds of her putting her reputation on the line by making up and easily verifiable story like that seems pretty unlikely. I think people just don't want to believe how out of control the transgender/pronoun nonsense has gotten.

Click to expand...

But "looks like a man" does not mean it was a man. I've known people born as women that have husky voices and masculine facial features and I'm guessing most on here have, as well. It is the same type of issue that we saw from various "bathroom bills" where people born as women were harassed in women's bathroom because they "looked like a man."

Ceallaigh said:

"On board, she asked another male flight attendant for assistance, telling him that “he” — referring to the first flight attendant — had kept her mother, who had been helping her with her son, at the gate.

“He said, ‘”He”?’ and I said, ‘Yeah.’ He then said, ‘She’s wearing a dress".

It's a forgone conclusion the person in the dress looked like a man. And the odds of her putting her reputation on the line by making up and easily verifiable story like that seems pretty unlikely. I think people just don't want to believe how out of control the transgender/pronoun nonsense has gotten.

Click to expand...

I guess I don't see how this shows "how out of control the transgender/pronoun nonsense has gotten." Perhaps this was a transgender person, perhaps not -- we still don't know. Again, there are plenty of "male" looking women and we've seen that with "bathroom bills" where actual women have been harassed for not looking enough like "a woman."

I guess I go back to when I was a child in the '60s (back when just being gay could get your arrested) and I was always taught to use pronouns based on what a person wore. If a person was in a dress, I knew to refer to them as her or she -- and that is what we do know about this case, the person was in a dress yet the passenger decided the person must be male, likely knowing the person would be offended (whether transsexual or just a male-looking women) if referred to as a male. It isn't like the issue was with not using something like "they," "xe," "ze," "ver," etc. Then I might agree that it was "out of control transgender/pronoun nonsense." And, from what I've seen, if it was just misgendering the woman shouldn't have been removed from the flight since she did not appear to be disruptive about it.

It seems to me the woman was doing this knowing it would be considered rude. I also find it interesting this allegedly only became an issue when she mis-referenced the worker to one of the flight attendants, it wouldn't surprise me if this person is frequently "misgendered" and so her co-workers take issue with those who appear to intentionally "belittle" her (which the man in a dress comment definitely does).

What does seem to support the idea that the woman is not being completely honest about being denied service for her misgendering is the fact that the two people she flew with were not allowed to board -- that makes it appear there was an actual issue with carry ons. In fact, it may also be why she started the misgendering issue, because she wanted to "shame" the airline for not allowing her to get an extra bag on, by misrepresenting the issue and claiming it was about pronouns.

It will be interesting to see what information comes out in the future -- though I suspect it will remain a "airline says, she says" situation, where this woman becomes a poster child for the far right while United continues to state it was actually about too many carry-ons.

SimplyMe said:

But "looks like a man" does not mean it was a man. I've known people born as women that have husky voices and masculine facial features and I'm guessing most on here have, as well. It is the same type of issue that we saw from various "bathroom bills" where people born as women were harassed in women's bathroom because they "looked like a man."

Click to expand...

In this case the person is a man and looked enough like one. Which is why he was being called "sir" and "he". But again, as I originally said, that's how it sounded to me; that's the conclusion I drew from reading the article. I'm not stating any of that as fact. It's pure conjecture.