Transgender

[ShanDog]

Please be aware that the tolerance of anti-trans language on BF is at an all-time low. Jokes and insults that are trans-related, as well as anti-trans and bigoted rhetoric will be met with infractions, threadbans etc as required. It's a sensitive (and important) topic, so behave like well-mannered adults when discussing it, PARTICULARLY when disagreeing. This equally applies across the whole site.

 

[igon value]

I guess you didn't read the article

"For example, repeatedly calling a transgender woman “him” or “Mr.” after she has made clear which pronouns and title she uses …" seems to incidate it's more of a harrasment and fining people who don't accept your new identity. However at face value that does seem insane. for example, I used to deal with someone at work who was transgender who I had a lot of dealing before he decided to chance, did call her Mike a few times before i got the hang of it. Absolute non-issue

I read the article, that's why I posted it.

Why should people be fined for what amounts to petty slights? Why should the law get involved in what amounts to verbal disagreement?

 

[Chief]

I read the article, that's why I posted it.

Why should people be fined for what amounts to petty slights? Why should the law get involved in what amounts to verbal disagreement?

That law does not concern itself with petty slights.




On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[igon value]

That law does not concern itself with petty slights.

Of course it does. Being misgendered does not represent an infringement to the person than requires state involvement. Read the law:

Examples of Violations​

• Intentional or repeated refusal to use an individual’s preferred name, pronoun or title. For example, repeatedly calling a transgender woman “him” or “Mr.” after she has made clear which pronouns and title she uses.
• Refusal to use an individual’s preferred name, pronoun, or title because they do not conform to gender stereotypes. For example, calling a woman “Mr.” because her appearance is aligned with traditional gender-based stereotypes of masculinity.
• Conditioning an individual’s use of their preferred name on obtaining a court-ordered name change or providing identification in that name. For example, a covered entity may not refuse to call a transgender woman her preferred name, Jane, because her identification says that her first name is John.

This is human rights law? Calling a woman “Mr.” because her appearance is aligned with traditional gender-based stereotypes of masculinity is worthy of a $125000 fine from the government?

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

.I guess you missed that New York has proposed fining people for misusing gender pronouns

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...f-thats-the-pronoun-they-demand-that-you-use/

Heh. That's the very first time I've actually heard of 'ze' and 'hir' as gender pronouns actually. I think Upgrayedd made a good point about it actually being harassment if people actually go out of their way to ignore what others wish their title to be.

Having said THAT, the penalties do seem to be excessive.

 

[Chief]

Of course it does...

This is human rights law? Calling a woman “Mr.” because her appearance is aligned with traditional gender-based stereotypes of masculinity is worthy of a $125000 fine from the government?

No it doesn't. You listed things that are not petty slights.

The law does not concern itself with petty things.

I don't think that sort of law is all that good, but let's be honest about what it actually covers


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[igon value]

No it doesn't. You listed things that are not petty slights.

The law does not concern itself with petty things.

I don't think that sort of law is all that good, but let's be honest about what it actually covers


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Refusal to use an individuals preferred pronoun, whatever that may be, is a petty slight. If someone finds it personally devastating, so be it.

We're adults, or at least those of us who identify as them are.

 

[igon value]

Heh. That's the very first time I've actually heard of 'ze' and 'hir' as gender pronouns actually. I think Upgrayedd made a good point about it actually being harassment if people actually go out of their way to ignore what others wish their title to be.

Having said THAT, the penalties do seem to be excessive.

There's a lecturer in Canada that gets death threats because he refuses to use pronouns outside of the standard he, she and they, and his university won't stand by him.

 

[Upgrayedd]

There's a lecturer in Canada that gets death threats because he refuses to use pronouns outside of the standard he, she and they, and his university won't stand by him.

Transgender and "leftists" can be campaigners too in dealing with other campaigners.

 

[Chief]

Refusal to use an individuals preferred pronoun, whatever that may be, is a petty slight. If someone finds it personally devastating, so be it.

We're adults, or at least those of us who identify as them are.

Lol! People running, say, a service you rely on insist on mockingly calling you "Mrs" whenever you interact with them and we'll see how you go

 

[igon value]

Lol! People running, say, a service you rely on insist on mockingly calling you "Mrs" whenever you interact with them and we'll see how you go

I'd just stop going there. Why would the state need to be involved?

 

[igon value]

Transgender and "leftists" can be campaigners too in dealing with other campaigners.

How does not using the word 'xie' make you a campaigner? It's not a real word!

 

[ClokesShankedIt]

Reading that article in full it appears Hambrook was only a crossdresser. He had no breasts, implanted or otherwise. He was able to leave his DNA on a victim's nightwear.

So what you are saying is that we should think of him as a man because he still packs a wang and doesn't have ****. Thats exactly what a lot of trans "women" are.

I love watching lefty logic implode

 

[Chief]

I'd just stop going there.

Over such a petty slight you would give up a service you rely on?

Say it was just the local supermarket. Then all of the local supermarkets started doing it.

Then the ones near your work. Then the cafes started up.

The lulz would totes OTT, of course, but where would you shop?

 

[Brunswick Trap King]

Over such a petty slight you would give up a service you rely on?

Say it was just the local supermarket. Then all of the local supermarkets started doing it.

Then the ones near your work. Then the cafes started up.

The lulz would totes OTT, of course, but where would you shop?

Why would they all start doing it?

Do you think that if laws don't protect transgenders that everyone will start calling them the wrong gender out of spite?

 

[igon value]

Over such a petty slight you would give up a service you rely on?

Say it was just the local supermarket. Then all of the local supermarkets started doing it.

Then the ones near your work. Then the cafes started up.

The lulz would totes OTT, of course, but where would you shop?

If all the supermarkets started to do it, maybe that is the objective reality.

And maybe laws should only be made to reflect what people can agree is objective reality, not subjective experience.

If subjective experience trumps objective reality, then how do we establish what is true?

 

[Chief]

If all the supermarkets started to do it, maybe that is the objective reality.

And maybe laws should only be made to reflect what people can agree is objective reality, not subjective experience.

If subjective experience trumps objective reality, then how do we establish what is true?

You don't think Mr, Miss, Mrs etc are completely made up titles? Dr? Sir? Lord? Your Majesty?

Plenty of PhDs don't agree a GP should be called "Doctor".

 

[igon value]

You don't think Mr, Miss, Mrs etc are completely made up titles? Dr? Sir? Lord? Your Majesty?

This is pure sophistry.

Not using someone's personally invented pronoun is a petty slight that does not require the involvement of the law.

 

[igon value]

Plenty of PhDs don't agree a GP should be called "Doctor".

Plenty of right wingers think climate change is a myth invented by China and the UN.

 

[Chief]

This is pure sophistry.

Not using someone's personally invented pronoun is a petty slight that does not require the involvement of the law.

Again, the law requires more than that. All I'm saying is be honest about what the law says.

Also be honest about how often it would be used. What is required to take this action against someone? One person at a cafe rolling their eyes and not using the title is a petty slight that simply would not be covered.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[igon value]

Again, the law requires more than that. All I'm saying is be honest about what the law says.

Also be honest about how often it would be used. What is required to take this action against someone? One person at a cafe rolling their eyes and not using the title is a petty slight that simply would not be covered.

I quoted the law earlier:

Intentional ... refusal to use an individual’s preferred name, pronoun or title.​

How do we determine what is intentional? Who determines intent? The law opens up the use of it against perceived intentional misgendering, leaving it then up to the courts to determine. This only has a chilling effect on speech, and makes innocent mistakes or political disagreements liable to be prosecuted.

As an aside how anyone who criticises religion as you do could assert that subjective experience trumps objective reality is astonishing. But I guess most people's pretence to rationality only extends so far as it accords with their politics.

Referring to someone who looks like a man, has a male name and is physiologically a male as 'he' should not be a crime, regardless of whether it is repeated or perceived to be intentioned. Not using pronouns which aren't common parlance and have only existed for a few years should also not be a crime.

 

[Chief]

"Intent" as a legal term has specific definitions. Specific pre-conditions. Specific indicators.

It's not clear cut all the time but it isn't a complete mystery.

 

[igon value]

"Intent" as a legal term has specific definitions. Specific pre-conditions. Specific indicators.

It's not clear cut all the time but it isn't a complete mystery.

Intent has to be determined by a legal process, by making this law, you engage the legal process. That involves lawyers and courts, and most of all, costs.

If your assertion is that we need the laws to keep people from being misgendered in services they rely on, then the counter is the law subjects people to costs and impositions by forcing them to deal with the legal process. Regardless of what the application of the law determines, you are already burdening the community. The existence of such a law is alone an argument against it.

And to what end does it exist? For subjective experience to triumph over objective reality.

 

[Chief]

Intent has to be determined by a legal process, by making this law, you engage the legal process. That involves lawyers and courts, and most of all, costs.

If your assertion is that we need the laws to keep people from being misgendered in services they rely on, then the counter is the law subjects people to costs and impositions by forcing them to deal with the legal process. Regardless of what the application of the law determines, you are already burdening the community. The existence of such a law is alone an argument against it.

And to what end does it exist? For subjective experience to triumph over objective reality.

I don't know that the law is needed. You keep ignoring the fact that I have admitted I'm not really keen on it.

I'm just a bit meh about the way you and others are talking about it without listening to the basics or it seems reading the law properly. That's OK, I'm no expert either but I know enough to be unconvinced by what seems like bad reading of a law and little knowledge of how courts work.

 

[igon value]

I don't know that the law is needed. You keep ignoring the fact that I have admitted I'm not really keen on it.

I'm just a bit meh about the way you and others are talking about it without listening to the basics or it seems reading the law properly. That's OK, I'm no expert either but I know enough to be unconvinced by what seems like bad reading of a law and little knowledge of how courts work.

You seem to be arguing from the position that there can be no such thing as bad laws. There are plenty examples of them - three strikes and you're out laws, many laws on drug use and possession, laws in the US with respect to personhood of foetuses.

This is another one.

 

[Chief]

Could be said about any political debate.

I guess you missed that New York has proposed fining people for misusing gender pronouns

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...f-thats-the-pronoun-they-demand-that-you-use/

"So people can basically force us — on pain of massive legal liability — to say what they want us to say, whether or not we want to endorse the political message associated with that term, and whether or not we think it’s a lie."

"The NYCHRL [New York City Human Rights Law] requires employers[, landlords, and all businesses and professionals] to use an [employee’s, tenant’s, customer’s, or client’s] preferred name, pronoun and title (e.g., Ms./Mrs.) regardless of the individual’s sex assigned at birth, anatomy, gender, medical history, appearance, or the sex indicated on the individual’s identification."

So, it's not even your retail service provider that will suffer. Not your man in the street.

Claiming that you will be fined if you forget or say the wrong title while interacting with someone casually you are going to be fined.

It won't happen. A few piss-easy database changes and a small amount of education is all that is needed. This "ermagerd I don't agree with the political message!" stuff is bullshit. Calling a priest "Father" is, to me, atrocious. I don't agree with the political message this sends - that priests are a class deserving of a reverential title. But I was raised Catholic so I do it anyway.

But I agree - the law sounds a bit silly.