• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Moderated Using wrong pronouns= violence??

mumblethrax said:
Yes it does. The "fighting words" doctrine still limits speech in the US.
Click to expand...

You are not allowed to assault someone SIMPLY because they called you a bad name or insulted your God. At least not in the USA. We have transcended the snowflake philosophy and grew up.
 
Hercules56 said:
You are not allowed to assault someone SIMPLY because they called you a bad name or insulted your God. At least not in the USA. We have transcended the snowflake philosophy and grew up.
Click to expand...
This is a different claim than the one you just made, and I'm not aware of anywhere where "fighting words" justifies violence. It's just (potentially) criminal in its own right.
 
mumblethrax said:
This is a different claim than the one you just made, and I'm not aware of anywhere where "fighting words" justifies violence. It's just (potentially) criminal in its own right.
Click to expand...

Yes, there are places in the USA where its a criminal & punishable act to insult someone, especially by using the "wrong" pronoun. See NYC.

However using racial slurs, calling someone a "fairy", is not criminal or punishable on its own. Go figure.
 
Hercules56 said:
Yes, there are places in the USA where its a criminal & punishable act to insult someone, especially by using the "wrong" pronoun. See NYC.
Click to expand...
This is not true. It is not criminal to misgender someone in NYC.

However using racial slurs, calling someone a "fairy", is not criminal or punishable on its own. Go figure.
Click to expand...
Right. Because they aren't "fighting words".
 
mumblethrax said:
This is not true. It is not criminal to misgender someone in NYC.


Right. Because they aren't "fighting words".
Click to expand...

Calling someone the N word, the K word, the F word, or calling them a "fairy" are not fighting words? Says who? Why is misgendering someone "fighting words" but terrible racial slurs are not?

And yes, in NYC you can be heavily fined for misgendering someone, if you are a boss or landlord.
 
Hercules56 said:
Calling someone the N word, the K word, the F word, or calling them a "fairy" are not fighting words? Says who?
Click to expand...
The Supreme Court.

Why is misgendering someone "fighting words" but terrible racial slurs are not?
Click to expand...
Who said misgendering someone was "fighting words"?

And yes, in NYC you can be heavily fined for misgendering someone, if you are a boss or landlord.
Click to expand...
Ie, it's not criminal, and you won't win damages simply for having been misgendered.

Trans people are a protected class, protected from discriminatory practices in employment, housing, etc. Just like all the other protected classes. It would take a hell of a lot more than using the wrong pronouns to establish a pattern of discrimination. Which is why this has never happened.
 
mumblethrax said:
The Supreme Court.


Who said misgendering someone was "fighting words"?


Ie, it's not criminal, and you won't win damages simply for having been misgendered.

Trans people are a protected class, protected from discriminatory practices in employment, housing, etc. Just like all the other protected classes. It would take a hell of a lot more than using the wrong pronouns to establish a pattern of discrimination. Which is why this has never happened.
Click to expand...

You cant win damages in civil court for being consistently misgendered by your teacher, boss or landlord? Hmmm....not sure that's accurate.
 
Hercules56 said:
You cant win damages in civil court for being consistently misgendered by your teacher, boss or landlord? Hmmm....not sure that's accurate.
Click to expand...

We're supposed to get bent out of shape that people can't hurl slurs at work without getting fired or getting sued?
 
Hercules56 said:
You cant win damages in civil court for being consistently misgendered by your teacher, boss or landlord? Hmmm....not sure that's accurate.
Click to expand...
Well, find an example where it's happened, outside of the vivid imaginations of right-wing paint huffers. Also, "consistently misgendered" is different from "misgendered".
 
Hercules56 said:
Who's getting bent out of shape?

Someone said you cannot sue for being misgendered, and win damages.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's entirely true. Simply being an ******* to someone is not actionable.

Employment and housing discrimination are special cases.
 
Hercules56 said:
And yes, in NYC you can be heavily fined for misgendering someone intentionally and repeatedly, if you are a boss or landlord.
Click to expand...

FTFY.
At the time, Snopes, which regularly fact-checks such rumors swirling around the internet, debunked claims that "accidentally referring to a transgender person with the wrong pronoun in NYC will result in a $250,000 fine"
Click to expand...
Unless something's changed since then (May 19, 2016).
 
Hercules56 said:
In what world does calling someone "sir" instead of "ma'am" imply imminent violence, lacking any sort of physical movement or gesture???
Click to expand...

Pretty over the top strawman misrepresentation of what I asked. Wanna give it a serious try this time?

Can the use of words alone imply violence? Not a direct threat, but simply project menace that would lead a reasonable person tho believe the **** was on?
 
I guess my question is, should the intentional use of the "wrong" gender pronoun to identify someone be seen not only as an act of oppression, but an act of violence?

Should it even be seen as an act of oppression?

I would argue that imposing preferred pronouns is itself an act of oppression.

ETA: I mean, obviously any words can be "fighting words" with the right context and delivery. I have no problem with the idea that someone can incite violence by mis-pronouning them. Or even by correctly pronouning them. My question is whether there should be an a priori assumption that misgendering someone must be a violent act.
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
Pretty over the top strawman misrepresentation of what I asked. Wanna give it a serious try this time?

Can the use of words alone imply violence? Not a direct threat, but simply project menace that would lead a reasonable person tho believe the **** was on?
Click to expand...

No, simply referring to a transwoman as "sir", without any physical gestures, cannot be reasonably assumed to be a threat of violence or impending violence.
 
Hercules56 said:
This is about calling non-threatening words "violence" and all that implies.

Some in this thread have even suggested that misgendering someone is a provocation worthy of assault.
Click to expand...

Note: imaginary posters don't count as being "in this thread"
 
Hercules56 said:
No, simply referring to a transwoman as "sir", without any physical gestures, cannot be reasonably assumed to be a threat of violence or impending violence.
Click to expand...

For Christ's sake, we are not talking about sir and ma'am. Come on, dude
 
Thermal said:
For Christ's sake, we are not talking about sir and ma'am. Come on, dude
Click to expand...

OK, let's try "she" and "he" instead.

It is not reasonable to see the simple use of such terms, to be proof of an impending physical assault. Especially barring some physical gesture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom