• 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??

sarge said:
In an at-will state (use North Carolina), what liability for wrongful termination would an employer be at risk of if they fired an employee that had complained about another employee calling them names that that doesn’t constitute one of the specifically prohibited practices? Specifically, a ‘jerk’.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Assuming the "jerk" insult wasn't in any way rooted in protected characteristics, it's entirely legal for a company to foster a generally combative atmosphere.
 
I'm starting to get the same vibe I do off of the "Protected Class" thing in US (and I'm assuming an equivalent of some sort exist in other cases) firing practices.

In the US you can't fire someone for being Black, but you can fire them for literally no reason at all and this leads to the functional hilarity of in 99% of cases of illegal firings it's simply because the racist firing the black person is either crap at lying and can't just make up an excuse or they are that new breed of "I'm racist, I want it to be known I am a racist, and I want this to be a problem" racist. Like all you had to do was NOT say you were firing for being black.

There's some of the same mentality at work here. What's be said in the subtext is the "Why can't I use a wrong pronoun AND make sure everyone knows I'm doing to display the gigantic chip on my shoulder I'm daring anyone in my general area to knock off?" routine.
 
sarge said:
The Federal Government says that workplace violence is:

Any act of violence
A threat of physical violence
Harassment
Intimidation
Verbal abuse


Unless you contend that intentionally and repeatedly misgendering someone is not verbal abuse, it is irrefutably established that misgendering someone can be an act of violence, at least according to the US Government.
Click to expand...

Well that's just stupid.

Why not call it "harrassment" instead of "violence"?

"He called me a name, Im a victim of violence!!!! Owwwww my feelings have been bruised!!!"

Unbelievable...
 
Hercules56 said:
Well that's just stupid.

Why not call it "harrassment" instead of "violence"?

"He called me a name, Im a victim of violence!!!! Owwwww my feelings have been bruised!!!"

Unbelievable...
Click to expand...

Yep, you got it. Probably because it just isn't fair that some people have thinner skins than others and thus what most would shrug off must be made to be equivalent to physical violence.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Because when they just call it harassment people like you don't stop doing it.
Click to expand...

You have no evidence that he has ever misgendered somebody. Nor do you have evidence that calling it violence instead of harassment reduces how often it's done.

What I suspect you mean is that calling it violence encourages authorities to use coercive measures to enforce pronoun usage, and it's those coercive measures which you expect to be more effective. But that would be saying the quiet part out loud.
 
Lplus said:
Yep, you got it. Probably because it just isn't fair that some people have thinner skins than others and thus what most would shrug off must be made to be equivalent to physical violence.
Click to expand...

So now mere words ARE the equivalent to physical violence?

Thank God our criminal laws do not agree.

You cannot be charged with assault unless you cause physical injury or intend to cause physical injury.
 
Last edited:
Hercules56 said:
So now mere words ARE the equivalent to physical violence?

Thank God our criminal laws do not agree.

You cannot be charged with assault unless you cause physical injury or intend to cause physical injury.
Click to expand...

That is complete bull ****. At this point, you cannot claim to be unaware that what you are saying is a steaming pile of it.

I was charged in my fair State of New Jersey with assault, basically due to nothing but my very presence, which the complaints said put them in fear of bodily harm. No physical damage or injury of any kind. Really not even any words uttered. The judge went to length explaining both the NJ and PA definitions for assault (the complaints were from Pennsylvania), and he commented that it was the same as in most if not all US States, and the charge stuck. It only failed on proofs.

If you want to use a restricted definition of what violence or assault is to keep your straw argument going for pages, that's fine. But you can't just lie about what the law actually says to support it.
 
After 28 pages of denying reality his argument is now "Well it's reality but it's stupid and I don't agree with it."
 
Thermal said:
That is complete bull ****. At this point, you cannot claim to be unaware that what you are saying is a steaming pile of it.

I was charged in my fair State of New Jersey with assault, basically due to nothing but my very presence, which the complaints said put them in fear of bodily harm. No physical damage or injury of any kind. Really not even any words uttered. The judge went to length explaining both the NJ and PA definitions for assault (the complaints were from Pennsylvania), and he commented that it was the same as in most if not all US States, and the charge stuck. It only failed on proofs.

If you want to use a restricted definition of what violence or assault is to keep your straw argument going for pages, that's fine. But you can't just lie about what the law actually says to support it.
Click to expand...

Kindly give an example of a penal code statute which states that "assault" can be anything other than physical violence, or threatening physical violence.

I have seen none... Yes I looked it up.
 
Hercules56 said:
Kindly give an example of a penal code statute which states that "assault" can be anything other than physical violence, or threatening physical violence.

I have seen none... Yes I looked it up.
Click to expand...

Why have you moved the goal posts over there? That has nothing to do with the OP.
 
Hercules56 said:
"I called my coworker a "jerk" and I was fired for engaging in workplace violence"


:eek:
Click to expand...

Was it to the level of harassment?

Sure, there is a fine line where harassment starts, and simply calling a co-worker a jerk once would likely not rise to that level. Harassment generally requires repeated action.

So simply calling a co-worker a jerk once is not harassment, nor would it likely be violence. And in the same way, misgendering a person once would not be considered violence (especially if it were not deliberate). And, of course, no one (not even the op ed) suggested that it would be.

However, if you are repeatedly and deliberately calling your co-worker a jerk, it can raise to the level of harassment and would be considered workplace violence according to the OSHA definition provided above. And, in the same way, repeated and deliberate misgendering could rise to the level of harassment and, hence, violence.

I'm not saying anything different from what has been said previously in this thread.

You are just playing games. You are doing the same as the "I just told a dirty joke, how is that harassment?" ********. A dirty joke is not sexual harassment. Calling someone a jerk is not harassment. Simply misgendering someone is not harassment.

And no one has ever suggested they are.
 
Hercules, lets sum up:

1) Violence can mean things other than physical violence*
2) Assault in English common law and the vast majority of statutes does not require physical contact. But it does require an immediate threat of violence (bizzarely not in my state but might not pass scrutiny see my second footnote).
3) In some cases non-physical violence can be a violation of a law OTHER than assault (such as OSHA regs), but generally require repeated and habitual non-physical acts to be considered violence.

Can we agree on this? (that its reality, not that you like or approve of it).

*now that I think about it, that makes a ton of sense. The code of conduct where I work states "physical violence". Why would it include the word "physical" if all violence is
physical. And I've seen that phrase elsewhere going back decades "physical violence".

**(2nd footnote).

https://casetext.com/statute/new-me...-3-assault-and-battery/section-30-3-1-assault

See definition C for assault.

C. the use of insulting language toward another impugning his honor, delicacy or reputation.
Whoever commits assault is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.

So, actually in New Mexico you can be guilty of assault for an insult. This law is not a new woke thing, it was enacted in 1963.
 
Last edited:
pgwenthold said:
Was it to the level of harassment?

Sure, there is a fine line where harassment starts, and simply calling a co-worker a jerk once would likely not rise to that level. Harassment generally requires repeated action.

So simply calling a co-worker a jerk once is not harassment, nor would it likely be violence. And in the same way, misgendering a person once would not be considered violence (especially if it were not deliberate). And, of course, no one (not even the op ed) suggested that it would be.

However, if you are repeatedly and deliberately calling your co-worker a jerk, it can raise to the level of harassment and would be considered workplace violence according to the OSHA definition provided above. And, in the same way, repeated and deliberate misgendering could rise to the level of harassment and, hence, violence.

I'm not saying anything different from what has been said previously in this thread.

You are just playing games. You are doing the same as the "I just told a dirty joke, how is that harassment?" ********. A dirty joke is not sexual harassment. Calling someone a jerk is not harassment. Simply misgendering someone is not harassment.

And no one has ever suggested they are.
Click to expand...

You seem to be contradicting yourself.
 
lobosrul5 said:
Hercules, lets sum up:

1) Violence can mean things other than physical violence*
2) Assault in English common law and the vast majority of statutes does not require physical contact. But it does require an immediate threat of violence (bizzarely not in my state but might not pass scrutiny see my second footnote).
3) In some cases non-physical violence can be a violation of a law OTHER than assault (such as OSHA regs), but generally require repeated and habitual non-physical acts to be considered violence.

Can we agree on this? (that its reality, not that you like or approve of it).

*now that I think about it, that makes a ton of sense. The code of conduct where I work states "physical violence". Why would it include the word "physical" if all violence is
physical. And I've seen that phrase elsewhere going back decades "physical violence".

**(2nd footnote).

https://casetext.com/statute/new-me...-3-assault-and-battery/section-30-3-1-assault

See definition C for assault.

C. the use of insulting language toward another impugning his honor, delicacy or reputation.
Whoever commits assault is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.

So, actually in New Mexico you can be guilty of assault for an insult. This law is not a new woke thing, it was enacted in 1963.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I do not think the New Mexico statute would survive judicial review. Seems like it violates the first amendment, as it appears to suggest that one single incident of an insult can be considered illegal assault.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom