"Misgendering" is now a federal offense

[Trausti]

Where I think the problem lies, is that such a view, applied as school policy, will inevitably have a chilling effect on gender-critical and biology-essentialist speech.

Which is obviously the point.

 

[plague311]

When you take federal money, the Constitution attaches. But the underlying notion is that everyone must walk on pins and needles so that the most senstive among us isn't offended. What a horrid policy.

I've seen what you consider good policy, and so your obvious butthurt about this is evidence to me that not only is it good policy, but it should be applied to every campus in the US.

 

[plague311]

There's a limit to this, of course. If somebody tells me they're Napoleon, Jesus, an Alsatian, a cat, or any other obvious delusion, I don't have to be play along, I hope. On the other hand, if some bearded git in a skirt tells me he's really a little girl, I'm supposed to respect that and play along and use his preferred pronouns.

I'm sorry, I don't understand why that's different.

Like the repressed memories of Satanic Panic a generation ago, I suspect this idiocy has about run its course.

None of these inane situations are even relevant. You're making **** up out of thin air that have nothing to do with a) this college campus b) what the guidance says or c) how it applies. A cat isn't a ******* gender. I mean, seriously. That's just common sense and if you have to make such asinine examples in a lame attempt to prove your "point" then you should just save yourself, and others, the time.

 

[Ron Obvious]

None of these inane situations are even relevant. You're making **** up out of thin air that have nothing to do with a) this college campus b) what the guidance says or c) how it applies. A cat isn't a ******* gender. I mean, seriously. That's just common sense and if you have to make such asinine examples in a lame attempt to prove your "point" then you should just save yourself, and others, the time.

So you can't explain why it's different either, can you?

 

[Trausti]

I've seen what you consider good policy, and so your obvious butthurt about this is evidence to me that not only is it good policy, but it should be applied to every campus in the US.

You support nanny state tyranny. The government has to regulate all of our interactions. A country of pre-schoolers. Wonderful.

 

[plague311]

Where I think the problem lies, is that such a view, applied as school policy, will inevitably have a chilling effect on gender-critical and biology-essentialist speech.

The ****? How? Take your time and point out in detail how it would have this *scary voice* chilling effect *end scary voice* on either of those things. You have to misgender an individual to be gender-critical? Nothing says you can't be critical about trans people, or gender fluid people or anything like that at all. You just can't make it about a specific individual. To go back to my homosexual slang previously, that's like saying not being able to use the word "fag" has a chilling effect on anything related to sexual preference. But it doesn't, does it?

 

[Trausti]

None of these inane situations are even relevant. You're making **** up out of thin air that have nothing to do with a) this college campus b) what the guidance says or c) how it applies. A cat isn't a ******* gender. I mean, seriously. That's just common sense and if you have to make such asinine examples in a lame attempt to prove your "point" then you should just save yourself, and others, the time.

Woah, there. A cat is not a gender? Don't be a bigot.

 

[plague311]

So you can't explain why it's different either, can you?

I did, but reading comprehension isn't for everyone. That YOU think you made a point is what's important.

You support nanny state tyranny. The government has to regulate all of our interactions. A country of pre-schoolers. Wonderful.

I'll take stupid hyperbolic strawmen for $400.

 

[Trausti]

The ****? How? Take your time and point out in detail how it would have this *scary voice* chilling effect *end scary voice* on either of those things. You have to misgender an individual to be gender-critical? Nothing says you can't be critical about trans people, or gender fluid people or anything like that at all. You just can't make it about a specific individual. To go back to my homosexual slang previously, that's like saying not being able to use the word "fag" has a chilling effect on anything related to sexual preference. But it doesn't, does it?

So I can't say that Kaitlyn Jenner or Rachel Levine are dudes? Even though they fathered children?

 

[Trausti]

I'll take stupid hyperbolic strawmen for $400.

You want the State to protect against hurt feelings. You're a pre-school teacher. (Not like there's anything wrong with that.)

 

[plague311]

So I can't say that Kaitlyn Jenner or Rachel Levine are dudes? Even though they fathered children?

Right, because that's not what being gender-critical is, that's misgendering people. Do you have to bring individuals up to be gender-critical? If so, why? Do you lack the mental ability to do it in another fashion?

You want the State to protect against hurt feelings. You're a pre-school teacher. (Not like there's anything wrong with that.)

Yeah, I saw the strawman once. I called it out as bull **** already. You can keep saying it but it's not beetlejuice, nothing will show up if you say it a third time.

 

[theprestige]

Right, because that's not what being gender-critical is, that's misgendering people. Do you have to bring individuals up to be gender-critical? If so, why? Do you lack the mental ability to do it in another fashion?

"Gender decoupled from sex is functionally meaningless. Pronouns connote the sex I perceive you as, not the sex or gender you perceive yourself as, or wish that I perceived you as. And that's why I refer to you as 'he' in my speech, and describe you as a man whenever the question arises."

That's my gender-critical position, as I would express it to a transwoman who tells me they have preferred pronouns that I must conform to. According to my gender-critical position, referring to a transwoman as 'he' is not misgendering him. Rather, the opposite.

So the qestion becomes, under this university's application of Title IX, am I allowed to express this gender-critical position publicly, in conversations with faculty and students? Am I allowed to speak, using the pronouns I believe in, according to the principles of my sincerely-held gender critical viewpoint?

Or is it simply safer for me to censor my speech, and keep my viewpoint to myself, for fear a zealous school administrator might punish me for speaking?

 

[Ron Obvious]

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities" -- Voltaire.

As relevant now as ever.

 

[Thermal]

This is all making the argument for using "they" sound better and better. Nobody has to betray their own beliefs, and no one is insulted.

 

[bruto]

As I am reading the article, it seems you can't ridicule the policy either, under penalty? That's a part that I have a bit of a free speech problem with, although I broadly agree with the "just don't be a bully and/or jerk" side of it.

Eta: pronoun use comes down to whether you feel s/he represents sex or an internal ID. To those who feel it's sex, it does seem like the school is demanding they lie. Which is weird, at the least? If internal ID, it's just common courtesy. Really awkward dueling of rights, here.

I am assuming that the issue here is the law underlying the college policy. I think it's allowable to criticize a law even while one is subject to it. The college, on the other hand, is a chosen institution, and free to set its own policy, even one that is infelicitous, to apply to its students and employees, as long as the policy is not itself contrary to laws.

 

[plague311]

"Gender decoupled from sex is functionally meaningless. Pronouns connote the sex I perceive you as, not the sex or gender you perceive yourself as, or wish that I perceived you as. And that's why I refer to you as 'he' in my speech, and describe you as a man whenever the question arises."

That's my gender-critical position, as I would express it to a transwoman who tells me they have preferred pronouns that I must conform to. According to my gender-critical position, referring to a transwoman as 'he' is not misgendering him. Rather, the opposite.

Then don't go to this college. Because this would assuredly go against the code. You're making it about the person and making the choice to go against their wishes of how they choose to identify. It's no different than the many examples here, but looking at this now. I think I'll report the whole thread to be sucked into the other trans thread. This is the same bull **** as every other thread. We don't need more than one.

So the qestion becomes, under this university's application of Title IX, am I allowed to express this gender-critical position publicly, in conversations with faculty and students?

My guess, no. But that isn't a "chilling effect". It's just calling out your bigoted view as bull ****. It's that simple. You can be critical of gender, in any facet you want, but what you can't do is personalize towards one person. This shouldn't be hard to understand.

Am I allowed to speak, using the pronouns I believe in, according to the principles of my sincerely-held gender critical viewpoint?

No, because your beliefs, sincerely held or not, mean exactly **** all to everyone else. You aren't that important. If you can't adhere to the rules of the college then **** right off and go somewhere else. You don't have a right to go to this college and then say whatever you want. How are you, of all people, not getting this? I mean, I know you are. It's just your schtick to be a contrarian on every single thing because you think it's edgy or whatever it is you get from it.

Or is it simply safer for me to censor my speech, and keep my viewpoint to myself, for fear a zealous school administrator might punish me for speaking?

Yup, keep your viewpoints to yourself or don't go to a college with this policy. Again, you don't have a right to your own set of rules, you don't have a right to attend a private college, and you don't have a right to say whatever you'd like. This isn't controversial, it's not abnormal, it's not anything out of the ordinary. It's how every private work place, campus or business operates the world over.

 

[novaphile]

I'm seeing nothing in what you posted about federal law. I'm seeing a faculty policy.

"Federal offense" to me suggests that you can be arrested, tried before a federal judge and sent to federal prison for committing that offense. I guess I'm wrong about that and that isn't what "federal offense" means these days.

On the other hand, this could be deliberately using misleading terms in the service of antiwokist fearmongering and rabble rousing. I can't tell any more.

It's hard to know how well Australia and USA compare on this.

In Oz, a Federal Offence means you're dealing with Federal Police, Federal Courts etc.

However, there is a slang meaning, which means to blow something out of proportion, along the lines of: "Don't make a Federal Offence out of it."

I guess, in the USA, Federal Offences would be dealt with by the FBI? (And then handled in Federal Courts)>

 

[Thermal]

I am assuming that the issue here is the law underlying the college policy. I think it's allowable to criticize a law even while one is subject to it. The college, on the other hand, is a chosen institution, and free to set its own policy, even one that is infelicitous, to apply to its students and employees, as long as the policy is not itself contrary to laws.

Assuming the college takes no public money at all, as pointed out upthread, but I've got my doubts, there. But the broader point is the abstraction brought up, whose rights prevail and all that. Then we can weigh if the policy is right, wrong, or indifferent.

Eta: Google sez Mt Holyoke takes a variety of federal funding, so the cloak of "we are not subject to the Constitution" ain't gonna cover much bare ass.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Are you dispensing with the pronoun requirement, Comrade?

You support nanny state tyranny. The government has to regulate all of our interactions. A country of pre-schoolers. Wonderful.

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities" -- Voltaire.

As relevant now as ever.

Wheeee, look at you go on that slippery slope!

 

[bruto]

Assuming the college takes no public money at all, as pointed out upthread, but I've got my doubts, there. But the broader point is the abstraction brought up, whose rights prevail and all that. Then we can weigh if the policy is right, wrong, or indifferent.

Eta: Google sez Mt Holyoke takes a variety of federal funding, so the cloak of "we are not subject to the Constitution" ain't gonna cover much bare ass.

It may take federal money, but does that mean that it cannot promulgate rules of its own that do not actually contradict Federal law? If the law says you must do this, does it mean always that you may not also do more? This is still a private college, with its own admissions and hiring policies, its own curriculum, its own administrative system, dormitory rules, and so on.