"Misgendering" is now a federal offense

[Hercules56]

...
Then don't go to this college. It's that simple. You don't have to, no one is forcing you to, and no one is even inviting you. I don't like what goes on at bath and body works, guess what I do? I just don't go there. (Some comedian said that).

I don't understand the sea of butthurt over a policy that doesn't affect any of you and never will. Ever.

That's what they used to tell Jews and black people who were trying to get into colleges that discriminated. "If you don't like their policies just go somewhere else".

your acceptance of discrimination and violation of civil rights is in very interesting company.

 

[Hercules56]

How expensive is the damage if people don't want to call a biological male "she/her", just identify them by their official name. Its easy to do.

You cant be forced to use a pronoun rather than a person's official name.

 

[Thermal]

Hm. The OP memo says the behavior is required to be reported, not that any action will be taken or penalties or anything. So it's a little more like "see something, say something" rather than "it's your ass if you question us".

 

[bruto]

You are mistaken. From the OP:



Note that the college wants to prohibit mocking its policy. Even when no individuals are harassed, mocking a thing (not a person) is not allowed.

I think it might have been said better, with clearer context, and there looks to be a little room for interpretation here, of which many will avail themselves including you. But "open mocking" is not argument, disagreement or criticism in most instances of those terms.

 

[Ziggurat]

Hm. The OP memo says the behavior is required to be reported, not that any action will be taken or penalties or anything. So it's a little more like "see something, say something" rather than "it's your ass if you question us".

Do you really think nothing will happen to students who get reported? Of course not. The administration is demanding students get reported because they plan to do something about those reported. That's the entire point of reporting them.

And note: even an investigation acts like a punishment in terms of dissuading disfavored speech. The process is the punishment, even if no official penalties are applied.

 

[Hercules56]

If it is a crime or infraction to simply criticize or mock a certain policy, then the policy itself is fatally flawed.

 

[Ziggurat]

I think it might have been said better, with clearer context, and there looks to be a little room for interpretation here, of which many will avail themselves including you. But "open mocking" is not argument, disagreement or criticism in most instances of those terms.

No. Mockery is just one form of criticism, and often a very effective one. Prohibiting mockery is a form of suppressing criticism. There's a reason dictatorships outlaw mockery.

 

[8enotto]

They have effectively made openly mocking official policy punishable.
But then most college aged girls are smart enough to do it in a not open manner.
That's how it worked in the military under don't ask, don't tell. Right or wrong wasn't exactly the question but how one went about doing what they set out to do. Didn't break any rules it must be good, right?

That seems a private college and no doubt quite expensive. Daddy pays extra to push in his special daughter he expects Pat won't be treated differently because of staff and official policy.
But those other girls there just have to not get caught treating Pat as an outsider.

 

[Thermal]

Do you really think nothing will happen to students who get reported? Of course not. The administration is demanding students get reported because they plan to do something about those reported. That's the entire point of reporting them.

Or perhaps just act on the most egregious offenders. Like, instead of having a student or faculty member constantly trash talking trans people or what have you, but nothing happens to them.

And note: even an investigation acts like a punishment in terms of dissuading disfavored speech. The process is the punishment, even if no official penalties are applied.

Fair point. But what I'm seeing here, as you yourself pointed out upthread, is that it's maybe not fair to assume the best/worst motives here.

 

[bruto]

That's what they used to tell Jews and black people who were trying to get into colleges that discriminated. "If you don't like their policies just go somewhere else".

your acceptance of discrimination and violation of civil rights is in very interesting company.

I think you have an odd way of looking at that. The meaning of discrimination means that the Jews and black people trying to get into those colleges were not being presented with a choice. They had to go somewhere else. We're talking here about a college into which anyone considered as a qualified applicant may apply, and whose policy is that if you are a qualified applicant you accept the rules of qualification and refrain from insulting, harassing and disparaging others and their qualifications. And you're arguing that this is undue discrimination, while keeping the student body 100 percent biological female and never admitting anyone else is somehow not discrimination?

I'm always a little mystified at the binary way people look at some things, which comes up in various issues. Mystics see non-being as a kind of being that isn't, theists see the disavowal of religion as a kind of religion, and here it seems we're seeing that allowing bullying and not allowing bullying are different sides of the bullying coin.

 

[theprestige]

I think you have an odd way of looking at that. The meaning of discrimination means that the Jews and black people trying to get into those colleges were not being presented with a choice. They had to go somewhere else. We're talking here about a college into which anyone considered as a qualified applicant may apply, and whose policy is that if you are a qualified applicant you accept the rules of qualification and refrain from insulting, harassing and disparaging others and their qualifications.

It's not just a matter of students and faculty opting-in to the school's rules. The school receives federal funding. So it's also a matter of the school not having the authority to make rules that contradict constitutional rights.

 

[bruto]

If it is a crime or infraction to simply criticize or mock a certain policy, then the policy itself is fatally flawed.

But (again again again) does that rule say that? It does not say, "criticize or mock" does it? How careless do you think the wording of that rule was? Do you really believe there is no difference?

 

[Hercules56]

But (again again again) does that rule say that? It does not say, "criticize or mock" does it? How careless do you think the wording of that rule was? Do you really believe there is no difference?

The OP directly quotes school policy, that it is a violation to misgender someone, or even to mock the new misgender policy. Clearly the second part goes way too far and violates freedom of speech.

If I think a policy is stupid or ridiculous I have the right to mock it, without facing punishment.

Do I think someone should face harassment charges for repeatedly referring to a transgender woman as "he"? Sure why not. Especially if they refuse to simply just identify the person by their official name rather than a pronoun that they disagree with. There are creative ways to disagree with these new policies without actually being openly offensive.

 

[Thermal]

How expensive is the damage if people don't want to call a biological male "she/her", just identify them by their official name. Its easy to do.

You cant be forced to use a pronoun rather than a person's official name.

If someone is using "she" when talking about people in the room, then stops and says "Sean Smith" when refering to s trans/non binary student... how long to you suppose before that is treated as a kind of ostracizing?

 

[Hercules56]

If someone is using "she" when talking about people in the room, then stops and says "Sean Smith" when refering to s trans/non binary student... how long to you suppose before that is treated as a kind of ostracizing?

A person cannot be punished for using their official name rather than a pronoun. Only a sick person would try to punish such an act

 

[Thermal]

A person cannot be punished for using their official name rather than a pronoun. Only a sick person would try to punish such an act

There are different ways to say clearly "you are not one of us" that sound compliant on the surface.

 

[Hercules56]

There are different ways to say clearly "you are not one of us" that sound compliant on the surface.

"I vehemently disagree with what you are saying but I will die to defend your right to say it"

 

[bruto]

It's not just a matter of students and faculty opting-in to the school's rules. The school receives federal funding. So it's also a matter of the school not having the authority to make rules that contradict constitutional rights.

I am not convinced that constitutional rights are at issue here, but in any case, it does not do much to bolster the odd argument that being told to try a different college after being refused admission is some inverse sort of choice.

 

[bruto]

The OP directly quotes school policy, that it is a violation to misgender someone, or even to mock the new misgender policy. Clearly the second part goes way too far and violates freedom of speech.

If I think a policy is stupid or ridiculous I have the right to mock it, without facing punishment.

Do I think someone should face harassment charges for repeatedly referring to a transgender woman as "he"? Sure why not. Especially if they refuse to simply just identify the person by their official name rather than a pronoun that they disagree with. There are creative ways to disagree with these new policies without actually being openly offensive.

Yes indeed, there are creative ways to criticize a policy without being offensive, which it appears the rule takes into account. I suspect here the difference is in what we consider to constitute actionable mockery. Context is important.

e.t.a. and I might add that I think the question of what you agree with or disagree with has a different meaning in this context. This is not the false choice of "separate but equal" discrimination. Like it or not, agree with it or not, this is one private college among many, into which one is admitted at the discretion of the college, and whose explicit policies on certain matters are public and of long standing. The document in question may be new, but not the issue it addresses. I think if finding yourself among transgender classmates or students in such a situation is a surprise, the mistake is not theirs.

 

[theprestige]

I am not convinced that constitutional rights are at issue here

Constitutional rights are at issue any time an institution that receives federal funds seeks to make rules that affect speech, association, religious practice, etc.