"Misgendering" is now a federal offense

[Hercules56]

And if I read the original document here, those few do not include the school under discussion here. You are equating open mockery with dissent. I am a bit surprised that you consider those to be the same, and suspect that you might not in other contexts, but that's peripheral. I do not consider them the same, and I suspect that the college does not either.

In general, open mockery of an official policy is a protected form of speech. This school best back down.

 

[Ziggurat]

The pathetic part is it bothers you people so much that you're making a big deal out of it. Why do you ******* care? What does it even matter to just call someone what they want to be called? What is it that just really, really triggers you about someone who identifies as a woman wanting to be called by that? I read your guys' posts, and I can't figure it out. I can't imagine being petty enough to let it even register on my radar.

You seem to think this argument only cuts one way. It doesn't.

 

[plague311]

They are the ones calling for laws to make it illegal to call someone by the "wrong" pronoun, and I am the one who is being triggered?

Yes, you are the one triggered. Yup.

The real question is, since YOU'RE the one who supports these violations of Free Speech, why do YOU care soo much?

Because there's no violation of Free Speech, and you don't give a **** about free speech so save it. There are limitations and restrictions on speech all of the time. I gave you the opportunity to wager with me on if this was a violation of free speech. You said that the ACLU will be on it like a fat kid on a cupcake but you won't take my bet. Why is that?

Why are you ok with people being punished, fined, kicked out school, fired from their job, just because they identify someone based on the sex listed on their birth certificate or the name on their Social Security card??

Do you have any evidence that the punishments above are what the students would be facing? Can you provide me examples of folk suffering these penalties? Can you provide me something in the OP that says the students will face the wrath you describe?

Let me tell you a little story Hercules. Once, a long time ago (6ish months) there was a girl playing basketball. That's it. That's all she was doing. Then along came someone who "thought" that she was a boy and blasted her on social media causing, what I can only assume would be, mental anguish for the way people talked about her.

What's the point of my story? You have no ******* clue what people's birth certificate sex is unless you make it your business. So if you don't go prying in someone's life then you have no way of knowing if they were born a man or a woman. Sure, you might be able to guess, you might even be right, but honestly, it's none. of. your. mother. *******. business. None.

Also, the name on your social security number will change if you change your name. You didn't know that?

Why do YOU care so damn much?

Because I'm not a crybaby that goes searching for ways to be offended by other peoples' preferred pronouns? I feel the least we can do is address people the way they would like to be addressed. If I called you a woman every single time I referred to you I bet it would chap your ass, wouldn't it? "Wull, yah, i r teh menz at burth" How would I know that?

 

[plague311]

You seem to think this argument only cuts one way. It doesn't.

Thank you for your feedback.

 

[plague311]

In general, open mockery of an official policy is a protected form of speech. This school best back down.

They aren't going to, and your empty threats mean nothing to them or anyone else. They have no need to "back down" and they aren't breaking any laws. As in my many examples, schools and private businesses have these policies all of the time. Not just here but everywhere. I'd suggest taking a huge dose of copium and touching some grass.

 

[Hercules56]

They aren't going to, and your empty threats mean nothing to them or anyone else. They have no need to "back down" and they aren't breaking any laws. As in my many examples, schools and private businesses have these policies all of the time. Not just here but everywhere. I'd suggest taking a huge dose of copium and touching some grass.

Empty threats??? Of what, the likely 1st Amendment lawsuit?

 

[Hercules56]

...Because I'm not a crybaby that goes searching for ways to be offended by other peoples' preferred pronouns?..

But you support other crybabies, who are soo offended by people directing the "wrong" pronouns at them that they demand laws to make it a criminal offense.

Gotcha.

Hypocrisy noted.

 

[plague311]

Empty threats??? Of what, the likely 1st Amendment lawsuit?

Yet still not taking the wager? Classic.

But you support other crybabies, who are soo offended by people directing the "wrong" pronouns at them that they demand laws to make it a criminal offense.

Gotcha.

Hypocrisy noted.

Thank you for letting me also know you have no idea what hypocrisy is or how to identify it. Learning all sorts of things here.

 

[8enotto]

It's not about pronouns or even the students. Follow the money. Violations could cut federal funding.

So everyone play nice and the upper management stays fat paid.

 

[bruto]

Yet its the other guys pushing for new laws to be written, so that their feelings won't get all hurt and stuff. Cuz being recognized for your biological sex is soooo hurtful.

Who in this discussion is pushing for new laws? Isn't the original document cited a reference to existing laws? There's some room for dispute, for sure, in what is perceived to meet those existing laws in a way that coincides with the college's stated policies, but I did not see anything there that suggested that more laws were needed.

And although it ought not to have to be stated again and again, while one might well opine that "being recognized for your biological sex is soooo hurtful" in the world at large, (with or without the snarky subtext) it is entirely different, in this case. In this case, the college has made public an explicit policy regarding transgender students, and students who have applied and been accepted have presumably done so knowing this, and have the right to expect that the school's explicit policy of accepting those students in their chosen gender representation will be followed. That goes for applicants who are transgendered and those who are not. For that policy to be violated is indeed "soooo" hurtful, not only to the students who should expect the school to honor its own principles, but to the school itself, if those who run it take their own ideas seriously. And that's the case even if you or anyone else thinks they're wrong to do so, or that transgender people are icky, sinful, wrong, deserving of ridicule, or anything else.

Though I would also, while at it, remind some that "being recognized for one's biological sex" is not the same as purposely misgendering them, even if in some instances it overlaps when a transgendered person prefers to conceal or disavow their original sex. Observing that a thing has occurred may at times be considered impolite or intrusive, but it is substantively different from refusing to acknowledge it at all.

 

[bruto]

In general, open mockery of an official policy is a protected form of speech. This school best back down.

I think context is important, and as I have said I think the policy as written is not sufficiently clear about this. Yes, mockery is a legitimate form of dissent and speech, in certain circumstances, but not all. You can state all sorts of opinions, in all sorts of ways, and the opinions can be wise or stupid, noble or loathsome, but it does depend on where, and to whom, you do it. Misgendering an individual, for example, is not just a statement about one's beliefs regarding gender, but about the person in question. And ridiculing a policy in a cartoon or a letter to the editor is not the same as doing so while interacting with someone to whom the policy applies. I think the document in question could have done a better job of differentiating dissent from harmful ridicule, but it depends on how it is implemented too.

 

[Ron Obvious]

In the US, I used to have lawyers tell me that the truth was an absolute defence against slander. If I said that Fred was a rapist, I would seriously damage Fred's reputation, but I would be clear if I could show proof of his rape conviction.

Apparently, this doesn't apply to this whole bizarre trans discussion. If Fred now went about as Frederika in a dress, I'd nevertheless be in trouble in a lot of places if I said Frederika was actually a bloke, even if that were an absolute fact.

Even in these weird times, that's just wrong. Speaking the truth should always fall under the right of free speech.

 

[Trausti]

In the US, I used to have lawyers tell me that the truth was an absolute defence against slander. If I said that Fred was a rapist, I would seriously damage Fred's reputation, but I would be clear if I could show proof of his rape conviction.

Apparently, this doesn't apply to this whole bizarre trans discussion. If Fred now went about as Frederika in a dress, I'd nevertheless be in trouble in a lot of places if I said Frederika was actually a bloke, even if that were an absolute fact.

Even in these weird times, that's just wrong. Speaking the truth should always fall under the right of free speech.

Don't go to Germany. The Stasi are back.

German Court Forces Podcasters To Delete Episode Where They Referred To Balding Trans-Identified Male As “He/Him”

A podcast episode of Hoss and Hopf had to be deleted by court order because the moderators called a trans-identified man “a man” and used male pronouns to refer to him. The podcasters may be facing potential prison time or a fine of up to €250,000.

 

[Ron Obvious]

Don't go to Germany. The Stasi are back.

I know. I've heard German politicians say something along the lines of "Of course you have the right to free speech, but that doesn't mean you're allowed to say hurtful things" without apparent irony.

I've always admired the US principle of free speech and hate to see it compromised.

 

[bruto]

In the US, I used to have lawyers tell me that the truth was an absolute defence against slander. If I said that Fred was a rapist, I would seriously damage Fred's reputation, but I would be clear if I could show proof of his rape conviction.

Apparently, this doesn't apply to this whole bizarre trans discussion. If Fred now went about as Frederika in a dress, I'd nevertheless be in trouble in a lot of places if I said Frederika was actually a bloke, even if that were an absolute fact.

Even in these weird times, that's just wrong. Speaking the truth should always fall under the right of free speech.

I get that, but doesn't it depend a little on what you consider the truth now? I think it should always be acceptable to say that Fred started out as a bloke, and if Frederika still has male biology, that observation might be intrusive and impolite, but not slanderous; but if Fred is now actually claiming to be transsexual, and if we do in fact recognize this as a condition of being, then it is at least a gray area whether saying he is a bloke is a protected truth.

But the details of what is libel are not really what is in question here. It is more an issue of what is civilly permissible in a certain venue. You can tell a thing that's true, and not be charged with an offense, but it might still be nasty, harmful, and unwarranted. Legal outcomes are not implicit here.

 

[Ron Obvious]

I get that, but doesn't it depend a little on what you consider the truth now?

Biological reality overrides feelings of self-identify, IMO.

 

[Samson]

Speaking of silly games, so now you're implying that ALL of transgenderism and pronouns started with one biological male complaining about it? Wow, I'm REALLY going to need a source for that.

The pathetic part is it bothers you people so much that you're making a big deal out of it. Why do you ******* care? What does it even matter to just call someone what they want to be called? What is it that just really, really triggers you about someone who identifies as a woman wanting to be called by that? I read your guys' posts, and I can't figure it out. I can't imagine being petty enough to let it even register on my radar.

You have not sought the views of women then.

 

[junkshop]

You may not know, but there has been an issue in the world over the last decade or so about transgender people demanding to be labeled using female pronouns, and these demands have reached the level of legislation. And official college conduct policies.

Where have you been the last 10 years?

Leaving aside your erroneous belief that transgender people have only been asking for recognition for a decade, i would question your assertion that they have been 'demanding' recognition as female. There are many for whom that is the opposite of what they ask for, but that seems to get ignored by the anti-trans/trans-skeptical contingent, or at least gets way less hand-wringing and performative outrage.

I could draw parallels with the differing levels of social/legal outrage expressed toward female and male homosexuality, but that would be superfluous, given that I have, through tthis post, drawn that parallel.

I guess subtelty is not my strong suit.

 

[Hercules56]

Who in this discussion is pushing for new laws? Isn't the original document cited a reference to existing laws? There's some room for dispute, for sure, in what is perceived to meet those existing laws in a way that coincides with the college's stated policies, but I did not see anything there that suggested that more laws were needed.

And although it ought not to have to be stated again and again, while one might well opine that "being recognized for your biological sex is soooo hurtful" in the world at large, (with or without the snarky subtext) it is entirely different, in this case. In this case, the college has made public an explicit policy regarding transgender students, and students who have applied and been accepted have presumably done so knowing this, and have the right to expect that the school's explicit policy of accepting those students in their chosen gender representation will be followed. That goes for applicants who are transgendered and those who are not. For that policy to be violated is indeed "soooo" hurtful, not only to the students who should expect the school to honor its own principles, but to the school itself, if those who run it take their own ideas seriously. And that's the case even if you or anyone else thinks they're wrong to do so, or that transgender people are icky, sinful, wrong, deserving of ridicule, or anything else.

Though I would also, while at it, remind some that "being recognized for one's biological sex" is not the same as purposely misgendering them, even if in some instances it overlaps when a transgendered person prefers to conceal or disavow their original sex. Observing that a thing has occurred may at times be considered impolite or intrusive, but it is substantively different from refusing to acknowledge it at all.

Title IX does not protect against anti-trans discrimination. Biden Admin trying to change that, by executive order. He's trying to create a new law, by bypassing Congress.

 

[Hercules56]

Yes, you are the one triggered. Yup.



Because there's no violation of Free Speech, and you don't give a **** about free speech so save it. There are limitations and restrictions on speech all of the time. I gave you the opportunity to wager with me on if this was a violation of free speech. You said that the ACLU will be on it like a fat kid on a cupcake but you won't take my bet. Why is that?



Do you have any evidence that the punishments above are what the students would be facing? Can you provide me examples of folk suffering these penalties? Can you provide me something in the OP that says the students will face the wrath you describe?

Let me tell you a little story Hercules. Once, a long time ago (6ish months) there was a girl playing basketball. That's it. That's all she was doing. Then along came someone who "thought" that she was a boy and blasted her on social media causing, what I can only assume would be, mental anguish for the way people talked about her.

What's the point of my story? You have no ******* clue what people's birth certificate sex is unless you make it your business. So if you don't go prying in someone's life then you have no way of knowing if they were born a man or a woman. Sure, you might be able to guess, you might even be right, but honestly, it's none. of. your. mother. *******. business. None.

Also, the name on your social security number will change if you change your name. You didn't know that?



Because I'm not a crybaby that goes searching for ways to be offended by other peoples' preferred pronouns? I feel the least we can do is address people the way they would like to be addressed. If I called you a woman every single time I referred to you I bet it would chap your ass, wouldn't it? "Wull, yah, i r teh menz at burth" How would I know that?

Actually, I care a great deal about Free Speech. And I don't think we should punish people for using the "wrong" pronoun when many trans are actually suffering from a mental disorder related to schizophrenia. Hence the odd belief that they were born in the "wrong body".