California Transgender law

Author: Alec

Posts

Total: 127
#31
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Alec
A fine is still an unjust tyrannical punishment for misgendering someone.
Still looking for some acknowledgement that you got two important facts wrong in your opening statement: (1) the law does not apply to "anyone" but only to caregivers in long-term care facilities, and (2) misgendering without accompanying threats of violence can never result in any potential jail time.  Please correct your previous misstatements.

That's important.  We're not discussing any people in California in any setting, we are talking about the rights of elderly and terminally ill people to protect their identity in the privacy of their own home.

Let's say you're walking down the street and you meet a stranger walking a dog down the street.  You say, "Cool dog, what breed is he?" and the stranger replies "Oh, she is a mutt." Wouldn't you effortlessly change pronouns out of common courtesy?  If you persisted in calling the dog he the stranger would assume you were suffering from some social deficit and move on quickly.  The sick and elderly wish to be extended the same common courtesy in their own bedrooms that any ordinary person would extend a dog in the street.  That's it.  They don't wish to know what you or Jesus or Rush Limbaugh or anyone really thinks about their identity, they just want you to do your job politely and professionally.

Imagine you lived your whole adult life as a man until you have an accident and live in a comatose state for 10 years, during which your healthcare providers decide that you are woman in their books and so they dress you in skirts and apply rouge and lipstick to your helpless body.  Wouldn't you consider that a humiliating violation?

Tyrrany is defined as a cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power.  I would certainly apply that label to healthcare providers who use their position to taunt or harass the weak and disenfranchised.  I would not apply that label to California's relatively moderate effort to mitigate that harm.  






#32
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Greyparrot
You may not know that Trinidad, Colorado was called the "sex change capital of the world" back in the 70s and 80s because Dr. Stanley Biber pioneered and performed thousands of sex re-assignment surgeries there.  He required applicants to live at least two years in their new roles, taking hormones before he would place them on the waiting list.  Downtown Denver, 200 miles away from Trinidad was the nearest safe place for most candidates to find a job and live life while making this adjustment.  Consequently, Downtown Denver has a particularly high population of transgendered people (which is nevertheless virtually undetectable) and that's where I have lived most of my life.  I think I can say with confidence that nobody is less disturbed or less likely to offer correction than an ordinary trans person, for whom such mistakes are commonplace.  Yes, there are activists working to change the status quo by bold confrontation and legislation.  Yes, there are attention seekers who quick to take offense at any social faux pas.  But it would be a mistake to characterize any community by its most outspoken members, particularly a community that depends on privacy for survival. 

Not only would I feel safe calling a trans woman "dude" in the middle of Posh night @ Tracks, I'd be surprised at any reaction at all.  The trans people I know are pretty much inoculated against any insult and are certainly some of the least PC people I know. 

Also, the word "dude" originated in my part of the world, derived from "Yankee Doodle Dandy" and applied to men who dressed for fashion (dandies) as opposed to men who dressed for outdoor work.  Funny, how transient and variable are the meanings of words over time and place: a word that once was used to offend straight men by implying effeminacy is now used to offend trans women by implying masculinity.

#33
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@Mharman
If that bill gets passed they could also add a provision that defendants must show up to court in a pink tutu. Of course I don't have any evidence to back this up but it certainly is an amusing if remote possibility

Do you have any evidence that there's an existant or growing movement for a non-parodic third gender, and that such a gender is likely to be included and enforced in this bill? To prove your concerns justified?
#34
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@coal
I was going to find the law for you but California has a lot of discrimination laws. 37 pages of statues on the program i use. I assume this law is just a tag of other laws that already exist. There are a lot of laws against discrimination, and i am thinking this falls under discrimination. All of them have similar language:

"antidiscrimination laws in order to permit discrimination against same-sex couples or their families or on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression."

I am not finding any civil codes where someone on the street calls a guy a girl and would get in trouble. That sounds totally made up to me for spinning it in a propaganda-ish type way. I am assuming whatever this law is it affects businesses only. I really don't feel like searching more on this, it could take me some time to find it... bc there are zero actual cases i can reference at this point... and looking with that into statutes takes awhile. But i'm pretty confident this law is more so for businesses than private citizens.  

The closest civil code that could be construed as what he is saying is Civil Code 52.4 ... but this still has an element of violence to it. 

(a)Any person who has been subjected to gender violence may bring a civil action for damages against any responsible party. The plaintiff may seek actual damages, compensatory damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief, any combination of those, or any other appropriate relief. A prevailing plaintiff may also be awarded attorney’s fees and costs.
(b)An action brought pursuant to this section shall be commenced within three years of the act, or if the victim was a minor when the act occurred, within eight years after the date the plaintiff attains the age of majority or within three years after the date the plaintiff discovers or reasonably should have discovered the psychological injury or illness occurring after the age of majority that was caused by the act, whichever date occurs later.
(c)For purposes of this section, “gender violence” is a form of sex discrimination and means either of the following:
(1)One or more acts that would constitute a criminal offense under state law that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another, committed at least in part based on the genderof the victim, whether or not those acts have resulted in criminal complaints, charges, prosecution, or conviction.
(2)A physical intrusion or physical invasion of a sexual nature under coercive conditions, whether or not those acts have resulted in criminal complaints, charges, prosecution, or conviction.

Other than that... i'm not finding anything and think it only has to do with discrimination. 

#35
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@Outplayz
Thank you for that.  From what I can tell, nothing about that suggests any civil or criminal penalty for "misgendering" anyone.  As is predictable, this is right wing nonsense.

Now, it may well be the case that the people of California considered passing something like Ontario's revisions to the Ontario Human Rights Code, within which is a provision for imposing civil penalties in the form of fines for "misgendering" someone.  Of course, that would be a regretful development.  But, so far as I can tell, nothing similar exists in any California law, statute, or regulation.

Maybe it will in a few years, and then a discussion can be had about it.  Or, maybe such a bill will be proposed.  But, we're not there now. 

This whole story sounds like trash from Alex Jones, Breitbart, the conspiracy theorist Matt Drudge, RT, Pravda or Sputnik.

#36
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@coal
I didn't look up criminal codes, i just looked up civil. Didn't see anything there other than discrimination stuff. I don't feel like going through criminal stuff, but i highly doubt it is a criminal offense to misgender someone. I could be wrong though... but, it sounds to me it would be unconstitutional anyways since it would go against free speech. I am pretty sure whatever the law is they are talking about has to do with businesses and not private citizens... unless of course there is an element of violence involved in which case, duh. 
#37
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@Outplayz
This wouldn't be criminal; it would be civil, given the nature of the offense.  So, on that score, I'm unconcerned. 
#38
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@coal
Yeah that's why i didn't look up any criminal stuff. There could be something in criminal against the group as a whole... but i doubt it since there is nothing civil that even addresses it as an offense to misgender. 
#39
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
Senate Bill 219




#40
Death23
Death23's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 618
3
4
7
Death23's avatar
Death23
3
4
7
The code in question:

"[...] it shall be unlawful for a long-term care facility or facility staff to [...] Willfully and repeatedly fail to use a resident’s preferred name or pronouns after being clearly informed of the preferred name or pronouns."

California Health and Safety Code section 1439.51(a)(5) https://goo.gl/KMi6qY
That's the policy. It gets miscontrued too often.
#41
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 5,300
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
-->
@dustryder
There is no third gender. However, the California legislative branch could think otherwise, considering they already made this SJW law. 

#42
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 5,300
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
-->
@Death23
Wow. That is actual SJW tyranny. Hopefully, it gets struck down as unconstitutional. It should be; it's a clear violation of the First Amendment.

#43
Death23
Death23's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 618
3
4
7
Death23's avatar
Death23
3
4
7
-->
@Mharman
Do you understand that the applicability of this law is confined to interractions between long-term care facility or facility staff and residents of long-term care facilities? That's pretty narrow and state regulation of speech controlling narrow interractions such as this has long been the norm and hasn't been found to be unconstitutional. For example, the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act prohibits regulates the speech between debt collectors and debtors. https://goo.gl/TVZbzu Do you think this regulation of the speech of debt collectors is "a clear violation of the First Amendment" ? If you do not, then how is the California speech restriction different from the federal speech restriction within the context of the first amendment?
#44
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 5,300
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
-->
@Death23
Those laws only state a debt collector may not threaten, lie to, or verbally abuse a debtor. That is far different from refusing to go along with someone's pronouns.

The criteria for a First Amendment violation depends on the kind of speech being censored, it has nothing to do with how narrow an interaction may be. Threats are not lawful. Lying in business and legal interactions is scamming/perjury and therefore not lawful. Using the pronoun of the gender they were born as is perfectly lawful under the First Amendment because you are showing your beliefs that you will not bow down to the idea that there are more than two genders- that you hold your own position and will stand firm in that position.


#45
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Mharman
point, Death
#46
Death23
Death23's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 618
3
4
7
Death23's avatar
Death23
3
4
7
-->
@Mharman
There are appropriate venues for voicing your opinion on that matter. I don't think doing it while on the job at a retirement home is one of them, especially when it's at the residents' expense. I don't see a credible challenge to the constitutionality of the statute.
#47
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@Alec
Stupid liberal policy
#48
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 5,300
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
-->
@Death23
The location does not determine the constitutionality of the censorship. If you are forced to use a pronoun against your own will, it is a violation. The First Amendment protects your right to stand in your position, no matter what building you are in. It may feel good to force those "bigots" to use the elders' pronouns, but does it do good? No. It doesn't. At the end of the day, you're restricting their speech in a way that forces them to speak against their own opinions, which is definitely a First Amendment violation.
#49
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 5,300
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
-->
@Vader
stupid liberal policy
That's a little redundant there.


#50
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@Mharman
Those laws only state a debt collector may not threaten, lie to, or verbally abuse a debtor. That is far different from refusing to go along with someone's pronouns.

The criteria for a First Amendment violation depends on the kind of speech being censored, it has nothing to do with how narrow an interaction may be. Threats are not lawful. Lying in business and legal interactions is scamming/perjury and therefore not lawful. Using the pronoun of the gender they were born as is perfectly lawful under the First Amendment because you are showing your beliefs that you will not bow down to the idea that there are more than two genders- that you hold your own position and will stand firm in that position.

I'm going to take a minute to address this post of yours, in particular.  There were several good things about it.  First, you attempted to distinguish between kinds of laws which restrict speech in a business context and kinds of speech that restrict speech in a non-commercial private context.  Second, you tried to indicate just what exactly that distinction was, and what kind of a distinction it was.  Third, you made something approximating an effort at saying why that distinction mattered, even if you did it in a way that was a bit obtuse.

If you made the effort to write comments like that at least most of the time, I'd treat you very differently.  You'd be hearing actual, substantive engagement from me in a way that did not immediately dismiss you as a naughty little right wing brat.  That isn't because I agree with you, either.  I don't agree with about 50% of what you wrote.  But, to the extent that regulating how individuals use language in their interactions with one another is profoundly obviously a sort of encroachment on individual liberty that goes well beyond the realm of what is acceptable for any just government to do.  Just as Canada's idiotic compelled speech laws were beyond forgiveness, so too would something be even more so in the United States.  After all, we have a First Amendment.  Canada doesn't (though it has something like something similar).  
#51
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@Mharman
stupid liberal policy
That's a little redundant there.

This, on the other hand, was not a good comment and it was not one that I am ever going to approve of. 


#52
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
What I find most troubling is, why does the government even need to be involved with these long term care facilities?  Are they state run or private?  if this is allowed and tolerated there are far bigger issues to this problem that some stupid laws can't fix.  It's difficult to comprehend that workers would not be fired for intentionally mistreating, disrespecting or antagonizing patients.  I'm not sure what the problems are in California but they sure seem to be unique and extreme to that state as no other states felt the need to makes laws as they do.  If a healthcare facility, which these would be considered as well, do not meet certain criteria the state can withhold Medicare and Medicaid payments until the situation is remedied or the facility is closed.
Imo they are patronizing certain groups with the laws they create to fix problems that don't exist and should and could be handled without the need for more laws.
There has always been and always will be abuse in long term care facilities, that's the sad fact.  Most healthcare workers would not do it or tolerate it and the offenders are disciplined (though usually terminated on the spot).  The management has a duty and responsibility to make sure abuse does not occur and the highest level of care is given.  If something fails to work at any of those links in the chain, laws can't fix that, just like they can't fix stupid.
#53
ResurgetExFavilla
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 627
3
2
7
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
ResurgetExFavilla
3
2
7
I don't think that narrowing it to care facilities does anything to address the central principle. That principle is that, to consider this speech to be 'harassment', the government has to decide what people who hold to a certain belief can express on the subject. If someone does not believe that a transgendered woman is a woman, this law would force them to lie. If it's a matter of courtesy, the employer can fire them. If they are actually treating these people unfairly in some tangible way, that could certainly be an issue. But being punished for speaking in a way which corresponds with their beliefs about what reality is by the government strikes at the heart of the first amendment. I'm sure that a Muslim saying that he thinks that unrepentant gay people going to hell is offensive to gay people. The government cannot punish him for saying it. I'm sure that a lunatic who is convinced that he is a can-opener would be very distressed at being called a man. The government cannot force a man to call the lunatic a can-opener. Perhaps his employer could punish him for doing such things discourteously. But what if the home is owned by people who don't think that a transgendered woman is a woman, and who agree with the employee? That's the crucial issue: the government would force everyone in that situation to lie under punishment of a fine. I don't think that such a case would survive in front of the SC.

The whole general environment surrounding pronouns remind me of Chesterton's prophecy:
"The great march of mental destruction will go on. Everything will be denied. Everything will become a creed. It is a reasonable position to deny the stones in the street; it will be a religious dogma to assert them. It is a rational thesis that we are all in a dream; it will be a mystical sanity to say that we are all awake. Fires will be kindled to testify that two and two make four. Swords will be drawn to prove that leaves are green in summer. We shall be left defending, not only the incredible virtues and sanities of human life, but something more incredible still, this huge impossible universe which stares us in the face."
#54
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
What I find most troubling is, why does the government even need to be involved with these long term care facilities?  Are they state run or private?  if this is allowed and tolerated there are far bigger issues to this problem that some stupid laws can't fix.  It's difficult to comprehend that workers would not be fired for intentionally mistreating, disrespecting or antagonizing patients.  I'm not sure what the problems are in California but they sure seem to be unique and extreme to that state as no other states felt the need to makes laws as they do.  If a healthcare facility, which these would be considered as well, do not meet certain criteria the state can withhold Medicare and Medicaid payments until the situation is remedied or the facility is closed.
Imo they are patronizing certain groups with the laws they create to fix problems that don't exist and should and could be handled without the need for more laws.
I'm not surprised you don't know why the government needs to be involved, since as you say, you don't know whether LTC facilities are public or private (The answer is all are some degree of both- because big chunks of Federal cash are made available to LTC), you don't what the problems are in California (as I said above, California is better than just about anywhere else.  Increased protections in California reflect the substantial bloc voting power of senior citizens and LGBT citizens), you don't know that the Fed already does withhold money from facilities that lose their licenses but suggest that status quo as a solution to an emerging problem (it's not).  You breezily offer your opinion then essentially admit you have no information on the subject. Why post now instead of waiting until after looking into the issue?  I'm not trying to be a jerk, I'm just asking. 

There has always been and always will be abuse in long term care facilities, that's the sad fact.  Most healthcare workers would not do it or tolerate it and the offenders are disciplined (though usually terminated on the spot).  The management has a duty and responsibility to make sure abuse does not occur and the highest level of care is given.  If something fails to work at any of those links in the chain, laws can't fix that, just like they can't fix stupid.
A string of platitudes.   This reads like you're stalling for time.


#55
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
I wasn't sure this was a 1st Amendment violation until you brought that up. SCOTUS will never allow enforced NewsSpeak.
#56
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
I don't think that narrowing it to care facilities does anything to address the central principle. That principle is that, to consider this speech to be 'harassment', the government has to decide what people who hold to a certain belief can express on the subject. If someone does not believe that a transgendered woman is a woman, this law would force them to lie.

The government is expressly prohibited from ever deciding what people can do based on belief system and stop hiding behind belief systems.  If your belief system requires you to tell gay people they're going to hell or to be unkindly honest to elderly people entrusted to your care, then it is time to double-check your belief system; it need not waste the government's time.  There is no sympathetic circumstance by which a service provider would repeatedly misgender after correction.  

Your question is so it's unkind- isn't it protected speech?  The answer is yes, except when there's criminal intent.

. If it's a matter of courtesy, the employer can fire them. If they are actually treating these people unfairly in some tangible way, that could certainly be an issue. But being punished for speaking in a way which corresponds with their beliefs about what reality is by the government strikes at the heart of the first amendment. I'm sure that a Muslim saying that he thinks that unrepentant gay people going to hell is offensive to gay people. The government cannot punish him for saying it. I'm sure that a lunatic who is convinced that he is a can-opener would be very distressed at being called a man. The government cannot force a man to call the lunatic a can-opener.

I can show in a court of law that the can-opener is hallucinating.  Can you show in a court of law that a transgendered person is hallucinating?  As far as I can tell, gender dysphoria is just another human condition, well enough documented to seem present in every time and culture.  Established enough to be present in law.  I suppose there is a critique-worthy element of fashion to our present embrace of trans culture but fashion skews queer and ultimately I believe that increasing our human expression of gender is just that, increasing our human expression, which I consider beneficial.

Look- if the lunatic can-opener said "call me man one more time and I'll jump" and you say "man" and the lunatic jumps, you are probably going to get charged with something and we both know there's some justice in such a charge. There are circumstances when protected speech becomes crime and so forfeits protection.  Willfully violating another citizen's (potentially fragile) identity in the privacy of their homes, in a time of exegesis, that rises to the level of crime.  The State of California sees that as minor crime.  Why can't you?


Perhaps his employer could punish him for doing such things discourteously. But what if the home is owned by people who don't think that a transgendered woman is a woman, and who agree with the employee? That's the crucial issue: the government would force everyone in that situation to lie under punishment of a fine. I don't think that such a case would survive in front of the SC.
The Supreme Court has delivered many unworthy readings of the Constitution,  I wouldn't trust it to define my sense of right and wrong.

The whole general environment surrounding pronouns remind me of Chesterton's prophecy:
"The great march of mental destruction will go on. Everything will be denied. Everything will become a creed. It is a reasonable position to deny the stones in the street; it will be a religious dogma to assert them. It is a rational thesis that we are all in a dream; it will be a mystical sanity to say that we are all awake. Fires will be kindled to testify that two and two make four. Swords will be drawn to prove that leaves are green in summer. We shall be left defending, not only the incredible virtues and sanities of human life, but something more incredible still, this huge impossible universe which stares us in the face."

Great essay, an appeal for orthodoxy in a book about heretics.  I'm not sure that you get that Chesterton's being positive here embracing new heresies to better perfect his orthodoxy.  He expects that everyone will have their own dogma eventually and such is the natural state of humanity.  A fairly heretical orthodoxy for a Catholic, wouldn't you say?



Here is more from the same essay:

In real life the people who are most bigoted are the peoplewho have no convictions at all. The economists of the Manchesterschool who disagree with Socialism take Socialism seriously.It is the young man in Bond Street, who does not know what socialismmeans much less whether he agrees with it, who is quite certainthat these socialist fellows are making a fuss about nothing.The man who understands the Calvinist philosophy enough to agree with itmust understand the Catholic philosophy in order to disagree with it.It is the vague modern who is not at all certain what is rightwho is most certain that Dante was wrong....It was the peoplewho did not care who filled the world with fire and oppression.It was the hands of the indifferent that lit the faggots;it was the hands of the indifferent that turned the rack....Bigotry in the main has alwaysbeen the pervading omnipotence of those who do not care crushingout those who care in darkness and blood.

#57
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@oromagi
you seem to have a lot of comprehension difficulties with what I said.  But it's funny you did understand a little and agreed with what I said and got all defense.  You still haven't answered the questions why are LTC facilities are so bad in California they need more laws where no other state do?
they should make more laws for other kinds of name calling and teasing, bravo.

as I said a private company would fire employees for abuse, making the company look bad etc, no laws require, state union employees on the other hand....
#58
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 5,300
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
Wow. You hit the nail right on the head.
#59
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@Greyparrot
imagine for a moment if you will, this type of behavior, intentionally not using a pronoun someone wants you to us after asking you to and doing it over and over, and again intentionally.  Now imagine you do this to a customer or coworker.  As long as you aren't in one of the powerful unions in NYC and other places, odds are extremely high you'd be fired.  I'll cover another scenario for those with tunnel vision, "but what if it's the owner blah blah blah" don't you think it would be like the cake shop issue, only far worse?
What is wrong with the people who work in these California LTC facilities and their management that these people aren't being fired and laws need to be made?
What is the issue with California that employers aren't adequately screening, educating and disciplining their employees, to the point where laws are needed?  Sounds down right scary imo.
#60
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 5,300
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
-->
@oromagi
Your question is so it's unkind- isn't it protected speech?  The answer is yes, except when there's criminal intent.

Look- if the lunatic can-opener said "call me man one more time and I'll jump" and you say "man" and the lunatic jumps, you are probably going to get charged with something and we both know there's some justice in such a charge. There are circumstances when protected speech becomes crime and so forfeits protection.  Willfully violating another citizen's (potentially fragile) identity in the privacy of their homes, in a time of exegesis, that rises to the level of crime.  The State of California sees that as minor crime.  Why can't you?

These statements right here are what I have a problem with. It's one big Appeal to the Extreme Fallacy. The thing is, we already have laws covering criminal intent; thus, there is no need for this bill.

There is one scenario, however, that the law does not cover. This scenario is "willfully violating another citizen's (potentially fragile) identity in the privacy of their homes". And there's a reason why the law doesn't cover it- refusing to go along with someone's pronouns is an expression of your own belief, it is not criminal intent nor is it violating their identity. They choose to feel that their identity is violated (as my dad would say, "You choose to be offended.")- they don't have to take them seriously- they can stand firm in their own identity. If you feel like your identity is being attacked, that's your own fault.

Another thing I noticed here was a snuck premise. Specifically, two words in particular. The words "potentially fragile" are the snuck premise. You assert that the elderly are too frail and will thus collapse at anything, or that the risk is too high. But once again, you assume it is the fault of the person refusing to go against their beliefs. While old people can be fragile, they can also tough and wise. If they are snowflakes, it is their fault.