This week in Woke: Actresses justly cancelled for committing atrocities

[KeepTalking]

No. You are incorrect. Looking at Bomb's quote in isolation will inform you of nothing. Visit the link and read it for yourself, then come back and we can discuss it if you still think it compels speech.

I read it, of course. It is compelled speech.

You can go that jurisdiction and use any pronoun you like when addressing transgenders, and nothing will happen to you. It is not compelled speech.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

No. You are incorrect. Looking at Bomb's quote in isolation will inform you of nothing. Visit the link and read it for yourself, then come back and we can discuss it if you still think it compels speech.

I read it, of course. It is compelled speech.

You can go that jurisdiction and use any pronoun you like when addressing transgenders, and nothing will happen to you. It is not compelled speech.

With that criterion:

New law: From now on, every waiter must pray to Jesus before serving a meal, or else they get fined.

Verdict: not compelled speech, as people are not compelled to be waiters.

It is the wrong criterion.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

This part struck me as a tad too much:

"Gender identity is the primary determinant of a person’s sex."

Whether it is or not, that doesn't make it a law that compels speech.

Hm. I think it is, actually, as far as I can see (I did only skim it).

Kinda. Speech is ordinarily 'compelled' in all sorts of ways. Specifically, with regard to anti-discrimination, it will be compelled in any case were someone obligately refers to a protected characteristic (while their activities fall under areas regulated by human rights legislation, e.g. being an employer). The crux of the issue is that gender/ sex is embedded into our grammar in a way no other protected characteristic is. There are few places where race, religion, sexual orientation, disability etc. must be discussed with specific terms. There are some but not many. Gendered language is much more ubiquitous.

The more interesting and difficult question, I think, is whether or not it is a good or right thing that it does that.

I don't know if it should be explicitly stated rather than something which exists as a consideration in discrimination cases.

 

[ruby sparks]

I think it's pretty definitely compelled speech.

 

[KeepTalking]

You can go that jurisdiction and use any pronoun you like when addressing transgenders, and nothing will happen to you. It is not compelled speech.

With that criterion:

New law: From now on, every waiter must pray to Jesus before serving a meal, or else they get fined.

Verdict: not compelled speech, as people are not compelled to be waiters.

What does that have to do with discriminating against protected classes?

It is the wrong criterion.

I did not say it was the only criterion. It remains a fact that you can go to that jurisdiction and address transgenders using any pronoun you like, repeatedly and deliberately, and you will not run afoul of this law.

 

[KeepTalking]

Hm. I think it is, actually, as far as I can see (I did only skim it).

Kinda. Speech is ordinarily 'compelled' in all sorts of ways. Specifically, with regard to anti-discrimination, it will be compelled in any case were someone obligately refers to a protected characteristic (while their activities fall under areas regulated by human rights legislation, e.g. being an employer). The crux of the issue is that gender/ sex is embedded into our grammar in a way no other protected characteristic is. There are few places where race, religion, sexual orientation, disability etc. must be discussed with specific terms. There are some but not many. Gendered language is much more ubiquitous.

The more interesting and difficult question, I think, is whether or not it is a good or right thing that it does that.

I don't know if it should be explicitly stated rather than something which exists as a consideration in discrimination cases.

Turns out this isn't even a part of the law, it is a legal guideline for application of the law. As far as the law is concerned, gender identity is treated the same as race, sex, or any other protected class.

The text of the law in question is here:

NYC Human Rights Law - Title 8 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York

You will not find any of that language in the text of the law.

What was presented in this thread is the Gender Identity/Gender Expression: Legal Enforcement Guidance.

 

[KeepTalking]

I think it's pretty definitely compelled speech.

Then what you think is incorrect. I suggest you go read the links provided, and see what the actual law being discussed has to say.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

What does that have to do with discriminating against protected classes?

Whether they are protected classes and whether it is compelled speech are unrelated matters.

New law: From now on, every waiter must say "Trump is a winner" before serving a meal, or else they get fined.

Verdict: not compelled speech, as people are not compelled to be waiters. People can live in the jurisdiction of the US without saying that Trump is a winner, and without breaking the law.

It's the wrong criterion.

It remains a fact that you can go to that jurisdiction and address transgenders using any pronoun you like, repeatedly and deliberately, and you will not run afoul of this law.

The same applies to the laws about waiters I mentioned. It's still obviously compelled speech.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Turns out this isn't even a part of the law, it is a legal guideline for application of the law. As far as the law is concerned, gender identity is treated the same as race, sex, or any other protected class.

The text of the law in question is here:

NYC Human Rights Law - Title 8 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York

You will not find any of that language in the text of the law.

What was presented in this thread is the Gender Identity/Gender Expression: Legal Enforcement Guidance.

If so, that's more in line with what I would expect.

 

[KeepTalking]

What does that have to do with discriminating against protected classes?

Whether they are protected classes and whether it is compelled speech are unrelated matters.

New law: From now on, every waiter must say "Trump is a winner" before serving a meal, or else they get fined.

Verdict: not compelled speech, as people are not compelled to be waiters. People can live in the jurisdiction of the US without saying that Trump is a winner, and without breaking the law.

It's the wrong criterion.

Why are you repeating yourself like I haven't seen this before. Yes, I get that you have come up with a reductio ad absurdum, but in the light of the fact that the thing you think is in the law isn't even in the law at all kinda makes it pointless.

It remains a fact that you can go to that jurisdiction and address transgenders using any pronoun you like, repeatedly and deliberately, and you will not run afoul of this law.

The same applies to the laws about waiters I mentioned. It's still obviously compelled speech.

This law doesn't compel speech, it forbids discrimination in employment, public accommodation, and public housing.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Why are you repeating yourself like I haven't seen this before. Yes, I get that you have come up with a reductio ad absurdum, but in the light of the fact that the thing you think is in the law isn't even in the law at all kinda makes it pointless.

Oh, okay, so that is your objection?

Then it is still Woke government compelled speech, only not by law, but by misinterpretation of the law by Woke officials in official documents.

This law doesn't compel speech, it forbids discrimination in employment, public accommodation, and public housing.

Fine, then Woke government officials interpret the law as compelling speech, and make their interpretation official.

 

[ruby sparks]

I think it's pretty definitely compelled speech.

Then what you think is incorrect.

Nope, it isn't. Your posts are incoherent.

 

[KeepTalking]

Why are you repeating yourself like I haven't seen this before. Yes, I get that you have come up with a reductio ad absurdum, but in the light of the fact that the thing you think is in the law isn't even in the law at all kinda makes it pointless.

Oh, okay, so that is your objection?

Then it is still Woke government compelled speech, only not by law, but by misinterpretation of the law by Woke officials in official documents.

This law doesn't compel speech, it forbids discrimination in employment, public accommodation, and public housing.

Fine, then Woke government officials interpret the law as compelling speech, and make their interpretation official.

No, it's not. It is giving a protected class the protection against discrimination in employment, public accommodation, and public housing that other protected classes have. The same law protects against racial discrimination, but it is not in the law that you cannot use the n-word repeatedly and deliberately when you are hiring, providing public accommodation, or public housing for African Americans. On the other hand, if you do that, you are likely going to run up against this law, because in practice one of the guidelines being used is that doing so is an indication of racial discrimination. The n-word is a well known way of denigrating African Americans, so there is no reason to put that guideline into print, though I wouldn't doubt that such a document exists somewhere. Transgender as a protected class is a recent development, and many people are not aware of the things that can be demeaning to transgenders and are indicative of discrimination. That is why these guidelines were published.

It does not compel speech any more than laws against racial discrimination compel speech.

 

[KeepTalking]

I think it's pretty definitely compelled speech.

Then what you think is incorrect.

Nope, it isn't. Your posts are incoherent.

Jus not in any way you can demonstrate.

 

[Metaphor]

Oh, okay, so that is your objection?

Then it is still Woke government compelled speech, only not by law, but by misinterpretation of the law by Woke officials in official documents.



Fine, then Woke government officials interpret the law as compelling speech, and make their interpretation official.

No, it's not. It is giving a protected class the protection against discrimination in employment, public accommodation, and public housing that other protected classes have. The same law protects against racial discrimination, but it is not in the law that you cannot use the n-word repeatedly and deliberately when you are hiring, providing public accommodation, or public housing for African Americans. On the other hand, if you do that, you are likely going to run up against this law, because in practice one of the guidelines being used is that doing so is an indication of racial discrimination. The n-word is a well known way of denigrating African Americans, so there is no reason to put that guideline into print, though I wouldn't doubt that such a document exists somewhere. Transgender as a protected class is a recent development, and many people are not aware of the things that can be demeaning to transgenders and are indicative of discrimination. That is why these guidelines were published.

It does not compel speech any more than laws against racial discrimination compel speech.

Of course it compels speech, and kis has already pointed out why. Pronouns are part and parcel of English. The word "nigger" is not. I can easily write a book about somebody without referring to her race, neutrally or not. It would be painfully difficult to do so without using gendered pronouns.

 

[KeepTalking]

Oh, okay, so that is your objection?

Then it is still Woke government compelled speech, only not by law, but by misinterpretation of the law by Woke officials in official documents.



Fine, then Woke government officials interpret the law as compelling speech, and make their interpretation official.

No, it's not. It is giving a protected class the protection against discrimination in employment, public accommodation, and public housing that other protected classes have. The same law protects against racial discrimination, but it is not in the law that you cannot use the n-word repeatedly and deliberately when you are hiring, providing public accommodation, or public housing for African Americans. On the other hand, if you do that, you are likely going to run up against this law, because in practice one of the guidelines being used is that doing so is an indication of racial discrimination. The n-word is a well known way of denigrating African Americans, so there is no reason to put that guideline into print, though I wouldn't doubt that such a document exists somewhere. Transgender as a protected class is a recent development, and many people are not aware of the things that can be demeaning to transgenders and are indicative of discrimination. That is why these guidelines were published.

It does not compel speech any more than laws against racial discrimination compel speech.

Of course it compels speech, and kis has already pointed out why. Pronouns are part and parcel of English. The word "nigger" is not. I can easily write a book about somebody without referring to her race, neutrally or not. It would be painfully difficult to do so without using gendered pronouns.

You might want to catch up with the thread, now that it has been shown that Bomb was trying to pull a fast one, and the wording provided is not in the actual law, kis seems to have come around on this.

ETA: Of course the post you responded to came well after that point in the thread, so I can only surmise that this is a case of willful ignorance regarding recent developments in your thread.

 

[Metaphor]

Of course it compels speech, and kis has already pointed out why. Pronouns are part and parcel of English. The word "nigger" is not. I can easily write a book about somebody without referring to her race, neutrally or not. It would be painfully difficult to do so without using gendered pronouns.

You might want to catch up with the thread, now that it has been shown that Bomb was trying to pull a fast one, and the wording provided is not in the actual law, kis seems to have come around on this.

ETA: Of course the post you responded to came well after that point in the thread, so I can only surmise that this is a case of willful ignorance regarding recent developments in your thread.

Bomb was not trying to pull a 'fast one'. Guidelines on the use of the law will determine how the law is applied.

Unless you think an employer who calls a transwoman 'he' and not 'she' will be found innocent of 'discrimination', it of course compels speech.

 

[ruby sparks]

... the wording provided is not in the actual law..

The official guidance says how the law is to be implemented and it states what is required and that it will be deemed a violation otherwise. This does not need to be 'demonstrated' in any way other than by reading the text because it's literally there in the text. You seem to be talking complete nonsense.

 

[Metaphor]

... the wording provided is not in the actual law..

The official guidance says how the law is to be implemented and it states what is required and that it will be deemed a violation otherwise. This does not need to be 'demonstrated' because it's literally in the text. You seem to be talking complete nonsense.

That's a quote from KeepTalking, not me.

 

[ruby sparks]

Oops. Corrected.