This week in Woke: Actresses justly cancelled for committing atrocities

[KeepTalking]

Of course it's suppressed. You are merely saying it's incidental suppression: that nobody can utter certain words and not be guilty of discrimination.



I am certain. I've seen what trans activists call transphobic. One example is the use of 'transwomen' instead of 'trans women'. Another is the use of the term 'transgenderism' in any context.

Repeatedly and deliberately insulting a protected class, however, is a good reason to suspect that you are discriminating against that class. That is what the law protects against, and as you so readily point out, only in very limited contexts.

The law compels speech with respect to pronouns. But even if it did not, using pronouns that make sense to me, as the speaker, is not insulting a protected class.

That is because it is a law against discrimination, and not a law that compels speech.

It is a law against discrimination, and the guidance makes it clear that compelled speech is necessary to not run afoul of it.

EDIT: I'm not quite sure why this is a hill you are willing to die on: for you to pretend the law does not compel speech when it does. But in any case, whatever it is you think about the technical aspects of what the law does or does not suppress or compel, you clearly agree that if somebody does not use someone's pronouns in certain contexts, they are discriminating against that person.

I do not agree with that. As you so aptly noted earlier they could just not say anything (even though you refused to apply that to this case). Another option is to use a proper noun, for example, their name. No speech is compelled.

 

[Politesse]

You're acting like you're defending Berry, but she seems to understand the situation a lot better than you do, and is fine with it. So you attack her too, and suggest that she doesn't know what acting is? How many Oscars have you got, chump?

I think it is somewhere between "clear" and "fucking obvious" that an element of genius acting is becoming something completely different than the actor's natural self. Holly "admitting" she had no business even considering the role (her words) is an actor saying that acting can only be just being yourself. Which obviously is the fucking opposite of what acting is.
Tom Hanks is not a pilot. Yet, they hired him to play Sully in the movie that documented a heroic pilot's flight and the NTSB hearings thereafter. I am a pilot. They should have offered me that job before Tom Hanks, right? I acted in college for a semester, by the way... so I am more qualified to ensure the role is faithfully represented... or is that not what matters?

Those aren't her words at all, those are conservative talking points, and dumb ones at that. There is no oppressed underclass of pilots who are trying to attain acting roles and being denied them on the basis of their profession, nor is their profession a question of inherent identity in the same way that gender is.

And I bet a lot of pilots would approve of better film representation of their profession, actually. That doesn't mean pilot actors per se, but pilot consultants would be a good idea, and they realized that for the production of Sully, in fact.

 

[Emily Lake]

If that is the concern, there are better measures like floor-to-ceiling stalls. I've known quite a few women who don't want to change around other women due to body image issues, harassment, bullying, modesty and other reasons. Many men and boys have been the victims of physical and sexual violence from other men, and may also face similar issues regarding discomfort in change rooms. It's its own trope in popular culture. How are we going to apply this discomfort standard on who can use facilities with whom? Or are we only going to be concerned when people are worried about transgender women and everyone else can frankly go fuck themselves? How does it work?

I stand by my common sense approach: Use the facilities for whatever sex other people are most likely to assume that you are. If you know you have parts that will be visible, and which are not normally associated with the sex that other people are most likely to assume you are, use discretion.

As you mentioned, yes, it's a conflict of rights. The tipping point here for me isn't a question of morality (as there are moral elements to either side), it's one of numbers.

 

[Emily Lake]

There is probably a reasonable compromise in all of this, that's my general view. Reasonable accommodation should be made for transgender users. Whether this should extend to self-identity being a sufficient criteria to use whatever facilities one wishes, I'm not sure.

I agree that there should be a reasonable compromise, and like you my general issue isn't with the concept of a transperson using facilities or shelters. It's with the concept of self-identification alone being sufficient to grant a person access to those facilities without question.

Honestly, if a person shows up to the locker room wearing an androgynous outfit and doesn't have a beard, and at least moderately looks like they could maybe be a female-bodied person, I don't care, and I don't think very many people would. As long as there's at least some suggestion that they *might* be female, social decorum wins out, and you let them go about their day. I do expect, however, that if that person has a penis and testicles, they should use some discretion and not saunter around nekkid, because that will make females in that facility uncomfortable. If a person shows up to the locker room wearing an androgynous outfit and doesn't have enormous boobs, and at least moderately looks like they could be a male-bodied person, I doubt any male person in the room is going to care unless said person whips out their vag and prances around.

On the other hand... If a person shows up to a locker room with a full bears, in male clothing, and shaped like a stereotypical male... that's going to make female people uncomfortable regardless of how they identify or what is in their pants. They will be perceived as a male. That they want to be perceived as a female is irrelevant. That they perceive themselves as female is irrelevant. All that matters in that situation is that nearly every single person with whom they interact is going to assume that they are male, because everything about them presents masculinity. And vice versa of course.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

I stand by my common sense approach: Use the facilities for whatever sex other people are most likely to assume that you are.

People can adopt that approach if they like, but it's shouldn't be expected.

The tipping point here for me isn't a question of morality (as there are moral elements to either side), it's one of numbers.

I believe I said moral support, not morality, just for the sake of clarification. But this particular number is not one we generally have access to, and even if we did, it would fluctuate over time. When it came to recognizing that human rights and anti-discrimination protections should apply on the basis of gender identity and expression, it wasn't going to be an automatic process.

Person: Hey, I'm transgender woman. That should be a protected class.
Legislator: Transgender woman? Whats' that?
Person: Don't worry about it.
Legislator: Fair enough. I dub thee a protected class on the basis of..?
Person: I don't know. Gender identity, I guess.
Legislator: Gender identity. Cool, cool. Anything else?
Person: I need to use women's restrooms and facilities.
Legislator: Why?
Person: Duh, because I'm transgender. I already said that.
Legislator: Oh yeah, I forgot. I'll make a note of that.

The above sure as hell isn't what happened. The path to recognition of gender identity and hoow discrimination considerations should apply was a long slog.

But once it was recognized that gender identity and expression should be protected characteristics, rights and anti-discrimination measures have to be applied in the ordinary way. Which means rights and discrimination matters cannot be determined by what most other people think, like or find comfortable.

 

[Metaphor]

Of course it's suppressed. You are merely saying it's incidental suppression: that nobody can utter certain words and not be guilty of discrimination.



I am certain. I've seen what trans activists call transphobic. One example is the use of 'transwomen' instead of 'trans women'. Another is the use of the term 'transgenderism' in any context.



The law compels speech with respect to pronouns. But even if it did not, using pronouns that make sense to me, as the speaker, is not insulting a protected class.



It is a law against discrimination, and the guidance makes it clear that compelled speech is necessary to not run afoul of it.

EDIT: I'm not quite sure why this is a hill you are willing to die on: for you to pretend the law does not compel speech when it does. But in any case, whatever it is you think about the technical aspects of what the law does or does not suppress or compel, you clearly agree that if somebody does not use someone's pronouns in certain contexts, they are discriminating against that person.

I do not agree with that. As you so aptly noted earlier they could just not say anything (even though you refused to apply that to this case). Another option is to use a proper noun, for example, their name. No speech is compelled.

No: as I've already pointed out, not using a racial slur is materially different to not using pronouns. I've spent the vast majority of the days of my life never using the word 'nigger' or any other racial slur. How many days have you refrained from using a pronoun?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

You are incorrect. My original (and continuing) argument is:

It is a law against discrimination, not a law that compels speech.

No, that is not an argument. It is a claim, and you argue to support it - and some other stuff.

Also, you appeared to know which argument I was talking about, as you accused me of actually being dishonest while replying to it ( falsely, unethically, irrationally, but that aside).

What you identified above is a fact in support of my argument.

Actually, what I identified is one of the arguments you give in support of your claim that it does not compel speech - not an argument in the sense of formal logic, but in the sense of arguing a case.

Why would you introduce a hypothetical like that? Just so you can poison the well?

No, so that I once again debunk your argument thoroughly. As I did. People who read the tread carefully while being rational will realize that I'm debunking it.

The law in question has no such verbiage. Not even the guideline that you have been trying to promote as the actual law says anything like that.

Of course that is 100% irrelevant. It is a reduction ad absurdum. It shows that your method for ruling out that a rule (whether technically a 'law' or not) compels speech is nonsense. It shows that by showing that in an even more absurdly obvious case of compelled speech, your method yields 'not compelled'.

Since you refuse to cite where in the actual law it says anything like that, despite my having linked the text of the law to you, here is a portion of the relevant text:

The actual text of the law is 100% irrelevant when it comes to whether the method you use to rule out that a rule compels speech is correct. Your method is nonsense, as shown.

Now, if you could articulate an example that is analogous to this that would somehow compel a waiter to kiss Trump's ass, go for it.

I have no reason to. In that part of my argumentation, I was debunking the method you use to rule out that a rule compels speech.

It is a false analogy, and even if it were apt, it would only negate a single fact that I used to support my argument.

It is a good analogy, and shows that the method you use to rule out that a rule compels speech is nonsense, and so the argument you give in support of your claim that it is not a law that compels speech, is nonsense.

Of course, one can say that it is trivially nonsense, so in order to show it is nonsense I just need to quote your argument, but then we could get into a philosophical discussion about what it is to show something to be the case.

If you can go to a jurisdiction, do something in front of the authorities, and not be arrested for it, it is a good indication that the thing you did is not against the law.

That is irrelevant. Consider the following scenario:

New law in jurisdiction A: From now on, every waiter must say 'Thank you Lord' before serving a meal, or else they get fined.​

Now, you can go to A, and say whatever you want about the any lords, or nothing at all, and you are not breaking the law, and you will not be arrested. And it is still obviously compelled speech. Not only have you failed to realize that the method you use to rule out that a rule compels speech is absurd, but now you are changing the subject and arguing as if it were a method for determining whether something is legal! (of course, I'm not accusing you of dishonesty, to be clear; I'm pretty sure you do not realize that you're doing this).

And it is my position that it does not compel speech, so you will need to start at a point other than "it compels speech" to prove your argument that it compels speech.

No, I just need to quote it.
https://www1.nyc.gov/site/cchr/law/legal-guidances-gender-identity-expression.page

Examples of Violations
a. Intentional or repeated refusal to use a person’s name, pronouns, or title.

Obviously, it compels speech, as B20 pointed out long ago.

Very good, you have come to the same conclusion I have. It does not compel speech, just like the guideline we are discussing does not compel speech. You could certainly remain silent and not run afoul of the law we are discussing, as you will only run afoul of it by repeatedly and deliberately using pronouns that are insulting to transgenders.

Then the New York City Commission on Human Rights misinterpreted the law, and they are the ones compelling speech. Note that you can run afoul of the guidelines if you choose to remain silent, because, well, examples of violations are "Intentional or repeated refusal to use a person’s name, pronouns, or title". If you refuse to use them and remain silent, you broke the law according to the guidelines.

Then why don't you tell me why using insulting language is indicative of racial discrimination, but not of transgender discrimination.

After you tell me why the Moon Landing is a hoax. Wait? You didn't say it's a hoax? But so what? I never said anything about whether insulting language (or non-insulting language that the Woke classifies as insulting) was indicative of transgender discrimination.

While you are at it why don't you go ahead and tell me what my religion is, because as far as I know I am an atheist.

Your ideology/religion is the Woke ideology/religion. But I use ideology/religion because I don't think it's worth the trouble of debating whether there are differences between ideology and religion other than traditional classifications, etc.

You really can't see another another possible meaning like "if anyone is expected to leave, it is the white person who is offended, not the black person causing the perceived offense"? I mean, I thought the context made that clear, but I can see you are not reading for comprehension here.

The context was actually Emily Lake's post. Either by "expected to leave" you meant the same she did in the post you replied to, or you equivocate - though not realizing it.

 

[ruby sparks]

Of course it's suppressed. You are merely saying it's incidental suppression: that nobody can utter certain words and not be guilty of discrimination.



I am certain. I've seen what trans activists call transphobic. One example is the use of 'transwomen' instead of 'trans women'. Another is the use of the term 'transgenderism' in any context.



The law compels speech with respect to pronouns. But even if it did not, using pronouns that make sense to me, as the speaker, is not insulting a protected class.



It is a law against discrimination, and the guidance makes it clear that compelled speech is necessary to not run afoul of it.

EDIT: I'm not quite sure why this is a hill you are willing to die on: for you to pretend the law does not compel speech when it does. But in any case, whatever it is you think about the technical aspects of what the law does or does not suppress or compel, you clearly agree that if somebody does not use someone's pronouns in certain contexts, they are discriminating against that person.

I do not agree with that. As you so aptly noted earlier they could just not say anything (even though you refused to apply that to this case). Another option is to use a proper noun, for example, their name. No speech is compelled.

No: as I've already pointed out, not using a racial slur is materially different to not using pronouns. I've spent the vast majority of the days of my life never using the word 'nigger' or any other racial slur. How many days have you refrained from using a pronoun?

As far as I know, the issue of whether it is discriminatory and whether it is compelled speech are two different, if related things. In other words, something can be compelled speech precisely because it is considered wrong not to do it in the relevant circumstances (in this case 'when using a personal pronoun'). In other words, the rights and wrongs of it can be debated and disagreed on (and you and I might not have the same views on that) but not, imo whether it's compelled speech.

Obviously there is a difference between the wording of a law, the wording of the legal guidance as to how to interpret the law, and the actual enforcing of the law day to day, but if not doing something is legally punishable, or punished, then it's effectively compelled.

 

[ruby sparks]

Which means rights and discrimination matters cannot be determined by what most other people think, like or find comfortable.

In reality, I think it can and is. Perhaps you would say it should not be, but when the rubber meets the road in such things, there are often two sides to consider. Here, the right of persons who want to use a facility in a certain way, and the rights of the other users (to personal and bodily privacy for example).

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Which means rights and discrimination matters cannot be determined by what most other people think, like or find comfortable.

In reality, I think it can and is. Perhaps you would say it should not be, but when the rubber meets the road in such things, there are often two sides to consider.

No, I am saying it cannot function that way. There is no mechanism by which you can say "You have human rights and anti-discrimination protections up until a sufficient number of people are creeped out by you." The state either recognizes your rights or it doesn't. If there are limitations on a specific right, they have to be established with some sort of bona fide reason. Setting up those rights so they are contingent on the will and whims of the general population (or roughly half the general population in this case, perhaps) is very similar to not really having those rights at all.

Here, the right of persons who want to use a facility in a certain way, and the rights of the other users (to personal and bodily privacy for example).

What we are talking about is facilities that are open to the general public, or are open to people in situations protected by human rights and anti-discrimination legislation. Ordinarily, wanting to use such facilities in a certain way doesn't include being able to prevent others use of those facilities. One might want to use the bus in a certain way in which no Latter Day Saints are allowed use the bus at the same time. One may believe they have the right to use a bus that is free of Latter Day Saints. But that isn't a recognized right, nor is it likely to ever be one. There are far more that two sides to consider in that scenario, but the law will probably come down pretty clearly on the matter.

 

[ruby sparks]

No, I am saying it cannot function that way. There is no mechanism by which you can say "You have human rights and anti-discrimination protections up until a sufficient number of people are creeped out by you." The state either recognizes your rights or it doesn't. If there are limitations on a specific right, they have to be established with some sort of bona fide reason. Setting up those rights so they are contingent on the will and whims of the general population (or roughly half the general population in this case, perhaps) is very similar to not really having those rights at all.

I think you are over-cooking it. Other people's concerns here, which could easily be described as bodily privacy or perceived safety issues (especially in regard to women's spaces such as refuges) are not just whims.

 

[KeepTalking]

Of course it's suppressed. You are merely saying it's incidental suppression: that nobody can utter certain words and not be guilty of discrimination.



I am certain. I've seen what trans activists call transphobic. One example is the use of 'transwomen' instead of 'trans women'. Another is the use of the term 'transgenderism' in any context.



The law compels speech with respect to pronouns. But even if it did not, using pronouns that make sense to me, as the speaker, is not insulting a protected class.



It is a law against discrimination, and the guidance makes it clear that compelled speech is necessary to not run afoul of it.

EDIT: I'm not quite sure why this is a hill you are willing to die on: for you to pretend the law does not compel speech when it does. But in any case, whatever it is you think about the technical aspects of what the law does or does not suppress or compel, you clearly agree that if somebody does not use someone's pronouns in certain contexts, they are discriminating against that person.

I do not agree with that. As you so aptly noted earlier they could just not say anything (even though you refused to apply that to this case). Another option is to use a proper noun, for example, their name. No speech is compelled.

No: as I've already pointed out, not using a racial slur is materially different to not using pronouns. I've spent the vast majority of the days of my life never using the word 'nigger' or any other racial slur.

Your propensity to use the n-word here, repeatedly and deliberately, says otherwise. But that's fine, your government will not arrest you for doing so, despite their having identified your usage of the n-ward as discriminatory.

How many days have you refrained from using a pronoun?

Every time I refer to a person using a specific pronoun, I refrain from using other pronouns to refer to that person.

If I refer to a cis male as "he" or "him", I am refraining from referring to him as "she" or "her". If I were to refer to that cis-mail as "she" it would very likely be construed as insulting and offensive. If I were speaking to him directly, however, the pronoun would be 'you', and I would really have to go out of my way to be insulting in that situation. That is the situation you would be in with a transgender, once you are made aware of their preferred pronoun, using a different gendered pronoun repeatedly and deliberately would be insulting, but would you ever be in a situation where you would need to use a gender specific pronoun for that person? The non-gender specific pronouns, 'you', 'your', 'they', 'their', etc. can always be used instead, as well as proper nouns, such as their actual name.

Please note: Every time I chose a pronoun to use in the above paragraph, I refrained from using all other pronouns.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

No, I am saying it cannot function that way. There is no mechanism by which you can say "You have human rights and anti-discrimination protections up until a sufficient number of people are creeped out by you." The state either recognizes your rights or it doesn't. If there are limitations on a specific right, they have to be established with some sort of bona fide reason. Setting up those rights so they are contingent on the will and whims of the general population (or roughly half the general population in this case, perhaps) is very similar to not really having those rights at all.

I think you are over-cooking it. Other people's concerns here, which could easily be described as bodily privacy or perceived safety issues (especially in regard to women's spaces such as refuges) are not just whims.

I didn't say they were 'just whims'. I said the will and whims of others. But thanks for ignoring my entire post to give me a little pointer on something I am already abundantly familiar with. Would it shorten our interactions if I wrote out the fifty or so pages of things I'm already aware cisgender people are concerned about when it comes to transgender people so we can stop pretending I don't already spend abundant time thinking about it just because I don't bring it up in detail in every conversation about my rights?

 

[Metaphor]

Your propensity to use the n-word here, repeatedly and deliberately, says otherwise. But that's fine, your government will not arrest you for doing so, despite their having identified your usage of the n-ward as discriminatory.

Of course it's deliberate; it's very hard to accidentally type 'nigger' in inverted commas. You strike me as somebody who thinks words have magickal powers, like a religionist who has to write "God" as "G*d". As for repeated, I'm not sure what your implication is. I've never used it as an insult against anybody, in real life or online. I've used it when I need to refer to it.

Every time I refer to a person using a specific pronoun, I refrain from using other pronouns to refer to that person.

Every time you use a specific pronoun, you have used a pronoun. So it sounds like your answer is 'zero days'.

If I refer to a cis male as "he" or "him", I am refraining from referring to him as "she" or "her". If I were to refer to that cis-mail as "she" it would very likely be construed as insulting and offensive. If I were speaking to him directly, however, the pronoun would be 'you', and I would really have to go out of my way to be insulting in that situation. That is the situation you would be in with a transgender, once you are made aware of their preferred pronoun, using a different gendered pronoun repeatedly and deliberately would be insulting, but would you ever be in a situation where you would need to use a gender specific pronoun for that person? The non-gender specific pronouns, 'you', 'your', 'they', 'their', etc. can always be used instead, as well as proper nouns, such as their actual name.

Please note: Every time I chose a pronoun to use in the above paragraph, I refrained from using all other pronouns.

I'm well aware of how pronouns work, and you summarise it correctly: when I use gendered pronouns about you, I am not talking to you but about you.

You may think it's okay to dictate to me what words I can't use when you are not even in the same room, but I don't think it's okay.

 

[KeepTalking]

No, that is not an argument. It is a claim, and you argue to support it - and some other stuff.

Here, let me help you out with that:
https://www.lexico.com/synonym/argument

Synonyms of argument in English...
assertion, declaration, claim, plea, contention, expostulation, demonstration

Also, you appeared to know which argument I was talking about, as you accused me of actually being dishonest while replying to it ( falsely, unethically, irrationally, but that aside).

Can you point out where I did so? I am having some difficulty with trusting your characterization of things that have been said in this thread.

What you identified above is a fact in support of my argument.

Actually, what I identified is one of the arguments you give in support of your claim that it does not compel speech - not an argument in the sense of formal logic, but in the sense of arguing a case.

Are you under the impression that a fact cannot be presented as an argument?

Why would you introduce a hypothetical like that? Just so you can poison the well?

No, so that I once again debunk your argument thoroughly. As I did. People who read the tread carefully while being rational will realize that I'm debunking it.

I am not in agreement, and there is no need to resort to a hypothetical analogy, we have plenty of examples of laws and guidelines that are analogous to that which we are discussing. I am glad that you think that the others in this thread who already agree with you in this thread will pat you on the back for your tortured analogy, but I'm not buying it.

The law in question has no such verbiage. Not even the guideline that you have been trying to promote as the actual law says anything like that.

Of course that is 100% irrelevant. It is a reduction ad absurdum.

Reductio ad absurdum is not the silver bullet you seem to think it is. The reduction in this case does not fit the argument you are trying to show is absurd. Your absurdity tells a waiter exactly what to say in all interaction with any customer. The guideline in question does no such thing. You can even use the offensive pronouns in the exact situations described (providing employment, public accommodation, and public housing), as long as you do not do so repeatedly and deliberately. In other words, in a manner that is insulting and discriminatory, after having been informed of that fact.

Since you refuse to cite where in the actual law it says anything like that, despite my having linked the text of the law to you, here is a portion of the relevant text:

The actual text of the law is 100% irrelevant when it comes to whether the method you use to rule out that a rule compels speech is correct. Your method is nonsense, as shown.

What you typed above is obviously false. If the text of a law were 100% irrelevant to the implementation of a law (in this case an implementation that may or may not compel speech), then laws

It is a false analogy, and even if it were apt, it would only negate a single fact that I used to support my argument.

It is a good analogy, and shows that the method you use to rule out that a rule compels speech is nonsense, and so the argument you give in support of your claim that it is not a law that compels speech, is nonsense.

Of course, one can say that it is trivially nonsense, so in order to show it is nonsense I just need to quote your argument, but then we could get into a philosophical discussion about what it is to show something to be the case.

If you can go to a jurisdiction, do something in front of the authorities, and not be arrested for it, it is a good indication that the thing you did is not against the law.

That is irrelevant. Consider the following scenario:

New law in jurisdiction A: From now on, every waiter must say 'Thank you Lord' before serving a meal, or else they get fined.​

Oh great, another false analogy that is nearly identical to your last analogy, but still is not analogous to the actual case we are discussing.

And it is my position that it does not compel speech, so you will need to start at a point other than "it compels speech" to prove your argument that it compels speech.

No, I just need to quote it.

That's not the way an argument over the meaning of something works.

Very good, you have come to the same conclusion I have. It does not compel speech, just like the guideline we are discussing does not compel speech. You could certainly remain silent and not run afoul of the law we are discussing, as you will only run afoul of it by repeatedly and deliberately using pronouns that are insulting to transgenders.

Then the New York City Commission on Human Rights misinterpreted the law, and they are the ones compelling speech. Note that you can run afoul of the guidelines if you choose to remain silent, because, well, examples of violations are "Intentional or repeated refusal to use a person’s name, pronouns, or title". If you refuse to use them and remain silent, you broke the law according to the guidelines.

Only if you are intentionally reading to avoid comprehension, or singling out that section title and not actually reading the section that follows. Having done both of those things, one would realize that all examples given are of using other pronouns, not remaining silent:

Examples of Violations
a. Intentional or repeated refusal to use a person’s name, pronouns, or title. For example, repeatedly calling a transgender woman “him” or “Mr.” after she has made clear that she uses she/her and Ms.

b. Refusal to use a person’s name, pronouns, or title because they do not conform to gender stereotypes. For example, insisting on calling a non-binary person “Mr.” after they have requested to be called “Mx.”

c. Conditioning a person’s use of their name on obtaining a court-ordered name change or providing identification in that name. For example, a covered entity may not refuse to call a transgender man who introduces himself as Manuel by that name because his identification lists his name as Maribel.17

d. Requiring a person to provide information about their medical history or proof of having undergone particular medical procedures in order to use their preferred name, pronouns, or title.

The last two examples are a bit more tricky, c is dealing with proper nouns so we can skip past it for the time being, and d is more about requiring some sort of proof before (i.e. "show me your genitals") agreeing to not be discriminatory.

I never said anything about whether insulting language (or non-insulting language that the Woke classifies as insulting) was indicative of transgender discrimination.

And here we come to the crux of the matter for you. This isn't about the law compelling speech, if it were you would be decrying racial discrimination laws that can be broken by using insulting speech. Your problem is that you do not believe that the speech is insulting. Like Metaphor, you should try harder to avoid revealing your biases on this issue, as it does not put your argument in a good light.

While you are at it why don't you go ahead and tell me what my religion is, because as far as I know I am an atheist.

Your ideology/religion is the Woke ideology/religion.

Thanks for letting me know. By the way, your ideology/religion is the bigoted ideology/religion.

But I use ideology/religion because I don't think it's worth the trouble of debating whether there are differences between ideology and religion other than traditional classifications, etc.

Then you should have just stuck with "ideology", using the term "religion" in that manner when referring to an atheist is insulting, but you already knew that. For the record, I do not consider myself to be a follower of woke ideology, but I do consider transgenders to be worthy of protection against discrimination in employment, public accommodation, and public housing.

You really can't see another another possible meaning like "if anyone is expected to leave, it is the white person who is offended, not the black person causing the perceived offense"? I mean, I thought the context made that clear, but I can see you are not reading for comprehension here.

The context was actually Emily Lake's post. Either by "expected to leave" you meant the same she did in the post you replied to, or you equivocate - though not realizing it.

I just explained to you what I meant. Are you sure that Emily Lake actually meant "forced to leave" when she said "expected to leave"? We can certainly ask Emily that, but regardless, I did not take her to mean "forced" when she said "expected". I took it to mean more like what I expressed above.

 

[ruby sparks]

Would it shorten our interactions if I wrote out the fifty or so pages of things I'm already aware cisgender people are concerned about when it comes to transgender people...

You don't need to. Maybe just don't call the concerns about use of certain facilities where there are some sensitive issues whims.

Not responding to a whole post is not the same as ignoring it. But, ok. I don't fully agree that "setting up those rights so they are contingent on the will and whims of the general population (or roughly half the general population in this case, perhaps) is very similar to not really having those rights at all". I think that's overcooking it even if the word whim was taken out. The right not to be discriminated against is fine. But the specific 'right' to use certain facilities where there are sensitive issues around bodily privacy/modesty and in some cases safety or perceived safety (as in women's refuges) also brings up other specific issues, which involve the 'rights' of others too. My right to swing my arms around in any direction ends where someone else's nose starts.

 

[KeepTalking]

Of course it's deliberate; it's very hard to accidentally type 'nigger' in inverted commas. You strike me as somebody who thinks words have magickal powers, like a religionist who has to write "God" as "G*d". As for repeated, I'm not sure what your implication is. I've never used it as an insult against anybody, in real life or online. I've used it when I need to refer to it.

Every time you use a specific pronoun, you have used a pronoun. So it sounds like your answer is 'zero days'.

And every time I use a specific pronoun, I refrain from using all other specific pronouns, so I refrain from using pronouns ever day. I also refrain from using pronouns when I refer to a person by name or title. I do that every day as well.

If I refer to a cis male as "he" or "him", I am refraining from referring to him as "she" or "her". If I were to refer to that cis-mail as "she" it would very likely be construed as insulting and offensive. If I were speaking to him directly, however, the pronoun would be 'you', and I would really have to go out of my way to be insulting in that situation. That is the situation you would be in with a transgender, once you are made aware of their preferred pronoun, using a different gendered pronoun repeatedly and deliberately would be insulting, but would you ever be in a situation where you would need to use a gender specific pronoun for that person? The non-gender specific pronouns, 'you', 'your', 'they', 'their', etc. can always be used instead, as well as proper nouns, such as their actual name.

Please note: Every time I chose a pronoun to use in the above paragraph, I refrained from using all other pronouns.

I'm well aware of how pronouns work, and you summarise it correctly: when I use gendered pronouns about you, I am not talking to you but about you.

You may think it's okay to dictate to me what words I can't use when you are not even in the same room, but I don't think it's okay.

Who says I am not in the same room? You could be talking to the asshole next to me, who is just as bigoted as you, while repeatedly and deliberately using those pronouns with regard to me, in order to insult me. That is just a discriminatory as saying something insulting directly to my face. I am not dictating anything to you, you can use those words as a tactic to discriminate, but when you do so repeatedly and deliberately while providing employment, public accommodation, or public housing, you may find that you have run afoul of ant-discrimination laws.

 

[Metaphor]

Your problem is that you do not believe that the speech is insulting. Like Metaphor, you should try harder to avoid revealing your biases on this issue, as it does not put your argument in a good light.

I prefer that people didn't conceal what they really mean. In fact, I would call somebody who concealed what they really meant a liar. And I don't think lying should be encouraged.

 

[Metaphor]

And every time I use a specific pronoun, I refrain from using all other specific pronouns, so I refrain from using pronouns ever day. I also refrain from using pronouns when I refer to a person by name or title. I do that every day as well.

How many days of your life have you not used a pronoun?

Who says I am not in the same room? You could be talking to the asshole next to me, who is just as bigoted as you, while repeatedly and deliberately using those pronouns with regard to me, in order to insult me. That is just a discriminatory as saying something insulting directly to my face. I am not dictating anything to you, you can use those words as a tactic to discriminate, but when you do so repeatedly and deliberately while providing employment, public accommodation, or public housing, you may find that you have run afoul of ant-discrimination laws.

I'm not disagreeing with your understanding of the NYC law.

 

[KeepTalking]

Your problem is that you do not believe that the speech is insulting. Like Metaphor, you should try harder to avoid revealing your biases on this issue, as it does not put your argument in a good light.

I prefer that people didn't conceal what they really mean. In fact, I would call somebody who concealed what they really meant a liar. And I don't think lying should be encouraged.

We are not in disagreement. So maybe you should have stated your bias up front instead of presenting this as a problem of compelled speech instead.