This week in Woke: Actresses justly cancelled for committing atrocities

[KeepTalking]

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?

That wasn't the question you asked, and it is not pertinent to this discussion. We are not discussing days which are set aside during which you can use no pronouns. We are discussing how pronoun use can be insulting, and how it is insulting to transgenders.

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.

You certainly have been disagreeing with it in this thread, but if you are now in agreement that it does not compel speech, that's great. I think we are done here.

 

[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.

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.

What bias?

 

[Metaphor]

That wasn't the question you asked, and it is not pertinent to this discussion. We are not discussing days which are set aside during which you can use no pronouns. We are discussing how pronoun use can be insulting, and how it is insulting to transgenders.

It was the question I asked, and anybody who can read English can see it.

You certainly have been disagreeing with it in this thread, but if you are now in agreement that it does not compel speech, that's great. I think we are done here.

No, the NYC law compels speech. So if you believe it does not, I am in disagreement with you.

I am in agreement that the NYC law finds that failing to use somebody's preferred pronouns means you discriminated against them.

 

[laughing dog]

That wasn't the question you asked, and it is not pertinent to this discussion. We are not discussing days which are set aside during which you can use no pronouns. We are discussing how pronoun use can be insulting, and how it is insulting to transgenders.

Yeah, but it is sooooo hard to change!!!!! And, it is not fair!!!!!! What about those people who are either too narcissistic stubborn to change or too stupid to be able to change, don't their feelings matter?

 

[Metaphor]

That wasn't the question you asked, and it is not pertinent to this discussion. We are not discussing days which are set aside during which you can use no pronouns. We are discussing how pronoun use can be insulting, and how it is insulting to transgenders.

Yeah, but it is sooooo hard to change!!!!! And, it is not fair!!!!!! What about those people who are either too narcissistic stubborn to change or too stupid to be able to change, don't their feelings matter?

I don't know, laughing dog. Do their feelings matter?

 

[KeepTalking]

That wasn't the question you asked, and it is not pertinent to this discussion. We are not discussing days which are set aside during which you can use no pronouns. We are discussing how pronoun use can be insulting, and how it is insulting to transgenders.

It was the question I asked, and anybody who can read English can see it.

Anyone who can read English can spot the differences between this question:

How many days have you refrained from using a pronoun?

and this question:

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

I have even placed the differences in boldface so that you may find them more easily. You're welcome.

You certainly have been disagreeing with it in this thread, but if you are now in agreement that it does not compel speech, that's great. I think we are done here.

No, the NYC law compels speech. So if you believe it does not, I am in disagreement with you.

I am in agreement that the NYC law finds that failing to use somebody's preferred pronouns means you discriminated against them.

Then we are not in agreement about this being a law compelling speech, though we are in agreement that this is an anti-discrimination law. I have shown that you can not speak at all, use a proper noun rather than a pronoun, or just not be a dick and use the preferred pronoun that was pointed out to you by the target of your bigotry. I think I have sufficiently supported my case, but I don't expect bigots to agree, so maybe we should just leave the discussion here.

 

[KeepTalking]

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.

What bias?

Your bias against transgenders that leads you to not believe them when they tell you that pronoun use can be insulting to them. Although, perhaps you no longer hold that bias, and have changed your mind after I provided an example of pronoun use being insulting to even a cis-gendered person. Please let me know if that is the case.

 

[laughing dog]

That wasn't the question you asked, and it is not pertinent to this discussion. We are not discussing days which are set aside during which you can use no pronouns. We are discussing how pronoun use can be insulting, and how it is insulting to transgenders.

Yeah, but it is sooooo hard to change!!!!! And, it is not fair!!!!!! What about those people who are either too narcissistic stubborn to change or too stupid to be able to change, don't their feelings matter?

I don't know, laughing dog. Do their feelings matter?

Not about which pronoun to use or not to use if they are decent and rational human beings.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

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.

No. This bathroom argument has been used to derail conversations on transgender rights for well over a decade. While there may be some legitimate concerns in some people, it's a vastly overplayed hand.

Transgender rights legislation in Canada was successfully stalled to the point of dying on the senate floor because it was reduced to a 'bathroom bill' despite it having no impact of bathrooms and there being little evidence to suggest that transgender people would make even a scratch on the rate of sexual and physical violence against women. The next time the bill was on the senate floor, the bathroom bill objection was tried yet again, and when that didn't take, senators switched to Jordan Peterson's 'compelled speech' argument, which was very poorly formulated (and federal and provincial law weren't as sloppily written as this NYC legislation and guidance).

Transgender rights legislation and rights considerations often dissolves into a conversation about bathrooms. It rarely ever rises to the level of an actual conversation on the violence which affects women, in my experience.

When I can have a conversation on my rights which doesn't have fifty-fifty odds of steering into how cisgender women are scared in bathrooms--even when the conversation in no way started about bathrooms and changerooms, then we can drop 'whim'. When someone starts showing an investment in preventing violence and abuse against women in bathrooms (which remains a very low frequency event) which amounts to more than a knee jerk reaction to transgender rights issues being mentioned, maybe I'll be less likely to look a the people like you, chirping in from your front row seat on the sidelines, waxing philosophical as what? A hobby? as more than a whim.

I have ample sympathy and concern for anyone who has suffered physical or sexual violence to the extent it has affected their comfort being in public spaces or in incarceration. I have it inside and outside of the transgender rights issue. I have it beyond bathrooms, change rooms and prisons. I have it beyond women specifically, and specifically for women as a group greatly disproportionately affected by sexual violence and harassment. But what is constantly dragging any and all conversations to do with transgender people through this well-trodden territory accomplishing, exactly? I have been through all of this with great care and sympathy the first time it came up. And the second time. And the third time. And the hundredth time. At some point you start to wonder if anyone really gives a shit.

I know I give a shit because I've actually done things in the real world with regard to this issue. But I am also very tired of having this same fucking issue constantly raised almost reflexively to discussions on transgender people's rights. If an online conversation goes on long enough, the probability that bathrooms, compelled speech and sports will be raised seems to exponentially approach one. And it's the same fucking conversation every time. And it's as silly as transgender rights advocates chiming in with "You're killing transgender people," as a knee jerk response to any commentary perceived as critical of transgender people or rights no matter how trivial. It's not that none of these concerns are embedded on potentially legitimate concerns; it's that they very much come across as derailing conversations and being given fairly superficial treatment.

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.

That has nothing to do with what was stated. Not one thing apart from using similar words. The whole point is that rights can't be established and enforced on the basis of shifting public acceptance. They can't have some hanging caveat of public approval. There is no 'black people have the right to sit where they want on the bus up until white people don't like it anymore." There is no, "women are granted the right to vote until men feel too nervous about it." Those rights exist or they don't exist. Nothing in my posts is stating all other considerations for how other people

My right to swing my arms around in any direction ends where someone else's nose starts.

Why are you trodding up this hackneyed line? What is it you think I am saying that this is relevant or applicable? "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." I mean, these considerations very much apply to transgender people as well. The extent to which it should be considered in law is questionable.

 

[ruby sparks]

My right to swing my arms around in any direction ends where someone else's nose starts.

Why are you trodding up this hackneyed line?

As hackneyed lines go, it's one of the better ones, imo.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

My right to swing my arms around in any direction ends where someone else's nose starts.

Why are you trodding up this hackneyed line?

As hackneyed lines go, it's one of the better ones, imo.

Right, but it's not relevant to the situation at hand. Generally speaking, a cisgender woman who is sincerely affected isn't out to attack transgender rights neither are transgender women who are trying to find a place to piss without harassment and abuse going after those cisgender women's sense of security.

 

[ruby sparks]

As hackneyed lines go, it's one of the better ones, imo.

Right, but it's not relevant to the situation at hand. Generally speaking, a cisgender woman who is sincerely affected isn't out to attack transgender rights neither are transgender women who are trying to find a place to piss without harassment and abuse going after those cisgender women's sense of security.

I wasn't talking about swinging one's arms around aggressively. Maybe just calisthenics or something. I deliberately did not use the similar hackneyed line about fists.

 

[Emily Lake]

Right, but it's not relevant to the situation at hand. Generally speaking, a cisgender woman who is sincerely affected isn't out to attack transgender rights neither are transgender women who are trying to find a place to piss without harassment and abuse going after those cisgender women's sense of security.

Generally speaking, you're correct. unfortunately, there are plenty of examples of cisgender women who are not so sincerely affected... and there are transgender activists who go out of their way to make cisgender women uncomfortable.

I make a point here of saying transgender activists... because while my experience is limited, it's been activists who are not themselves transgender who are the most zealous and irrational. There are some few people who identify as transgender and who I think go too far (that Canadian woman who tried to sue salons for refusing to wax her balls comes to mind), but most transgender people themselves don't. Honestly, the worst enemy to the progress of transgender rights, imo, seems to be overly excitable cisgender white men.

 

[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 see. You believe "refrain from using pronouns" means "not using some pronouns when I have already used others that I meant to use".

Then we are not in agreement about this being a law compelling speech, though we are in agreement that this is an anti-discrimination law. I have shown that you can not speak at all, use a proper noun rather than a pronoun, or just not be a dick and use the preferred pronoun that was pointed out to you by the target of your bigotry. I think I have sufficiently supported my case, but I don't expect bigots to agree, so maybe we should just leave the discussion here.

It is not a choice to not speak at all if the person is in one of the contexts covered by the law, and using the preferred pronoun is the compelled speech part.

 

[Metaphor]

Your bias against transgenders that leads you to not believe them when they tell you that pronoun use can be insulting to them.

Oh? I didn't say I didn't believe them about their own feelings.

Although, perhaps you no longer hold that bias, and have changed your mind after I provided an example of pronoun use being insulting to even a cis-gendered person. Please let me know if that is the case.

Whether somebody feels insulted by the use of a pronoun is not a good reason to compel the use of particular pronouns.

 

[Trausti]

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Here, let me help you out with that:

First, if a word has different meanings that can be used in different contexts, that does not change the fact that it has a meaning in this context. Given that you were objecting to my posts, the meaning is given by my usage, not by some other meaning you come up with.

Second, are you saying that by 'argument' you just meant 'claim', or that you equivocated, changing the meaning from post to post, or even within posts?

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.

You accused me of feigning ignorance in this post, in which I made very clear which arguments I was replying to.

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

I do not know why you ask that, but as part of an argument (i.e., arguing a case), one can present facts. And one may or may not argue for those too.

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.

No, again, it is not meant to be analogous to what we are discussing in the sense of analogous that you consider relevant because you fail to understand the type of reasoning by which I debunked that argument of yours.

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.

That is not what I said, but I did not expect you to be persuaded, so that's not a surprise.

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.

The reductio works for the reasons I already explained. But you still do not understand why it works, or what you say in the paragraph I just quoted in your critique of my reductio fails completely, as it is irrelevant. It's a matter of logic, and it's not difficult. But I am tired of writing the same thing over and over again, so I will just refer readers to this post.

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

I don't know what goes after "then laws", but in any case, what you wrote above is obviously a gross misrepresentation of what I wrote about. I never suggested that the text of the law is not relevant to the implementation of a law; I was not even talking about whether it was relevant (it obviously is in at least nearly all and perhaps all cases). You are not replying to my actual claims or arguments. You are not failing to understand them, and replying to what you put into my mouth/keyboard.

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:

Actually, some examples involve failing to use certain terms, as quoted. That part of the section actually involved some examples, just less detailed than the ones you consider. But perhaps, this can actually explain some part of the disagreement. Do you actually believe that the guidelines are not such that people who remain silent would be running afoul of them? . If so, you are just picking and choosing what part of the guidelines to count.
https://www1.nyc.gov/site/cchr/law/legal-guidances-gender-identity-expression.page

(bold mine):

The NYCHRL requires employers and covered entities to use the name, pronouns, and title (e.g., Ms./Mrs./Mx.)15 with which a person self-identifies, regardless of the person’s sex assigned at birth, anatomy, gender, medical history, appearance, or the sex indicated on the person’s identification.

The guidelines say the law requires them to use the name, pronouns, title, etc. What else?

All people, including employees, tenants, customers, and participants in programs, have the right to use and have others use their name and pronouns regardless of whether they have identification in that name or have obtained a court-ordered name change, except in very limited circumstances where certain federal, state, or local laws require otherwise (e.g., for purposes of employment eligibility verification with the federal government).

That's pretty clear.

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.

That is also crystal clear. The fact that they use an example in which different words are used is not the issue.

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.

No, that is absurdly false. And racial discrimination laws do not compel speech, though they suppress some speech. But those were not among the laws discussing here. Now, since you insist on this, a bit of a tangent:

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.

No, Metaphor did not do that. Metaphor did not use any racial slurs in this thread, in any sense of 'use' that would be relevant to charging him with racism, "discriminatory" behavior, or anything like it. In fact, in the most common sense of the term 'use' when talking about words (i.e., to use them as words, using them to mean what they mean, rather than in the context as either reporting what other people said or talking about the words themselves, he did not use the word 'nigger' or any other racial slur.

There is a Woke religious/ideological belief that holds that if I say (for example) "Metaphor did not use the racial slur 'nigger'", I myself just used the racial slur 'nigger', and engaged in usage of language considered discriminatory by the law you are talking about. Of course, this Woke belief is false.

Back to the previous issue.

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.

First, that is false.
Second, that is unwarranted. You are being irrational by believing I do that, as I gave you no good reason to believe that.
Third, I am talking about silence, not speech.
Fourth, when it comes to speech, if you are talking about, say, using the pronoun 'he' to refer to a trans woman, then what do you mean by "insulting"? Do you mean that the trans woman in question will find it insulting? Or that the person using the pronoun intends to insult? If it's the former, probably. If it's the latter, it depends on the case, but in most cases very probably not. If you mean something else, what do you mean? On this note, I am not remotely trying to avoid any issues; you claim it is insulting; then I challenge you to bring on the arguments.

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

But that is false, and you ought not to believe it - i.e., you are not being rational. In fact, there is no such ideology/religion (and I'm not a bigot anyway). On the other hand, your behavior does provide compelling evidence about your ideology/religion.

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.

But if 'ideology' is not equally insulting, then it seems you think there are relevant differences. All the more reason to use 'religion/ideology', to highlight their similarity.

And if by 'insulting' you mean that you will find it insulting, actually I thought that you would find both 'ideology' and 'religion' insulting, though I did not mean to use them to insult you (that was an expected a side effect), but to make a point both to you and to readers about what you were doing when making accusations against me - accusations that you knew or should have known if being rational that I would find insulting, and with good reason, as they were not warranted on the basis of what I was saying, and were also false.

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.

It's more than that. But let me test whether you adhere to Woke beliefs on this matter:

1. The Woke believe that if person A sincerely claims 'I am a woman', then person A is a woman. The same goes for claims like 'Soy una mujer' in Spanish, or generally claims in other languages that, when translated into English even in pre-Woke times, would have been translated as 'I am a woman' by competent translators.

2. The Woke believe that if person B denies the belief(s) explained in 1. above, or even if B says B has insufficient evidence to tell, or similar responses, then B is generally transphobic, and hates and/or irrationally fears transgender people, provided that B is adult, not trans, and lives in a free country (there might be some exceptions for members of minorities, depending on the Woke believer).
​

Do you not hold those beliefs?
Your behavior indicates that on this matter (and several others, involving also gender, sex, race, etc.), you do adhere to Woke beliefs. Your behavior of attacking dissenters with no good reason is also clear evidence.

 

[ruby sparks]

When I can have a conversation on my rights which doesn't have fifty-fifty odds of steering into how cisgender women are scared in bathrooms--even when the conversation in no way started about bathrooms and changerooms, then we can drop 'whim'. When someone starts showing an investment in preventing violence and abuse against women in bathrooms (which remains a very low frequency event) which amounts to more than a knee jerk reaction to transgender rights issues being mentioned, maybe I'll be less likely to look a the people like you, chirping in from your front row seat on the sidelines, waxing philosophical as what? A hobby? as more than a whim.

Obviously, I'm a cis man, so I have no personal interest, other than indirectly by having a wife and two daughters, none of which are transgender. Maybe it is a passing interest for me (not sure about a whim because that's 'a sudden desire or change of mind, especially one that is unusual or unexplained') but I wouldn't say that about a mother bringing her little girls into places where adult penises might be on display. Unless that's a whim already, which I don't think it is. I'd call it a personal interest, and therefore a potential bias. You yourself also have a personal interest, so I would need to allow for that too.

My own personal view, when I can manage to be decided about it, is that with a little bit of reasonable accommodation, the toilets and changing rooms issues could be sorted, so that trans gender people could use the ones they prefer. I don't think it would take that much, though it might need to be brought in gradually. Individual cubicles are already starting to become the norm for example. Some reasonable criteria for trans women in sports is also possible, to solve the inherent advantage thing. I'm fairly sure that even access to women's refuges and other women's spaces could be made to work in some way. As to gender pronouns, my biggest issue is that I would get them wrong sometimes, simply out of confusion or lack of a good memory, but that's not a huge issue, and I do it with names, first and surname, already, and for mrs versus ms, or partner versus husband or wife.

Does that cover all the 'controversial' issues, by which I mean the ones that can't readily be agreed by most people?

The bigger issues, to me (and as I say I'm a cis man so speaking from outside, so if I get any of these wrong or miss something out you can let me know) would be things like reducing or eliminating adverse bias in employment, housing, education and in the provision of goods and services, and tackling personal abuse, prejudice, discrimination and bullying. Also full legal recognition and the ability to change one's birth certificate. And the availability of medical treatments such as those involving transition. Oh and the same rights as anyone else to have relationships, including marriages, and have children (naturally or via adoption) with whoever they choose to.

I think it would be great if society got to the stage where trans gender was seen as normal, in the sense of just being another human difference like literally all the others, and trans gender people being given as much respect as anyone and fully included in and contributing to society. And I think it will happen, but maybe more slowly than it ideally would, and for trans gender persons I think it's going to be a bit of an uphill struggle for a while to come, more so in some places than in others.

 

[Bomb#20]

Literacy, look into it. As you can see, I said it was awash in complaints, not actors.

Not being an asshole, look into it.

Mirror, look into it. You repeatedly misrepresented me and you repeatedly made baseless accusations. My response was far milder than you deserved.

Excuse me? Where did I insist on anything of the sort? I've been clear about my agnosticism; it was your side of this debate who insisted she was "fine with it"; I just asked for evidence. We don't know what was said to Ms. Berry. But whether threats were made to her personally or not is hardly material. Threats have been made to so many people, and enough have been carried out, that it would be perfectly sensible for her to feel threatened even if the specific people who raised the issue with her were entirely polite about it. It's perfectly plausible that she felt threatened; that hypothesis is sufficient to account for her uttering the customary pieties; therefore her utterance of the pieties is not evidence that she's "fine with it".

Please use direct quotes when attempting to put words in my mouth.

Please don't beat your wife. I did not put any words in your mouth. Please do not make trumped-up accusations.

You know what you did, it is right <expletive deleted> there in black and white.

Yes, I pointed out facts. And you misrepresented what I'd said.

Nothing trumped up about it, you accused me of using words I did not use.

I did nothing of the sort. I accused you of being on the same side of this debate as the person who insisted she was "fine with it". That's pointing out a fact.

Now get off your goddamn high horse

No. I'm in the right; you're in the wrong. You have been behaving like a scoundrel. I get to be on a high horse relative to you when you make the choice to fight dirty.

, and stop throwing around insults (like the one you started your post with) while you're at it.

By "throwing around insults" you are referring to me charitably treating your misrepresentation of me as an honest mistake. That ends now. You wrote "Please use direct quotes when attempting to put words in my mouth." That is an accusation that I put words in your mouth on purpose. That was libelous -- you made a false charge against me with malice and with reckless disregard for the truth. When you do that you forfeit any entitlement to be addressed politely. You owe me an apology, and I'm confident it won't be forthcoming.

"The Woke" engaging Halle Berry in a discussion about her role is not a cause for alarm, considerable or otherwise.

Nobody indicated he was alarmed by Halle Berry having been engaged in a discussion.

Then what was the point of this thread, and your participation in it?

Um, you don't need me to tell you the point of the thread; you could just inspect the OP. It appears what people expressed alarm about was:

"Here is an intelligent, experienced actor who has played many different roles in her career abasing herself before the court of political correctness."​

The point of my participation was to ask for evidence backing up a dubious claim.

You might want to catch up with the thread, now that it has been shown that Bomb was trying to pull a fast one,

Looks like I need to explain the difference between compelled speech and prohibited speech. If there's a rule that says I'm not allowed to call you a liar, that's prohibited speech. If there's a rule that requires me to say you aren't a liar, that's compelled speech. See the difference?

I will refrain from calling you a liar even though you just libeled me again. You made another false accusation with malice and reckless disregard for the truth. I was not "trying to pull a fast one", and you do not have any reason to suppose I was. You made it up out of whole cloth because you don't like me. For that, I will say you are a scoundrel; but I will not say you are a liar. You certainly don't believe with any intellectual honesty that I was trying to pull a fast one; but maybe you nonetheless believe I was. However, there's no power that's going to compel me to say you aren't a liar. See the difference?

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

But they are not the law. The way it was presented, nearly everyone took what Bomb posted to be text in the actual law. He even leveraged that misunderstanding to say that "the law compels speech" when he knew this guideline was not a part of the actual law.

Stop committing libel. Stop making false damaging claims about others with malice and reckless disregard for the truth. Stop inventing events using your own imagination and treating your confabulations as grounds to make positive claims about what other people did or didn't do. It's vicious shameful misbehavior. You are unfit to participate in an intellectual discussion.

No, I didn't know the rule against failing to use a person's name, pronoun or title wasn't in the literal text of the NYC "Human Rights Law". I had been carelessly assuming it was, since NYC said that was the rule. Thank you for drawing this discrepancy to my attention. But that you have done me this service does not justify you viciously claiming I already knew something you had no possible intellectually honest reason to believe I already knew. You are not an expert witness on the subject of what other people know.

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

KT has been making much of the distinction between a "law" and a "legal guideline". As far as I can see, he's been doing so because he has a pre-WWII conception of how "Administrative Law" works in America. It's been the general practice in U.S. courts since the 1940s to give "deference" to administrative agencies' interpretations of laws. This practice was formalized at the federal level as the legal doctrine of "Chevron deference", so-named after a SCOTUS decision involving the Chevron oil company.

First, always, is the question whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress. If, however, the court determines Congress has not directly addressed the precise question at issue, the court does not simply impose its own construction on the statute . . . Rather, if the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute.

Chevron deference is now commonly cited when people are being run roughshod over by an administrative agency making rules far beyond what Congress had in mind; but the important point here is that Chevron didn't create the doctrine but merely formalized existing practice. Chevron was a federal decision; but that doesn't mean New York law doesn't work essentially the same way. As far as I know, Arizona is the only state whose courts don't grant deference to administrative agencies.

The New York City Administrative Code Title 8 says:

Employment. It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice For an employer or an employee or agent thereof, because of the actual or perceived ... gender... of any person: ... To discriminate against such person in compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges of employment.​

The "New York City Commission on Human Rights" is the administrative agency in charge of enforcing Title 8. It says "Intentional or repeated refusal to use a person’s name, pronouns, or title." qualifies as discrimination. (Presumably in "conditions" of employment.)

So in the event that an employee calls a coworker "they" who prefers to be called "he", and the matter is litigated, then the question before the New York court will not be whether the NYC legislative body commanded that employees use one another's preferred pronouns. If the court decided this, that would be putting its own construction on the statute. The question before the court will be whether the agency's rule -- that this counts as discrimination -- is based on a permissible construction of the statute. The court will instead be deciding whether the NYCCHR's rule fits within its delegated authority as a regulatory agency because the rule is crafted to promote the goal of the legislation, as opposed to the NYCCHR just pulling the rule out of its ass. The court will almost inevitably defer to the agency.

Consequently, the hay KT is trying to make out of the difference between a "law" and a "legal guideline" is just a lot of noise about a distinction without a difference. Administrative law is still law. If this were happening in Phoenix, Arizona he'd have a point; but it isn't and he doesn't.