laughing dog
Contributor
Your responses are full of assumptions about intentions and knowledge of the "prisons" and what life there is like.Making what up? ...
You keep babbling about "State-mandated religion". But you do not care what happens to all imprisoned people.Good. I care what happens to imprisoned people, and that includes imprisoned women who refuse to participate in State-mandated religion.
And for some reason, you are incapable of understanding that someone else might find it insulting or abusive?
You are entitled to your beliefs. The prison authorities believe otherwise. And, it is just possible that they have better reasons for their belief than you do.I believe that someone else might find it so, but I find that somebody thinking calling a biological male 'he' to be 'threatening, abusive, or insulting' is not a reasonable thing to respect.
You shouldn't automatically accept a position based on the expertise of others. No one is asking you to do that. I am suggesting you are applying your principles without regard to the actual situation. Prison is different than the free world.I'm 'not an expert' in countless things, as are you. But I do not automatically accept or reject an argument based on the perceived 'expertise' of the person who puts forward that argument. To do so would be fallacious.
You admit you have no problem with the prison rule in general, you clearly agree that "the State" in the context of prisons can punish acknowledging reality in a way you consider hateful. In the context of prisons, I think "the State" gets to interpret its rules. In this context, it is a reasonable interpretation if intentional misgendering in speech is causing problems in there.So... "acknowledging reality in a way laughing dog considers hateful should be a punishable by the State"?
I am applying my rule of reason, not some unbending principle.