This week in Woke: Actresses justly cancelled for committing atrocities

[KeepTalking]

I am saying that this law is no different than other discrimination laws, and commonly with discrimination laws the things that people say to other people make one basis for determining if they are being discriminatory. That does not compel speech.

Sorry not sorry, but that's eye-bleeding bullshit.

Compelling speech in a particular context is still compelling speech.

I have posted a link to the text of the law, please point out where that law compels speech in any context.

Also, why do you seem so reluctant to admit this?

If the law did indeed compel pronouns (which it definitely does), would you not approve of the law?

I am merely presenting that argument now, as it was misunderstood initially that the wording presented in this thread was in the text of the law. It was not, and I believe that is the first hurdle that must be overcome for anyone saying that the law compels speech. I have made additional arguments both before and after noticing that those words are not in the law that make my position clear. We are not talking in woulds in maybes here, we are talking about an actual law that exists.

The actual law compels speech.

If the actual law compels speech, then certainly you can quote the pertinent text from the actual law that does so. I will wait.

If I were to employ a transwoman, but referred to them as 'he' and the employee objected, I would be guilty of discrimination and guilty of breaking the law. The law compels people to use the trans person's preferred pronouns. There's simply no other way to understand it.

You would not necessarily be guilty of the law for doing that. There is the possibility that you would be charged under this law if you did so repeatedly and deliberately. However, one should note that "deliberately" is a very hard thing to prove, so doing only what you describe would likely not even get you charged, and it is very unlikely that you would be found guilty for only doing that. It would be an indication that you are discriminating against that person, and if you are doing that, you are likely also doing other things to that person that are also discriminatory, and your repeated and deliberate insults would only be part of the whole. I recall that you are really passionate about things that are a part of a whole, so maybe phrasing it that way will help you out.

 

[laughing dog]

Non. Only if you already accept 'they' as a personal pronoun. And also only if you think there's no difference between referring to somebody with a non-gendered pronoun is inoffensive and indistinguishable from gendered pronouns.

You are out of date. It is acceptable to use "they" as a personal pronoun. It may be painfully difficult for you to use nongendered pronouns as personal pronouns, but it would not be difficult for even moderately intelligent person who cared to do so.

Non. It isn't about what the utterer thinks is acceptable, but what the other person thinks is acceptable.

If somebody uses 'they' for somebody who claims their pronoun is 'she', the person who used 'they' will be just as guilty as if they'd used 'he'.

As usual, you are mistaken for a number of reasons. First, your example was about writing a book - which does not full under the NYC jurisdiction. Second, "they" can refer to a he or she. You are not discriminating against anyone's gender if you always use "they" to refer to a person of any gender.

 

[ruby sparks]

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.

It's a tricky one. Personally, I would say that I am, for starters, in favour of calling or referring to everyone by their preferred gender pronoun. I'm pretty sure I would get it wrong at times, inadvertently (I already do that with just names, or saying 'husband' instead of 'partner' just in case) and another person who isn't in favour of it, could hypothetically feign the same. One would hope (and I think it's in the wording) that it would need to be a clear cut case or a series of repeated instances before any action was taken against someone, and in my experience that's usually how these things go, bar exceptions. And certainly, as you suggest, if there is other evidence of discrimination, it should imo be a relevant consideration.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

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.

Again, no. That is not the right analogy.

Hipothetical example of compelled silence:

The New York City Commission on Human Rights issues official guidelines so that waiters get punished if they say "Trump is a winner" before serving a meal.

Hipothetical example of compelled speech:

The Roberts County Commission on Human Rights issues official guidelines so that waiters get punished if they fail to say "Trump is a winner" before serving a meal.
​

The real case under consideration is one of compelled speech, not even one of compelled silence.

 

[KeepTalking]

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.

Again, no. That is not the right analogy.

Maybe that's your problem. What I offered was not an analogy, and definitely not hypothetical, it is the reality of the situation.

We don't need to resort to tortured hypothetical analogies, racial discrimination and transgender discrimination are both addressed by this same law. Speech is not compelled in either case, but in either case the things that you say can indicate that you are being discriminatory toward that protected class.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

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.

Again, no. That is not the right analogy.

Maybe that's your problem. What I offered was not an analogy, and definitely not hypothetical, it is the reality of the situation.

We don't need to resort to tortured hypothetical analogies, racial discrimination and transgender discrimination are both addressed by this same law. Speech is not compelled in either case, but in either case the things that you say can indicate that you are being discriminatory toward that protected class.

No, again, you are failing to see this. If the guidelines punished people for saying stuff only, that would be government compelled silence. This is government compelled speech.

 

[KeepTalking]

Maybe that's your problem. What I offered was not an analogy, and definitely not hypothetical, it is the reality of the situation.

We don't need to resort to tortured hypothetical analogies, racial discrimination and transgender discrimination are both addressed by this same law. Speech is not compelled in either case, but in either case the things that you say can indicate that you are being discriminatory toward that protected class.

No, again, you are failing to see this. If the guidelines punished people for saying stuff only, that would be government compelled silence. This is government compelled speech.

Why do you keep speaking in ifs? Why can't we discuss the actual law? And why can't you show the text from the law that compels speech?

 

[Emily Lake]

https://www1.nyc.gov/site/cchr/law/legal-guidances-gender-identity-expression.page

The New York City government has gone beyond suppressing speech, to compelling speech.

Right now I am much more concerned about the fascists in control of the US government, and the statements that their Dear Leader has made that he would very much like to suppress the speech of those who he does not like, including those he deems to be"woke".

A plague on both your houses.

Sex. “Sex” is a combination of chromosomes, hormones, internal and external reproductive organs, facial hair, vocal pitch, development of breasts, gender identity, and other characteristics. Gender identity is the primary determinant of a person’s sex

They've redefined sex altogether.

 

[KeepTalking]

Sex. “Sex” is a combination of chromosomes, hormones, internal and external reproductive organs, facial hair, vocal pitch, development of breasts, gender identity, and other characteristics. Gender identity is the primary determinant of a person’s sex

They've redefined sex altogether.

Then I think you might want to sit down, because I am going to knock your socks off.


Get ready:

Sex Sexual activity, including specifically sexual intercourse.

Sex has had more than one meaning this whole time!
Aren't you glad you are sitting down?

 

[Metaphor]

If the actual law compels speech, then certainly you can quote the pertinent text from the actual law that does so. I will wait.

It's already been quoted to you.

Now, if you are objecting that the legal enforcement guidance isn't legislation, that's a nonsense objection. Rulings made by judges are not legislation but they are the law. This isn't legal enforcement guidance written by a third party. It is written as guidance on how to interpret the law and how the law will be enforced.

1. Failing To Use the Name or Pronouns with Which a Person Self-Identifies 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.

You would not necessarily be guilty of the law for doing that. There is the possibility that you would be charged under this law if you did so repeatedly and deliberately. However, one should note that "deliberately" is a very hard thing to prove, so doing only what you describe would likely not even get you charged, and it is very unlikely that you would be found guilty for only doing that. It would be an indication that you are discriminating against that person, and if you are doing that, you are likely also doing other things to that person that are also discriminatory, and your repeated and deliberate insults would only be part of the whole. I recall that you are really passionate about things that are a part of a whole, so maybe phrasing it that way will help you out.

Refusing to use the name or pronouns is itself the discrimination. It stands on its own.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Maybe that's your problem. What I offered was not an analogy, and definitely not hypothetical, it is the reality of the situation.

We don't need to resort to tortured hypothetical analogies, racial discrimination and transgender discrimination are both addressed by this same law. Speech is not compelled in either case, but in either case the things that you say can indicate that you are being discriminatory toward that protected class.

No, again, you are failing to see this. If the guidelines punished people for saying stuff only, that would be government compelled silence. This is government compelled speech.

Why do you keep speaking in ifs? Why can't we discuss the actual law? And why can't you show the text from the law that compels speech?

Again, I already replied to that objection of yours. You say it is not the law that compels speech. Well, then, the New York City Commission on Human Rights misinterprets the law, but that is still Woke government compelled speech, only not by law, but by misinterpretation of the law by Woke officials in official documents.

 

[Emily Lake]

I can see that perspective. I just tend to think that Tom Hanks did a lot of good portraying a sympathetic gay guy, even though he's straight. If the portrayal and the story resonate with audiences in a positive way, and builds sympathy, I'd think that would be worth doing.

Maybe back in the day. When Boys Don't Cry came out, it was made with a tiny budget. Brandon Teena never underwent medical transition. There wasn't a lot of precedent or social discourse for framing casting decisions. Hilary Swank, then unknown, was about as good a choice as any given the situation. That film, for many, was a form of exposure to transgender issues they had never had.
...

One of those issues is the transgender population is not hurting for competent story-tellers; we're just not as marketable as cisgender people. It's not that we can't talk; people have a really hard time listening.

Really good post. Trimmed for length.

I hear what you're saying. And it suck to say, but I don't think we're there. I don't think there's enough acceptance at the moment for trans actors to be marketable. If there's a good trans actor out there that will do the role justice and bring in a sympathetic crowd, absolutely, go for it. But people are set in their ways, and there are a lot of people who really can't accept transgenderism(?). Some of them are full of hate and fear, but I also think for a lot of people it's just an absolutely foreign concept. I struggle with some of it myself, and for the most part I consider myself a supporter of equal rights all around.

There's also a bit of psychology here, from my POV. It's the same thing with homosexuality and race and gender in fiction and in artistic representation. As long as it's being highlighted as being relevant and important that the character or the actor is [category], it's really hard to move past that division. It's the noteworthiness of it that becomes a barrier.

I can't come up with movie titles at the moment, although I know they exist. So this is going to be vague. There are movies & shows where the story is about the character being gay, or about the character being a woman, or about the character being black. And on the one hand, yes, it's good to have someone with that actual experience in that role. On the other hand, however, it still delineates that identity as being separate and different - noteworthy.

Then there are other shows where a character in the show is gay or a woman or black, but that has nothing to do with the story being told. It's irrelevant, it's just the background of the character to flesh them out as a person. Like... Wesley Snipes in Blade. Vampire killer who happened to be black... but him being black had fuck-all to do with the story being told. In my opinion, that sort of portrayal does a lot more to move the ball forward than do deep-delving pieces about the identity itself.

The best outcomes, however, are ones where the identity of the actor and the identity of the character aren't mutually invested. Neil Patrick Harris is a good example, I think. He's played a lot of straight guys, despite being openly gay. That, I think, is a massive win for the gay community. It reinforces that a person's orientation has nothing to do with their acting ability.

That's the end goal, as far as I'm concerned. But it's not as close at hand as I would like. We're getting closer with respect to sexual orientation and race. We're still a long way away when it comes to gender though, and that's admittedly a challenging nut. I don't think we'll ever get to the point where casting a female actor to play a male lead role is going to be a thing, nor vice versa. But we're still not really even at the point where the gender of the actor is irrelevant to the role. There are still almost no movies or TV shows out there that feature a powerful female in a leadership role that aren't about that woman being an empowered women and role model. I thought Captain Marvel did an okay job of it, because it really didn't focus much on the Captain being a woman. But still - the amount of outcry about that was not a small thing.

Anyway, my point with this long ramble is that when it comes to portrayals of trans folks, I think we're pretty early in stage one - we're still in the stage of evincing a sympathetic response from an audience. I certainly can't speak for anyone else, but it seems like gaining ground in terms of support and acceptance would be a primary objective, even if that comes at the cost of a cisperson playing the role.

 

[Emily Lake]

Marginally related... I ran across a thing recently where the director of Boys Don't Cry (who is a transwoman) got shouted down and essentially silenced during a speaking engagement at Reed, because she cast Swank in that movie instead of someone transgender. That strikes me as stark raving.

 

[Emily Lake]

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

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

It's very obvious that it compels speech if you look at the quote B20 provided. An example of a violation is to refuse to say such-and-such things. Either you say what the law dictates, or you are in violation of the law.

The very first item addressed by it is:

1. Failing To Use the Name or Pronouns with Which a Person Self-Identifies

I'm having a hard time seeing how that's not compelling speech.

 

[Emily Lake]

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

Okay... but their own legal enforcement guidelines specify that failure to use a person's preferred pronouns is a violation of the law. So i'm not sure there's a meaningful distinction here.

 

[Emily Lake]

I'm a bit put off by the second item in the guidance:

2. Refusing To Allow People To Utilize Single-Gender Facilities and Programs Most Closely Aligned with Their Gender

The NYCHRL requires that people be permitted to use single-gender facilities, such as restrooms or locker rooms, and to participate in single-gender programs, that most closely align with their gender, regardless of their gender expression, sex assigned at birth, anatomy, medical history, or the sex or gender indicated on their identification. Covered entities that have single-occupancy restrooms should make clear that they can be used by people of all genders. 18

Some people, including customers, other program participants, tenants, or employees, may object to sharing a facility or participating in a program with a transgender, non-binary, or gender non-conforming person. Such objections are not a lawful reason to deny access to that transgender, non-binary, or gender non-conforming person. In those circumstances, a covered entity may offer alternatives for the individual expressing discomfort, by, for example, providing a single-occupancy restroom to change in.

That seems to suggest that if a female bodied person, in a female locker room, is uncomfortable having a male-bodied person who self-identifies as a woman in there with her... then the female-bodied person is the one who is expected to leave the female locker room?

 

[Emily Lake]

Then I think you might want to sit down, because I am going to knock your socks off.


Get ready:

Sex Sexual activity, including specifically sexual intercourse.

Sex has had more than one meaning this whole time!
Aren't you glad you are sitting down?

Interesting. It seems as though you feel you're very clever. Even though a middle-schooler would understand the context within which the definition of sex was being supplied, and would additionally be able to accurately identify where the substantial shift in definition is occurring

 

[Metaphor]

I'm a bit put off by the second item in the guidance:

2. Refusing To Allow People To Utilize Single-Gender Facilities and Programs Most Closely Aligned with Their Gender

The NYCHRL requires that people be permitted to use single-gender facilities, such as restrooms or locker rooms, and to participate in single-gender programs, that most closely align with their gender, regardless of their gender expression, sex assigned at birth, anatomy, medical history, or the sex or gender indicated on their identification. Covered entities that have single-occupancy restrooms should make clear that they can be used by people of all genders. 18

Some people, including customers, other program participants, tenants, or employees, may object to sharing a facility or participating in a program with a transgender, non-binary, or gender non-conforming person. Such objections are not a lawful reason to deny access to that transgender, non-binary, or gender non-conforming person. In those circumstances, a covered entity may offer alternatives for the individual expressing discomfort, by, for example, providing a single-occupancy restroom to change in.

That seems to suggest that if a female bodied person, in a female locker room, is uncomfortable having a male-bodied person who self-identifies as a woman in there with her... then the female-bodied person is the one who is expected to leave the female locker room?

Yes.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

The very first item addressed by it is:

1. Failing To Use the Name or Pronouns with Which a Person Self-Identifies

I'm having a hard time seeing how that's not compelling speech.

Well, that's because it is compelling speech.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

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

Okay... but their own legal enforcement guidelines specify that failure to use a person's preferred pronouns is a violation of the law. So i'm not sure there's a meaningful distinction here.

Yes, the only distinction seems to be about who is doing the compelling: is it the lawmakers that pass the law and those who apply it - including the members of the New York City Commission on Human Rights ? Or is it the members of the New York City Commission on Human Rights who passed the guidelines and those who apply them?
If the guidelines are a correct interpretation of the law, it's the former.
If they are not, it is the latter.

But either way, these are government officials compelling speech.