This week in Woke: Actresses justly cancelled for committing atrocities

[KeepTalking]

I was being snarky. It was unwarranted, and I apologize.

Accepted

My point was that words have multiple meanings, which wasn't as apt as I thought at the time. The better point is that the meaning of words change over time. For example, the word "web", for hundreds of years it has had the same few specific meanings, but in the last few decades it has gained a new meeting, and we are communicating over a technology using that new meaning of web right now.

Yes, I am well aware that words have multiple meanings. in this instance, however, this is not a definition that has naturally evolved. It is, in fact, a definition in contradiction to what has been very painstakingly taught for the last couple of decades. Probably longer than that, but only a common discussion within the last couple of decades as trangender people made more progress in not being ostracized.

For the last many years, there's been a lot of effort put into making a distinction between 'sex' and 'gender'. There's been a focus on explaining to people that gender is distinct from, and separate from, sex. Sex refers to the biological and physical characteristics associated with having a particular chromosomal pair. Gender refers to the presentation and internal identity aspect of an individual. Thus, the argument made is that a person could have been born with a male body, but could actually have the identity and feelings of a female person, thus they were considered a woman. Vice versa is also included, of course. The emphasis of this shift in language is an effort to distinguish 'male' from 'man' and 'female' from 'woman'.

This definition not only conflates sex and gender, it insists that the primary determinant of sex is gender identity. In essence, it completely redefines 'sex' to be synonymous with 'gender'. Not only that, it actually goes further, and it subordinates physical and biological sex to gender identity.

The result of this is that, by this definition, I am not female because I have a uterus and ovaries and a cervix and two X chromosomes. I'm female because I identify as a woman. If I were to identify as a man, then by this definition my sex would be male... despite the fact that I have a uterus and ovaries and a cervix. This definition also makes the job of biologists quite a bit harder. They would no longer be able to rely on checking out the genitalia or chromosomal information of a horse and being able to determine whether it was a male or a female horse. Rather, they would need to be able to somehow infer whether or not that particular horse identified as a 'mare' or a 'stallion'.

And frankly, that's absurd.

I think it should be pointed out that they preface the definitions section with the following: "These definitions are intended to help people understand the following guidance".

To me that is along the lines of saying "for the purpose of this guidance, sex is defined as..."

Now, I can't say that I disagree with your point in general, and it seems that if we are going to use "gender" as the more fluid term, we should hesitate to redefine "sex" in the same manner. With regard to the definitions in the guidance, however, the very next definition after sex is transgender, and in that definition they state "“Transgender”—sometimes shortened to “trans”—is a term used to describe a person whose gender identity does not conform with the sex assigned at birth."

That seems to be using the standard definition of sex, so I am not sure that they are even following their own definition at this point.

 

[Emily Lake]

I think it should be pointed out that they preface the definitions section with the following: "These definitions are intended to help people understand the following guidance".

To me that is along the lines of saying "for the purpose of this guidance, sex is defined as..."

Now, I can't say that I disagree with your point in general, and it seems that if we are going to use "gender" as the more fluid term, we should hesitate to redefine "sex" in the same manner. With regard to the definitions in the guidance, however, the very next definition after sex is transgender, and in that definition they state "“Transgender”—sometimes shortened to “trans”—is a term used to describe a person whose gender identity does not conform with the sex assigned at birth."

That seems to be using the standard definition of sex, so I am not sure that they are even following their own definition at this point.

I don't think it's possible for them to follow their own definitions. They're tautological.

Gender. "“Gender” includes actual or perceived sex, gender identity, and gender expression including a person’s actual or perceived gender-related self-image, appearance, behavior, expression, or other gender-related characteristic, regardless of the sex assigned to that person at birth.

Gender Identity. “Gender identity” is the internal deeply-held sense of one’s gender which may be the same as or different from one’s sex assigned at birth.

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.

It's all circular. They define gender as being a combination of gender identity and sex. They define sex as being determined by gender identity. Then they define gender identity as being one's sense of gender.

Their hearts might be in the right place, but I think their brains are in their asses.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

And I have already replied to your objection, so where does that leave us? Can I only object to your incorrect reasoning once, or shouldn't I be expected to do se every time you continue to use that same incorrect reasoning?

I didn't reason incorrectly. You did, and I showed your reasoning was absurd. So, you changed your objection to the objection that that is not the law. Well, I showed that that objection did not succeed, either. In any event, it is compelled speech by the government of New York.

I am making multiple arguments. The first (not chronologically) is that the wording that you feel compels speech is not in the law itself. It isn't, I have posted a link to the text of the law, and you will not find that wording in the law.

The previous one was the nonsense argument "You can go that jurisdiction and use any pronoun you like when addressing transgenders, and nothing will happen to you. It is not compelled speech. " Obviously, that was a wrong criterion, as I showed. It would make a law - "law" in a broad sense, including any official policy - demanding that waiters say 'Trump is a winner' before serving a meal not compelled speech.

Then you came up with that argument that it is not in the text of the law. I showed its irrelevance too, but here we go again:

1. The New York City Commission on Human Rights issued official guidelines that compel speech.

2. Either the New York City Commission on Human Rights interpreted the law correctly, or it did not.

3. If the New York City Commission on Human Rights interpreted the law correctly, the law compels speech.

4. If the New York City Commission on Human Rights interpreted the law incorrectly but the law compels speech for other reasons, then well it does.

5. If the New York City Commission on Human Rights interpreted the law incorrectly and the law does not compel speech, the guidelines applied to interpret it (issued by the New York City Commission on Human Rights) do.

However one slices it, the government of New York compels speech.

The next argument is that even with the guideline taken into account, speech is not compelled.

That is just nonsense. Obviously it is compelled. It was already pointed out to you much earlier by Bomb#20 in this post.

The guideline instructs one how to determine if one is being discriminatory to transgenders. One of those ways is by antagonizing them through the use of language. Doing so to any protected class will run afoul of discrimination laws because what you say is very much an indicator of whether or not you are discriminating against a protected class. That does not mean that anti-discrimination laws are compelling speach.

I am not aware of any law (or guidelines, etc.; I would be inclined ot use the word 'law' in its broad sense, but I don't want objections based on technicalities) involving other protected classes that say something like

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

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

However, if there are such laws, guidelines, etc., then obviously they compel speech too (in other words, when you go up against the obvious, a 'partners in innocence' argument will never work, because it is obviously not innocent, so either they're not partners, or they're both guilty).

Yes, that is correct. Just as if a black bodied person enters a locker room, and a white bodied person is uncomfortable with it, then it is the white bodied person who is expected to leave.

That is false. The white person may as well stay despite their discomfort.

 

[ruby sparks]

The way this law is written would allow, for example, Trump to saunter into the locker room at the local community swimming pool and check out the 14 year olds with impunity, simply by saying "I'm a transwoman". And if the 14 yos or their parents complain, they are the ones considered in the wrong. The person in charge of the swimming pool has no recourse to judge whether or not Trump is actually a transwoman or not, and must allow her entry to the locker room. It ends up being the 14 yos who are required to go somewhere else if they don't want Trump checking out their budding boobies.

I have looked online but have not found a single case of this sort of thing. I was actually expecting to find at least some (in places where trans women are allowed to use women's rest rooms) but no. Unless it has gone unnoticed.

Bear in mind that a cis man could dress as a woman and do it anyway.

It's a tricky one for me. I can't make up my mind if I'm for it or against it.

Toilets are funny places. People feel more exposed in them. And sometimes they literally are. Changing rooms and showers even more so. Not to mention women's refuges. A good friend who worked for Women's Aid here for most of her career has reservations about ID-only rules.

 

[ruby sparks]

Can't vouch for this study (published in the publication 'Gender Issues') but it suggests that it's mostly men who worry about trans women using women's rest rooms:

"We enumerate 1035 user comments from 190 online articles to gauge public opinion about safety and privacy when transgender women use female bathrooms. In these comments, we find that cisgender males are around 1.55× as likely to express concern about safety and privacy as cisgender females. Moreover, we find that when expressing concern (a) cisgender females are around 4× as likely as cisgender males to assert that transgender women do not directly cause their safety and privacy concerns, typically emphasizing their concerns are about ‘perverts’ posing as transgender females, and (b) cisgender males are around 1.5× as likely as cisgender females to assert that transgender females directly cause their safety and privacy concerns. We theorize that the heightened concern seen in males in these comments stems from them being more likely to view transgender females not as females, but as males who are lying or mistaken about their gender, and consequently they view themselves as protecting females from these males intruding into private, female-only spaces. This may be further exacerbated by a fear of deception and a belief that transgender people are mentally ill or ‘sick’."

https://www.researchgate.net/public...d_About_Transgender_Women_in_Female_Bathrooms

 

[KeepTalking]

I didn't reason incorrectly. You did, and I showed your reasoning was absurd. So, you changed your objection to the objection that that is not the law. Well, I showed that that objection did not succeed, either. In any event, it is compelled speech by the government of New York.

I have never changed my argument, I stand by the original argument I made. In case you haven't noticed I have still been supporting that argument. What happened is that after having made that argument, I examined Bomb's link, and learned that the wording he used was from a guideline, not the actual law in question, so I introduced that fact into the discussion while continuing to support my original argument. Your feigning ignorance on that account might go a little farther if you had not addressed that argument in this very post.

The previous one was the nonsense argument "You can go that jurisdiction and use any pronoun you like when addressing transgenders, and nothing will happen to you. It is not compelled speech. " Obviously, that was a wrong criterion, as I showed. It would make a law - "law" in a broad sense, including any official policy - demanding that waiters say 'Trump is a winner' before serving a meal not compelled speech.

A law or a guideline? Because I am having trouble coming up with what text in a law would cause a guideline to demand something nonsensical like that. I know about the law in the actual case we are discussing, it forbids discrimination against transgenders. The guideline makes sense in this case because one of the ways that a person can demonstrate that they are discriminating against transgenders is by repeatedly and deliberately insulting them in this manner.

Then you came up with that argument that it is not in the text of the law.

I did introduce that fact into the discussion, and I felt it proper to do so, as Bomb had left out that information when posting the text from the guideline rather than the law.

I showed its irrelevance too, but here we go again:

Sure, let's go.

1. The New York City Commission on Human Rights issued official guidelines that compel speech.

Oh dear, off the rails already. The very thing we are discussing is whether or not it compels speech, so you are assuming your conclusion.

2. Either the New York City Commission on Human Rights interpreted the law correctly, or it did not.

3. If the New York City Commission on Human Rights interpreted the law correctly, the law compels speech.

4. If the New York City Commission on Human Rights interpreted the law incorrectly but the law compels speech for other reasons, then well it does.

5. If the New York City Commission on Human Rights interpreted the law incorrectly and the law does not compel speech, the guidelines applied to interpret it (issued by the New York City Commission on Human Rights) do.

However one slices it, the government of New York compels speech.

Yup, there's your conclusion right there. The very thing you assumed at the onset of your argument.

The next argument is that even with the guideline taken into account, speech is not compelled.

That is just nonsense. Obviously it is compelled. It was already pointed out to you much earlier by Bomb#20 in this post.

I'm glad you were able to find that, it is only the very thing we have been discussing for the last 10 pages.

The guideline instructs one how to determine if one is being discriminatory to transgenders. One of those ways is by antagonizing them through the use of language. Doing so to any protected class will run afoul of discrimination laws because what you say is very much an indicator of whether or not you are discriminating against a protected class. That does not mean that anti-discrimination laws are compelling speach.

I am not aware of any law (or guidelines, etc.; I would be inclined ot use the word 'law' in its broad sense, but I don't want objections based on technicalities) involving other protected classes that say something like

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

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

How far did you look? Because this is literally the first link that comes up when you Google "guidelines on racial discrimination":

https://www.eeoc.gov/racecolor-discrimination

Harassment can include, for example, racial slurs, offensive or derogatory remarks about a person's race or color

However, if there are such laws, guidelines, etc., then obviously they compel speech too (in other words, when you go up against the obvious, a 'partners in innocence' argument will never work, because it is obviously not innocent, so either they're not partners, or they're both guilty).

You just didn't care about it until transgenders became a protected class, right? Now it is just a bridge too far.

Yes, that is correct. Just as if a black bodied person enters a locker room, and a white bodied person is uncomfortable with it, then it is the white bodied person who is expected to leave.

That is false. The white person may as well stay despite their discomfort.

False? It's not like I said the white person would be forced to leave, of course they could remain and be uncomfortable, just like should happen in the case of a transgender entering a locker room. But you don't agree with that one do you? What is it about transgenders that changes the equation for you in both of these situations (anti-discrimination laws, and locker rooms)?

 

[Metaphor]

So, this is the crux of the matter. It isn't that this compels speech, because you are fine with similar guidelines that would include the n-word as an indicator of discrimination.

No: forbidding the use of a slur like "nigger" is suppressing speech but it's not compelling it.

The problem is that you don't think that people repeatedly and deliberately insulting trans people through their use of pronouns is an indication of discrimination.

The problem is that you think pronouns are insults.

 

[Emily Lake]

The way this law is written would allow, for example, Trump to saunter into the locker room at the local community swimming pool and check out the 14 year olds with impunity, simply by saying "I'm a transwoman". And if the 14 yos or their parents complain, they are the ones considered in the wrong. The person in charge of the swimming pool has no recourse to judge whether or not Trump is actually a transwoman or not, and must allow her entry to the locker room. It ends up being the 14 yos who are required to go somewhere else if they don't want Trump checking out their budding boobies.

I have looked online but have not found a single case of this sort of thing.

Not surprising... given that it's a new law. Mostly, this is an easily foreseeable abuse, and I have reservations about laws that have such gaping loopholes.

Bad Analogy Time:

Bob walks in with a delicate and expensive Ming vase, and places it on the very edge of a counter top, right next to where a cat is sitting.
Joe looks at him and says "That's a bad place to put that, it could easily fall, and cats often rub against stuff".
Bob replies "I haven't seen that happen, and that cat hasn't rubbed against things I've put on the counter before"

 

[Metaphor]

Bear in mind that a cis man could dress as a woman and do it anyway.

No. They wouldn't have to dress as a woman. It is simply enough to utter "I am a woman", but actually even that is not required.

The NYC law forbids any questioning of gender identity at all. So any person of any sex or gender, regardless of presentation or trans status, can use any bathroom without question.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I have never changed my argument, I stand by the original argument I made. In case you haven't noticed I have still been supporting that argument.

Let me debunk it again. The argument was:

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

Let us apply that method.

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

Verdict: not compelled speech, as people are not compelled to be waiters, so they can go to that jurisdiction, refrain from thanking any lords, or even say whatever they want about any lords, or about God, or whatever.​

Note that the application of the method you use to rule out compulsion does not depend on whether it's a law or guidelines or what sort of government compulsion, or whether the law, etc., is unconstitutional for one reason or another. The method is a way of ruling out compulsion. Clearly it fails, as the law in question would compel speech.

What happened is that after having made that argument, I examined Bomb's link, and learned that the wording he used was from a guideline, not the actual law in question, so I introduced that fact into the discussion while continuing to support my original argument. Your feigning ignorance on that account might go a little farther if you had not addressed that argument in this very post.

Your accusation that I feign ignorance is false, epistemically unwarranted, and unethical. In the post you are replying to, I point out that you had changed your argument. Which you had, as you had moved on from the nonsensical argument I refuted by absurdum to the technicality. The fact that in the reply in which I pointed out that you had changed your argument I also decided to debunk the argument you had stopped making is not remotely an indication that I believed that you were still making it. Rather, I was reminding you of the previous argument you had made, and of how it was debunked.

A law or a guideline? Because I am having trouble coming up with what text in a law would cause a guideline to demand something nonsensical like that.

You are missing the point. It is irrelevant why they make such law or guideline. Maybe they just do it out of spite. Whatever. It can be a law for that matter, as the analogy only requires the use of your method, not the same kind of legal document. The point of the analogy is to show that the application of the method you used in your argument leads to false results. By a reductio, the method is debunked.

1. The New York City Commission on Human Rights issued official guidelines that compel speech.

Oh dear, off the rails already. The very thing we are discussing is whether or not it compels speech, so you are assuming your conclusion.

No, that is false. I do not assume the conclusion. I read the guidelines and I assess - as it is obvious - that they compel speech.

Yup, there's your conclusion right there. The very thing you assumed at the onset of your argument.

No, the very thing I assessed in the beginning was that the New York City Commission on Human Rights issued official guidelines that compel speech. It is obvious also that it implies (with an implicit but obvious premise) that the government of New York compels speech. But then, you were already denying the obvious, and you were raising an irrelevant objection. So, I consider the irrelevant objection in detail, and show it remains irrelevant.

I'm glad you were able to find that, it is only the very thing we have been discussing for the last 10 pages.

No, that is obviously false. Read the exchange.

How far did you look? Because this is literally the first link that comes up when you Google "guidelines on racial discrimination":

That is not at all the same. You are still failing to see the difference. Let us see:

It is unlawful to harass a person because of that person's race or color.

Harassment can include, for example, racial slurs, offensive or derogatory remarks about a person's race or color, or the display of racially-offensive symbols. Although the law doesn't prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not very serious, harassment is illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or demoted).

The harasser can be the victim's supervisor, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker, or someone who is not an employee of the employer, such as a client or customer.

Of course, at no point does any of this compel speech. It does not say that anyone is mandated to say anything. You cannot possibly run afoul of that law (or guidelines, or whatever), by choosing to remain silent.

You just didn't care about it until transgenders became a protected class, right? Now it is just a bridge too far.

You are really bad at mind-reading, at least when you read through the distorting lenses of your ideology/religion.

False? It's not like I said the white person would be forced to leave, of course they could remain and be uncomfortable, just like should happen in the case of a transgender entering a locker room. But you don't agree with that one do you? What is it about transgenders that changes the equation for you in both of these situations (anti-discrimination laws, and locker rooms)?

Yes, your claim is false. You said the white person is "expected to leave" if the white person feel uncomfortable. What did you mean by "expected to leave" that makes your claim not false?

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Generally, when restrooms are made available to the public (including customers of businesses open to the general public) or to employees or other similar situations, individuals using the restrooms aren't granted veto power over other occupants. The law recognizes gender identity as a valid criterion for using specific gender/ sex-segregated spaces. It can't really make that conditional on the opinions or approval of other occupants. Discomfort with others in a restroom is a difficult standard to apply. What if that discomfort is based on race or religion or age or sexual orientation or just general appearance? Who gets to veto whom and how do with manage this process? How accountable is the law to discomfort with others?

It's not that the person experiencing discomfort is expected to leave. They still retain the right to use the women's room. But where their discomfort is the area of conflict and concern, the proposed solution is to offer them additional accommodation where possible rather than place restrictions on others who ordinarily have a recognized right to use the space. I will say if transgender people--men, women and non-binary alike--required the approval of others using the restroom, it would be grossly impractical for us to ever take a piss anywhere which didn't have single-occupancy or gender-neutral facilities.

As a big-picture concept, sure, it makes sense as long as the number of people made uncomfortable are very few and as long as the people identifying as trans are all honest and there are no bad-actors or pervs taking advantage of the situation.

Not really. It's grossly impractical to start navigating rights issues that way. I mean, we have two groups, at the polar ends, with a mutually exclusive position on what rights we should have. A subset of cisgender women believe they have (or should have) the right to purely sex-segregated washrooms. Many (if not most) transgender women believe we should be able to use the women's restroom and the decision when to start doing that has to be left to us. Both beliefs can't be simultaneously respected. Deciding based on who has greater moral support is an awful way to do things.

The way this law is written would allow, for example, Trump to saunter into the locker room at the local community swimming pool and check out the 14 year olds with impunity, simply by saying "I'm a transwoman". And if the 14 yos or their parents complain, they are the ones considered in the wrong.

He could do that under one of two circumstances. i) He is transgender. ii) He is lying. In the first case, he probably really is just in there to use the restroom. While, perhaps, awkward, he presents no real threat. If he does anything untoward, that alone is a basis for his removal regardless of gender identity as it would be for cisgender women. In the latter case, he can lie no matter what. He can say he is a transgender woman or a transgender man for the sake of circumventing rules on either using the restrooms according to gender identity or using them according to biological sex. Until someone goes to the length of verifying his gender identity, there isn't much of a counterclaim which can be made in the short term. With Trump, he's a celebrity, so it would be easier to call him out, but for the overwhelming majority of men, that isn't the case.

The person in charge of the swimming pool has no recourse to judge whether or not Trump is actually a transwoman or not, and must allow her entry to the locker room. It ends up being the 14 yos who are required to go somewhere else if they don't want Trump checking out their budding boobies.

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?

 

[ruby sparks]

The way this law is written would allow, for example, Trump to saunter into the locker room at the local community swimming pool and check out the 14 year olds with impunity, simply by saying "I'm a transwoman". And if the 14 yos or their parents complain, they are the ones considered in the wrong. The person in charge of the swimming pool has no recourse to judge whether or not Trump is actually a transwoman or not, and must allow her entry to the locker room. It ends up being the 14 yos who are required to go somewhere else if they don't want Trump checking out their budding boobies.

I have looked online but have not found a single case of this sort of thing.

Not surprising... given that it's a new law. Mostly, this is an easily foreseeable abuse, and I have reservations about laws that have such gaping loopholes.

Bad Analogy Time:

Bob walks in with a delicate and expensive Ming vase, and places it on the very edge of a counter top, right next to where a cat is sitting.
Joe looks at him and says "That's a bad place to put that, it could easily fall, and cats often rub against stuff".
Bob replies "I haven't seen that happen, and that cat hasn't rubbed against things I've put on the counter before"

Sure, but at the same time, scare-mongering about things that 'could' happen is not a good basis either.

Personally, I do not think the risk is so great, compared to existing risks (where a man can dress up as a woman and do the same thing) as to be a good reason to be against letting trans gender women use women's toilets.

Changing rooms/showers and refuges might be another matter.

To add to that, I already don't know whether a man I am sharing any such facilities with is gay (and possibly secretly admiring my body) or even a pedophile for that matter. And I might have my male children with me in the facilities.

So I think the objections to transgender on those grounds might be a bit overstated. If someone behaves inappropriately, they can already be sanctioned.

Quite possibly, as an ideal, unisex/unigender facilities could solve the first two (toilets and changing rooms/showers) by providing adequate means of obtaining individual privacy, but not the third (refuges). But if a law were passed that applied to existing segregated toilet/changing/shower facilities, the hypothetical possibility of creating unisex/gender facilities would not address any current issues. And how uncontroversial would unisex/unigender facilities be, in any case? The alternative would be to continue with segregated facilities but create the high standards of individual privacy, but that would take up even more space, and would thus be more impractical. And even that may not be popular. Speaking as a regular sports changing rooms and showers user, I very much like the social aspect of the group communality, which individual cubicles would detract from.

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.

 

[KeepTalking]

Let me debunk it again. The argument was:

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

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

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

What you identified above is a fact in support of my argument. If you would have paid attention to the part of the thread from which you pulled that post, you would have noticed that we had already been discussing my argument for several pages before I made that statement.

Let us apply that method.

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

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

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:

§ 8-107. Unlawful discriminatory practices.
1. Employment. It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice:
(a) For an employer or an employee or agent thereof, because of the actual or perceived age, race, creed, color, national origin, gender, disability, marital status, partnership status, caregiver status, sexual and reproductive health decisions, sexual orientation, uniformed service or alienage or citizenship status of any person:

There are additional sections for other areas where discrimination can occur other than employment, but they all read in a very similar manner to this. 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. The example you posted is nowhere close. On the other hand, you could just go ahead and show the text in the law that is analogous to the example you provided. I will wait.

What happened is that after having made that argument, I examined Bomb's link, and learned that the wording he used was from a guideline, not the actual law in question, so I introduced that fact into the discussion while continuing to support my original argument. Your feigning ignorance on that account might go a little farther if you had not addressed that argument in this very post.

Your accusation that I feign ignorance is false, epistemically unwarranted, and unethical. In the post you are replying to, I point out that you had changed your argument.

Which is false. I merely provided additional evidence regarding my argument, while continuing to support that argument.

A law or a guideline? Because I am having trouble coming up with what text in a law would cause a guideline to demand something nonsensical like that.

You are missing the point. It is irrelevant why they make such law or guideline. Maybe they just do it out of spite. Whatever. It can be a law for that matter, as the analogy only requires the use of your method, not the same kind of legal document. The point of the analogy is to show that the application of the method you used in your argument leads to false results. By a reductio, the method is debunked.

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. 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. If you would like to refute that fact, you should try showing how you think you would run afoul of the actual law if you were to visit that jurisdiction. Making up some other ridiculous law just doesn't help you here.

1. The New York City Commission on Human Rights issued official guidelines that compel speech.

Oh dear, off the rails already. The very thing we are discussing is whether or not it compels speech, so you are assuming your conclusion.

No, that is false. I do not assume the conclusion. I read the guidelines and I assess - as it is obvious - that they compel speech.

Yup, there's your conclusion right there. The very thing you assumed at the onset of your argument.

No, the very thing I assessed in the beginning was that the New York City Commission on Human Rights issued official guidelines that compel speech.

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.

I'm glad you were able to find that, it is only the very thing we have been discussing for the last 10 pages.

No, that is obviously false. Read the exchange.

I have, and I just reviewed it again. It is apparent that you have not, as you misidentified my original argument.

How far did you look? Because this is literally the first link that comes up when you Google "guidelines on racial discrimination":

That is not at all the same. You are still failing to see the difference. Let us see:

It is unlawful to harass a person because of that person's race or color.

Harassment can include, for example, racial slurs, offensive or derogatory remarks about a person's race or color, or the display of racially-offensive symbols. Although the law doesn't prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not very serious, harassment is illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or demoted).

The harasser can be the victim's supervisor, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker, or someone who is not an employee of the employer, such as a client or customer.

Of course, at no point does any of this compel speech. It does not say that anyone is mandated to say anything. You cannot possibly run afoul of that law (or guidelines, or whatever), by choosing to remain silent.

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.

You just didn't care about it until transgenders became a protected class, right? Now it is just a bridge too far.

You are really bad at mind-reading, at least when you read through the distorting lenses of your ideology/religion.

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

False? It's not like I said the white person would be forced to leave, of course they could remain and be uncomfortable, just like should happen in the case of a transgender entering a locker room. But you don't agree with that one do you? What is it about transgenders that changes the equation for you in both of these situations (anti-discrimination laws, and locker rooms)?

Yes, your claim is false. You said the white person is "expected to leave" if the white person feel uncomfortable. What did you mean by "expected to leave" that makes your claim not false?

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.​

 

[KeepTalking]

So, this is the crux of the matter. It isn't that this compels speech, because you are fine with similar guidelines that would include the n-word as an indicator of discrimination.

No: forbidding the use of a slur like "nigger" is suppressing speech but it's not compelling it.

And you are wrong that those guidelines suppress speech. You can use the n-word all you like, in fact you just did it, in a jurisdiction that forbids racial discrimination and has the following guideline regarding racial discrimination:

https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/race-discrimination/publications/know-your-rights-racial-discrimination-and-vilification

racially offensive material on the internet, including eforums, blogs, social networking sites and video sharing sites

The problem is that you don't think that people repeatedly and deliberately insulting trans people through their use of pronouns is an indication of discrimination.

The problem is that you think pronouns are insults.

No, the problem is that to transgenders using certain pronouns can be insulting. When you do so repeatedly and deliberately despite having been informed by the target of your ire that you are being insulting, then you are being discriminatory. Even that is not against the law in the majority of situations. It goes against the law in this situation when you are being discriminatory while providing employment, public accommodation, or public housing.

 

[Metaphor]

And you are wrong that those guidelines suppress speech. You can use the n-word all you like, in fact you just did it, in a jurisdiction that forbids racial discrimination and has the following guideline regarding racial discrimination:

https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/race-discrimination/publications/know-your-rights-racial-discrimination-and-vilification

Of course they suppress speech in certain contexts. Why do you keep going on about the limited contexts of the suppressed speech as if it meant it the speech were not suppressed?

The use of certain words that would otherwise be suppressed, as part of fair comment and debate, is not forbidden in Australia.

No, the problem is that to transgenders using certain pronouns can be insulting..

And I'm certain that 'transgenders' instead of 'transgender person' can also be insulting. Whether somebody is insulted by something is not a good reason to suppress or compel speech.

When you do so repeatedly and deliberately despite having been informed by the target of your ire that you are being insulting, then you are being discriminatory. Even that is not against the law in the majority of situations. It goes against the law in this situation when you are being discriminatory while providing employment, public accommodation, or public housing.

Well, I agree that that's what the NYC law says.

 

[ZiprHead]

There's always been "the Woke." They just weren't called that. George Zimmerman was woke, Vietnam anti-war protestors were woke. People that lynched "uppity niggers" were woke. Suffragettes were woke. They appear on all places on the spectrum, both good and bad. To try to claim this is a new phenomena shows a stunning lack of knowledge of history.

 

[KeepTalking]

Of course they suppress speech in certain contexts. Why do you keep going on about the limited contexts of the suppressed speech as if it meant it the speech were not suppressed?

Because the speech is not suppressed, the thing that is suppressed is the ability to discriminate in certain contexts, and the things you say in those contexts can be a dead giveaway that you are being discriminatory.

And I'm certain that 'transgenders' instead of 'transgender person' can also be insulting.

You are not certain, as you just pulled that directly from your ass.

Whether somebody is insulted by something is not a good reason to suppress or compel speech.

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.

When you do so repeatedly and deliberately despite having been informed by the target of your ire that you are being insulting, then you are being discriminatory. Even that is not against the law in the majority of situations. It goes against the law in this situation when you are being discriminatory while providing employment, public accommodation, or public housing.

Well, I agree that that's what the NYC law says.

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

 

[Metaphor]

Because the speech is not suppressed, the thing that is suppressed is the ability to discriminate in certain contexts, and the things you say in those contexts can be a dead giveaway that you are being discriminatory.

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.

You are not certain, as you just pulled that directly from your ass.

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.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There's always been "the Woke." They just weren't called that. George Zimmerman was woke, Vietnam anti-war protestors were woke. People that lynched "uppity niggers" were woke. Suffragettes were woke. They appear on all places on the spectrum, both good and bad. To try to claim this is a new phenomena shows a stunning lack of knowledge of history.

"Woke" is just the rebranding of "PC".

 

[Gun Nut]

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?