Use "Hir" or Transgenders can get you fined by police

[panamaican]

My main point is that it is reasonable to refer to a male as a man, regardless of whether he considers himself a woman and attempts to comport himself as a woman. Beyond that, yes I think the federal government should not be involved in how we address one another at all.

Now you're modifying your argument to avoid the implications of my question.

I asked if you would defend that landlord's ability to refer to a guy as "she" if that's what the landlord felt was appropriate. You said that you would.

The point of my question was very straightforward - who gets final say in how the landlord refers to the tenant? Does the landlord decide or the tenant?

That's my question - who decides. You said the landlord. Are you standing by that answer or not?

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

No, now you're changing your argument to avoid the implications of my question.

I haven't changed my argument at all. It is reasonable to call any male a man, even if that male would prefer to be called a woman and wants to live as if he were a woman. Secondarily, we don't need laws telling people how to talk to one another.

The landlord thing is your argument, and I already stated I found it inapt. However, I certainly believe the federal government should not be allowed to tell the landlord what he may and may not say.

 

[panamaican]

I haven't changed my argument at all. It is reasonable to call any male a man, even if that male would prefer to be called a woman and wants to live as if he were a woman. Secondarily, we don't need laws telling people how to talk to one another.

The landlord thing is your argument, and I already stated I found it inapt. However, I certainly believe the federal government should not be allowed to tell the landlord what he may and may not say.

And I stated that my landlord question is meant to illustrate a very straightforward point that you answered and then backtracked on. Who decides how to address the tenant - the landlord or the tenant?

What you think is reasonable is irrelevant since you already reduced the scope of the discussion to "legally". It's a contractual relationship, not random people on the street.

So, yes, you're changing your argument.

 

[Ruprecht]

Strange that you'd have a specific law. Here that'd be covered under the workplace harassment legislation and the harassment section of the Tenancies act.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

Your post doesn't make any sense. Who cares if "Males role playing as females objectively are not women."?

It doesn't invalidate the basic ability to request how you are to be referred. Regardless of if they're trans or not, the request itself is valid. If you are refusing the request because they are trans, it's because you don't think trans people are entitled to make the request. Not because people asking is a problem.

Nicknames are always chosen. Sex never is chosen. I may agree to call someone a nickname, but even then I'm under no obligation to. I'm under ZERO obligation to call someone something he's not. Trannies are entitled to request being wrongly described. And I'm entitled to not comply.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

And I stated that my landlord question is meant to illustrate a very straightforward point that you answered and then backtracked on. Who decides how to address the tenant - the landlord or the tenant?

What you think is reasonable is irrelevant since you already reduced the scope of the discussion to "legally". It's a contractual relationship, not random people on the street.

So, yes, you're changing your argument.

No, I never changed my answer. Obviously the landlord decides what the landlord is going to say. I repeatedly said the law should not force him either way. Please quote where I said it is the tenant or said something different than this? If a tenant with a PhD asks a landlord to address him as doctor, it is reasonable but not required for landlord to refer to him as doctor. If a tenant without a PhD asks the landlord to address him as doctor it is unreasonable and not required for the landlord to address him as a doctor. We can agree or disagree about how reasonable it is for a man to expect to be called a woman, but it is the speaker's choice what words to use, and he should not be required by law.

As far as the law goes, of course that is the scope of our discussion, because we're talking about people being required by law to use language they would otherwise not use. But how does what is reasonable become irrelevant when discussing legal issues. Laws should be reasonable.

 

[panamaican]

No, I never changed my answer. Obviously the landlord decides what the landlord is going to say. I repeatedly said the law should not force him either way. Please quote where I said it is the tenant or said something different than this? If a tenant with a PhD asks a landlord to address him as doctor, it is reasonable but not required for landlord to refer to him as doctor. If a tenant without a PhD asks the landlord to address him as doctor it is unreasonable and not required for the landlord to address him as a doctor. We can agree or disagree about how reasonable it is for a man to expect to be called a woman, but it is the speaker's choice what words to use, and he should not be required by law.

As far as the law goes, of course that is the scope of our discussion, because we're talking about people being required by law to use language they would otherwise not use. But how does what is reasonable become irrelevant when discussing legal issues. Laws should be reasonable.

Yes. You did and you're still doing so.

Who decides what to call the tenant - landlord or tenant?

It's very reasonable to flesh that out. Landlord/tenant rights are an entire body of law. And the law should apply to transgender tenants to the same degree that they apply to non-transgender tenants.

Don't try to split the baby here. You need to pick one - landlord or tenant.

And why? Because the very next legal question is about harassment, which is a very straightforward issue about doing something with the intent to annoy and centers around continuous, unwanted, behavior.

So, stop equivocating. Can the landlord can a guy "she" and "her" on the landlord's whim and the guy can't complain about it? That is the position you originally took. Now...are you standing by the position or are you changing your answer?

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Yes. You did and you're still doing so.

Who decides what to call the tenant - landlord or tenant?

It's very reasonable to flesh that out. Landlord/tenant rights are an entire body of law. And the law should apply to transgender tenants to the same degree that they apply to non-transgender tenants.

Don't try to split the baby here. You need to pick one - landlord or tenant.

And why? Because the very next legal question is about harassment, which is a very straightforward issue about doing something with the intent to annoy and centers around continuous, unwanted, behavior.

So, stop equivocating. Can the landlord can a guy "she" and "her" on the landlord's whim and the guy can't complain about it? That is the position you originally took. Now...are you standing by the position or are you changing your answer?

Are you deliberately being obtuse or are we talking past each other? I'd guess the second, but you are being so aggressive with accusing me of equivocating that I'm beginning to suspect the first. I've now been asked the same question by you several times and have answered more than once unequivocally. The landlord. Can you please quote me as saying anything different, and if not can you please retract your claim that I've backtracked.

I answered the landlord here:

No, I never changed my answer. Obviously the landlord decides what the landlord is going to say.

and here:

Would you defend the landlord's ability to apply a pronoun that aligns with the landlord's perception?

Legally? Of course I'd defend it.

And I've fleshed it out several times where I think the landlord could reasonably honor a tenant's request or deny their request.

And no, I never said the tenant can't complain about it. Again, quotes or gtfo. I made it explicitly clear numerous times I did not think the law should require the landlord to obey the tenant. Not that the tenant had to be OK with the landlord's decision.

Now, I have stated several times I think your approach is inapt, but regardless have tried to play ball with you. How about you argue in good faith, by which I mean specifically, stop accusing me of back tracking, equivocating, or avoiding the question. I have not done that. I did try to reframe the issue to better illustrate the principles I see involved, which is normal in the course of any dialogue.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

Strange that you'd have a specific law. Here that'd be covered under the workplace harassment legislation and the harassment section of the Tenancies act.

In Australia it's considered harassment to call a male role playing as a female "him"/"he"?

 

[Ruprecht]

In Australia it's considered harassment to call a male role playing as a female "him"/"he"?

It'd depend on the circumstances.

 

[DLX]

Gonna start self identifying as hyper-masculine female in order to transphobe shame lesbians into letting me fuck them.

 

[laz0001]

https://nypost.com/2016/05/19/city-issues-new-guidelines-on-transgender-pronouns/

I used to be liberal but have become moderate politically and this is the sort of nonsense that drove me to it.

There are now laws in NYC that you can be fined for not addressing a trans whatever as their proper pronoun and not using imaginary prounds not linked to biological reality.

How messed up is this law??? So if someone comes into my work, looks like a female, dressed like one and I can not tell what gender they seem to be and accidently dont call them by whatever gender fluid term I could get fined by law enforcement. This is beyond banning hate speech or actions this is specifically taking away peoples rights and treating other people like they are above the law, above reality and can enforce themselves on others....thats called propaganda. I believe in science and reality and when you force someone to go against their beliefs and believe in ideology not based in reality this is called FASCISM.

Trans talks to a person.
That person mis-addresses said trans.
Said person gets a fine by the police.
Said person vows to NEVER talk to another trans person, address them in a way that avoid pronouns completely.
Trans people end up getting even MORE marginalised.

 

[fromTheAshes KoSkater]

Okay. Can you elaborate?

Yes, both sexes share a lot of common personality traits.

Look gender roles at times can be restrictive... sure dudes can watch soaps and cry and females can be tough as nails. Some chicks are tougher than dudes and some dudes are b*(#$%. Both females and males can be leader and accomplish a lot. But approaching gender and social roles by trying to destroy them and recreate bathroom signs and make everyone androgynous this way is like attacking an ant with a cannon...overkill and pretty asinine.

Gender roles are a loose reflection of our biology. And I mean LOOSE but theres still something to it. Males are generally physically larger and stronger. If you don't think so, let females play in the NFL w males. Nobody would want to see that.

It's just human nature man, itd be nice if we were sexless amoebas but were just not.

 

[fromTheAshes KoSkater]

The easiest solution is to just not hire trans-people then you don't have to worry about any of this shit.

Till they pass a law that 10% of your workforce HAS to be trans.

 

[Ornife]

Yes, both sexes share a lot of common personality traits.

Look gender roles at times can be restrictive... sure dudes can watch soaps and cry and females can be tough as nails. Some chicks are tougher than dudes and some dudes are b*(#$%. Both females and males can be leader and accomplish a lot. But approaching gender and social roles by trying to destroy them and recreate bathroom signs and make everyone androgynous this way is like attacking an ant with a cannon...overkill and pretty asinine.

Gender roles are a loose reflection of our biology. And I mean LOOSE but theres still something to it. Males are generally physically larger and stronger. If you don't think so, let females play in the NFL w males. Nobody would want to see that.

It's just human nature man, itd be nice if we were sexless amoebas but were just not.

We are using different definitions of gender. Sex is an immutable genetic fact. Conversely, many people have individual definitions of gender. In my original post I was using the definition of gender provided by the WHO.

In all other aspects we seem to agree: An individuals sex is very likely to inform their gender. Genetics influence personality and behavior. And humans exhibit sexual dimorphism.

I think we agree?

 

[fromTheAshes KoSkater]

We are using different definitions of gender. Sex is an immutable genetic fact. Conversely, many people have individual definitions of gender. In my original post I was using the definition of gender provided by the WHO.

In all other aspects we seem to agree: An individuals sex is very likely to inform their gender. Genetics influence personality and behavior. And humans exhibit sexual dimorphism.

I think we agree?

Sure glad we agree on that.

But what is gender if it's not based on biology? When you fill out forms, you indicated if your male or female, it just makes sense. Even if you forget the whole biology argument... human produce sexually w partners and thus we have 2 genders that means we aren't plants that can f$%# ourselves and recreate.

But, Even if you forget the biological argument there's the bureaucratic one... it's two difficult to change all the documents nation-wide to now include "gender identities" that people are inventing. It's just silly and 99% of us dont need it. So we're basically being bullied by a small group of people that want everyone else to be second-class citizens.

Sure you don't complain now but wait till your taxes go to pay for someone plastic surgery.

There are actually people born w birth defects that have both sexes and theyre not even the ones asking for these measures.

 

[HunterAcosta]

That's not propaganda, and that's not fascism. Just definitionally, whether you support it or not.

These are employment discrimination and harassment regulations. Just like you can't call a black employee a racial slur to harass them, you can't call a trans woman a guy just to harass them. Discrimination protections for housing and employment have been around for decades.

Difference is you dont accidentally call someone the "N" word or a gay person a homophobic slur. Its always intentional. His point is that you could be fined for "accidentally" calling someone "'her"', "him" and probably in the future, "you"'(they may not identify as a living entitity). This is unprecedented in american society and goes beyond simple labor/sexual harsssment laws. Wouldnt you agree?

 

[Trotsky]

Difference is you dont accidentally call someone the "N" word or a gay person a homophobic slur. Its always intentional. His point is that you could be fined for "accidentally" calling someone "'her"', "him" and probably in the future, "you"'(they may not identify as a living entitity). This is unprecedented in american society and goes beyond simple labor/sexual harsssment laws.

If that's his point, it's wrong and it means that he (and presumably you) didn't read the article, the law, or this thread.

This only applies to conduct that is all of the following:

1. Knowing;
2. Repeated; and
3. Occurring after requests to stop

So, it's not possible for someone to be fined for an accident.

Wouldnt you agree?

So, no.

 

[franklinstower]

Legally, it's actually much simpler. Legally, you can't discriminate on the basis of sex or gender in many states. Many states are considering adding gender identity to that lists. The legally smart thing to do is honor the request and keep it pushing.

The preferred pronoun of your employees or your tenants is irrelevant to your engagement with them. There are very few legal explanations of how meeting the preferred gender request is onerous to the employer or landlord. And since they honor the requests of all of their other employees and tenants, it's even less so.

I know what you're thinking - they don't honor other people's requests. Sure they do. It's just that most of us make a request that aligns with the landlord's expectations. If my landlord or boss was referring to a guy as "her" or "she" and that guys said "I'm a guy, it's him or he," no one on this board would say "the pronoun doesn't matter and the landlord doesn't have to honor his request."

But when the requesting individual is a trans individual, people forget that they would demand the same courtesy if it was anyone else.

You are making a good argument but I just can't allow it traction. The difference is that most people don't think it absurd to be asked to call someone by a prefered name of title. In the case of transgenders many people, including me, find it to be ridiculously absurd.

You are saying if it's not absurd in the one case it can't be in the other but that is just not true.

I personally dislike anyone making me refer to them in any particular way but would in fact go out of my way to avoid using a gender pronoun that is offensive to a transgender person. It's not too much to ask of me. It is way too much to require I verbally state the gender pronoun of their choice though-- and a bridge way too fucking far to enforce this by law.

It just starts to seem like there is no end to what "they" want from people, from me. I want to support them but am only willing to go so far.

 

[HunterAcosta]

If that's his point, it's wrong and it means that he (and presumably you) didn't read the article, the law, or this thread.

This only applies to conduct that is all of the following:

1. Knowing;
2. Repeated; and
3. Occurring after requests to stop

So, it's not possible for someone to be fined for an accident.



So, no.

But it is possible for someone to be fined for someone being a liar. Who determines "accidental?" The cop right? Based on statements. We all know that nobody ever lies in eyewitness testimony or when talking to a cop...oh wait...And yeah, smart guy, I read that article. Maybe i dont have as much faith in humanity as you do. Too many liars.