California: Possible Jail Time For Misgendering?

[Costa Fierro]

Which is not at all what the bill does, states, or intends. Hell, it's not even intended for the wider public.

It's a test in a controlled environment where there are few instances of such individuals being present. If this proves successful, and by that we have incarcerations, then it will be further rolled out dressed up as "anti-discrimination" or "hate speech" legislation.

[Liriena]

maybe if it's proven to be done in a way to harass or bully someone, yes,

The law would only apply to cases where it is being done to bully or harass someone. It says in the text: "willfully and repeatedly...after being clearly informed of the preferred name or pronouns."

Yeah, I'm gonna tag along with this post.

The punishments seem a taaaaaad bit too harsh, but the principle isn't absolute madness.

[Liriena]

Which is not at all what the bill does, states, or intends. Hell, it's not even intended for the wider public.

It's a test in a controlled environment where there are few instances of such individuals being present. If this proves successful, and by that we have incarcerations, then it will be further rolled out dressed up as "anti-discrimination" or "hate speech" legislation.

Muh slippery slope.

[Des-Bal]

Muh slippery slope.

That is not whata a slippery slope is. A slippery slope argument is saying that if we do x then next we'll do y. He is saying that this is the mobilization of troops that preludes an attack, a warning sign that evidences something very bad in the works.

[Lexicor]

All of this already happened in Canada.

[Costa Fierro]

Muh slippery slope.

Muh thought crimes.

[Des-Bal]

Supreme Court ruled that all speech that offends or is considered controversial, even that which is to be considered hate speech, is protected by the first amendment. Any attempts to enforce this law and any other hate speech related law of a similar caliber would be considered unconstitutional. Any more thought into it is ideological floundering. Period.

We aren't Canada.

Thats a good thing.

The law specifically cites repeated and intentional misgendering, you can outlaw harassment. My problem isn't that the law abridges speech, it's that it tells the leadership of long term care facilities how they must operate.

[Geilinor]

Supreme Court ruled that all speech that offends or is considered controversial, even that which is to be considered hate speech, is protected by the first amendment. Any attempts to enforce this law and any other hate speech related law of a similar caliber would be considered unconstitutional. Any more thought into it is ideological floundering. Period.

We aren't Canada.

Thats a good thing.

The law specifically cites repeated and intentional misgendering, you can outlaw harassment. My problem isn't that the law abridges speech, it's that it tells the leadership of long term care facilities how they must operate.

We have many regulations on long-term care facilities for a good reason.

[Des-Bal]

We have many regulations on long-term care facilities for a good reason.

Oh we have regulations? That means this one is good.

Edit: By the by people saying "we already do X so Y is not an issue" is exactly how slippery slopes work.

[Geilinor]

We have many regulations on long-term care facilities for a good reason.

Oh we have regulations? That means this one is good.

You said that it is bad to tell long-term care facilities how to operate in general.

[The Portland Territory]

This bill also addresses the bathroom debate, right?

It appears so.

Does that not violate a religion's beliefs at all?

[St Ronan]

We know where I'm not moving to now..

Lord, why police speech? Isn't that what Stalin/Hitler did? Not to mention North Korea, them being informers on each other, of course.

[Des-Bal]

You said that it is bad to tell long-term care facilities how to operate in general.

Accepting the reading that long term care facilities should be totally and completely without regulation what you said was still not an argument.

[Galloism]

It appears so.

Does that not violate a religion's beliefs at all?

I mean, I don't know of a religion that specifies a particular bathroom usage pattern. Do you?

[Geilinor]

You said that it is bad to tell long-term care facilities how to operate in general.

Accepting the reading that long term care facilities should be totally and completely without regulation what you said was still not an argument.

All regulation tells long-term care facilities how to operate.

[-The Eurasian Empire-]

I predict the Southern States will be only Pro-Free Speech States in the next hundred years as bullshit like this continues to happen with people wanting to have an apache attack helicopter as their gender.

[Des-Bal]

All regulation tells long-term care facilities how to operate.

Right so even if I was saying "It is bad to regulate long-term care in any way" replying "we regulate long-term care" isn't an argument, it's just some words to say. Regardless, I oppose telling all long-term care facilities that this is how they must operate.

[Minzerland II]

Non binary gender identities are subject to academic debate. The racial implications behind the word "nigger" are not. You're forcing a person on one side of an academic disagreement to adopt and use the language of their detractors, under penalty of law because somebodies feelings might get hurt.

There's also "academic debate" about people of African descent, and you're still self-censoring.

Because god forbid someone not want to call a white male in drag by "Miss" or "Madam".

Apparently that's now transphobic discrimination and grounds for legal repercussions.

Looks like it might be. Now you'll have to actually refer to people how they ask you to, dear god the horror, how will you survive these trying times.

People don't want to refer to you by your preferred pronoun, the horror, however will you survive?

[Blitzkeig]

Accepting the reading that long term care facilities should be totally and completely without regulation what you said was still not an argument.

All regulation tells long-term care facilities how to operate.

The fact that we have useful and sensible regulations on long-term care facilities doesn't mean that this one is useful or sensible.

[Omakhandia]

I haven't read through this whole thread, but is there a link to a more reliable site? I'd like some confirmation that this is real before I get outraged.

[Liriena]

Soooooo much catastrophizing here.

[War Gears]

In the event that they're in a long term care facility, it sounds like staff should be trying to make sure they're as comfortable as possible.

[Des-Bal]

In the event that they're in a long term care facility, it sounds like staff should be trying to make sure they're as comfortable as possible.

They should, and if they don't the correct response is "let's find a different facility" not to have armed men force them to express views that are not their own on penalty of deprivation of property or imprisonment.

[Cosmalia]

It's a test in a controlled environment where there are few instances of such individuals being present. If this proves successful, and by that we have incarcerations, then it will be further rolled out dressed up as "anti-discrimination" or "hate speech" legislation.

Muh slippery slope.

Protests turned into mob riots and tearing down statues

Regulating business turned into people wanting to institute socialist economic principles

Control on dangerous and high powered firearms turned into handgun bans and talks of forceful disarmament

Laws like this actually did escalate in Canada.

We have every reason to believe this is going to escalate if allowed to. It has happened in other places, it can happen here if we let it. We aren't being paranoid by observing a trend and calling it out.

Does that not violate a religion's beliefs at all?

I mean, I don't know of a religion that specifies a particular bathroom usage pattern. Do you?

Glad you're an expert on every religion that exists or ever existed and that you get to decide what other people can and can't believe, and whether their religion calls for something or not. Because we get to make laws infringing on religion so long as it's not readily influencing a group you care about. Might as well just make a couple phrases and words illegal because who even uses the word "perfunctory" anyways? It's not like there's a constitution or anything protecting free speech. I don't care about it so it doesn't matter

[War Gears]

In the event that they're in a long term care facility, it sounds like staff should be trying to make sure they're as comfortable as possible.

They should, and if they don't the correct response is "let's find a different facility" not to have armed men force them to express views that are not their own on penalty of deprivation of property or imprisonment.

Or simply fire the staff members who are distressing the patients, because they clearly can't set aside their personal views when doing their job.