NationStates

Linked below is an article, which covers a recently proposed California law, and the proposal itself.

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2017/jul ... ansgenders

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces ... 20180SB219

The bill SB219, a mouthful titled "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Long-Term Care Facility Resident's Bill of Rights", was proposed just recently after a similar bill took effect all across Canada, America's hat, states that "It shall be unlawful for a long-term care facility or facility staff to.... willfully and repeatedly fail to use a resident's preferred name or pronouns after being clearly informed of the preferred name or pronouns."

Now, the kicker, the Poo de grâce for any ne'er-do-well who happens to not abide by such a law or misgender an individual? Up to a one-thousand USD fine, and/or a jail sentence of up to one year. On top of this bill, it will be illegal for an institution to bar an individual from using any restroom based on biological sex, and no exceptions will be made for religious institutions which do not accept trans individuals.

The Bill itself was originally proposed to protect senior citizens who express differing gender identities or sexuality while in nursing homes.

Of course, as with any bill, there has been backlash and debate over this proposal, notably, as seen in the CBN article, one Greg Burt of the California Family Council, stating "How can you believe in free speech, but think the government can compel people to use certain pronouns when talking to others?", adding "Compelled speech is not free speech. Can the government compel a newspaper to use certain pronouns that aren't even in the dictionary? Of course not, or is that coming next?"

Other arguments against the bill follow that such a bill is not truly tolerant - that respect and tolerance is a two-way street, and that to be truly tolerant is to accept the beliefs and rights of others to express those beliefs, regardless of whether you agree or are offended by them or not.

---

---

Now, of course, I have mixed opinions on this...not really, but I can at least try to understand where the bill is coming from. I get it, that being misgendered is uncomfortable/offensive to trans individuals, as well as being dead named, so on, for forth. I've experienced it myself, and admittedly, it has put me off, which I've made known, but to force anyone who doesn't agree to be tolerant, or to say that they should be fined or even jailed for using the wrong pronouns or dead naming me or anyone else is, I think, absurd; maybe if it's proven to be done in a way to harass or bully someone, yes, but because someone genuinely does not think that a trans individual is really X gender or because they feel it's not right? It seems wrong to me. Also, I don't think America should really be taking anything from fucking Canada

I also personally disagree with the law applying to religious institutions, but that's just me.

Anyways, this isn't particularly my little echo chambers to spout off in. So, what are the rest of NSG's thoughts on this particular bill and the controversy behind it?

Policing speech and forcing people to magically know the made up gender someone assigns to themselves.

Truly this is a golden age for western civilization.

If it should pass into law, it will be labeled unconstitutional, taken to court, and die.

Torsiedelle wrote: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."

Grand Britannia wrote:Policing speech and forcing people to magically know the made up gender someone assigns to themselves.

Truly this is a golden age for western civilization.

It shall be unlawful for a long-term care facility or facility staff to.... willfully and repeatedly fail to use a resident's preferred name or pronouns after being clearly informed of the preferred name or pronouns.

So is it that you can't read, don't want to, or just shitpost for fun?

Grand Britannia wrote:Policing speech and forcing people to magically know the made up gender someone assigns to themselves.

Truly this is a golden age for western civilization.

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

It actually clearly states that its only for long-term care providers, and it also only applies in situations where said provider has clearly been told by the individual they are caring for what their preferred pronoun is.

Now, if you still have issue, then take issue with what the fucking bill does, and not what the misleading title says. There is no ambiguity in what a person is to be called under the law, and it does not apply to random people on the streets.

The 19th Century wrote:

Torsiedelle wrote: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."

Hmm...

Then it appears this one is on me.

Herador wrote:

Grand Britannia wrote:Policing speech and forcing people to magically know the made up gender someone assigns to themselves.

Truly this is a golden age for western civilization.

"It shall be unlawful for a long-term care facility or facility staff to.... willfully and repeatedly fail to use a resident's preferred name or pronouns after being clearly informed of the preferred name or pronouns."

So is it that you can't read, don't want to, or just shitpost for fun?

In other words, it's is unlawful for someone to repeatedly harass a person they are caring for as a long term care provider intentionally.

The shock. The horror.

Herador wrote:

Grand Britannia wrote:Policing speech and forcing people to magically know the made up gender someone assigns to themselves.

Truly this is a golden age for western civilization.

"It shall be unlawful for a long-term care facility or facility staff to.... willfully and repeatedly fail to use a resident's preferred name or pronouns after being clearly informed of the preferred name or pronouns."

So is it that you can't read, don't want to, or just shitpost for fun?

Grand Britannia wrote:Policing speech and forcing people to magically know the made up gender someone assigns to themselves.

Truly this is a golden age for western civilization.

I could ask you the same.

Anyways this is, like it has been said before, unconstitutional.

That is impressive and I agree with the OP's sentiments.

Grand Britannia wrote:Policing speech and forcing people to magically know the made up gender someone assigns to themselves.

Truly this is a golden age for western civilization.

What part of "after being clearly informed" did you miss?

I mean, I think there are arguments to be had about the free speech aspect of it, but nobody's being asked to read minds here.

Seangoli wrote:

Herador wrote:"It shall be unlawful for a long-term care facility or facility staff to.... willfully and repeatedly fail to use a resident's preferred name or pronouns after being clearly informed of the preferred name or pronouns."

So is it that you can't read, don't want to, or just shitpost for fun?

In other words, it's is unlawful for someone to repeatedly harass a person they are caring for as a long term care provider intentionally.

The shock. The horror.

I actually agree with GB for once, this actually is a golden age for western civilization. I just mean that unironically because I'm capable of reading and thinking for longer than it takes to spasm out a garbage response.

Herador wrote:

Seangoli wrote:
In other words, it's is unlawful for someone to repeatedly harass a person they are caring for as a long term care provider intentionally.

The shock. The horror.

I actually agree with GB for once, this actually is a golden age for western civilization. I just mean that unironically because I'm capable of reading and thinking for longer than it takes to spasm out a garbage response.

Yeah policing what people say, clearly the sign of a free society.

"herp derp say whatever prnoun the person likes pretending to be or go to jail"

10/10.

Grand Britannia wrote:

Herador wrote:"It shall be unlawful for a long-term care facility or facility staff to.... willfully and repeatedly fail to use a resident's preferred name or pronouns after being clearly informed of the preferred name or pronouns."

So is it that you can't read, don't want to, or just shitpost for fun?

Grand Britannia wrote:Policing speech and forcing people to magically know the made up gender someone assigns to themselves.

Truly this is a golden age for western civilization.

I could as you the same.

Anyways this is, like it has been said before, unconstitutional.

Ah, I get it. See, I thought you were mad that you thought everyone was going to be forced to do this, ya know, since the rest of what you wrote seemed to indicate that you thought this was just going to be something dumped on normal people.

But I get it now.

Backtrackings cool dude, I can do deal with this too. I can't actually argue against you just wanting people to be able to say whatever they want whenever they want though, so take your win I guess. I'd like to see why it's unconstitutional though.

Grand Britannia wrote:

Herador wrote:I actually agree with GB for once, this actually is a golden age for western civilization. I just mean that unironically because I'm capable of reading and thinking for longer than it takes to spasm out a garbage response.

Yeah policing what people say, clearly the sign of a free society.

"herp derp say whatever prnoun the person likes pretending to be or go to jail"

10/10.

If you think it being illegal to harass people is on the same level as thought policing I really don't know what to say.

And one of the most blatant laws violating the constitution,

plus why should we get fined or jailed if we call a person thier physical sex such as Mr, Mrs. ,Mrs., Man, women, he, she, ect. Its dumb to force people to change the way they speak for a very small minority of people and if they dont comply or forget its a fine or jail time, if you want to use gender neutral pro-nouns more power to you, but dont force it on everyone.

Seangoli wrote:

Grand Britannia wrote:Policing speech and forcing people to magically know the made up gender someone assigns to themselves.

Truly this is a golden age for western civilization.

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

It actually clearly states that its only for long-term care providers, and it also only applies in situations where said provider has clearly been told by the individual they are caring for what their preferred pronoun is.

Now, if you still have issue, then take issue with what the fucking bill does, and not what the misleading title says. There is no ambiguity in what a person is to be called under the law, and it does not apply to random people on the streets.

"It will only apply in this limited context"

"This will never escape that one scenario"

Yeah, yeah I'm sure. Canada style speech restrictions belong in the trash. If there is an issue with an employee doing that, they can be fired for violating misconduct rules. No need for Johnny Law to step in here other than an attempt to set a precedent for this sort of nonsense.

Grand Britannia wrote:

Herador wrote:I actually agree with GB for once, this actually is a golden age for western civilization. I just mean that unironically because I'm capable of reading and thinking for longer than it takes to spasm out a garbage response.

Yeah policing what people say, clearly the sign of a free society.

"herp derp say whatever prnoun the person likes pretending to be or go to jail"

10/10.

Given that criminal cases require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, I suspect jail sentences will be rare.

Herador wrote:

Grand Britannia wrote:

I could as you the same.

Anyways this is, like it has been said before, unconstitutional.

Ah, I get it. See, I thought you were mad that you thought everyone was going to be forced to do this, ya know, since the rest of what you wrote seemed to indicate that you thought this was just going to be something dumped on normal people.

But I get it now.

Backtrackings cool dude, I can do deal with this too. I can't actually argue against you just wanting people to be able to say whatever they want whenever they want though, so take your win I guess. I'd like to see why it's unconstitutional though.

>Pointing out to something I had already said is back tracking

lmao

Also it's unconstitutional because of the first amendment.

The East Marches II wrote:

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

It actually clearly states that its only for long-term care providers, and it also only applies in situations where said provider has clearly been told by the individual they are caring for what their preferred pronoun is.

Now, if you still have issue, then take issue with what the fucking bill does, and not what the misleading title says. There is no ambiguity in what a person is to be called under the law, and it does not apply to random people on the streets.

"It will only apply in this limited context"

"This will never escape that one scenario"

Yeah, yeah I'm sure. Canada style speech restrictions belong in the trash. If there is an issue with an employee doing that, they can be fired for violating misconduct rules. No need for Johnny Law to step in here other than an attempt to set a precedent for this sort of nonsense.

We are discussing a situation where one person is put into the direct care of another.

Jesus, this sort of disingenuous slippery slopism is just plain laughable.

The Grande Republic 0f Arcadia wrote:And one of the most blatant laws violating the constitution,

plus why should we get fined or jailed if we call a person thier physical sex such as Mr, Mrs. ,Mrs., Man, women, he, she, ect. Its dumb to force people to change the way they speak for a very small minority of people and if they dont comply or forget its a fine or jail time, if you want to use gender neutral pro-nouns more power to you, but dont force it on everyone.

"Willfully and repeatedly."

It doesn't apply to people that just forget a couple times.

Grand Britannia wrote:

Herador wrote:Ah, I get it. See, I thought you were mad that you thought everyone was going to be forced to do this, ya know, since the rest of what you wrote seemed to indicate that you thought this was just going to be something dumped on normal people.

But I get it now.

Backtrackings cool dude, I can do deal with this too. I can't actually argue against you just wanting people to be able to say whatever they want whenever they want though, so take your win I guess. I'd like to see why it's unconstitutional though.

>Pointing out to something I had already said is back tracking

lmao

Also it's unconstitutional because of the first amendment.

>meme arrows

Sure.

" forcing people to magically know the made up gender someone assigns to themselves"
Quote is yours, unless you were shitposting I have no reason to assume you didn't just write a kneejerk reaction and are backtracking to just the first thing now. Like I said, it's cool do you man.

Seangoli wrote:

The East Marches II wrote:
"It will only apply in this limited context"

"This will never escape that one scenario"

Yeah, yeah I'm sure. Canada style speech restrictions belong in the trash. If there is an issue with an employee doing that, they can be fired for violating misconduct rules. No need for Johnny Law to step in here other than an attempt to set a precedent for this sort of nonsense.

We are discussing a situation where one person is put into the direct care of another.

Jesus, this sort of disingenuous slippery slopism is just plain laughable.

With the fine folks on the identity left, I do not doubt this will make it into the mainstream. Its not laughable, its what will happen. Just because you happen to be blind to the matter doesn't mean the rest of us are. Some poor fucker is going to have to fight a lawsuit and spend money to get this taken to the Supreme Court when it spreads.

The East Marches II wrote:

Seangoli wrote:
We are discussing a situation where one person is put into the direct care of another.

Jesus, this sort of disingenuous slippery slopism is just plain laughable.

With the fine folks on the identity left, I do not doubt this will make it into the mainstream. Its not laughable, its what will happen. Just because you happen to be blind to the matter doesn't mean the rest of us are. Some poor fucker is going to have to fight a lawsuit and spend money to get this taken to the Supreme Court when it spreads.

Just like we took yer guns away, amirite?

Never going to survive a supreme court review.

Compelled speech is not free speech.