Call a transgender person "he" instead of "she" or "zhe" in NYC? $125,000 fine

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get that the fines seem extreme but, really, is it that hard to address someone how they wish to be addressed? Is it any skin off your nose? It may seem silly to some but... So what?

NP here. This.

This isn't about bumping into someone on the street and accidentally saying "excuse me, sir" instead of "excuse me, madam" or something.

This is so that people can't be harassed at work and stuff.

OP wants to histrionically and irrationally pretend this is a bad thing and it's not. In my experience, the people who are the most against this sort of thing are the people who internally feel a lot of anguish about their own gender identity but felt they didn't have a choice but to pretend to be straight for life. Then they police others' gender identities and rail against any progress in society that would allow others the fluidity they felt they were denied.

OP, it's not too late to reach out to someone to get help for yourself.

Yeah, but is there a real need to invent new pronouns? Once the transition takes place, the person assumes an existing gender. Sort of.

[Anonymous]

You lost me at "and stuff". Your post lost any credibility right there. And stuff

[Anonymous]

Is calling someone "it" an option?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is calling someone "it" an option?

Only if zhey prefer that term. If not, get ready for your fine. Don't worry, so long as your mistake wasn't malicious you'll only be fined $125,000.

[Anonymous]

So ridiculous. How is anyone supporting this? What a world we live in....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not op

But why is the fine so high? Can't people make mistakes without costing so much? Honestly curious!

It's not about mistakes. It's about illegal discrimination by "covered entities." i.e., you cannot deny housing or employment to someone because s/h/ze is transgendered. Same protection as race, sex, etc. There's nothing wrong with this.

+1
Why don't you people read before posting your dumb "jokes"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is not op

But why is the fine so high? Can't people make mistakes without costing so much? Honestly curious!

Because the covered entities it references are corporations, and it takes more money to change their behavior.

This is not about Uncle Bobby at the dinner table, this is about the rights of employees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I gauge from your cryptic tone that you think this is a problem.

I do not. And I think you're a bad person if you do.

You can't be serious?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm as liberal as they come and I think this is mind-bogglingly ridiculous.

Well that's because the OP misstated the law. Penalty up to $125,000 is to cover any and all acts of discrimination. So you are not going to get a $125,000 fine for one time referring to a person this way. If you make a person's life a living hell, then maybe you will get a decent fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I could care less what people are called. But I don't the rabidness of laws like this or posts like yours that seek to crucify people who don't bend over backwards to accommodate rapidly changing preferences, or who don't walk on eggshells to avoid offending people with the most delicate sensitivities.

No one is going to get fined for the occasional error. The butthurt is staggering.

People, this is like one of those fines that says littering can get you six months in jail. You do not get six months in jail for tossing a can out of your car window. You might if you dump loads of garbage down a ravine and into the town water supply.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I gauge from your cryptic tone that you think this is a problem.

I do not. And I think you're a bad person if you do.

You can't be serious?

I'm quite serious. Anyone who has a problem with this law, which is rooted in basic human rights and decency, is fundamentally a bad person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I gauge from your cryptic tone that you think this is a problem.

I do not. And I think you're a bad person if you do.

You can't be serious?

I'm quite serious. Anyone who has a problem with this law, which is rooted in basic human rights and decency, is fundamentally a bad person.

Actually, anyone who doesn't have a problem with this, is crazy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get that the fines seem extreme but, really, is it that hard to address someone how they wish to be addressed? Is it any skin off your nose? It may seem silly to some but... So what?

NP here. This.

This isn't about bumping into someone on the street and accidentally saying "excuse me, sir" instead of "excuse me, madam" or something.

This is so that people can't be harassed at work and stuff.

OP wants to histrionically and irrationally pretend this is a bad thing and it's not. In my experience, the people who are the most against this sort of thing are the people who internally feel a lot of anguish about their own gender identity but felt they didn't have a choice but to pretend to be straight for life. Then they police others' gender identities and rail against any progress in society that would allow others the fluidity they felt they were denied.

OP, it's not too late to reach out to someone to get help for yourself.

Yeah, but is there a real need to invent new pronouns? Once the transition takes place, the person assumes an existing gender. Sort of.

I guess so, if the people want them and feel they need them. Is there a real need to invent new words? Is there a real need to change everything because of progress? I'm sure you've seen the FB post that's going around about how different life was in 1915 from today. Lots of things change, almost everything about human society changes over time -- I don't know of any modern free society which has stayed the same for even a decade, let alone over a longer term.

Who does it hurt to let people pick their own pronouns? Nobody. Getting all flustered about it is silly.

I say that as a straight white lady who hasn't ever felt the need for different pronouns, but who doesn't see the need to take things away from minority and oppressed groups who are traditionally shat upon. They are people, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I gauge from your cryptic tone that you think this is a problem.

I do not. And I think you're a bad person if you do.

You can't be serious?

I'm quite serious. Anyone who has a problem with this law, which is rooted in basic human rights and decency, is fundamentally a bad person.

Actually, anyone who doesn't have a problem with this, is crazy.

Looks like you'll be surrounded by crazy people soon then. Sucks for you.

[Anonymous]

This is absurd. And, this is insanity:

"Covered entities may avoid violations of the NYCHRL by creating a policy of asking everyone what their preferred gender pronoun is so that no individual is singled out for such questions and by updating their systems to allow all individuals to self-identify their names and genders. They should not limit the options for identification to male and female only.”

So, I guess there will be a new section on employment applications.....

What is your preferred gender pronoun?

So, if everybody makes up a new word, confusion will abound in the workplace.