Truly terrifying to see the military PC crowd in this thread ready to attack people who disagree with them. Guess that's where we're headed.....

Anonymous wrote:Oh stop with the conservative butthurt. No one is getting fined $100 grand for calling someone by the wrong pronoun. If your employer posts a sign that says "No Trannies" on the door of the bathroom at work, that might get a fine of that size.

Wait a minute. Isn't this what this law is about?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do you care what other people call themselves if it doesn't affect you?

It DOES affect others.... that is precisely the point.
This law REQUIRES that OTHERS call people what they choose to be called, or suffer the consequences, which in this case, is an outrageously hefty fine.
I could care less if someone wants to be called a dick, but if I refuse to call them that, I should not be prosecuted for not doing so.

We have freedom of speech and the first amendment in this country. The NYC law sounds unconstitutional. Also, does the trans person get to dictate how people describe them when they aren't even present? For example, if the speaker is talking to his wife at home and is discussing the trans person and says "he" instead of "zhe," should be be prosecuted? It's nuts.

I agree. I call people what I want. FREEDOM of speech rules supreme. This law is unconstitutional.

Oh stop with the conservative butthurt. No one is getting fined $100 grand for calling someone by the wrong pronoun. If your employer posts a sign that says "No Trannies" on the door of the bathroom at work, that might get a fine of that size.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If someone using the pronoun of your biological sex instead o zhir or she causes your life to be a "living hell" then you are in need of some extreme psychotherapy. Someone could call me any pronoun they want and I assure you my life would not be a living hell.

So, you--a female in this scenario--work in your office for 5 years. Every day for five years, you encounter a certain coworker several times. During each encounter, this coworker goes out of his way to call you "he," "sir," or "him." You've asked him repeatedly not to, and he continues to do so. Pointedly. And nastily.

This wouldn't hurt you at all? Wouldn't damage you at all? Because this is what we're talking about.

Big difference. The co-worker is correct. In the scenario you describe, "I" am wrong.

In my scenario above, you're a biological female, but that doesn't matter. It's about respect, that's all. I feel sorry for you that you don't see it that way.

You are not "respecting" someone when you go along with their delusions, just for the sake of being nice. The person ("I" in your scenario) needs serious help, not mute enablers.

I'm honestly trying to understand this point of view, so I'm sorry if it comes off as brusque: it sounds like you're saying, then, that you'd harass a person with (in your view) a mental disorder? If you believe that being transgender is a mental problem, using the non-preferred pronoun on purpose seems like harassment.

" Just curious... what do you think "morals" has to do with addressing someone in this way? Do you even know what that word means? "

Well part of my morals is the Golden Rule (do unto others and all that...). So doing my best to respect their request to be called a certain thing if it's very important to them would seem to be the kinder choice rather than simply ignoring them.

But that does not mean it should be against the law to ignore their preference.

Anonymous wrote:Not reading the whole thread but I agree OP that this seems like a ridiculous law especially to have the fine be so high. It may be good manners and morals to address someone they way they want addressed and personally I would not have a problem doing so. That does not mean that it should be against the law and punishable with a fine like this though if that does not happen.

Just curious... what do you think "morals" has to do with addressing someone in this way? Do you even know what that word means?

Anonymous wrote:This seems like one of those "local rights" issues Tea Party GOP is always complaining about. If a local community wants to pass this law, that's its right, isn't it?

Sure. This doesn't mean other communities have no right to express an opinion of this law. They have some wild laws on the books, you know. Thankfully, most are retired and not enforced.

Anonymous wrote:Not reading the whole thread but I agree OP that this seems like a ridiculous law especially to have the fine be so high. It may be good manners and morals to address someone they way they want addressed and personally I would not have a problem doing so. That does not mean that it should be against the law and punishable with a fine like this though if that does not happen.

Exactly. I would never call someone a she if I knew they wanted to be a he. However, you cannot legislate good manners. It's not, nor should it be, illegal to be a jerk.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It is when they've expressed a preference to called something else, yes. It's belligerence and nasty. Yes. It makes you a bad person to not respect someone's wishes. Who the hell are you to argue with people like that? Your mother raised you wrong.

How is that nasty? If they are a man, it is what it is. I fail to see how that is mean, nasty, "belligerence", etc if I call a duck a duck. Just because they do not like it? And there should be laws and penalties to protect these people from my first amendment right to say whatever the hell I want?

You don't understand our system of governance very well. The First Amendment does not vest you with the right to discriminate against someone in a protected class. If you want to act like an asshole, the fine, have at it. Just don't do it in connection with hiring and employment or renting an apartment to a transgendered person who has made their preferences known to you.

Transgendered is not a protected class.

It is in NYC. And for good reason. Do you understand the amount of violence perpetrated against trans people? By assholes like pp?

This seems like one of those "local rights" issues Tea Party GOP is always complaining about. If a local community wants to pass this law, that's its right, isn't it?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If someone using the pronoun of your biological sex instead o zhir or she causes your life to be a "living hell" then you are in need of some extreme psychotherapy. Someone could call me any pronoun they want and I assure you my life would not be a living hell.

So if you had difficulty getting a job, because your previous employer refused to acknowledge your name, and wouldn't confirm employment dates when the new employer checked. And you had difficulty getting am apartment because the name on your paycheck stubs didn't match the name on your ID . . .

Eh... Last time I checked proper names are not pronouns. There is a legal procedure for changing your name to whatever the hell you want. Including writing out your social security number with actual words. No shit. Saw that with my own eyes

Not reading the whole thread but I agree OP that this seems like a ridiculous law especially to have the fine be so high. It may be good manners and morals to address someone they way they want addressed and personally I would not have a problem doing so. That does not mean that it should be against the law and punishable with a fine like this though if that does not happen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So glad I don't live in NY.

I'm glad you don't live in NY too. Stay in flyover country where you belong.

Sorry - native here. I think you need to take your uber ideological campus-like liberalism back to your fly over state and stop infecting MY hometown.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If someone using the pronoun of your biological sex instead o zhir or she causes your life to be a "living hell" then you are in need of some extreme psychotherapy. Someone could call me any pronoun they want and I assure you my life would not be a living hell.

So, you--a female in this scenario--work in your office for 5 years. Every day for five years, you encounter a certain coworker several times. During each encounter, this coworker goes out of his way to call you "he," "sir," or "him." You've asked him repeatedly not to, and he continues to do so. Pointedly. And nastily.

This wouldn't hurt you at all? Wouldn't damage you at all? Because this is what we're talking about.

No. It would not "hurt" me in the least bit. Piss me off, maybe, but hurt me, no, but I don't live my life looking for reasons to feel victimized.