Point 3 is magnificently stupid for reasons I have pointed out. Not one of the scary laws you are afraid of says there is any legal action that can be taken against you for referring to someone incorrectly on accident. It's through REPEATED, INTENTIONAL use of the incorrect word after being informed that it is incorrect that causes problems. Point three is a ****ing untrue scare tactic used by cowards because they can't just state the truth that calling a trans woman ma'am makes them feel icky.

Sheesh.

You guys crack me up. You take everything so literally. Classic SJW trait, by the way.

I'm being pretty lenient with 3, but I do think there's some truth in there somewhere. When people are worried about causing offence they might be more cautious about interacting. Worrying about lawsuits isn't one of those reasons though. And the solution is to raise awareness and be more accepting, not to cut protection to maligned classes.

Yeah, how dare we read literal texts of laws that are brought up here. If you ever accidentally call a transgendered woman sir it's an immediate 10 year sentence and 20K fine. That's the way it should be read, with no literal interpretation of the text at all.

Holy cow.

Guess what though - if your name is David, and I call you Chuck, you can't sue me. If you look like a she but want me to call you he and threaten to sue me because you want me to call you they, then we have a problem. What if you couldn't remember to call the person in the CUPE video "they"? Should she really have legal recourse? Even with a business? What if I identify as "His Royal Majesty"? Do you not see the abuse?


Should I be able to sue your boss's business if you accidentally call someone a 'cock'? What's my legal recourse here? Do you see why your boss might not want to hire you if presented such a liability? If I'm the boss and thought I could get sued over it, you just became an expense.

Like I said, how about "His Royal Majesty" or "Sir Attack Helicopter". If you don't think this can get absurd, you're misguided. Language forced at the point of a gun is bad policy - period.

See, I hoped we'd get somewhere here, but we've returned to where we started:

Is it that you think people should be allowed to call others whatever they want at any time and place, or is it only some specific restrictions you have issue with?

I thought I'd made two things clear with those analogies and real world examples:
There are, in reality, already a bunch of restrictions on what you can say in certain contexts.
They aren't major issues that we find ourselves fighting constant legal battles over. They get adopted very easily.

Can it be classed as harassment and be actionable if someone keeps intentionally using the wrong name for me at work? Probably. Can you sue people just for using a bad word or wrong name once? Rarely. In practice, almost never.

Your objections all seem kind of pointless in light of how the laws already function quite reasonably for other groups and terms. That's why I'm trying to get to whether it's specifically trans people you have an issue with protecting under these laws, or whether it's all these laws in general.

It's easy. Jiggy thinks white males should be able to call anyone anything but nobody should be allowed to call white males out for this.

This is first commandment of the internet right.

/Thread

If you don't think that shakedown artists like Jesse Jackson used "words" to influence....ah...redress of grievances, I have a bridge to sell you.

Honestly - I'd rather let people say what they want. Then you'd know who they are and how to avoid them. The market will sort it out.

The hidden racists are the ones you have to worry about. That's actually what I mean when I was addressing Shame earlier. Real racists will let you know they're racist. What the Left does is uses that poison to label anyone that disagrees with them as racist, when nothing could be further from the truth.

In general, I am against people being sued and codifying that into law. Also, the gender issue is different because so much of it is made up, fantasy bull****.

THESE ARE NOT GENDERS!





Let me ask you a question - what is the difference between a transtrender and Rachel Dolezal (be very careful with this one)?

THE MARKET WILL SORT IT OUT GUIZE

Just like the market totally sorted out those businesses that insisted on black lunch counters oh wait

I know you want your "Civil Rights" moment. But the Civil Rights Moment was the Civil Rights moment. You just look pathetic.

Yaint supreme.

Also lol at stating "these are not genders" followed by a graphic displaying both male and female

Not at all in the US. Nobody but the boss has any US 1st-A rights in the work place. So if the boss wants to call you Shirley... well, you can either answer to Shirley, or find a new job.

These laws only pertain to a certain and very narrow subset of customer-business communications. Also, nobody is required to address anybody in any particular manner. The only legal requirement don't repeatedly and intentionally call the customers names. These are the exact analog to legal restrictions which pertain to calling black folks names in this narrow subset of customer-business communications. Which is this: being a landlord/etc is a service, and it's discrimination to provide poor service (repeated intentional name calling) to one group of peeps, while providing superior service (acting civil) to another group of peeps.

"Being nice is what authoritarians say when they want to control you."

Jesse Jackson Jr was a crook and went to prison. AFAIK Jesse Jackson Sr is clean as whistle. You know the FBI checked him out big-time when they took his crooked kid down. So I don't have the slightest idea what you are spewing about here.

As for using "words" to redress grievances... well that's exactly how it's supposed to work. Like this... "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech... to petition the Government for a redress of grievances". Maybe you should spend a little less time on the youtoobz, and maybe read the US Constitution a bit.

LMFAO @u !!!1!

LMFAO @u again !!!1!.

So all you meant by "real" r-word-ism was out-of-the-closet Secret Heart r-word-ers? That meaningless gibberish is what you were holding out all this time. Damn... that's just flat out stupid.

Yeah... no. You just got done explaining that by "Leftist" you mean simply garden variety Donkeys... even the centrist right-of-dead-center Donkeys. This is a flat out 100% false statement.

So, in general, you are against the CRA of 1964. You're also in favor of bringing back those segregated lunch counters then. Nice to know.

Care to explain the difference aside from the percentage of american people involved? Roughly 10% of the US population was African American in 1960, hardly some gigantic force. The issue is providing the same rights for every person. Right now, you have to legally call men and women by their correct pronouns, and not doing so can be considered harassment as an employer. Why do you feel that this should not be the same for Transgendered americans?

Again, I haven't seen you on here rallying against the civil rights movement, or against workplace discrimination laws, so what EXACTLY is the difference between current discrimination laws, and those that include transgendered people? Is it because you think its a made up thing? Have you ever met a transgendered person?

Shame and Master - you're both ****ing morons.

Yeah, at least three peeps have asked this same Q.

Are the OSJers against any legal civil rights protections in public accomodations in general... and they just feel that trans folk make a good example for their arguments. Do the OSJers really want to turn back the clock, and bring back segregated lunch counters/etc.

=OR=

Or are the OSJers resigned to, or maybe even support, things like the CRA of 1964. However, while the OSJers might think such protections for black folk are inevitable, or maybe even good... there is no way in hell they feel that trans folk should be extended the same kinda protections. For reasons... of course.

So... no, then? You can't give a reason? Is it because you are against something with no discernible reason for WHY you are against it? Or is it because you're a stupid ****ing bigot but don't want to say that?

Blah blah blah, false equivalencies, blah blah blah, talking points, blah blah blah, non sequitors, blah blah blah, I don't care about internet things anyway blah blah blah....kind of sums up your mental vomit.

Lol, what? He asked you a pretty straight forward question. Are you against the civil rights act in general, or only against transgenders being added to it. If the latter, what is the reason for keeping them off the CRA?

As much as I appreciate you acting like you have a point, it's really not cute any more.

And side note: If my parent's were alive and the house I grew up in had a functional basement, there's a reasonable chance I'd be living in it, with them. Why waste good living space when people sleep on the street? That's seems obscene and unseemly to me, but hey, I'm just a crazy leftist.

Ok, so there are over 100 posts AFTER THIS MINDBENDINGLY STUPID POST in just the last day?

Wtf is even happening in this forum.