California Transgender law

Author: Alec ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 127
  • Alec
    Alec avatar
    Debates: 42
    Forum posts: 2,474
    5
    7
    11
    Alec avatar
    Alec
    The law of California states that anyone who deliberately and repeatedly misgenders someone will get up to 1 year in imprisonment.  Is this fair or is this tyranny?
  • dustryder
    dustryder avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 860
    2
    2
    4
    dustryder avatar
    dustryder
    The key phrase is "up-to". Infractions won't result in a prison sentence unless there's a component of death of physical harm. In the majority of cases infractions will result in a fine. Is a fine tyranny? Not really. It's basically a douchebag tax for cruel and unecessary behaviour and I'm ok with that
  • coal
    coal avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 963
    2
    3
    5
    coal avatar
    coal
    --> @Alec
    Please provide a source.  This sounds like right wing propaganda.  Like, show me the actual law.

  • oromagi
    oromagi avatar
    Debates: 92
    Forum posts: 3,688
    7
    9
    11
    oromagi avatar
    oromagi
    Criminal charges would only follow if the harassment reached reached the point of physical harm to a senior citizen.  So at its most tyrannical, the state might use this provision to tack on up to a year to a conviction for violent crime vs. a senior citizen.


  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 8,391
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @oromagi
    Criminal charges would only follow, she said, if the violation reached a level that was shown to cause the risk of death or serious physical harm, in accordance with state’s existing penalty structure for health and safety code violations at long-term care centers.

    I don't know why that's really necessary in a PC speech law. Why would words cause serious physical harm?
  • oromagi
    oromagi avatar
    Debates: 92
    Forum posts: 3,688
    7
    9
    11
    oromagi avatar
    oromagi
    --> @Greyparrot
    Read the law, it's not about speech.  It's about protecting LGBT folks in long-term care facilities, where discrimination has proved to be fairly commonplace.  Long-term care facilities have an advantage over many other types of service providers: once a client signs the combined impact of income liquidation and health deterioration make changing facilities a very unattractive option.  To find oneself trapped in a facility that is hostile to one's private identity seems to me like a terribly sad way to live life's final chapters.  A little legislation to set a base standard for human dignity is probably fine, although probably less than necessary in California as opposed to states with less LGBT protections generally.
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 8,391
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @oromagi
    I was just quoting the article.
  • Alec
    Alec avatar
    Debates: 42
    Forum posts: 2,474
    5
    7
    11
    Alec avatar
    Alec
    --> @coal @oromagi
    The site origami put states that,

    Willful and repeated violations alone wouldn’t lead to criminal prosecution, Joslin added. They would likely be punished with a fine.

    A fine is still an unjust tyrannical punishment for misgendering someone.

  • dustryder
    dustryder avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 860
    2
    2
    4
    dustryder avatar
    dustryder
    --> @Alec
    That's because you're phrasing it in the most delicate way possible. Try "malicious and repeated harassment of vulnerable person"
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 8,391
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @Alec
    A fine is still an unjust tyrannical punishment for misgendering someone.
    It is kind of funny that England evolved to remove criminal charges for failing to address nobility with the right words....while America has reverted to the customs of the Victorian era.


  • Mharman
    Mharman avatar
    Debates: 12
    Forum posts: 2,281
    2
    4
    9
    Mharman avatar
    Mharman
    --> @dustryder
    So you call a woman a woman and she gets offended. She wants you to call her a hen. You think that's stupid. You continue to refer to her as a "her". You get fined.

    That is clear tyranny and a violation of the First Amendment.
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 8,391
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @Mharman
    Eventually the PC police will fine you for calling members of the protected class nobility "stupid"
  • Alec
    Alec avatar
    Debates: 42
    Forum posts: 2,474
    5
    7
    11
    Alec avatar
    Alec
    --> @dustryder
    malicious and repeated harassment of vulnerable person

    Me calling a trans person by their biologically accurate name is factual not "malicious".  It also is almost never harassment, unless I yell at them their original name multiple times or something similar.  How are they more vulnerable then the average person?


  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 8,391
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @Alec
    Me calling a trans person by their biologically accurate name is factual not "malicious".  It also is almost never harassment, unless I yell at them their original name multiple times or something similar.  How are they more vulnerable then the average person?
    Feelings don't care about your facts.

  • Alec
    Alec avatar
    Debates: 42
    Forum posts: 2,474
    5
    7
    11
    Alec avatar
    Alec
    Feelings don't care about your facts.
    Isn't it the other way around?

  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 6,010
    3
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @Alec
    Me calling a trans person by their biologically accurate name is factual not "malicious".  It also is almost never harassment, unless I yell at them their original name multiple times or something similar.  How are they more vulnerable then the average person?
    It's only "factual" if you've seen them without clothes.
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 8,391
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @3RU7AL
    You can now be fined for singing this song.


  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 8,391
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @Alec
    Isn't it the other way around?
    Not in Soviet California.


  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 6,010
    3
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @Greyparrot
    You can now be fined for singing this song.
    Your statement is provably false.
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 8,391
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @3RU7AL
    It's illegal to call a transgender "Dude"

    Try it and see if you can get away with it. Go on mr. Edgelord.
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 6,010
    3
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @Greyparrot
    It's illegal to call a transgender "Dude"
    Let me know when Steven Tyler gets arrested for this.
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 8,391
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    Apparently, New York has a similar law where you can be fined for not using the proper title for the protected noble class of transgenders.


  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 8,391
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @3RU7AL
    I guess Mr Edgelord isn't willing to pull a Rosa Parks on this law.

    Go into a tranny bar and start calling people dude. See what happens.
  • dustryder
    dustryder avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 860
    2
    2
    4
    dustryder avatar
    dustryder
    --> @Alec @Mharman
    So you call a woman a woman and she gets offended. She wants you to call her a hen. You think that's stupid. You continue to refer to her as a "her". You get fined.

    That is clear tyranny and a violation of the First Amendment.
    A hen isn't recognised by law as a gender.

    Me calling a trans person by their biologically accurate name is factual not "malicious".  It also is almost never harassment, unless I yell at them their original name multiple times or something similar.  How are they more vulnerable then the average person?
    Factuality and maliciousness aren't mutually exclusive.

    For example, You are a fat person who has dealt with weight issues your entire life. You have seen the full spectrum of fat insults and you have finally had enough so you tell everyone you know that you just wish to be known as you are, without any reference to your weight. However certain people continue to call you fat-ass. Are they being factual? Yes. Are they being malicious? Also yes. Is it harassment? Absolutely.

    Also for how they are more vulnerable than the average person, that's quite simple. Trans people just have more issues than the average person.
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 6,010
    3
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @Greyparrot
    Go into a tranny bar and start calling people dude. See what happens.
    Go into a biker bar and start calling people chickie.  See what happens.