California Transgender law

Let's say you're walking down the street and you meet a stranger walking a dog down the street.  You say, "Cool dog, what breed is he?" and the stranger replies "Oh, she is a mutt." Wouldn't you effortlessly change pronouns out of common courtesy?  If you persisted in calling the dog he the stranger would assume you were suffering from some social deficit and move on quickly.  The sick and elderly wish to be extended the same common courtesy in their own bedrooms that any ordinary person would extend a dog in the street.  That's it.  They don't wish to know what you or Jesus or Rush Limbaugh or anyone really thinks about their identity, they just want you to do your job politely and professionally.

Imagine you lived your whole adult life as a man until you have an accident and live in a comatose state for 10 years, during which your healthcare providers decide that you are woman in their books and so they dress you in skirts and apply rouge and lipstick to your helpless body.  Wouldn't you consider that a humiliating violation?

I thought this was a discussion forum and that is what we were doing, you are very confusing.  Or is it you don't have an answer for the links and quotes and this is your way of giving up.

Do you believe people should be polite in public places?  What, if any limitations do you believe the law should place on disruptive behavior (including disruptive speech) in public places?

many civil rights leaders gave very disruptive speeches.

LOL you don't think speeches by M.L.K. weren't seen as disruptive by some?  How about protests?  Lots of those seem pretty disruptive but where they criminal acts?  Is being disruptive a crime?  Doesn't seem it is, a call to action and actual violence is, actual immediate threats are, generally.

If I'm in one of these "no profanity" zones and I say I think you are an effing moron (but use the real word) do I have freedom of speech to express my opinion as I want without being free of morality laws?

If I say to a tranny "you still look like a man to me" and we get into a back and forth because he is trying to convince me otherwise, could I be convicted under this law if we are in a ltc facility?

when was the last time you called or someone called you he/she/it etc to your face rather than addressing you by your name or not using any kind of pronoun at all?

In all the conversations you've had here how often has that happened? ever?  

if you identify as an attack helicopter and want to be referred as such, how would that work? 

would I have to use that term every time I addressed you?

Do you know what profanity is?  Do you possess the human quality commonly known as "self-control"?

Do you enjoy harassing the elderly?  Why would anyone do that?  Is such an action a defensible contribution to a peaceful society?  Is such a confrontation necessitated by your religion?

If I called someone by the wrong name, or mispronounced their name and they notified me, I would make an effort to avoid using the incorrect name or pronunciation.

Are you suggesting that you have never called someone by the wrong name or mispronounced their name,

If you identify as "Aaron", even though that is not on your drivers license or birth certificate and you want to be referred to as such, how would that work?

 I'm really not seeing why you (or anyone else) would prefer to use the term or title that you were specifically requested to not use (face-to-face), repeatedly and in an aggressive manner.

From OP, "The law of California states that anyone who deliberately and repeatedly misgenders someone will get up to 1 year in imprisonment." - https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1211?page=1&post_number=1

California health care workers who “willfully and repeatedly” decline to use a senior transgender patient's “preferred name or pronouns” could face punishments ranging from a fine to jail time under a newly signed law.

Among the unlawful actions are “willfully and repeatedly” failing to use a transgender person’s “preferred name or pronouns” after he or she is “clearly informed of the preferred name or pronouns.”

The law states that if provisions are violated, the violator could be punished by a fine “not to exceed one thousand dollars” or “by imprisonment in the county jail for a period not to exceed one year,” or both. - https://www.foxnews.com/politics/new-california-law-allows-jail-time-for-using-wrong-gender-pronoun-sponsor-denies-that-would-happen

so is it the words or the actions that constitute harassment?  

you don't see the stupidity and complete absurdity of this law?

I thought it was clear my opinion is this law is stupid, unconstitutional, not needed and just political pandering.  Everything I have said should reflect that, I meant it to reflect that anyway.Just because I wouldn't conduct myself in the examples given doesn't mean the government has the right and authority to force compliance by force.  Free speech is need to protect speech you don't like.  If protecting free speech means protecting that with which I don't agree or even like, that is a price we should all be willing to pay.

but getting back to the point, with the examples, laws etc I've given do you think I'm wrong that this law was never needed because laws already cover the described situations and much more?  I guess you do as you never challenged or acknowledged what I have said.

did I not give a definition of harassment?  post #101

the law giving certain people extra protections (or extra penalties) when those protections already exist is ok with you?  do you like to be pandered to?  do you believe in equal justice under law?

how about harassing people with disabilities do we need specific laws for that?  no one seemed to care too much when that douche on snl made fun of the wounded vet who lost an eye? 

Can I do the same to the people of this law and say it's ok because I'm being funny?  how do we draw these lines?

How many times qualify as “repeatedly” how do you prove "willfully" have you ever made the same mistake more than once?  twice?  what's the number?

one of the huge issues I have with all of this is the inconsistency with enforcement and application, so if you factor that in with everything i said it should be pretty plain I think.

In the real world, the employee who harasses their wards will be fired before they are ever charged with violation of this particular law.

there are already anti-harassment laws right?  so this law isn't needed because it's already law.  

The law implies that healthcare workers engage in this kind of behavior often enough that a special and unique law is needed to protect those people.  Employers don't educate or discipline employees adequately and consistently so this law is needed.

Respect and dignity are real issues in l.t.c. facilities but rather than focus on that and include everyone they decided to pander to a very small select group.  Don't you wonder why?  should be as plain as the nose on your face.

If this truly is a problem then there are much bigger issues in California.  Maybe California has a disproportionate number of sickos that would engage in this kind of behavior, I'd believe that.

But let's be real here, they don't really care about protecting patients otherwise they would protect them all equally and to the best the law will allow.  Working with employers, encouraging, supporting and enabling them to provide the best care possible for everyone in their facilities.

my stance is everyone should be treated with dignity and respect, period.  No one group should be treated better, have special rights, attention, whatever because that is NOT treating everyone the same.

If someone is "willfully and repeatedly" uses words that a person in a l.t.c. facility finds harassing the Employer should deal with it to make it stop, if that fails then the state should step in and look at the individual situation and remedy it.  Anonymous reporting has been a thing in the states I have lived/worked in since I can remember (and I'm old).  If these remedies are not available in California there are much bigger issues going on there wouldn't you say?  why shouldn't all patients in l.t.c. facilities enjoy the same protections?  

with the numerous people I have address over many, many years, even those with gender issues, not once have I ever referred to them face to face by a pronoun, language just doesn't work that way, nor has this ever happened to me.

Can you give me an example of how a conversation like that would take place?  Hello she/he/it, how may I help you?  yeah that just doesn't happen.

The E.M.R. I use has the ability to add preferred names.  But when you first identify/verify the person it must be with the legal name.  Any medication, specimens whatever must also be labeled with the legal name for obvious reasons.  In casual conversation you can use their preferred name though the instances for that occurrence is extremely rare.  It should be obvious that some tests and procedures are sex specific and must be that way.

What's interesting imo and never thought much about it but I've seen P.O.C. on tv refer to others as male/female, it makes a lot of sense and we should just do that, problem solved.

In the real world, the employee who harasses their wards will be fired before they are ever charged with violation of this particular law.

in the real world people are fired before the law would even apply.  so firing isn't enough for you?

Just explain your personal outrage and or any logical objection to the actual law.

what more could I possibly say?  if you don't or won't understand what I have already said, I'm at a loss.

harassment already covers the issue this new law is suppose to address, this law singles out and is aimed at a specific group in an attempt to give them more protection and punishments for the offenders all because of a specific characteristic.

how does this new law protect this group of people that the harassment laws which have already existed don't?

having laws that treat certain people with certain characteristics differently is a huge problem for me, as it should be for anyone who believes in Constitution.

this is purely political

I don't see how you are not understanding this.

Apparently the harassment laws were not preventing employees of retirement homes from engaging in this particular practice.pecially and or remarkably inequitable.

Once again, while I agree with you that people should be treated equally under the law, however, when compared to an overwhelming number of inequitable laws currently on the books, I have trouble understanding why you or anyone else would consider this particular law especially and or remarkably inequitable.

Since nobody seems to care about common courtesy or historical norms anymore, the only way to get people's attention is to tell them they might go to jail.

I fail to see why "willfully and repeatedly" would apply to every word and action, except misgendering, can you explain that for me please?

I've said this a few times now, because it offers a special protection and extra punishment for behavior already covered by law for a group of people with specific characteristics.  That's not equality under the law is it?

the law itself might not be harmful but the prescient is, you may have more liberal views on government, it's role and the power or limit it should be under, but that's more of a tangent.

We're talking about identity and the right of any individual to decide what terms they would like to be referred to as, in face-to-face interactions.

compelled speech

your implication and accusation that I'm outraged over this law is wrong and rather insulting in your assumption.  I like to discuss legal issues, challenge and debate them and that is all.  That is one of a few states I would never live in for a variety of reasons, so to think it would affect me in anyway is also wrong.  Any frustration I may have exhibited is the need for me to repeat myself almost verbatim to finally get my point understood and acknowledged.your injection and claims about my emotional state I find dishonest and I don't recall this as being how you are previously, perhaps you were getting too emotional on the subject, or having a bad day, regardless don't make a habit out of it.

It is difficult to fabricate any sort of protest whatsoever against such a narrow statute without de facto defending obviously mean-spirited behavior. 

It is difficult to fabricate any sort of protest whatsoever against such a narrow statute without de facto defending obviously mean-spirited behavior. 

perhaps for you it's difficult, but not for me as I understand the agreed upon definition of harassment and that there are laws against it already.  The challenge to this law is pretty easy.  I believe you even admitted it was redundant, thus already existed and not needed.  So we set that aside.  

harassment= behavior that is meant to alarm, annoy, torment or terrorize them

you say everyone should be treated equally and yet this law doesn't do that and you are fine with it.  Giving anyone special treatment in the law is not treating everyone equally is it?

1) You're assuming a plethora of personal beliefs in "common courtesy". For example, in my homeland of Australia, looking someone in the eyes as you pass them and say "g'day" is normally done amongst white people, but is seriously offensive for Aboriginal people. It's also offensive for any Koreans over here, but it's polite to English people. "Common courtesy" is not a fixed term, as you assume here.

Relating specifically to the topic at hand, let's say a particular culture considers it offensive to call someone a homosexual (perhaps Southern part of the U.S.). Therefore, when someone asks to be referred to as a homosexual, it's going to conflict with what a Southerner would consider "common courtesy", and thus the Southerner is referring to someone else he/she might respect in a derogatory way. Moreover, whose "common courtesy" is correct?

Another specific example to the topic at hand: Aboriginal people considered hermaphrodites to be magical people, and revered them as such. However, I doubt many hermaphrodites would consider themselves to be magical people. So, despite Aboriginal people respecting these hermaphrodites, their "common courtesy", whilst also seeing hermaphrodites as positive, is wildly different to a non-Aboriginal conception of hermaphrodites. Again, whose "common courtesy" is correct?

2) Yes, it could be common courtesy, in a sense of the word, to refer to someone as they request. Personally, unless the person was hostile, I would accommodate his/her request for particular pronouns.

However, a mere request is different from a state imposed threat. The difference is that the person you're talking to essentially has your wallet/purse open, and threatens to steal money from you, in order to give to the government. Imagine that when a person requests that they be referred to in a certain way, that he/she proceeds to open your wallet/purse, and holds several hundred dollars, waiting to see if he/she is allowed to give this money to the government. That is essentially what is occurring.