Absent an absolute authority, who is to say what anything is.

[pogi]

I am used to seeing one or two long posts/responses, but dang!  I think Analytics and Smac deserve an award for the longest back-and-forth with consistently long-form posts/responses in history.  

[Analytics]

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

Manifestly and profoundly Orwellian.

And that is what happened: "In a recent interview on BBC World Service, reported by Variety, Kauffman stated it was a mistake to refer to Chandler's trans mother as his 'father.'"

Saying something was a mistake isn't the same thing as apologizing. 

Wikipedia defines "Orwellian" as an adjective describing a situation, idea, or societal condition that George Orwell identified as being destructive to the welfare of a free and open society. It denotes an attitude and a brutal policy of draconian control by propaganda, surveillance, disinformation, denial of truth (doublethink), and manipulation of the past, including the "unperson"—a person whose past existence is expunged from the public record and memory, practiced by modern repressive governments.

Yes,  Marta Kauffman's sensibilities regarding how transgender people should be treated have evolved. But there is no brutal policy of draconian control. Not by propaganda. Not by surveillance. Not by disinformation. Not by denial of truth (doublethink). Not by manipulation of the past. No repressive government manipulation.

I acknowledge that you think she was saying something that was profoundly wrong when she said, "it was a mistake to refer to Chandler's trans mother as his 'father.'" Whether you are right or wrong about that, there is no brutal policy of draconian control by a repressive government here. It isn't Orwellian.

The last word on whether Marta's sensibilities evolving is "Orwellian" is yours.

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yes, it was:

More here:

(Emphases added.).

The prosecutor/CPS treated and characterized Armstrong's behavior as a "hate crime."

The judge treated and characterized Armstrong's behavior as a "hate crime."

The police officer treated and characterized Armstrong's behavior as a "hate crime."

Touché. 

But I stick by my original claim that there isn't a law in Scotland that "makes the non-use of preferred pronouns a hate crime." The use of pronouns had nothing to do with this case. The case was about repeatedly yelling the question "Is that a woman or a man?"

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

Because the usage of scare quotes is well-known.

Because the word presupposes that which has yet to be demonstrated.

Because the word is often used in a counterfactual way.

My favorite style manual is The Sense of Style by Steven Pinker. On page 60, he says:

Quotation marks have a number of legitimate uses, such as reproducing someone else’s words (She said, “Fiddlesticks!”), mentioning a word as a word rather than using it to convey its meaning (The New York Times uses “millenniums,” not “millennia”), and signaling that the writer does not accept the meaning of a word as it is being used by others in this context (They executed their sister to preserve the family’s “honor”).

After extensive quotes of news articles, you put "misgendering" in quotation marks, implying that you think the articles used that word in a counterfactual way. My point is that the articles don't use that word at all. Yet you implied they did.

The last word on whether it is appropriate to use scare quotes to imply you "do not accept the meaning of a word as it is being used by others in this context" when they don't use that word in this context is yours.

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm content to let the readers review what those "abusive comments" were (hint: it involves purported "misgendering" of a trans police officer by a young man with limited cognitive abilities).

No, it doesn't involve "misgendering." It involves yelling the question "is that a woman or a man?" in a way that was perceived to be abusive. You are trying to associate the word "misgendering" to this case when the law, judge, and news sources you've quoted do not.

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

"Misgendering" is a loaded term, but it generally correlates with "the non-use of preferred pronouns."  These things are examples of compelled speech that I find deeply troubling.

You think Armstrong was "compelled" to speak something he didn't believe? What, specifically, was he compelled to say?

You keep trying to portray this case as being about compelled speech. It wasn't. It was about Armstrong choosing to loudly and repeatedly ask a question that was perceived to be abusive.

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

Again, this is fascinating.  A person of your experience and education and intellect just breezing on by the threat to Free Speech found here.

In general, I'm reserved about passing judgment on decisions made it courts when I haven't witnessed the entire trial or haven't read the judicial opinion. In this Armstrong case, while I think I know the pertinent facts from the news reports you've shared, I'm not sure I know all of the facts. I don't even know what specific law was allegedly broken.

The question here isn't whether I think Armstrong ought to be guilty of a crime for what he did. The question is whether or not there is a law in Scotland that makes the non-use of of preferred pronouns illegal. 

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

I would have hoped that Americans would place Free Speech in higher regard than this.

Don't confuse staying on topic with holding Free Speech in low regard.

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

I am talking about people who are either A) indifferent to or B) supportive of the State punishing people for the content of their speech, for their resisting compelled speech.

It looks like we're talking about two different things. I'm talking about your specific claim that there is a law in Scotland that makes the non-use of preferred pronouns illegal.

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

I am presenting them as examples of encroachments on Free Speech.  As examples of the State punishing people for the content of their speech, for resisting compelled speech.

So, you are withdrawing your assertion that there is a law in Scotland that specifically makes the non-use of preferred pronouns illegal?

In any case, the last word on the Armstrong case is yours.

Moving on to Jessie Nelson case in Canada (which I am happy to keep discussing because it is representative of the actual issue and has an actual judicial opinion that we can refer to in order to understand the subtleties of the case):

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

I provided a link that explains what happened, which involved a lawsuit about "using incorrect pronouns."  The trans person, who won the case, had an attorney who publicly declared after the decision that “the correct pronouns for transgender people are not optional. ... It’s not an option to respect the pronouns that trans people choose for themselves. It’s a legal requirement to use the pronouns that a trans person uses for themselves and asks to have used in the workplace."

"Using incorrect pronouns" is a secondary issue to the case. Here is the link to the actual judicial opinion:

137 Nelson v Goodberry Restaurant Group Ltd dba Buono Osteria and others 2021 BCHRT 137

Please remember that before this suit was filed, Jessie told Brian, my name is not pinky or sweetie. If you can’t use my pronouns, at least use my name. Yet Brian continued to harass Jessie. And then Jessie got fired for complaining about it. The case isn't simply about misgendering. It is mainly about somebody harassing somebody in the workplace.  Misgendering was simply one tool he used to deliberately harass Jessie. 

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

Characterizing "misgendering" or non-use of preferred pronouns as "harassment" is a very good Trojan Horse.  A very good way to circumvent and stifle Free Speech.  A very good way to rationalize and justify the State punishing people for the content of their speech for their resisting compelled speech.

You are dodging the actual issue. Canada doesn't have a "misgendering" law. Rather, it has a human rights code. Specifically:

Every person who is an employee has a right to freedom from harassment in the workplace by the employer or agent of the employer or by another employee because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, record of offences, marital status, family status or disability. 

That isn't some sort of dodge or trojan horse. That is the specific issue this case is about. 

The judge didn't say anybody was guilty of "misgendering." He said:

I have found Jessie’s Nelson complaint of discrimination justified against the respondents Buono Osteria, Mr. Kingsberry, Mr. Buono, and Mr. Gobelle.

Why are you so adamantly opposed to dealing with the facts of the case?

If Brian Gobelle didn't want to use the pronouns "they/their", he didn't have to. He could have gone about his job without calling a coworker "pinky", "sweetie", "sweetheart", and "honey". If he wanted to be respectful to his coworker but was religiously opposed to using "they/their" pronouns for a singular individual, all he had to is refrain from using pronouns (e.g. "Jessie is your server. Jessie will be with you in a moment.") And if he would have occasionally slipped, it wouldn't be an issue. And if decided that he simply must use the pronouns he likes but otherwise didn't harass her, there never would have been a complaint.

So my genuine question here remains. What is your beef with Canada's actual law?

1. Do you think employees ought to have freedom from harassment in the workplace based on race, religion, etc.?
2. Do you think gender identity and gender expression ought to be included in the list of protected classes?

Again, all I'm trying to do here is talk about the actual law, and not your straw man about "state punishing people for resisting compelled speech."

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think there is a real risk of "mission creep," of the temptation by folks on your side of the debate...

You keep referring to this mysterious debate that I am a part of, and insinuating that I'm guilty of the crimes of others folks on "my side." As far as I can tell, I am a single, solitary wolf in this debate. With the possible exception of @SeekingUnderstanding who has liked a few of my posts, nobody is on my side other than me.

Do I misunderstand what the debate is about? I thought we were debating whether or not the world is being overrun by laws that criminalize the use of non-preferred pronouns.

In your view:

1. What is "the debate" about? 
2. What position does "my side" of the debate take?

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

Subversion of fundamental rights is seldom a one-and-done event.  Rather, the subversion comes in fits and spurts.  Incrementally.  No such much "frontal assaults" on Free Speech, but instead subtle encroachments here and there.  It is at this phase that tactics like "plausible deniability" and gaslighting are quite potent.  Anyone who raises a concern can be ridiculed as an alarmist or - as you so regularly demonstrate - disparaged as a liar and bigot.  Here's an example I just saw the other day: "Are you opposed to human rights laws in general, or are you just opposed to these human rights being extended to the class of transgender people?"  

That is a sincere question. These various governments have "human right laws" that protect workers from harassment in the workplace. When the laws were extended to include gender identity as a protected class, you threw a fit about how that encroaches on your rights of free speech. I'm just trying to understand your position: does free speech entitle you to harass transgender people at work? Does it entitle you to harass anybody at work?

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

And so you are . . . okay with him being jailed for speaking words on Facebook?  (Also, I saw nothing in the article about "threats."  Where are you getting that?)

The issue isn't whether or not I'm okay with somebody being jailed for speaking words on Facebook. The issue is whether or not Norway has a law that makes the non-use of preferred pronouns a crime.

Given the fact that I don't speak Norwegian, I have very limited information on the facts of the case and the underlying Norwegian law. Because of that, I'm trying to refrain from commenting on the details of a court case I don't understand. In these days of such flagrant propaganda and outright lies in self-purported news outlets, I'm very reticent to believe news stories I can't verify.

The last word about the Norway case is yours.

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

You have no obligation whatsoever to listen to viewpoints with which you disagree.  But I think you'll have a better understanding of things if you do.  This is a big part of why I have been on this board since 2004, talking with and listening to people who disagree with me.  Some of them have been "dishonest," but I think most are better characterized as having different perspectives, priorities and opinions.

Fair point. Believe it or not, I listen to people who disagree with me, too. I don't make accusations of dishonesty lightly.

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

Here is a longer excerpt of Volokh's comments:

"So people can basically force us — on pain of massive legal liability — to say what they want us to say, whether or not we want to endorse the political message associated with that term, and whether or not we think it’s a lie." 

Not much in there I see as "dishonest."

Yep.

You are trying to justify such impositions by A) characterizing compliance with such compelled speech as "politeness" or not being "rude," and B) disparaging people who are averse to compelled speech as bigots and liars....

What I find dishonest about your comments is this: if somebody were to read your comments here, they'd have no clue whatsoever about the following facts:

1. The laws you are criticizing are about non-discrimination in the workplace and non-discrimination in housing
2. The laws don't actually say anything about compelling people to use preferred pronouns
3. The laws aren't even specifically about gender identity but rather are about non-discrimination based on race, religion, national origin, etc., with gender identity added to the list

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

Well, let's apply what Prof. Volokh suggested.

Analytics, from here on out I demand that you call me "Sir" or "Master." 

I also insist that you conclude each and every post with the sign-off "Grovelingly and Boot-lickingly Yours, Analytics."

I also insist that you append to each and every reference to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with the acronym "TOTALCUTFOTWE" (a shortened acronymic reference to D&C 1:30's "the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth").

I insist that you say things things because anything less would be impolite and rude.  That's all.

In this analogy we are coworkers, right? And these demands are limited to how I treat you in the workplace, right? Furthermore, your demands are made on the basis of what a "reasonable person" would deem is necessary to give you a workplace free of harassment based on your religion, right?

I can't take Volokh seriously here. Nobody is advocating that people are free to compel people's speech in this way, least of all me.

The laws you are criticizing are simply anti-discrimination/anti-harassment laws in the workplace and in public accommodations. The law says don't harass people in these settings. The reasonable person standard dictates whether or not a certain behavior is harassment or not.

The laws do not give people carte blanche to compel speech. They merely say don't harass people at work because of their race, religion, etc.

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

Are you in favor of laws that fine and/or otherwise punish people who refuse to use "preferred pronounds" and/or who "misgender" a trans person?

I consistently said that deliberately misgendering somebody is rude. I've already said, "I don't support criminalizing such rudeness." (June 23) I also said, " In general, people have the right to be as rude as they want." (June 28).

What about these answers don't you understand?

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

The New York law imposes massive fines against people who refuse to use "preferred pronounds" and/or who "misgender" someone.

CFR that the law says this. I assert the New York law says nothing about "preferred pronouns" and "misngender."

For your reference, here is a link to the actual text of the law:

https://dhr.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2022/06/human-rights-law-printable.pdf

Show me where it "imposes massive fines against people who refuse to use "preferred pronounds" and/or who "misgender" someone." Don't quote some editorial from some right-wing culture warrior. Cite me the actual law, or a paper published in a serious legal journal. 

Nowadays when people say CFR here, it is taken as a rhetorical device. However, in this case I'm serious. The following behavior is banned:

 Refusing to provide appropriate references to support your statements

If you want me to think you are merely sharing a different opinion and aren't being dishonest, show me the chapter and verse of the New York Law that "imposes massive fines against people who refuse to use "preferred pronounds" and/or who "misgender" someone." CFR.

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

Are you in favor of laws like this?

Laws like the laws that actually exist, or laws like the laws you pretend exist? 

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

Dodge.  And an interesting one, as I think you are implying that you are "in favor of a fine and punishment" in those circumstances, and that by analogy you are also "in favor of a fine and punishment" against people who refuse to use "preferred pronounds" and/or who "misgender" someone.

Am I wrong in this assessment?

Of course you are wrong. Repeating verbatim what I said:

This question doesn't make any sense to me and covers such a wide variety of issues I have no idea what to make of it. If somebody is testifying in court and doesn't want to tell the truth, am I in favor of a fine and punishment if they don't tell the truth? If a biology teacher doesn't want to teach evolution, am I in favor of firing her for not doing her job? If a bar manager wants to call an employee as “sweetheart”, “honey”, and “pinky", rather than "Jessie", am I in favor of his employer requiring him to call her Jessie as a condition of employment? Am I in favor of laws that require workers to be respectful to Mormons at work and not harass them because of their religion? 

As you'll recall from your high school reading comprehension class, paragraphs have a topic sentence and supporting sentences. In this case, the topic sentence is the first one: This question doesn't make any sense to me and covers such a wide variety of issues I have no idea what to make of it. The subsequent sentences collectively illustrate my point: your question doesn't make any sense. That is why I didn't answer it.

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

"Free speech" v. sexual harassment statutes is also a mixed bag.  See here.

I appreciate you posting something reasonable that recognizes that the laws we are talking about aren't merely about free speech, but are also about being free of harassment in the workplace. From your link:

In Robinson v. Jacksonville Shipyards (M.D. Fla. 1991), a federal district court ruled that the posting of sexually explicit pictures and sexually derogatory comments directed at a worker constituted sexual harassment. In its opinion, the court undertook a significant review of First Amendment concerns in enforcing sexual harassment claims.

It held that this type of speech was not protected because it constituted discriminatory conduct. In addition, the court noted that speech has never been given absolute protection in the workplace, and given that employees are a captive audience while at work, efforts to limit sexually charged speech are reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions.

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

I didn't post your IRL information.  You did.  I just repeated it.  Like you did with me here.

FWIW, I used your first name here in June 2014, here in May 2016, here in December 2019, here in February 2022.  I think I've used it quite a few times beyond these.  And I don't think you have ever voiced or concern about it until now.  

Out of respect for the moderators (and out of a desire to maintain my own dignity), I try to refrain from being a board nanny.

If you click on the link at the top of the front page that says "Please Review Before Posting," you'll see the following behavior is banned:

 Posting personal or identifying information about others

That is true regardless of whether or not I've ever complained about it or engaged in such behavior myself.

Edited July 12, 2022 by Analytics

[Analytics]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

For what it’s worth, I too have in the past addressed Analytics in online posts by his first and possibly his last name and he had not, to my knowledge, objected to it. Though I will abide by his preference going forward, I’m genuinely amazed that he’s making an issue of it at this late juncture. 

Thank you for abiding by my preferences. I'm just reminding people of the board rules, which people ought to obey out of respect for the board's owners and moderators. Personally, I try to have a thick skin and not be a board nanny.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I am used to seeing one or two long posts/responses, but dang!  I think Analytics and Smac deserve an award for the longest back-and-forth with consistently long-form posts/responses in history.  

And you posted this just ahead of THE longest and most intricate post ever, O, thou prophet!  

It would take me DAYS to write that much!  And then some glitch would erase half of it!!

[smac97]

An interesting article about what I think are Orwellian influences in our society: The humiliation of Macy Gray, and its lesson for all of us

Quote

The first time I heard Macy Gray singing her hit song "I Try" on the radio years ago, I remember marveling how awful it was. Luckily for her, she certainly didn't need to win my approval in order to have a lucrative singing career. But just because Gray has never been my cup of tea vocally doesn't mean that I have enjoyed watching her endure what has happened to her over the course of the last week.
...
{Y}ou would have thought that Macy Gray would have been wiser than to go on television and say 100% true things like this:

Of course she knows that for a fact. Because it is a fact. It's always been a fact. Being a woman is something far more than playing dress-up. It's something far more emotional, psychological, and spiritual than having a few cosmetic surgeries that alter an outward appearance. Womanhood is nothing that a man can understand no matter how many operations, how many drugs, how many makeovers he has.
...
Gray was torched for her "transphobia," and after a few days of courageously trying to stand her ground, eventually caved in and conformed to the spirit of the age:

No Macy, being a woman is not a vibe. It's something far more than that, and like you told Piers Morgan just days ago, you know it.

It's important to note what happened to Midler and Gray these last few days. They aren't closet haters or mean-spirited people who just recently got exposed, nor were they lying about what they said. Even though we're supposedly a more sophisticated and evolved society that's left primitive religion in the dust, what happened to them is exactly what happened to countless young women who ran afoul of the prevailing superstitions of Salem around 1690.

Gray and Midler were caught blaspheming against the religion of the moment. It doesn't matter if their words were consistent with reality, they were inconsistent with the accepted religious dogma of the age and therefore were branded with the scarlet T for transphobia, paraded in front of the social media townspeople, and threatened to either recant or be torched.

And though many want to call them cowards, no one can blame Gray and Midler for choosing as they did. Their whole lives are wrapped up in their elitist privilege, and the thought of losing it frightened them. It scared them so badly that they decided it was preferable to slip on the ideological straight-jacket that has been fitted for them by the new priests and pastors of the alphabet faith.

They rightly reasoned that given their own worldview there's no escaping it. If it didn't happen today, it would happen tomorrow. Even benign phrases like "biological women" are now considered heretical.

So Gray ... has chosen to bow her knee, accept her humiliation, receive her lashes, and attempt to move forward living as a chastened, faithful slave to this ever-evolving religion of sex and gender whose doctrine changes as quickly as the tides.

Yeesh.

I'm seeing elements of Maoist "Denunciation Rally"-style tactics:

Quote

Denunciation rallies, also called struggle sessions, were violent public spectacles in Maoist China, where people accused of being "class enemies" of the Maoists were publicly humiliated, accused, beaten and tortured by people they were close to. Usually conducted at the workplace, classrooms and auditoriums, "students were pitted against their teachers, friends and spouses were pressured to betray one another, [and] children were manipulated into exposing their parents". Staging, scripts and agitators were prearranged by the Maoists to incite crowd support. The aim was to instill a crusading spirit among the crowd to promote the Maoist thought reform.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Of course she knows that for a fact. Because it is a fact. It's always been a fact. Being a woman is something far more than playing dress-up. It's something far more emotional, psychological, and spiritual than having a few cosmetic surgeries that alter an outward appearance. Womanhood is nothing that a man can understand no matter how many operations, how many drugs, how many makeovers he has.

Wait I’m confused. I thought per your definition being a woman was all about the parts and the dna. Are you saying being a woman is based on “emotional, psychological, and spiritual” aspects? Doesn’t that undercut everything you’ve argued for in this thread?

Edited July 12, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Analytics]

12 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Wait I’m confused. I thought per your definition being a woman was all about the parts and the dna. Are you saying being a woman is based on “emotional, psychological, and spiritual” aspects? Doesn’t that undercut everything you’ve argued for in this thread?

+1000

That was exactly my thought.

[smac97]

30 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

Of course she knows that for a fact. Because it is a fact. It's always been a fact. Being a woman is something far more than playing dress-up. It's something far more emotional, psychological, and spiritual than having a few cosmetic surgeries that alter an outward appearance. Womanhood is nothing that a man can understand no matter how many operations, how many drugs, how many makeovers he has.

Wait I’m confused.

Perhaps you should take up your confusion with the author of the piece I quoted.  That I link to and quote an article does not mean I agree with every jot and tittle of it.

30 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I thought per your definition being a woman was all about the parts and the dna.

I think the meaning of "woman" and "female" are inextricably rooted in biology (though that is not the sole source of meaning).

30 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Are you saying being a woman is based on “emotional, psychological, and spiritual” aspects?

No.  The author of the piece I quoted said that.  Also, note that the author said that "{b}eing a woman is something far more than playing dress-up."  I'm think the subsequent "emotional, psychological, and spiritual" reference was intended to be illustrative, not as an exhaustive compendium of what "being a woman is."

I think that there are “emotional, psychological, and spiritual” aspects of womanhood, sure.  I also believe the statement in the Family Proclamation that "{g}ender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."  I see no tension between these ideas and my comments about the meaning of "woman" and "female" being inextricably rooted in biology.  

30 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Doesn’t that undercut everything you’ve argued for in this thread?

I don't think so.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 12, 2022 by smac97

[Vanguard]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

No, it doesn't involve "misgendering." It involves yelling the question "is that a woman or a man?" in a way that was perceived to be abusive. You are trying to associate the word "misgendering" to this case when the law, judge, and news sources you've quoted do not.

Regards to this situation with the police officer while on duty, do you think that had the offender in question yelled some other type of derogatory exclamation, he would have been similarly prosecuted? And if so, wouldn't one expect a police officer to be prepared to handle verbal insults and some such? I highly doubt Mr. Armstrong would have been fined were his insults to have something to do with other than the officer's gender. Are you surprised UK law allows police officers to file suits against citizenry who hurl verbal taunts? Or could this be more about the fact that the taunts have something to do with said officer's gender?

I appreciate this back-and-forth between you and smac. Though I agree largely with his argument, I enjoy reading your reasoned responses. ; )

Edited July 12, 2022 by Vanguard

[Ipod Touch]

Trans women are men.  Most experience autogynophelia.  A sexual fetish where they are aroused by the thought of being female.

To use pronouns other than those aligned with sex, is an affront to language.  Just like the word, "latinx"

Edited July 12, 2022 by Ipod Touch

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, Ipod Touch said:

Trans women are men.  Most experience autogynophelia.  A sexual fetish where they are aroused by the thought of being female.

To use pronouns other than those aligned with sex, is an affront to language.  Just like the word, "latinx"

I previously made a similar point here:

Quote

This video makes some good points about "preferred pronouns," particularly the guy at the 1:56 mark:

Quote

Host: Andrew, there you are.  It's a matter of courtesy this, and sensitivity, isn't it?

Andrew: Courtesy's all very well, and you're describing encouraging people to use certain words.  My problem is when words are policed.  When language becomes policed.  That is my problem.  Those sorts of things, 'humankind' or 'mankind,' I mean, those are sort of interchangeable now, they're synonymous anyway.  We're talking about when people actively - and it's a minority of activists, it really is a minority - seek to have people disciplined, or sacked, because they refuse to use language that they they are imposing.  That's not the evolution of language, that's the imposition of language, and I think that's problematic.

 

Not "evolution" of language.  Imposition of language.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, Vanguard said:

Regards to this situation with the police officer while on duty, do you think that had the offender in question yelled some other type of derogatory exclamation, he would have been similarly prosecuted? And if so, wouldn't one expect a police officer to be prepared to handle verbal insults and some such? I highly doubt Mr. Armstrong would have been fined were his insults to have something to do with other than the officer's gender. Are you surprised UK law allows police officers to file suits against citizenry who hurl verbal taunts? Or could this be more about the fact that the taunts have something to do with said officer's gender?

I really don't know. Frankly, my impression is that the officer in question was thin-skinned. I also wonder if the court in question was swayed by the plight of the transgender officer in a similar way that Smac is swayed by the plight of the man for being autistic. But I also suspect this is a unique event and isn't the result of any systematic biases in the system.

Do the laws in Scotland have a bias in favor of transgender people? Maybe. Do the courts have a bias in favor of transgender people? Maybe.

Maybe not. I really don't know.

Even if transgender people do have the advantage of those biases, I'm still not one to complain about how unfair it is to be a white, heterosexual, cisgender male in modern society. More to the point, I just don't have a lot of sympathy for people who want to use every sentence with a pronoun as an opportunity to express their fervid opposition to the internal reality of the people they are speaking about.

1 hour ago, Vanguard said:

I appreciate this back-and-forth between you and smac. Though I agree largely with his argument, I enjoy reading your reasoned responses. ; )

🙂

[smac97]

30 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I really don't know. Frankly, my impression is that the officer in question was thin-skinned. I also wonder if the court in question was swayed by the plight of the transgender officer in a similar way that Smac is swayed by the plight of the man for being autistic.

The man's diminished mental capacity should have been taken into account in terms of mens rea.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Ipod Touch]

Don't let sissy-porn addicts redefine what it means to be a woman

https://elizamondegreen.substack.com/p/letting-sissy-porn-addicts-redefine

Quote

Redefining women from a sex class to a mixed-sex class based on male sexual projections reifies sex-role stereotypes and requires actual women and girls to dissociate body and mind. After all, we’re not allowed to say we’re women because we’re female anymore. We’re supposed to look inside ourselves and find something else that makes us women—something that has nothing to do with female embodiment—that a man can experience, too, like getting turned on by the idea of your own sexual defilement. If some men want to wear ‘women’ as masks, then women must be masks, nothing more.

More:
 

Quote

 

The same gender ideology that redefines women and girls in such dehumanizing terms—as mindless bimbos, ******** objects, costumes men can take on and off at will—also says: If you don’t feel comfortable with all of that, maybe you’re not a woman or a girl at all.

Maybe you’re a boy.

Maybe you’re nonbinary or agender or genderfluid or asexual…

Whenever men redefine women to serve their own purposes, they push women and girls to debase ourselves by continued association with 'womanhood' or identify out altogether. If men like Andrea Long Chu and Grace Lavery and Julia Serano and Alok Vaid-Menon and Jeffrey Marsh are the new authorities on what women are, wouldn’t you want out, too?

 

 

Edited July 13, 2022 by Ipod Touch

[Hamba Tuhan]

20 minutes ago, Ipod Touch said:

Quote

If some men want to wear ‘women’ as masks, then women must be masks, nothing more.

This just made me think of Ed Gein ... 

[Ipod Touch]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

This just made me think of Ed Gein ... 

Spend an hour or so reading some mtf transgender subs on reddit.  sadly, some of these folks are already too close to ed gein! 

[smac97]

Here is an interesting article that, I think, illustrates the problems inherent in conflating sex with "gender identity."  That is, redefining "female" and "woman" to include biological males who claim a "gender identity" of being "female" (in an adjectival sense, I suppose) or of being a female (in a literal sense) or a "woman" (in the literal sense).

Down the pan: Almost 98% of British public wants to keep single-sex changing rooms and separate toilets for men and women, poll suggests

Quote

• A near-unanimous 98 per cent of respondents said they wanted separate toilets
• Around 7,000 people were surveyed in a poll by campaign group Sex Matters 
• The poll showed 95 per cent would want gendered toilets to help elderly people

Wow.

Quote

The public overwhelmingly wants to keep separate toilets, changing rooms and sports competitions for men and women, a report reveals today.

A poll of 7,000 people found that an overwhelming 98 per cent wanted to be able to get undressed, shower or use the lavatory away from members of the opposite sex.

Some 97 per cent of those questioned said single-sex spaces were important to them, and 95 per cent said they would want to be able to insist on a woman carer for an elderly female relative who needed looking after.

In addition, 89 per cent agreed that women and girls should be allowed to meet up by themselves in groups such as Guides, while 61 per cent said single-sex sports teams were important for fairness and safety.

As seen below, I think most or all of the above-referenced percentages of people polled are referring to "opposite sex" in a biological sense.  That is, a biological male who "identifies" as a woman is, nevertheless, not a woman and remains the "opposite sex" from women.  That "single-sex" spaces ought to be restricted by biological sex.

Quote

The findings come despite major high street stores, venues, leisure centres and even schools replacing separate facilities with ‘gender-neutral’ ones in order to be more welcoming towards transgender people.

See?  The elimination of single-sex "facilities" with "gender-neutral" ones is, I think, what the vast majority of Brits do not want.

As coercive and heavy-handed and punitive as the "You're either a trans 'ally' or a bigot" brigade has been over the last several years, the vast majority of Brits do not seem to be buying into the ideology. 

I think the average person is going to be broadly indifferent to the inner-held thoughts of some other fellow with Gender Dysphoria who well and truly believes he is a "woman" trapped in a biologically male body.  But when that inner-held thought breaks out of that fellow's head and into the real world, things start to change.  When the fellow with Gender Dysphoria demands that you use words he wants you to use, and presumes to prohibit words he doesn't want you to use, when he wants to go into a women-only facility and because he "identifies" as a woman, when he - a biological male - wants to compete against biological females in sports, and when he uses the force of law to bring these things to pass, then I think people start to pay real attention to this movement, and to resist it.

Quote

Some respondents to the online survey, hosted on the website of campaign group Sex Matters earlier this year, said that they had stopped going to theatre toilets or using shop changing rooms after encountering biological males.

The reference here to "biological males" being a reference to . . . men who "identify" as women.

I think this is evidence tending to falsify the dichotomy that our Analytics has been insisting upon, namely, that "{w}hen somebody says they 'identify as a woman', they are saying their internal sense of being is that of a woman," and that "{t}hey aren't making a comment about their biology" and are instead only "making a comment about how they feel on the inside."

By way of comparison, if I share my feelings about being an American, or a husband, or a father, I am "making a comment about how {I} feel on the inside," but that may well not be all I am doing.  If I say I am an American and therefore have a right to vote, I am doing more than merely expressing inner-held feelings.  If I say I am my daughter's father and therefore have certain parental rights guaranteed under state and federal law, I am doing more than expressing inner-held feelings.  

Now, if I were to say to myself "I am the son of Elon Musk," I don't think anyone would care.  If I were to make this statement to third parties, I think those folks would likely shrug it off, as it has no particular impact on their lives.  But . . . if I were to make this statement to Elon Musk, and if I would to file a lawsuit seeking declaratory judgment validating and affirming this familial relationship, well, that's when things start to get a bit dicy.  At that point the law and its coercive power becomes involved.  Other people's rights and interests are potentially affected.  To merely say that Elon is my dad is one thing, to use the force of law to compel others to go along with that idea is . . . quite another.

So it is, I think, with people suffering from Gender Dysphoria who want to to use the force of law to compel others to go along with their inner-held feelings, which feelings - however sincerely maintained - are nevertheless counterfactual.  As counterfactual as my claim to be the son of Elon Musk.

Quote

Devout Muslims also reported they could no longer attend groups that had been made mixed-sex such as swimming clubs.

This is an interesting ramification.  There will always be some tension between private religious beliefs and public accommodations.  For example, I would think that a Muslim could not, on the basis of religious belief, sue a municipal swimming pool and insist that it segregate the pool so as to categorically exclude non-Muslims, or women.  However, could a Muslim woman who wants to participate in a single-sex "swimming club" (for women only) sue to exclude biological men from the club?  From the dressing room?  On religious grounds, probably not.  But on other grounds, maybe.  I'm not sufficiently familiar with the laws in the UK.

Quote

Others said they had given up attending their Women’s Institute groups because they were ‘dominated’ by trans women or were worried about their daughters going to Girl Guide camps because anyone who identifies as female can become a member.

Further examples of the real-world ramifications of conflating biological sex with "gender identity."  

I think Analytics is demonstrably wrong when he asserts that "{w}hen somebody says they 'identify as a woman', they are saying their internal sense of being is that of a woman," and that "{t}hey aren't making a comment about their biology" and are instead only "making a comment about how they feel on the inside."  Trans women - biological males who "identify" as women - are doing considerably more than "making a comment about how they feel on the inside." 

Caitlyn Jenner "legally changed her name and gender on her birth certificate in California and made a lot of noise about it in the process."  That is more than "making a comment about how they feel on the inside." 

Lia Thomas is competing against biological women.  That is more than "making a comment about how they feel on the inside." 

Alana Mclaughlin, a biological male, v. Celine Provost, a biological female, in an MMA fight:

From the above video: "Let's talk about trans activism and how, despite what the activists say, no, it's not just about 'self-identification.'  It is, in fact, about control, about subversion, and I think there's a pretty good argument to be made that it's also about attention-seeking and narcissism."

Yep.

Alana was doing considerably more than "making a comment about {he feels} on the inside."  He was beating a woman into submission, and getting paid for it.

Quote

And rape victims said they would be unable to use support centres or refuges if they could not be sure they were for women only.

Are women - biological females - justified in wanting "support centres or refuges" to be segregated by sex, including excluding biological males who "identify" as women?

Quote

Maya Forstater, Sex Matters’ executive director, said last night: ‘What the new Sex Matters research provides, for the first time, is evidence of the strength of feeling – and the voices of thousands of ordinary people who are being ignored.

"{O}rdinary people who are being ignored."  Or worse, being shouted down and cowed into silence with epithets alleging hatred and bigotry.  Or even worse than that, being compelled by the force of law to go along with the inner-held dysphoric feelings of other people.

Quote

‘The public is not being consulted about toilets and changing rooms becoming “gender-neutral”, rape crisis centres dropping female-only support groups and grassroots sporting organisations allowing males who identify as female to compete against girls and women.

‘The report fills a gap in the evidence that has led many schools, employers, hospitals and other service providers and their funders to mistakenly decide that single-sex facilities are not needed, are old-fashioned or are too difficult to provide.’

Single-sex facilities are in dispute because trans activists are doing much, much more than simply "making a comment about how they feel on the inside." 

Quote

The report, to be launched in Parliament next week, comes as women’s rights become a major battleground in the Tory leadership contest. Penny Mordaunt has insisted she is not ‘woke’ after allegedly trying to replace the word ‘mother’ with ‘pregnant person’ in a maternity law.

Kemi Badenoch revealed she had to fight civil servants to push through a ban on gender-neutral toilets in public buildings.

Helen Joyce, director of advocacy for Sex Matters, said: ‘Politicians and policymakers have been swept up in a fashionable ideology that is completely divorced from mainstream opinion.

‘This research should give them the courage to push back against gender extremists and defend the single-sex spaces and services that the vast majority of people value and rely upon.’

Trans activism is aptly described here as "a fashionable ideology."

Trans activists pushing for these things are likewise aptly described as "gender extremists."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 13, 2022 by smac97

[Analytics]

On 7/11/2022 at 8:46 PM, smac97 said:

The New York law imposes massive fines against people who refuse to use "preferred pronounds" and/or who "misgender" someone. 

 

On 7/12/2022 at 12:11 PM, Analytics said:

CFR that the law says this. I assert the New York law says nothing about "preferred pronouns" and "misngender."

For your reference, here is a link to the actual text of the law:

https://dhr.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2022/06/human-rights-law-printable.pdf

Show me where it "imposes massive fines against people who refuse to use "preferred pronounds" and/or who "misgender" someone." Don't quote some editorial from some right-wing culture warrior. Cite me the actual law, or a paper published in a serious legal journal. 

Nowadays when people say CFR here, it is taken as a rhetorical device. However, in this case I'm serious. The following behavior is banned:

 Refusing to provide appropriate references to support your statements

If you want me to think you are merely sharing a different opinion and aren't being dishonest, show me the chapter and verse of the New York Law that "imposes massive fines against people who refuse to use "preferred pronounds" and/or who "misgender" someone." CFR.

 

 

[smac97]

6 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

The New York law imposes massive fines against people who refuse to use "preferred pronounds" and/or who "misgender" someone. 

CFR that the law says this. I assert the New York law says nothing about "preferred pronouns" and "misngender."

For your reference, here is a link to the actual text of the law:

https://dhr.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2022/06/human-rights-law-printable.pdf

Show me where it "imposes massive fines against people who refuse to use "preferred pronounds" and/or who "misgender" someone." Don't quote some editorial from some right-wing culture warrior. Cite me the actual law, or a paper published in a serious legal journal. 

Nowadays when people say CFR here, it is taken as a rhetorical device. However, in this case I'm serious. The following behavior is banned:

 Refusing to provide appropriate references to support your statements

If you want me to think you are merely sharing a different opinion and aren't being dishonest, show me the chapter and verse of the New York Law that "imposes massive fines against people who refuse to use "preferred pronounds" and/or who "misgender" someone." CFR.

First, my post was not so much about what the law in New York says (the literal textual language), as about what the law in New York does.  That is, I was speaking about the practical effect of the law.

Second, I have already provided a reference for this in this post, which includes this link to comments/observations from Eugene Volokh.

Third, the link you provided above (this one) to the purported "actual text of the law" is, I think, not a link to the actual text of the law in question.  Instead, I think you should look here:

New York City Commission on Human Rights Legal Enforcement Guidance on Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Expression: Local Law No. 3 (2002); N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(23)

Here's the index at the top of the page:

Quote

INDEX

• LEGISLATIVE INTENT
• DEFINITIONS
• VIOLATIONS OF THE NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW'S PROHIBITIONS ON GENDER DISCRIMINATION
• --Failing To Use an Individual’s Preferred Name or Pronoun
• --Refusing To Allow Individuals To Utilize Single-Sex Facilities & Programs Consistent w/Their Gender
• --Sex Stereotyping
• --Imposing Different Uniforms or Grooming Standards Based on Sex or Gender
• --Providing Employee Benefits that Discriminate Based on Gender
• --Considering Gender When Evaluating Requests for Accommodations
• --Engaging in Discriminatory Harassment
• --Engaging in Retaliation
• PENALTIES IN ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS

Once more, with feeling:

Quote

Failing To Use an Individual’s Preferred Name or Pronoun

Let's take a look at the "Definitions" section:

Quote

Gender Expression. “Gender expression” is the representation of gender as expressed through one’s name, pronouns, clothing, hairstyle, behavior, voice, or similar characteristics. Gender expression may or may not conform to gender stereotypes, norms, and expectations in a given culture or historical period. Gender expression is not the same as sexual orientation or gender identity. Terms associated with gender expression include, but are not limited to, androgynous, butch, female/woman/feminine, femme, gender non-conforming, male/man/masculine, or non-binary.

(Emphasis added.)

And from Section III:

Quote

Gender-based harassment can include unwanted sexual advances or requests for sexual favors; however, gender-based harassment does not have to be sexual in nature. For example, refusal to use a transgender employee’s name, pronouns, or title may constitute unlawful gender-based harassment.
...
 

1. Failing To Use the Name or Pronouns with Which a Person Self-Identifies

The NYCHRL requires employers and covered entities to use the name, pronouns, and title (e.g., Ms./Mrs./Mx.)¹⁵ with which a person self-identifies, regardless of the person’s sex assigned at birth, anatomy, gender, medical history, appearance, or the sex indicated on the person’s identification.

Most people and many transgender people use female or male pronouns and titles. Some transgender, non-binary, and gender non-conforming people use pronouns other than he/him/his or she/her/hers, such as they/them/theirs or ze/hir.¹⁶  They/them/theirs can be used to identify or refer to a single person (e.g., “Joan is going to the store, and they want to know when to leave”). Many transgender, non-binary, and gender non-conforming people use a different name than the one they were assigned at birth.

All people, including employees, tenants, customers, and participants in programs, have the right to use and have others use their name and pronouns regardless of whether they have identification in that name or have obtained a court-ordered name change, except in very limited circumstances where certain federal, state, or local laws require otherwise (e.g., for purposes of employment eligibility verification with the federal government). Asking someone in good-faith for their name and gender pronouns is not a violation of the NYCHRL.

Covered entities may avoid violations of the NYCHRL by creating a policy of asking everyone what their gender pronouns are so that no person is singled out for such questions and by updating their systems, intake forms, or other questionaires to allow all people to self-identify their name and gender. Covered entities should not limit the options for identification to male and female only.

Examples of Violations
a.  Intentional or repeated refusal to use a person’s name, pronouns, or title. For example, repeatedly calling a transgender woman “him” or “Mr.” after she has made clear that she uses she/her and Ms.

b.  Refusal to use a person’s name, pronouns, or title because they do not conform to gender stereotypes. For example, insisting on calling a non-binary person “Mr.” after they have requested to be called “Mx.”

c.  Conditioning a person’s use of their name on obtaining a court-ordered name change or providing identification in that name. For example, a covered entity may not refuse to call a transgender man who introduces himself as Manuel by that name because his identification lists his name as Maribel.¹⁷

d.  Requiring a person to provide information about their medical history or proof of having undergone particular medical procedures in order to use their preferred name, pronouns, or title.

(Emphases added.)

And finally, a look at Section IV ("Penalties in Administrative Actions") :

Quote

The Commission can impose civil penalties up to $125,000 for violations, and up to $250,000 for violations that are the result of willful, wanton, or malicious conduct. The amount of a civil penalty will be guided by the following factors, among others:

•  The number of violations;
•  The severity of the violation;
•  The existence of previous or subsequent violations;
•  The willfulness of the violation;
•  The employer’s size, considering both the total number of employees and its revenue;
•  Any efforts the employer has made to promptly remedy violations; and
•  The employer’s actual or constructive knowledge of the NYCHRL.

These penalties are in addition to the other remedies available to people who successfully resolve or prevail on claims under the NYCHRL, including, but not limited to, back and front pay, along with other compensatory and punitive damages. The Commission may consider the lack of an adequate anti-discrimination policy as a factor in determining liability, assessing damages, and mandating certain affirmative remedies.

(Emphases added.)

A few more resources:

• A 2017 Bar Journal Article: All Employers Must Wash Their Speech Before Returning to Work: The First Amendment & Compelled Use of Employees’ Preferred Gender Pronouns
• A 2019 Bar Journal Article: I Now Pronoun-ce You: A Proposal for Pronoun Protections for Transgender People
• A 2016 article on a New York law firm's website: NYC Offers Guidance on Avoiding Discrimination Based on Gender Identity  An excerpt:

 

Quote

The guidance may help employers nationally comply with the trend toward protecting transgender individuals’ rights.
...
The guidance clarifies that discrimination occurs when individuals are treated “less well than others on account of their gender.” The new guidance lists several ways that employers could violate the law on the basis of gender identity and expression, including the following:
...

Intentionally failing to use an individual’s preferred name, pronoun, or title. For example, repeatedly calling a transgender woman “him” or “Mr.” after she has made clear that she prefers female pronouns and a female title. Asking someone what his or her preferred name or pronoun is does not violate the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). The guidance briefly addresses the issue of pronoun use by identifying as options the grammatically controversial use of “they/them/theirs” to refer to individuals, as well as the preference of some transgender and/or gender nonconforming individuals to use the “gender-free” pronouns “ze” and “hir.”

Lastly, it looks like this law may have been repealed (I'm still looking in to this).  If so, thank goodness.

Thanks,

-Smac

ETA: The offical NYC website still lists the foregoing "Gender Identity/Gender Expression: Legal Enforcement Guidance" on its website:

https://www1.nyc.gov/site/cchr/law/legal-guidances-gender-identity-expression.page#3.1

However, the "Text of the NY Human Rights Law" link at the above page takes you to a PDF of "The New York City Administrative Code | Title 8: Civil Rights," which is enumerated as "Title 8," with each section listed as "§ 8-101," "§ 8-102," and so on.  The foregoing "pronoun" statute, designated as "§ 8-102(23)," is not in the PDF (there is a section designated as "§ 8-102," but it contains definitions).

Also, it turns out that Washignton D.C. also has a compulsory "pronoun" law: D.C. Mun. Regs. ***. 4 § 808

Quote

808.1

All harassment and actions that create a hostile environment based on gender identity or expression shall be prohibited.

808.2

The following behaviors may constitute evidence of unlawful harassment and hostile environment:

(a) Deliberately misusing an individual's preferred name form of address or gender-related pronoun;

Also, Colorado:

Quote

(A) Unlawful harassment is severe or pervasive conduct that creates an environment that is subjectively and objectively hostile, intimidating, or offensive on the basis of sexual orientation. Prohibited conduct includes, but is not limited to, the following:
...
(4) Deliberately misusing an individual's preferred name, form of address, or gender-related pronoun;

And here:

Quote

Using Employees' Preferred Gender Pronouns

It's more than common courtesy. It’s their civil right.

By Margaret M. ClarkAugust 27, 2019

Hmm.  Using the force of law 

Quote

Legal Rights in Flux

Using the pronouns employees prefer is more than common courtesy; it’s their civil right. Federal law on the subject arises out of agency and court interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which expressly prohibits workplace discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex and national origin. According to information provided by Jeanne Goldberg, a senior attorney advisor with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Title VII’s prohibition against sex discrimination also bans any employment discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation.

The commission’s technical assistance publication, What You Should Know About EEOC and Enforcement Protections for LGBT Workers, states that prohibited acts include “intentionally and persistently failing to use the name and gender pronoun that correspond to the gender identity with which the employee identifies, and which the employee has communicated to management and employees.” Both supervisors and co-workers should use the employee’s chosen name and pronoun “in employee records and in communications with and about the employee,” the EEOC guidance says.

Most employers are well-intentioned, but intentions only go so far. There’s work to be done.

(Emphasis added.)  Huh.  The EEOC has weighed in (though the above link is no longer active).  So yeah, this stuff is more pervasive than I think we realize.

Meanwhile, there is some good news:

Quote

Lawyer: Professor had right to call trans student 'sir.' $400k settlement big wake-up call

"(Nicholas Meriwether) also understood what many others don’t. An ideology that would force a professor to use certain words would not stop there,"

Tyson Langhofer |Guest columnist

{April 27, 2022}

 

“What’s the big deal? It’s just a pronoun.”

This was the typical response Professor Nicholas Meriwether received when he initially voiced his objections to his university’s policy of forcing professors to refer to students with a title or pronoun different than the students’ biological sex.

But as a professor of philosophy, religion, and ethics, Meriwether knows words matter because they communicate ideas. Ideas have consequences, and bad ideas have victims. And now, thanks to a recent court victory, he can continue to teach the next generation of students how to recognize the difference between ideas that promote human flourishing and those that harm it.

Meriwether has been a professor at Shawnee State University for more than 25 years. In January 2018, during a class, he responded to a student’s question by saying, “Yes, sir.”

After class, the student demanded to be referred to as a woman, with feminine titles and pronouns. When Meriwether didn’t instantly agree, the student became angry and promised to get him fired.

Meriwether offered to use the student’s preferred first or last name only and avoid pronouns. But ultimately, university officials rejected any compromise that would allow him to speak according to his conscience.

Although the student completed the class and received a good grade, the university disciplined Meriwether. They placed a warning in his personnel file and threatened “further corrective actions” unless he articulated the university’s ideological message.

Meriwether filed suit through his attorneys with Alliance Defending Freedom, arguing that the university’s policy and its disciplinary action against him violated his First Amendment rights of free speech and free exercise of religion.

He recognized that this isn’t just about a pronoun; it’s about what that pronoun means. It’s about affirming an ideology.

He also understood what many others don’t. An ideology that would force a professor to use certain words would not stop there.

It would demand total conformity until it suppressed all dissent.

In the four years since, radical gender identity ideology has become predominant in universities, K-12 public schools, Big Tech, corporations, and mainstream media.

Many who dare question the tenets of this ideology are summarily canceled.

Thankfully, Meriwether’s case demonstrates that if those affected by these policies take a stand, they can win. After the district court dismissed his claims, the 6th Circuit ruled in his favor.

As that court held, “Traditionally, American universities have been beacons of intellectual diversity and academic freedom. They have prided themselves on being forums where controversial ideas are discussed and debated. And they have tried not to stifle debate by picking sides.

"But Shawnee State chose a different route: It punished a professor for his speech on a hotly contested issue. And it did so despite the constitutional protections afforded by the First Amendment.”

The court explained that if “professors lacked free-speech protections when teaching, a university would wield alarming power to compel ideological conformity. A university president could require a pacifist to declare that war is just, a civil rights icon to condemn the Freedom Riders, a believer to deny the existence of God, or a Soviet émigré to address his students as ‘comrades.’ That cannot be.”

Indeed.

As part of the settlement following that decision, the university agreed that it cannot compel Meriwether to speak messages he disagrees with and paid $400,000 in damages and attorneys’ fees.

Let’s hope that Meriwether’s victory serves as a wake-up call to institutions of higher education throughout the country and to other institutions pushing this ideology. The answer to speech we disagree with isn’t censorship, it’s more speech.

Good stuff, this.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 14, 2022 by smac97

[Analytics]

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

First, my post was not so much about what the law in New York says (the literal textual language), as about what the law in New York does.  That is, I was speaking about the practical effect of the law.

Okay, thank you for following up on this.

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

Second, I have already provided a reference for this in this post, which includes this link to comments/observations from Eugene Volokh.

As I may have mentioned, I really dislike editorials and don't trust what they say.

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

Third, the link you provided above (this one) to the purported "actual text of the law" is, I think, not a link to the actual text of the law in question.  Instead, I think you should look here:

New York City Commission on Human Rights Legal Enforcement Guidance on Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Expression: Local Law No. 3 (2002); N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(23)

Guidance from the commission on how to comply with the law is important, but it isn't the law. See below.

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

A few more resources:

• A 2017 Bar Journal Article: All Employers Must Wash Their Speech Before Returning to Work: The First Amendment & Compelled Use of Employees’ Preferred Gender Pronouns

Ironically, this journal paper shares my sensibilities on the topic. Here are some quotes from it:

Given the current, vitriolic politicization of gender issues on the contemporary juridical battlefield—such as the political furor surrounding “bathroom bills” and policies that command that individuals must use restrooms in accordance with the gender they were assigned at birth12—it would be little surprising if an employer covered by a pronoun law brought a First Amendment challenge against it. The question, though, is what would result? In answering that question, this Note suggests that the pronoun laws do not unconstitutionally compel speech...

New York City’s Human Rights Law (NYCHRL)33 prohibits discrimination in employment, public accommodations, and housing on the basis of gender.34 Although the NYCHRL does not plainly mention gender pronouns, the New York City Commission on Human Rights issued legal guidance explaining that “[i]ntentional or repeated refusal to use an individual’s preferred name, pronoun or title” is a violation of the NYCHRL.

First Amendment freedoms are already abridged, if only incidentally, by anti-discrimination laws.115 Thus, if the compelling government interest behind federal laws like Title VII116 can be applied to anti-discrimination laws such as those of New York City or Washington, D.C., then the constitutional claim may fall flat to begin with. It is not unreasonable to expect employers, already subject to the anti-discrimination principles of Title VII, to abide by what is an altogether small burden on speech.117 Unlike in Barnette or Wooley, no government message is manifestly appended to requiring the use of an employee’s preferred gender pronoun.118

Apart from the weight of historical disenfranchisement, requiring employers to use employees’ preferred pronouns is little different from barring employers from refusing to hire a qualified applicant on the basis of their race.119 The government is not eroding an employer’s “freedom of mind” or “invad[ing] the sphere of intellect and spirit,” for no government message is required in place of the employer’s.120 Both the Washington, D.C., law and the NYCHRL are generally applicable and only kick in when an employee expresses a preferred pronoun, not when the government demands it.121 The pronoun laws, therefore, do not violate the first branch of the compelled speech doctrine...

To be sure, balancing the rights of speakers and listeners in cases of compelled speech is a complex, careful task. The test and the result alike are far from perfect. And laws which compel speech should not escape close constitutional scrutiny. But, as the analysis above shows, pronoun laws themselves also serve a traditionally constitutional anti-discrimination purpose, and ought be found constitutional if ever they are challenged.

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

• A 2019 Bar Journal Article: I Now Pronoun-ce You: A Proposal for Pronoun Protections for Transgender People

Again, this paper shares my sensibilities, and the actual point of the paper is to call for a Constitutional, explicit federal law to protect transgender people from discrimination in the workplace. It's worth noting that the paper has two pages of text with a "definition discussion" to help people understand how words around these issues are used. Completely unsurprisingly, while the paper discusses the differences between sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, etc., the paper sees no reason to define "woman" and doesn't do so. 

Regarding the need for transgender people to be protected from discrimination it says:

Violence against transgender people is not uncommon.66 In fact, in 2017 alone, more transgender people were killed than in any year in the last decade.67 The 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey,68 which had almost 28,000 respondents, found that during 2014, “46% of respondents were verbally harassed and 9% were physically attacked because of being transgender.”69 Additionally, 15% of respondents were verbally harassed or attacked at work.70 The survey also reported that 10% of respondents were sexually assaulted in 2014, but that 47% were sexually assaulted at some point during their lifetime.71

Violence, however, is not the only way transgender people experience discrimination.72 Of the nearly 28,000 respondents, 27% reported experiencing employment discrimination,73 and 30% experienced homelessness.74 Additionally, the unemployment rate of the respondents was three times the national average at the time of the survey,75 29% lived in poverty, and 16% reported their gender identity or gender expression led to the loss of their job.76

Discrimination against transgender people may also come in the form of microaggressions.77 Microaggressions include addressing a transgender person by the incorrect gender pronoun, inquiring about the person’s “real” identity, or asking the person to explain their gender identity.78 A common microaggression affecting transgender people is referred to as misgendering.79

Misgendering occurs when a person intentionally or unintentionally80 refers to a transgender person with names, pronouns, or other words that do not accurately reflect the person’s gender identity.81 Such discrimination in the workplace can adversely impact a transgender employee’s mental health82 and contributes to higher rates of unemployment and poverty among transgender people compared to the non-transgender population.83

From its conclusion:

The time has come for the Supreme Court and Congress to take the necessary steps to clarify and solidify protections for transgender people against discrimination. The transgender umbrella encompasses a wide variety of people,251 with 1.4 million people in the United States alone identifying as transgender.252 Unfortunately, many transgender people face violence and discrimination across various aspects of their lives.253 Intentional misgendering is one concerning form of discrimination that can negatively affect transgender people, specifically in the workplace.

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

Meanwhile, there is some good news:

The Tyler Sherman journal paper you referenced says the NYC and Washington D.C. laws are limited and that all they mean is that employers "do not remain free to harass employees by intentionally and repeatedly refusing to use a preferred pronoun." According to this article, the Shawnee State University professor was willing to find a compromise where he would call the student by the name they preferred and would avoid gendered pronouns all together, thereby not harassing the student. Based on the details presented, I would have taken the the professor's side in this case, and I suspect the authors of the two journal articles would have too.

[Analytics]

On 7/13/2022 at 12:06 PM, smac97 said:

Here is an interesting article that, I think, illustrates the problems inherent in conflating sex with "gender identity."  That is, redefining "female" and "woman" to include biological males who claim a "gender identity" of being "female" (in an adjectival sense, I suppose) or of being a female (in a literal sense) or a "woman" (in the literal sense).

Yes, this does illustrate why the concepts of biological sex, gender, gender identity, and gender expression ought to be used explicitly and not conflated; surveys that conflate the issues are misleading. An example of a survey that conflates sex and gender is one that asks if men and women should have single-sex changing rooms. 

By the way, do you think the law ought to force Emily Quinn to use male restrooms, since she has testicles?

On 7/13/2022 at 12:06 PM, smac97 said:

Down the pan: Almost 98% of British public wants to keep single-sex changing rooms and separate toilets for men and women, poll suggests

Wow.

98% of people wanting separate bathrooms doesn't mean 98% of people want the government to force people to use a restroom that conflicts with their gender identity or gender expression.

On 7/13/2022 at 12:06 PM, smac97 said:

I think Analytics is demonstrably wrong when he asserts that "{w}hen somebody says they 'identify as a woman', they are saying their internal sense of being is that of a woman," and that "{t}hey aren't making a comment about their biology" and are instead only "making a comment about how they feel on the inside."  Trans women - biological males who "identify" as women - are doing considerably more than "making a comment about how they feel on the inside." 

Caitlyn Jenner "legally changed her name and gender on her birth certificate in California and made a lot of noise about it in the process."  That is more than "making a comment about how they feel on the inside." 

Caitlyn Jenner isn't claiming she is biologically male. She is claiming that the name and gender on her government identification ought to correspond to her gender identity. She isn't conflating the two ideas--she is keeping them distinct.

On 7/13/2022 at 12:06 PM, smac97 said:

Lia Thomas is competing against biological women.  That is more than "making a comment about how they feel on the inside." 

Lia Thomas understands and publicly represents that she is a biological male with a gender identity and gender expression that is female. Again, she is not conflating these concepts. According to NCAA rules, you may swim on the girls swim team if either of the following are true:

1. you are a biological female, or
2. your gender identity and gender expression are female, and your testosterone level is less than 10 nmol/L

Lia isn't conflating being a biological woman with having a female gender identity and gender expression. She is being honest to the NCAA and to herself about who she is, and qualifies for the women's team based on her gender identity and testosterone levels.

By the same token, the International Swimming Federation has other rules for who may swim at the Olympics on women's teams. Lia does not qualify under those. 

The reason is that she qualifies to swim as a woman in some competitions and not others is because she does not conflate her biological sex with gender identity. 

On 7/13/2022 at 12:06 PM, smac97 said:

Alana Mclaughlin, a biological male, v. Celine Provost, a biological female, in an MMA fight:

Alana has been transparent about who she is and her background. She has not conflated her biological sex with her gender identity. Knowing Alana's biological sex, Celine Provost agreed to fight her. 

Edited July 15, 2022 by Analytics

[smac97]

9 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

Here is an interesting article that, I think, illustrates the problems inherent in conflating sex with "gender identity."  That is, redefining "female" and "woman" to include biological males who claim a "gender identity" of being "female" (in an adjectival sense, I suppose) or of being a female (in a literal sense) or a "woman" (in the literal sense).

Yes, this does illustrate why the concepts of biological sex, gender, gender identity, and gender expression ought to be used explicitly and not conflated;

Are you sure?  Because the concepts are being conflated, as evidenced by, inter alia, Caitlyn Jenner changing the sex on her birth certificate to "female," Lia Thomas (a biological male) competing against biological females, and so on.

9 hours ago, Analytics said:

surveys that conflate the issues are misleading. An example of a survey that conflates sex and gender is one that asks if men and women should have single-sex changing rooms. 

I think you are proving my point.  Some folks want to re-define "men" to include biological women, and "women" to include biological man.  That is . . . conflation.

9 hours ago, Analytics said:

By the way, do you think the law ought to force Emily Quinn to use male restrooms, since she has testicles?

This seems to be your go-to argument, as I previously addressed it in April here:

Quote

Quote

As an example, consider Emily Quinn.

 

An example of what?  Are you seriously conflating intersex and gender dysphoria?  Are you suggesting that Lia Thomas is "intersex?"  What are you saying here?

Are you equivocating on purpose or accidentally?

Quote

She has balls and she has XY chromosomes. So is Emily really a man? Before you answer, note she also has a female birth certificate and a vagina.

If there was a government benefit offered to women and whether Emily is entitled to that benefit made it to the Supreme Court, would it be unreasonable to call in some biologists as expert witnesses to address the issue of what a woman actually is? Of course not.

While people who get their news from Fox News think that the question "what is a woman?" is an easy question, people who get their news from NPR know it's actually a difficult question. The question of which group is more educated is obvious.

Here is an NPR transcript from an interview with Emily Quinn.

https://www.npr.org/transcripts/852199410

If you prefer, here is her Ted Talk:

From Wikipedia: 

Quote

The number of births where the baby is intersex has been reported differently depending on who reports and which definition of intersex is used. Anne Fausto-Sterling and her co-authors suggest that the prevalence of ″nondimorphic sexual development″ might be as high as 1.7%. Leonard Sax says that this figure includes conditions which most clinicians do not recognize as intersex, and that in those "conditions in which chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female", the prevalence of intersex is about 0.018%.

We can certainly discuss legislative approaches to the people who comprise this .018% to 1.7% of the population.  But I think it's inaccurate and misleading to bring it up in the context of biological males competing in women's sports.  AFAIK, there is no question that Lia Thomas, for example, is biologically male.  Lia Thomas is not claiming to have any medical/scientific "intersex" issue.  Instead, Lia Thomas is a biological male who apparently suffers from gender dysphoria.

I am speaking of people with Gender Dysphoria, biological mails to "identify" as women (Caitlyn Jenner, Lia Thomas, Alana Mclaughlin), and you respond - for the second time - by bringing up Emily Quinn, who apparently has some form of a disorder of sexual development (DSD), sometimes also referred to as "intersex."

You are conflating these things (DSD with Gender Dysphoria).  You are treating them as if these conditions are the same, or as being interchangeable or mutually indistinguishable.

They are not.

I previously linked to an article by Andrè Van Mol, MD which addresses people with DSD ("intersex") conditions, and I do so again here: Intersex: What It Is And Is Not

The money quote:

Quote

The nomenclature “intersex” acknowledges something between two sexes and not a third sex. The term is intersex and not “extrasex,” therefore acknowledging the binary nature of human sex. Biological sex rarely may be phenotypically unclear in a given individual, but this does not represent a third one.

Evolutionary biologist Colin Wright rejects the “sex is a spectrum” mantra with clear reasoning: “a spectrum implies a continuous distribution, and maybe even an amodal one (one in which no specific outcome is more likely than others). Biological sex in humans, however, is clear-cut over 99.98 percent of the time.” Dr. Wright continues, “any method exhibiting a predictive accuracy of over 99.98 percent would place it among the most precise methods in all the life sciences. We revise medical care practices and change world economic plans on far lower confidence than that.”

"The term is intersex and not 'extrasex,' therefore acknowledging the binary nature of human sex."

Once more, with feeling: "{T}he binary nature of human sex."

You have previously suggested that "{s}ex is typically categorized as male, female or intersex."  That is simply not so.  "Intersex" is not a sex.  Nor is it synonymous with "Gender Dysphoria."  There is a substantial difference between these two conditions, and yet you continue to conflate them or treat them interchangeably.  From the above article:

Quote

Intersex/DSD is Not Gender Dysphoria or Trans-identification
Intersex is not a subjective ideation. There is always an objective underlying medical origin. The DSM-5 Gender Dysphoria criteria states: “Specify if: With a disorder of sex development (e.g., a congenital adrenogenital disorder such as 255.2 [E25.0] congenital adrenal hyperplasia or 259.50 [E34.50] androgen insensitivity syndrome).” Intersex is what they mean, and it is different than gender dysphoria.

"Intersex ... is different than gender dysphoria."  And yet your side of the debate conflates and equivocates.  Discussion of so-called "gender identity" almost inevitably triggers references to intersex persons.

More:

Quote

Intersex/DSD is Rare
Wildly inflated claims of the prevalence of DSD are common, but untrue. Dr. Leonard Sax exposed the source of some of this in his article, “How common is intersex.” Dr. Sax writes that Anne Fausto-Sterling asserted in her 2000 book Sexing the Body: Gender Politics and the Construction of Sexuality that intersex totaled 1.7 percent of human births. However, Sax shows that she included in her calculations common conditions having nothing to do with DSD. Dr. Sax notes that congenital adrenal hyperplasia and complete androgen insensitivity syndrome are the most common DSDs, which is in keeping with the previously stated DSM-5 Gender Dysphoria specification. Dr. Sax concludes that DSD/Intersex, “far from being ‘a fairly common phenomenon,’ is actually a rare event, occurring in fewer than two out of every 10,000 births.”

Similarly, a 1992 Danish study found their rate of “testicular feminization syndrome” to be 1:20,400. A 2001 Dutch study stated their rate of androgen insensitivity syndrome “with molecular proof of the diagnosis is 1:99,000.”

And a 2016 Danish study examining all their known 46XY karyotype females (androgen insensitivity syndrome) born since 1960 found the prevalence at 6.4 per 100,000 live born females. Intersex/DSD is rare.

The number of humans born with something other than two legs is likewise small, and yet nobody points to that small number as a refutation of humans being bipedal hominids.  The exceptions do not swallow the rule.  That some people are born with one leg, or three, or no legs at all, does not upend the classification of humans as bipedal hominids.

The same goes with people who are intersex.  There are exceedingly rare instances of intersex persons, but that does not give rise to a third sex.

Also, the vast majority of people who are making claims akin to Lia Thomas and Caitlynn Jenner are not "intersex," but are instead members of one biological sex that "identify" as a member of the other sex.  And yet these same people demand that we conflate their gender dysphoria/identity with biological sex, and that we declare biological men like Lia Thomas and Caitlynn Jenner are women.  They do so by tacitly equivocating on the meaning of "woman."  And the only way to preserve that tacit equivocation is to A) refuse to answer "What is a woman," and B) accuse anyone who asks that question of being a bigot, of lacking empathy, etc.

9 hours ago, Analytics said:

98% of people wanting separate bathrooms doesn't mean 98% of people want the government to force people to use a restroom that conflicts with their gender identity or gender expression.

I'm pretty sure that is precisely what most of that 98% wants.  Because I think most people don't conflate "sex" and "gender identity" the way you do.  From that article:

Quote

A poll of 7,000 people, hosted on the website of campaign group Sex Matters earlier this year, found that an overwhelming 98 per cent of respondents wanted to be able to get undressed, shower or use the lavatory away from members of the opposite sex.

"Away from members of the opposite sex."

That seems to be reference to . . . sex.  Biological sex.  Not "gender identity" such as the biologically-male-but-competing-against-biological-females Lia Thomas.  Again from the article:

Quote

The findings come despite major high street stores, venues, leisure centres and even schools replacing separate facilities with ‘gender-neutral’ ones in order to be more welcoming towards transgender people.

Some respondents to the online survey said that they had stopped going to theatre toilets or using shop changing rooms after encountering biological males.

Those respondents are not buying into the switcheroo of "woman means biologically female, but also means anyone who 'identifies' as female"-style equivocation and conflation that is causing these problems in the first place.

9 hours ago, Analytics said:

Caitlyn Jenner isn't claiming she is biologically male. 

Let's take a look at what she has "claimed":

Quote

Macdonald (quoting from Jenner's book) : "I am firmly on the side of womanhood now, but I am not a woman, nor will I ever be."  Three sentences later, "I use the women's restroom because I am a woman.  I changed my gender on my birth certificate to female because I am a woman."  So there's a little confusion there, right?
Jenner: Not for me.  What's wrong with that?

This is interesting to me in two ways:

First, Caitlyn Jenner seems to genuinely not comprehend the contradition between saying "I am not a woman, nor will I ever be" and then, a few sentences later, saying "I am a woman."

Caitlyn Jenner, like so many on your side of this debate, is equivocating.

Quote

Second, the above YouTube video of this interview has a rather jarring cut right after Jenner says "What's wrong with that."  I thought that was strange, since the cut omits some of the further discussion of the point Macdonald was making.  And I couldn't find the full interview on YouTube, so I had to go over to Vimeo, which has it here.  At the 24:25 mark:

Macdonald (quoting from Jenner's book) : "I am firmly on the side of womanhood now, but I am not a woman, nor will I ever be."  Three sentences later, "I use the women's restroom because I am a woman.  I changed my gender on my birth certificate to female because I am a woman."  So there's a little confusion there, right?
Jenner: Not for me.  What's wrong with that?
Macdonald: Well, here it says "I am not a woman," and here it says "I am a woman."
Jenner: Well, okay.  "I am a woman."  Okay.  That.  Um, I, my journey to womanhood was different.  I always had this woman that lived deep down inside.  But I don't, I never, I am very comfortable with the word "trans woman," because my experience was very different.  I didn't grow up dating guys, you know, being around all the girls.  I was on the other side of the fence.  I will never have a period, I'll never birth a child.  {I} raised a lot of kids, but never actually birthed one.  I honestly have always felt like I don't want to put women down.  I love women.  I don't want to put women down thinking, okay, now all of the sudden, yes, I am this woman.  I'm a trans woman, okay?  My experience was different.  I can go to the women's restroom, I can enjoy all the things of womanhood, dress and be comfortable, and be comfortable with myself.  But it's almost like finally I got to the point in my life this little Caitlynn who's lived inside of me all my life, okay?  And had to hide and sneak around and do all this sort of stuff..."

As you can see, Jenner's explanation is not a model of clarity.  However, she does seem to concede that there is a ontological distinction between a "woman" and a "trans woman."  They are not the same.  They are not interchangeable.  Moreover, Jenner points to the source of that distinction: biology.  "I will never have a period, I'll never birth a child."

When a worldview is founded on the vagaries of a mental health condition (Gender Dysphoria), there is bound to be some confusion and equivocation.

9 hours ago, Analytics said:

She is claiming that the name and gender on her government identification ought to correspond to her gender identity.

You are only proving my point.  Until about five minutes ago, governments, medical providers, etc. didn't give a hoot about ephemeral, inner-held, subjective, divorced-from-biological-reality notions of "gender identity."  This is because the government, healthcare providers, etc. typically aren't looking for "gender identity" information, but are instead focused on biological sex.  

If my doctor asks me for my age and weight, I suppose I could say "I 'identify' as a svelte 26-year-old, and I 'identify' as a person who weighs 175 pounds.  These are my 'Age Identity' and my 'Weight Identity."  These are as medically relevant and accurate as someone's "Gender Identity," which is to say, they are irrelevant and inaccurate.

Consider this article in BMJ, a medical trade journal: Rethinking sex-assigned-at-birth questions (full text here and here).

In it the author suggests that medical professionals should not collect data from patients about their biological sex because doing so is "{u}nhelpful, potentially harmful, and should {therefore} be abandoned."  The reasoning given here is that "transgender people {ETA: all of them?} have concerns about sex-assigned-at-birth questions," and that "most transgender people do not believe people should be asked about their sex assigned at birth."  Incredibly, the authors even go on to claim that "sex assigned at birth {ETA: which, as noted below, is accurate more than 98% of the time} does not accurately characterise gender identity, anatomy, or the health needs of individuals," and so propose that "questions about sex assigned at birth are abandoned."

Seriously.  This is where we are.  Established medical journals are buying into socially trendy absurdities that equivocate about concepts like "Gender Identity" and biological sex, even to the point of publishing articles recommending against collecting data about biological sex out of some sort of concern about trans persons (not all of whom object to acknowledging their biological sex).

Fortunately, there were some rational responses to this.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

Dear Editor

There is no such thing as "sex-assigned-at-birth". Sex is not assigned at birth. Publishing this nonsense diminishes the reputation of your journal.

Prof David Curtis MD PhD FRCPsych

"There is no such thing as 'sex-assigned-at-birth'. Sex is not assigned at birth."

Thank you, Doctor Curtis.  It's annoying that such a basic reality check in necessary in 2022, but here we are.

And here (same link) (emphasis added) :

Quote

Dear Editor

Alpert and colleagues report in a BMJ Editorial 5th June 2021 that characteristics of external genitalia at birth are 98% accurate in defining sex at birth. They go on to say that these are ‘flawed constructs’ around sex assigned at birth. Never before have I heard of a test with 98% sensitivity being regarded as a ‘fl{awed} construct’. Would the authors please explain the reasoning which lead them to this conclusion.

Dr Peter Phillips FRCP
Consultant Geriatrician
East Suffolk and North Essex Foundation Trust

Biography
Dr Phillips has worked as Consultant Geriatrician and Consultant Stroke Physician at Ipswich Hospital from 1990 to 2020 and is currently working as a Locum Consultant Physician at Ipswich Hospital. He has also worked as an examiner for MRCP PACES clinical examinations for about 10 years.

And here (same link) (emphases added) :

Quote

Dear Editor,

Like some of your other correspondents, I am baffled by the idea of referring to "sex assigned at birth". Sex is an inbuilt biological characteristic, like eye colour, blood group or the number of fingers one has - it is discovered at birth (or, in some cases, prenatally), not "assigned". Its foundation is the individual's chromosome content which, in the overwhelming majority of cases, leads to predictable processes of development in the genitalia and in other bodily areas. The authors seem to be arguing that because biological sex does not tell a doctor everything about a person's health or disease risk, it is of no value - an obvious non sequitur.

To take the example given by the authors in reply to an earlier rapid response: the possibility of pregnancy exists for most biological females (including some of those who have transitioned to a male gender role) but is impossible for all biological males, whatever gender role they adopt. Other respondents have already commented on the need to be aware of disease risk relating to cervical or prostate screening and one must also include cardiovascular risk which, though complicated, shows certain clear differences between men and women.

Transgender people, like everyone else, deserve to be treated with dignity and respect but this in no way means that downgrading or ignoring sex as a cardinal feature of someone's biology makes any sense.

Roger Fisken

Retired consultant physician and endocrinologist

And here (same link) (emphases added) :

Quote

Dear Editor

I am truly baffled that such an esteemed medical journal could publish an article about sex being assigned at birth. Since forever sex has been observed at birth if not already known. The only time it may be considered to be assigned is in the very small percentage of cases of those with a DSD where there is ambiguity.

The notion of someone being assigned a sex implies that it may not be correct, but we know no one changes sex, that there are only 2 sexes. Why are you peddling this nonsense? It is making a mockery of the medical profession.

And here (same link) (emphases added) :

Quote

Dear Editor

The authors identify several different reasons that information on patients’ sex is collected, recorded and used in healthcare:

Identification
Inpatient care (e.g. which wards to house people in)
Policy enforcement
Preventative care
Differential diagnosis in acute settings
Knowing what pronouns to use

They note that because of changes over a lifetime (such as hysterectomy and orchidectomy) and intersex conditions (which they wrongly state as meaning that 2% of people have bodies that do not fit sexual classification[1] ), the data field of sex (male or female) offers incomplete or obsolete information to answer specific questions about an individual such as would this person need a cervical smear test?

They say that using data on sex “as a proxy for more specific questions about anatomy and hormone levels” has the potential to harm patients.

Therefore they reach the astounding conclusion that sex of patients should not be recorded.

It should immediately be obvious that not having a field in which to record patient sex would do much greater harm. To take the cervical smear test example, while not every female patient will need one, no males do. Targeting all patients for testing is a wasteful, pointless exercise, while only asking “people with a cervix” to attend for screening will lead to many patients who do not have detailed knowledge of their own anatomy being missed. This can be repeated for any number of other medical risks and conditions. Are the risks from COVID different for males and females? The authors say this is not a question worth asking, and all the data which might answer it should be thrown away.

Instead it states that a question about “gender identity” should be used.

However gender identity solves none of the weaknesses they identify for the sex question - for example knowing that someone identifies as non-binary does not tell you whether they might need prostate or cervical screening, whether they might be at risk of getting or being pregnant, or whether they would be alarming to other patients if put in a shared bay of an inpatient ward. It does not even tell you what pronouns to use for them.

It is a principle of data management that each field should be used for one piece of data only, and they shouldn’t be confused or mixed together. It is clear and obvious that data on sex should be collected and recorded for every patient.

Recognising and respecting transgender people’s identity and privacy (where possible) is not in conflict with this, but this identity should not be confused with their sex, nor should other people’s sex be regarded as a gender identity, as this opens up the data to corruption.

As to the question of what pronouns to use for people, most people are comfortable with the grammatical pronouns associated with their sex, for those who are not, an additional note can be made in a separate data field (and honorific such as Ms, Mrs and Mr which also give an indication need not be tied to a person’s sex). Knowing that someone prefers to be referred to as he/him, she/her, they/them, she/they, he/they zie/zer tells you precisely that. It contains no reliable information of clinical or epidemiological relevance. To replace the reliable recording of sex with this social nicety in healthcare is dangerous and unjustified.

[1] Leonard Sax (2002) How common is lntersex? A response to Anne Fausto‐Sterling, The Journal of Sex Research, 39:3, 174-178, DOI: 10.1080/00224490209552139

And here (same link) (emphases added) :

Quote

Dear Editor

Sex assigned at birth: the difference between the biological fact and its social interpretation

It is good news to find articles like the one by Alpert et al.1 in which, from a multidisciplinary perspective, he studies scientific aspects with a humanistic approach. Thus, the aforementioned work shows great sensitivity to issues, beyond scientific ones, that affect a particularly vulnerable sector of the population.

However, there is one aspect of the article that I would like to draw attention to, and on which I would like to contribute another view. I am referring to the risk of confusing biological or physiological data with its meaning or social interpretation. Specifically, I find it worrying that, from a scientific point of view, the fact of sex assigned to a human being at birth is relativized, considering it an irrelevant fact and without any consequence.

It is true that different authors, mainly related to the ideology of gender postfeminism and from philosophical dialectics, have been affirming for years that biological sex is an artificial construction that must be discarded. Nonetheless, it is a serious danger that, on a clinical and healthcare level, a piece of data that is biological is relativized. This means being left at the expense of the meaning attributed to sex based on certain interests or feelings.

It is false that the sex assigned to a human being at birth is an invention or social construction, devoid of reality. On the contrary, we are facing a verifiable fact, not only by the physiognomy of some genitalia, but also by genetic evidence provided by analytics, etc.

This same type of verification is the one carried out with the rest of the animals and is the one that, for example, allows detecting a sex-linked hereditary disease, or indicating to a mother in the delivery room if she has had a son or a daughter. Are we really in reality when we think that a mother can be told that the sex of her newborn is not known and that we will have to wait for the newborn to state it?

The sex assigned at birth (derived from the consideration of the genitalia, the proportion of circulating hormones, etc.) is a fact that may have different meanings for different people or for different currents of thought. And that is where, in my opinion, the research and debate on the interpretation of what sex and gender means in society should be based.

The work referred to, by Alpert et al., ends up stating that “recognizing gender without reference to flawed constructs around sex assigned at birth allows us all greater personal autonomy and key to eliminating transphobia in medicine and beyond”. I believe that the previous statement, in accordance with what is indicated in the previous paragraphs, can be disputed, since, among other things, it can have effects contrary to those that the author seeks. Precisely, considering the sex assigned at birth as a social construction contradicts the autonomy of the person (based on complete and real information), and also the normalization of trans people. In reality, denying that transgender people have a biological sex at birth is stripping their own requests for gender reassignment of foundations.

José López-Guzmán

Proffesor of Pharmaceutical Humanities

Pharmacy Faculty, University of Navarra

Research Building. University of Navarra. 31000 Pamplona (Spain)

And here (same link) (emphases added) :

Quote

Dear Editor

This editorial appears to argue against the use of clear language to describe biological sex in medicine. The authors seem to take a rather myopic view of this issue, framing it as one rooted in transgender rights and who holds power in “assigning sex,” instead of basic principles.

Human beings, of course, reproduced sexually long before modern medicine, birth certificates, or the word “transgender” first came to be. The truth of the sex binary is anchored in the mechanism that brings every human into existence.[1] Humans have two different types of gametes, two types of reproductive systems, two discrete reproductive roles: two sexes. As a result, we have given these two sexes different names: female and male. These will exist whether or not the clinician writes them down, or asks a transgender patient “what is your sex?” The fact that 0.02% of babies[2] have differences in sex development that cause the usually easy identification of sex to become a more complex affair, does not invalidate sex as one of the most clinically useful categorisations in medicine. To suggest that it does, and therefore sex should not be recorded, is absurd. If the accuracy of observable sex is claimed not to be good enough for doctors to record or rely on in medical practice, this would logically put doctors in a position where any data they have would need to reach an accuracy threshold far exceeding most tests. Even by the authors’ own statistic of 98%, it sets an impossibly high bar.

The authors write:
“However, no evidence exists that clinicians with knowledge of assigned sex provide better care, and recent qualitative research suggests that most transgender people do not believe people should be asked about their sex assigned at birth.”

It seems unlikely that a study to determine whether or not clinicians should have adequate knowledge of a patient’s natal reproductive biology would pass ethics approval. Such a study would risk patient safety. Analyses of the purpose of recording sex[3,4], knowledge of the numerous genetic, anatomical and physiological differences between females and males[5], and accounts from transgender patients where healthcare has been poorer because natal sex was not recognised[6] suggest clinicians’ knowledge of reproductive biology is, in fact, vital to healthcare. It is unclear why the authors posit that transgender people require the medical profession to abandon scientific terms describing specific biology, and to do so for the entire population. Other commentators might view this situation as highlighting a real need to better explain the salience of biological sex to all people.[7]

The authors also write:
“Changes to bodies over a lifetime—for example, through hysterectomy or orchiectomy—may also render sex assignment an incomplete or obsolete assessment of anatomy and physiology. Questions about sex assigned at birth cannot serve as shorthand for anatomy (Do I need to add testicular torsion to my differential diagnosis?), hormones (Do I need to consider the role of oestrogen in this person’s thromboembolism?), or screening needs (Would cervical smear testing improve this person’s health outcomes?).”

No rational argument appears to be made as to why doctors should avoid admitting that the patients who had hysterectomies are biologically female, and those who had orchiectomies male. Surgery on reproductive organs does not render sex obsolete. A lobectomy does not make the respiratory system redundant. While the authors dismiss information gained from knowledge of biological sex as “shorthand,” knowledge of the two types of reproductive systems, and being able to name them, is important. This holds true for gender clinicians, too. The patient referral form for the Gender Identity Clinic in London asks for “sex assigned at birth.”[8] It seems strange to suggest medicine should have no names for the distinctions between the people at risk of testicular torsion versus cervical cancer. Communication skills usually advise against reducing people to their organs, to avoid saying “the pancreas in room 7,” but even if some form of organ-inventory system were proposed, it seems likely the basic template would come in two distinct types.

Gender identity information can be valuable to help guide the clinical encounter, respect the transgender patient’s sense of self and gain a fuller picture as to healthcare needs. But gender identity should be recorded in addition to, not act as a replacement for, biological sex. If an unknown patient comes in to A&E, unaccompanied and unconscious, their gender identity would not be ascertainable. However, their sex would remain observable, and would make a difference to that patient’s care.

Healthcare cannot collectively discard words for the two biological sexes. Awareness of the importance of clinical research into sex differences in medicine, especially for the female sex[9], has just been highlighted by the pandemic. How would such work be done if the sexes cannot be named?

Clear language on sex is vital in medicine, science, and public health education.

It is surprising these words should need to be typed in a Rapid Response to the BMJ.[10]

Sara Dahlen

MSc Student, Bioethics and Society

King's College London

London

And here (same link) (emphases added) :

Quote

Dear Editor

I thank the authors for their thought-provoking commentary and for drawing attention to the limitations of sex assigned at birth for informing clinical care. However, I think that their proposal to abandon questions about sex assigned at birth is ill-considered and, if implemented, would threaten hard-won progress for trans inclusion in health research.

First, the authors are correct in asserting that sex assigned at birth does not, in itself, provide sufficient information to guide clinical care. Indeed, no guidelines or recommendations that I am aware of suggest this. Rather, sex assigned at birth is one of a number of elements that should be queried at intake (including gender identity and pronouns) so that subsequent communication and history-taking can be appropriately tailored. Both cisgender and transgender patients may benefit from use of more detailed anatomical and physiological inventories; asking about sex assigned at birth simply helps a provider identify the proper branching logic. Further, organ inventories may be difficult or inappropriate to collect in many clinical encounters. For these reasons, a recent commentary on transgender data collection in electronic health records authored by 17 transgender scholars and health care providers recommends retaining questions about sex/gender assigned at birth alongside more detailed inventories (1).

...

Finally, contrary to the implication that two-step measures were not designed by and for transgender people, it was in fact transgender researchers who created and first promulgated the two-step approach, and much of the research on these measures has been trans-led (4-6). The authors recommend that questions allowing people to “self-identify as transgender” be used in both clinical and research contexts. The two-step approach was developed precisely because its transgender developers understood that not all people of transgender experience self-identify as transgender. This is why multiple studies, using a variety of question wordings and response options, indicate that two-step questions perform better (4-7). It may be the case that an even better approach has yet to be discovered. Until such an approach is developed and empirically validated, it would be quite premature to abandon the most effective method we have identified to date for meaningfully including transgender people in health research data.

These Orwellianisms and the thought processes they spawn are not holding up well, I think, because they are running headlong into biological reality.  

9 hours ago, Analytics said:

She isn't conflating the two ideas--she is keeping them distinct.

She's . . . all over the place:

• Caitlyn Jenner: "I am firmly on the side of womanhood now, but I am not a woman, nor will I ever be." And this: "I will never have a period, I'll never birth a child."
• Also Caitlyn Jenner (a few sentences later):  "I use the women's restroom because I am a woman.  I changed my gender on my birth certificate to female because I am a woman."
• Also Caitlyn Jenner (during an interview when asked about the above quotes) : "I will never have a period, I'll never birth a child."  And this: "{Y}es, I am this woman.  I'm a trans woman, okay? "

This is Caitlyn Jenner not "conflating" ideas?

9 hours ago, Analytics said:

Lia Thomas understands and publicly represents that she is a biological male with a gender identity and gender expression that is female.

And yet she is not competing against other biological males.  She does this by conflating "Gender Identity" with biological sex.

9 hours ago, Analytics said:

Again, she is not conflating these concepts.

Yes, she is.  The only reason any of us know her name is because she is conflating these concepts.  Because she is a biological male competing against biological female by pointing to "Gender Identity."  "Identity" is being conflated with biology.

9 hours ago, Analytics said:

According to NCAA rules, you may swim on the girls swim team if either of the following are true:

1. you are a biological female, or
2. your gender identity and gender expression are female, and your testosterone level is less than 10 nmol/L

I invite you to consider the meaning of "conflate," which is "combine (two or more texts, ideas, etc.) into one."

How many "ideas" are you presenting here?  Two.  "Biological female" and "gender identity."  The NCAA has conflated these two for the purposes of swimming qualifications.

Also consider the meaning of "equivocate," which is to "use ambiguous language so as to conceal the truth or avoid committing oneself."  A great example of this is using "woman" to describe both biological females and biological males who "identify" as females. 

Caitlyn Jenner saying both "I am not a woman, nor will I ever be" and "I am a woman."

9 hours ago, Analytics said:

Lia isn't conflating being a biological woman with having a female gender identity and gender expression.

Yes, she is.  The conflation is right there: Qualifying as a swimmer can be either A) being a woman, or B) "identifying" as a woman.  

9 hours ago, Analytics said:

She is being honest to the NCAA and to herself about who she is, and qualifies for the women's team based on her gender identity and testosterone levels.

I think she is.  If "who she is" includes biological sex, then William Thomas has no business competing against women.  If "who she is" calls for equivocating as to the meaning of "woman," then I don't think that's honest, even if the NCAA allows it.

9 hours ago, Analytics said:

The reason is that she qualifies to swim as a woman in some competitions and not others is because she does not conflate her biological sex with gender identity. 

And yet . . . she does.  She is a biological male competing against women.  She is "qualifying" to swim as a "woman" by conflating "woman" (meaning "adult human female") with "woman" (meaning "anyone who 'identifies' as a woman").

9 hours ago, Analytics said:

Alana has been transparent about who she is and her background.

Nobody is saying otherwise.

If I, as a north-of-45-years-old man, were to seek admission to an arm-wrestling contest in the GAWF ("Girls Arm-Wrestling Federation"), which is intended for girls under fifteen years old, by your logic I could apply by saying that "identify" as a 12-year-old girl.  And if this GAWF group had similarly absurd rules like those used by the NCAA, they would look something like this:

According to the GAWF rules, you may participate in the "Under 15" Arm-Wrestling Category if either of the following are true:

1. You are a biological female and are under fifteen years old, or
2. Your Gender Identity and Gender Expression are female and your Age Identity is under 15.

That the rule allows me to conflate gender (biological male who "identifies" as female) and age (a 45+ YO who "identifies" as a 12-year old) doesn't remove the absurdity and inequity and wrongness of what I am doing.

9 hours ago, Analytics said:

She has not conflated her biological sex with her gender identity.

Yes, she has.  She's a biological male competing against biological females by pointing to her gender identity.  

9 hours ago, Analytics said:

Knowing Alana's biological sex, Celine Provost agreed to fight her. 

Yes.  And? 

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 16, 2022 by smac97

[smac97]

On 7/12/2022 at 11:11 AM, Analytics said:

The issue isn't whether or not I'm okay with somebody being jailed for speaking words on Facebook. The issue is whether or not Norway has a law that makes the non-use of preferred pronouns a crime.

Given the fact that I don't speak Norwegian, I have very limited information on the facts of the case and the underlying Norwegian law. Because of that, I'm trying to refrain from commenting on the details of a court case I don't understand. In these days of such flagrant propaganda and outright lies in self-purported news outlets, I'm very reticent to believe news stories I can't verify.

The last word about the Norway case is yours.

Here's another story about the state of Free Speech in Norway (hint: It just happens to be taking a beating due to the imposition of trans ideology - what are the odds?) :

Quote

Norwegian feminist questioned by police for saying men can't be lesbians

---

by ALEC SCHEMMEL | The National Desk

Thursday, June 2nd 2022

 

OSLO, NORWAY (TND) — Norwegian law enforcement reportedly questioned a representative of a feminist organization over tweets challenging a trans activist for pushing the idea that biological males can be lesbians.

Christina Ellingsen, a representative of the global feminist organization Women’s Declaration International (WDI), criticized the Norwegian trans activist group Foreningen FRI in October for teaching children that males can be lesbians.

Ellingsen also called out one the group’s advisers, who is a biological male identifying as a lesbian woman.

That adviser, Christine Marie Jentoft, filed a police complaint that prompted law enforcement to question Ellingsen, according to news outlet Reduxx.

As noted below, the law in Norway actually criminalizes both public and private speech which - according to the government - is about sexual orientation or gender identity and is "insulting to a person."

Also: "{A} biological male identifying as a lesbian woman."  Nope!  Nothing Orwellian about that!

Also: Nothing better demonstrates the merits of an ideology than . . . using the coercive power of government to punish speech that opposes or is critical of it.

Quote

In January 2021, Norway introduced “gender identity” into the bounds of its current hate crime laws. Around that time, WDI Norway (formerly WHRC) warned the adjustment of hate crime laws could lead to persecution for stating biological facts.

If Ellingsen is charged with a hate crime for her comments, she could face up to three years behind bars.

I've had some difficulty in locating the actual text of this new law.  I did find this news item:

Quote

Norway’s parliament outlawed hate speech against transgender people on Tuesday, expanding its penal code which has protected gay and lesbian people since 1981.

People found guilty of hate speech face a fine or up to a year in jail for private remarks, and a maximum of three years in jail for public comments, according to the penal code.

"Penal code."

"Hate speech."

"A fine or up to a year in jail for private remarks."

"A maximum of three years in jail for public comments."

Quote

“I’m very relieved actually, because (the lack of legal protection) has been an eyesore for trans people for many, many years,” said Birna Rorslett, vice president of the Association of Transgender People in Norway.

"Lack of legal protection" from what?

Speech.  Words.

Criminalized speech.

Quote

Norway is one of the most liberal countries in Europe for LGBT+ people, allowing trans people to legally change gender without a medical diagnosis in 2016. But reported homophobic crimes have risen, according to advocacy group, ILGA-Europe.

The bill was approved on its second reading without a vote, a parliamentary spokeswoman said, after it was backed by lawmakers on its first reading last week.

Trans people are “an exposed group when it comes to discrimination, harassment and violence”, Minister of Justice and Public Security Monica Maeland said.

I oppose "discrimination, harassment and violence" against anyone.

However, I also oppose the criminalization of speech.  

I also reject efforts in recent years to equate "speech" with "violence."

Quote

“It is imperative that the protection against discrimination offered by the criminal legislation is adapted to the practical situations that arise,” she told the Thomson Reuters Foundation in emailed comments ahead of Tuesday’s reading.

Not sure how Party A using words which Party B finds offensive to be "discrimination."  If anything, is is the government of Norway that is engaging in discrimination.  That is, of viewpoints.

Quote

The amendments outlawed discrimination based on “gender identity or gender expression” and changed “homosexual orientation” to “sexual orientation”, meaning bisexual as well as lesbian and gay people will be explicitly protected from discrimination.

Again, I'm not sure how speaking words amounts to "discrimination based on 'gender identity or gender expression.'"

It sounds like Norway has expanded the meaning of "discrimination" to include virtually anything said by Party A that Party B dislikes as pertaining to “gender identity or gender expression.”

I am quite grateful to not live there.

Quote

Under the penal code, people charged with violent crimes can receive harsher sentences if a judge decides their actions were motivated by someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity.

The law’s opponents argued that it could criminalise free speech criticising LGBT+ rights, said Anine Kierulf, an assistant professor of law at the University of Oslo.

Well, yes.

A bit more info here:

Quote

According to the feminist news outlet Reduxx, Christina Ellingsen sent tweets to Christine Marie Jentoft, a representative of the trans-female activist group Foreningen FRI, between February 2021 and January 2022. 

Jentoft was reportedly born a biological male but now identifies as a lesbian woman.

Ellingsen, who is a representative of the global feminist organization Women's Declaration International (WDI), tweeted, "Why (does) FRI teach young people that males can be lesbians? Isn't that conversion therapy?"

Another tweet, which is reportedly being categorized as hate speech reads, "Jentoft, who is male and an advisor in FRI, presents himself as a lesbian – that's how bonkers the organization which supposedly works to protect young lesbians' interests is. How does it help young lesbians when males claim to be lesbian, too?"

Also, consider this bit from the news item: "Jentoft was reportedly born a biological male."  That sounds reasonable.  But how about now?  What is the factually accurate characterization of him?  "Jentoft is a biological ..." what?  Has he figured out a way to alter his biological sex?  If not, then why is it problematic to say he is biologically male now?  Does this news item commit a crime in Norway?  What if Jentoft finds any comment about his biological sex "insulting?"

Quote

Amnesty International Norway has also accused Ellingsen of harassing Jentoft on TV after saying that the trans activist was a male, Reduxx reports.

"You are a man. You cannot be a mother," Ellingsen reportedly said to Jentoft. "To normalize the idea that men can be mothers is a defined form of discrimination against women."

These tweets are, in Norway, grounds for imprisoning the speaker for up to three years.

Quote

Jentoft filed a complaint with police which led law enforcement to question Ellingsen.

"I am under police investigation for campaigning for women's rights, because to certain groups, the fact that women and girls are female and that men cannot be women, girls, mothers or lesbians, is considered hateful," Ellingsen told Reduxx.

"Women are not protected against hate speech in Norway, but men who claim to be both lesbian and a woman, are protected both on the grounds of gender identity and on the grounds of sexual orientation," Ellingsen added.

"The fact that police are legally able to investigate and persecute women who engage in women's rights is concerning," she added. "This is new territory in Norway, so the outcome of the investigation is important, both if the case is dismissed and if it leads to trial."

Creepy.  As all get-out.

And how is news of this oppressive infringement on Free Speech being received?  Well...

Quote

 

Bari Weiss

@bariweiss

 

Here we have @outmagazine cheering on a Norwegian law that jails people for up to a year for comments made IN PRIVATE.

 

 

out.com

Norway Has Made Biphobic, Transphobic Speech Illegal

I seem to recall a time when a certain category of persons were opposed to the government criminalizing done-in-private personal conduct.

One fellow responded rationally: "As a person in the LGBTQ+ community this is just ridiculous. People are cheering on censorship but soon it will bite everybody in the a%$ if we don’t stop this now."

I hope folks on this board listen to guys like this.

The organization to which Christina Ellingsen belongs, Women’s Declaration International (WDI), apparently supports unfettered abortions rights.  I strongly disagree with them on that point, in large part because I believe women's rights extend to the lives of unborn female children.  But there are some parts of their "Declaration on Women's Sex Based Rights" that I find quite good and reasonable, one of which is this part:

Quote

Article 4

Reaffirming women’s rights to freedom of opinion and freedom of expression

(a) States should ensure that women have the right to “hold opinions without interference’’. (ICCPR {International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights}, Article 19 (1)). This should include the right to hold and express opinions about ‘gender identity’ without being subject to harassment, prosecution or punishment. 

(b) States should uphold women’s right to freedom of expression, including the “freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media’’. (ICCPR, Article 19 (2)). This should include the freedom to communicate ideas about ‘gender identity’ without being subject to
harassment, prosecution or punishment. 

(c) States should uphold the right of everyone to describe others on the basis of their sex rather than their ‘gender identity’, in all contexts. States should recognize that attempts by state agencies, public bodies and private organizations to compel individuals to use terms related to ‘gender identity’ rather than sex are a form of discrimination against women, and shall take measures to eliminate this form of discrimination. 

(d) States should prohibit any form of sanctioning, prosecution or punishment of persons who reject attempts to compel them to identify others on the basis of gender identity’ rather than sex. 

Good stuff.

Analytics, you seem to be insistent that there is no movement anywhere to criminalize or suppress viewpoints about "gender identity."  Am I correct in that assessment?  If that is so, why do you think WDI has adopted the foregoint provision in their official "Declaration on Women’s Sex Based Rights"?  Is it possible that there are efforts going to persuade governments to punish selected viewpoints about "gender identity," such that WDI feels obligated to assert a right of women to "'hold opinions without interference' ... {including} the right to hold and express opinions about 'gender identity' without being subject to ... prosecution or punishment"?  Or do you think they are just tilting at windmills?

This guy provides some useful context in response to the above Bari Weiss tweet:

Quote

Hi @bariweiss

this law is already in place since 1981 and prosecutors have pursued just under ten prosecutions for violations in the past decade, so the bar is extremely high. The only news is replacing 'homosexual orientation' with 'sexual orientation'.
https://news.trust.org/item/20201110191107-tecjt/

That the statute has been around a while, and that it is not often used, are certainly fair points to make.  But these are not really in dispute.  I don't think they rehabilitate the statute in a meaningful sense. 

The government of Norway has arrogated to itself the power to criminally punish statements made in private.

The government of Norway has arrogated to itself the power to criminally punish statements that do nothing more than "[insult] a person."

That the government of Norway doesn't use this power-to-punish-'insulting'-speech very often is not really the point.  The problem is that it has this power at all.  And that State hasn't used the power much in the past is no guarantee that it won't use it at all.  Just ask Christina Ellingsen.

I did find this official website of the Norwegian government: Sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression

Quote

Everyone has the same rights, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.

Gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people (LGBT people) should be able to live openly, and the Norwegian Government is working to prevent discrimination. One of the Government’s main aims is to strengthen the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, and to counteract discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression.

Public attitude and quality of life for LGBT people are improving over time, but updated research shows that there is still a need for a targeted and systematic effort in this field.

• Equality and Anti-Discrimination Act
• Anti-Discrimination Ombud Act (in Norwegian only)
• Marriage Act gives all lesbian and gay people the right to enter into marriage, regardless of sexual orientation. The Church of Norway and other religious communities may perform these marriages, but are not obligated.
• See also the Action Plan against discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression and gender characteristics 2021–2024.

The fourth bulleted 'Action Plan" link is, per Google Translate, about "The Government's action plan against discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression and gender characteristics 2021–2024."  Some excerpts:

Quote

Action plan: Security, diversity and openness
Plan / strategy | Date: 24.06.2021
Originally published by: Ministry of Culture

The Government's action plan against discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression and gender characteristics 2021–2024.

The action plan "Security, diversity and openness" (.pdf)

From p. 113 in the above PDF link (again, through Google Translate) :

Quote

Hate crime

There is no official or formal definition of hate crime. The police register cases of hate crime. They have defined hate crimes as «offenses such as wholly or partly motivated by or who has background in hatred or negative attitudes towards religion or belief, skin color, national or ethnic origin, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression and / or disability ».  

For something to be considered a hate crime after this definition, the relationship must be affected criminal law. Any violation of criminal law can be a hate crime if the motive is as mentioned in the definition above. Conditions that are discriminatory, but which are affected by legislation other than the Penal Code, fall outside the definition.

Hate speech

The Norwegian Penal Code prohibits some forms of discriminatory or hate speech based on skin color or national or ethnic origin, religion or belief, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression or disability. Under the Penal Code, there is also a condition for criminality that the statement is made public or in the presence of others.

By hate speech is meant to threaten or insult someone, or promote hatred, persecution or contempt for someone due to any of the conditions mentioned above.

Hen

Gender-neutral pronoun that can be used about people who do not want (or can) be put in stalls like either woman or man. The term can also used about people you do not know preferred pronoun to, when one does not know which pronoun a person prefers, or when gender does not matter.

"There is no official or formal definition of hate crime."

Oh.  Anyone here got a problem with that?  With the government of Norway having free rein to define "hate crime" in any way it wants?  Or with the police in Norway getting to formulate ad hoc definitions independent of any statute?  Any risk of agents of the State abusing that power?  

Here's an interesting interview of Christina Ellingsen.  I think she deserves to be heard:

 

 

A partial transcript of the above (comments from Ms. Ellingsen) :

Quote

I don't claim that men who say they are women, girls, mothers, or lesbians are what they claim to be.  And it turns out, in Norway, making a statement like that is ... potentially considered a hate crime.  So I'm currently being investigated for having made statements on Twitter.  After Norway passed a law that came into effect in January last year {2021}, which gave the concept of 'gendered identities' legal protection in our Norwegian hate crime laws.
...
So my background is that in 2008 I finished my studies in Critial Theory.  At that time I was about 20 years old ... and I thought, well Critial Theory and Queer Theory, to me it was really interesting.  Ten years later, I decided to do another degree, this time in engineering, in biotechnology.  So I had then two different approaches to how society would approach biology.  And then one afternoon I had time to spare and I thought 'Well, how are things going in Critical Theory?'  What's the discourse?  The news?  So I went on a Google search, and what I discovered was that women were being censored all over the Internet for saying this difference, between sex and gender, that Jessica Nieve {sp?} couldn't have a period because he was male.  And lesbians everywhere were saying men can't be lesbians.

The whole thing seemed completely bizarre to me, so I started investigating.  And I was just completely shocked because the theories ... I had studied in 2008 that I had thought kind of interesting {as} intellectual approaches {were} being put into practice.  And women were complaining about it everywhere, and nobody seemed to care.  Nobody cared.  So I fell into this rabbit hole that I think a lot of women today have experienced, where you just kind of tumble down and you can't believe what you are seeing.  Women are trying to explain that men who claim to be women {are} still just men, and they pose the same risks as every other man.  

And most significantly, all the rights that women and feminists have fought for in the last 100 years, which have been developed to protect women from discrimination on the basis of sex, those rights were just being exchanged with this weird concept of 'gendered identities.'  So after having had a few encounters with trigger-happy teenagers and really easily insulted 60-year-old men, I realized that this is actually a really significant problem because it's not possible to have a public debate about the consequences of replacing an objective definition of sex with this subjective definition of, this weird concept of 'gendered identities.'
...
The changes to understanding of what sex and biology and gender is happening on two fronts.  One is legal, and one is cultural.  

The interview is 15 minutes.  Worth a watch.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited July 17, 2022 by smac97

[smac97]

On 7/15/2022 at 9:12 AM, Analytics said:

As I may have mentioned, I really dislike editorials and don't trust what they say.

Eugene Volokh is an expert in this area of law.  I don't like editorials that merely express someone's subjective opinion or unadorned say-so, but that's not what Volokh's article is doing.

On 7/15/2022 at 9:12 AM, Analytics said:

Guidance from the commission on how to comply with the law is important, but it isn't the law. See below.

To the extent the commission formulated "the law," its commentary/guidance has a strong likelihood of being construes as a persuasive authority on how the law is to be applied.

On 7/15/2022 at 9:12 AM, Analytics said:

Quote

A few more resources:

• A 2017 Bar Journal Article: All Employers Must Wash Their Speech Before Returning to Work: The First Amendment & Compelled Use of Employees’ Preferred Gender Pronouns

Ironically, this journal paper shares my sensibilities on the topic.
...
The Tyler Sherman journal paper you referenced says the NYC and Washington D.C. laws are limited and that all they mean is that employers "do not remain free to harass employees by intentionally and repeatedly refusing to use a preferred pronoun." According to this article, the Shawnee State University professor was willing to find a compromise where he would call the student by the name they preferred and would avoid gendered pronouns all together, thereby not harassing the student. Based on the details presented, I would have taken the the professor's side in this case, and I suspect the authors of the two journal articles would have too.

Point #1: Didn't you just two seconds ago say that you "really dislike editorials and don't trust what they say?"  Why then, are you quoting "sensibilities" from this law journal article?

Point #2: The author of the piece, Tyler Sherman, wrote it while he was still in law school.  Why are you giving credence to his comments/observations while ignoring/disparaging Volokh's?

Point #3: The point at issue, the practical application of the statute in New York, is something that anyone can have an opinion about, but the more worthwhile assessments are going to be from people with substantial expertise in the area.  Volokh fits the bill, Sherman does not.  

Point #4: Regarding your statement that the statute ("NYCHRL") applies only to "employers," um, no.  It apparently applied to "employers and covered entities."  It prohibits discrimination by "most employers, housing providers, and public accommodations," and also from "law enforcement."  That covers a lot more people than people in employer-employee relationships.  

The official guidance also references discrimination "in employment, housing, public accommodations, discriminatory harassment, and bias-based profiling by law enforcement."  Does this reference to "discriminatory harassment" apply to John Q. Public and/or any business (as to the latter, I think yes)?  Well, the statute is apparently intended to be construed broadly:

Quote

Harassment motivated by gender is a form of discrimination. Gender-based harassment can be a single or isolated incident of disparate treatment or repeated acts or behavior. Disparate treatment can manifest in harassment when the incident or behavior creates an environment or reflects or fosters a culture or atmosphere of sex stereotyping, degradation, humiliation, bias, or objectification. Under the NYCHRL, gender-based harassment covers a broad range of conduct and occurs generally when a person is treated less well on account of their gender. While the severity or pervasiveness of the harassment is relevant to damages, the existence of differential treatment based on gender is sufficient under the NYCHRL to constitute a claim of harassment. Gender-based harassment can include unwanted sexual advances or requests for sexual favors; however, gender-based harassment does not have to be sexual in nature. For example, refusal to use a transgender employee’s name, pronouns, or title may constitute unlawful gender-based harassment. Comments, unwanted touching, gestures, jokes, or pictures that target a person based on gender constitute gender-based harassment.

 

Unlawful gender-based discrimination is prohibited in the following areas:

Employment:
It is unlawful to refuse to hire, promote, or fire a person because of a person’s actual or perceived gender, including being or being perceived to be transgender, non-binary, or gender non-conforming. It is also unlawful to set different compensation or terms and conditions of employment because of an employee’s gender. Examples of terms and conditions of employment include work assignments, employee benefits, and keeping the workplace free from harassment.

Public Accommodations:
It is unlawful for providers of public accommodations, their employees, or their agents to deny any person, or communicate intent to deny, the services, advantages, facilities or privileges of a public accommodation directly or indirectly because of their actual or perceived gender, including being or being perceived to be transgender, non-binary, or gender non-conforming. Simply put, it is unlawful to deny any person full and equal enjoyment of a public accommodation because of gender.

Housing:
It is unlawful to refuse to sell, rent, or lease housing to someone because of their actual or perceived gender, including being or being perceived to be transgender, non-binary, or gender non-conforming. It is unlawful to withhold from any person full and equal enjoyment of a housing accommodation because of their gender.

The references here to "public accommodations" and "harassment" are, I think, very broad.  It's not just about employers.  Essentially all businesses fall under "public accommodations" laws.  For example, a biological male who wants to use a business's "Women's" bathroom cannot be excluded from it under this law.  

Point #5: This 2019 article, points to an interesting part of the text of the official "guidance" article:

Quote

All people, including employees, tenants, customers, and participants in programs, have the right to use and have others use their name and pronouns regardless of whether they have identification in that name or have obtained a court-ordered name change, except in very limited circumstances where certain federal, state, or local laws require otherwise (e.g., for purposes of employment eligibility verification with the federal government). 

That sure comes across as "compelled speech."

Point #6: This article also makes some salient observations about this statute:

Quote

On December 21, 2015 the New York City Commission on Human Rights published an updated version of Local Law No. 3 (2002); N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(23), known as the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL), setting out expanded definitions of “rights” of people who demand on being addressed and accommodated according to the gender of their choice, rather than the gender of their genetic code.
...

The code states that harassment is discrimination, bringng up the question: what constitutes harassment? Section III provides the answer: “Gender-based harassment can be a single or isolated incident of disparate treatment or repeated acts or behavior.”

A single or isolated incident of harassment is sufficient to charge a person with violation of this law and expose him to the fines and other punishments established therein.

One would assume that lawyers helped draft these regulations, and even first-year law students know that vague laws are often (and should always be) void for failing to give proper and effective notice to citizens of their responsibilities under the law. 

A lawyer would have to work very hard to write a code vaguer than this one.

For example, Section III sets out that one is being harassed when one is being treated “less well” because of one’s gender. Less well. 

Here are some specific examples provided in the text of the code of when one is guilty of treating another “less well” because of a person’s gender choice:

Intentional or repeated refusal to use an individual’s preferred name, pronoun or title. For example, repeatedly calling a transgender woman “him” or “Mr.” after she has made clear which pronouns and title she uses.

Refusal to use an individual’s preferred name, pronoun, or title because they do not conform to gender stereotypes. For example, calling a woman “Mr.” because her appearance is aligned with traditional gender-based stereotypes of masculinity.

In order to avoid the potential violations of the law, the NYC Human Rights Commission suggests that “covered entities” should establish “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.”

Then, the agency warns the potential policy makers that, “They should not limit the options for identification to male and female only.”

As has become common in this muddled morass of redefining traditional (and biologically inarguable) words and concepts, the code declares:

“The NYCHRL requires that individuals be permitted to use single-sex facilities, such as bathrooms or locker rooms, and participate in single-sex programs, consistent with their gender, regardless of their sex assigned at birth, anatomy, medical history, appearance, or the sex indicated on their identification.”

Unless that isn’t understood easily enough, the commission provides the following clarification:  “For example, it is an unlawful discriminatory practice to prohibit a transgender woman from using the women’s bathroom.”

Finally, in Section IV — the section on penalties — the commission establishes fines of up to $125,000 for simple violations and up to $250,000 for violations that are deemed “willful, wanton, or malicious.”

Such is the state of the law in the country’s largest city. 

The complete document is available online (click here for the PDF).

The link at the end of the above quote is dead, but  I think the same document is available here.

Point #7: I can't help but think that the statute has been quietly repealed.  It is really weird that I cannot find it.  

A federal appellate court in the Fifth Circuit addressed "preferred pronouns" in a 2020 decision (the claimant was an incarcerated prisoner, a biological male, who wanted the courts to use female pronouns when referring to him) :

Quote

We next consider Varner’s motion for the “use [of] female pronouns when addressing [Varner].” We understand Varner’s motion as seeking, at a minimum, to require the district court and the government to refer to Varner with female instead of male pronouns. Varner cites no legal authority supporting this request. Instead, Varner’s motion simply states that “I am a woman” and argues that failure to refer to him with female pronouns “leads me to feel that I am being discriminated against based on my gender identity.”  Varner’s reply brief elaborates that “[r]eferring to me simply as a male and with male pronouns based solely on my biological body makes me feel very uneasy and disrespected.” We deny the motion for the following reasons.

First, no authority supports the proposition that we may require litigants, judges, court personnel, or anyone else to refer to gender-dysphoric litigants with pronouns matching their subjective gender identity. Federal courts sometimes choose to refer to gender-dysphoric parties by their preferred pronouns.  On this issue, our court has gone both ways. ... None has adopted the practice as a matter of binding precedent, and none has purported to obligate litigants or others to follow the practice.

I omitted the long list of cases provided, but it is interesting to see the inconsistency.

Quote

Varner’s motion in this case is particularly unfounded. While conceding that “biological[ly]” he is male, Varner argues female pronouns are nonetheless required to prevent “discriminat[ion]” based on his female “gender identity.” But Varner identifies no federal statute or rule requiring courts or other parties to judicial proceedings to use pronouns according to a litigant’s gender identity. 

This, folks, is one of the reasons why we are seeing these "preferred pronoun" laws.  The state and federal courts will follow whatever rules or conventions that are imposed by statute.

This next part is, for me, particularly noteworthy (emphases added) :

Quote

Second, if a court were to compel the use of particular pronouns at the invitation of litigants, it could raise delicate questions about judicial impartiality. Federal judges should always seek to promote confidence that they will dispense evenhanded justice.  ...  Increasingly, federal courts today are asked to decide cases that turn on hotly-debated issues of sex and gender identity. ... In cases like these, a court may have the most benign motives in honoring a party’s request to be addressed with pronouns matching his “deeply felt, inherent sense of [his] gender.” ... Yet in doing so, the court may unintentionally convey its tacit approval of the litigant’s underlying legal position.  Even this appearance of bias, whether real or not, should be avoided.

I think many people resisting "preferred pronouns" are likewise reluctant to "convey ... tacit approval" of a person's "gender identity," either "unintentionally" or, even worse, when compelled by the force of law to do so.  

This next bit is also further justification for resisting "preferred pronoun"-type laws:

Quote

Third, ordering use of a litigant’s preferred pronouns may well turn out to be more complex than at first it might appear. It oversimplifies matters to say that gender dysphoric people merely prefer pronouns opposite from their birth sex—“her” instead of “his,” or “his” instead of “her.” In reality, a dysphoric person’s “[e]xperienced gender may include alternative gender identities beyond binary stereotypes.”  DSM-5, at 453. ... Given that, one university has created this widely-circulated pronoun usage guide for gender-dysphoric persons:

...
If a court orders one litigant referred to as “her” (instead of “him”), then the court can hardly refuse when the next litigant moves to be referred to as “xemself” (instead of “himself”). Deploying such neologisms could hinder communication among the parties and the court. ... When local governments have sought to enforce pronoun usage, they have had to make refined distinctions based on matters such as the types of allowable pronouns and the intent of the “misgendering” offender. See Clark, 132 Harv. L. Rev. at 958–59 (discussing New York City regulation prohibiting “intentional or repeated refusal” to use pronouns including “them/them/theirs or ze/hir” after person has “made clear” his preferred pronouns).4 Courts would have to do the same. We decline to enlist the federal judiciary in this quixotic undertaking.

"Quixotic undertaking."  I cannot think of a more apt description of legislating "preferred pronoun" usage.

The opinion also drops an interesting footnote (2) about the prevalence of Gender Dysphoria as estimated in the DSM-5:

Quote

“Gender dysphoria” refers to a condition where persons perceive a “marked incongruence” between their birth sex and “their experienced / expressed gender.” See Gibson v. Collier, 920 F.3d 212, 217 (5th Cir. 2019) (citing American Psychiatric ***’n, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed. 2013) (“DSM-5”), at 452) (cleaned up). Someone suffering from this condition may identify with the opposite sex, but the condition “may include a desire to be of an alternative gender” beyond the “binary” of male and female. DSM-5 at 453. The condition affects a tiny fraction of people. See DSM-5 at 454 (estimating prevalence for adult males from “0.0005% to 0.014%” and for adult females from “0.002% to 0.003%”). When it affects children, the condition often does not persist into adolescence or adulthood. See id. at 455 (estimating persistence for boys from “2.2% to 30%” and for girls from “12% to 50%”). Finally, “gender dysphoria” is to be distinguished from a “disorder of sex development,” in which the development of male or female sex organs is affected by genetic or hormonal factors. See id. at 451, 456. 

The DSM-5 indicates the prevalence of Gender Dysphoria in adult men ranges from 0.0005% (I think that works out to about 1 in 200,000) to 0.014% (about 1 in 7,150) and for women at 0.002% (1 in 50,000) to 0.003% (about 1 in 3,333).

Am I doing these right?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

On 7/12/2022 at 11:13 AM, Analytics said:

Thank you for abiding by my preferences. I'm just reminding people of the board rules, which people ought to obey out of respect for the board's owners and moderators. Personally, I try to have a thick skin and not be a board nanny.

I think Smac makes a valid point that a charge of “doxxing” rings hollow when it refers to the highlighting of information that has been readily available from public sources for years. 
 

An analogy: If someone here were to mention the fact that I used to work for the Deseret News, I would have no reasonable grounds to complain about a violation of board rules or to make an accusation of “doxxing” when I myself have made no secret of it and in fact have unabashedly revealed it. 
 

Similarly, it would be quite unreasonable for Calm to allege a violation of board rules if someone were to highlight her formal affiliation with the FAIR organization after she herself has repeatedly made mention of it. 

And it would be unreasonable for Smac to complain if someone were to mention that his screen name is a truncation of his real name, Spencer McDonald, or that he is an attorney specializing in landlord-tenant litigation when he himself has been quite free with that information. 
 

And since you mention it, complaining about such things on the pretext of board rules does border on nanny-ism. 

Edited July 17, 2022 by Scott Lloyd