California Court SHUTS DOWN Transgender Pronoun Law

[Foxi4]

The Gay Liberation Movement was literally started by and ran by trans women. Trans people go back even further protecting for LGBT+ right. This isn’t some new phenomenon, trans people have always been fighting for the rights of the LGBT+ and trying to get respect our identities.

The Gay Liberation movement didn’t enter the scene until the late 1960’s, and the first mention of “transgender women of colour” I can find dates back to the Stonewall Riots of 1969. The LGBT movement in America dates back to at least 1950, the first openly gay organisation was started by a gay man named Harry Hay, it was called the Mattachine Society and it was co-founded by Rudi Gernreich who provided financial support. The Daughters of Bilitis, founded by Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon in 1955 also comes to mind. You could even argue that the Society for Human Rights started by Henry Gerber in 1924 “counts”, but it was shut down within a few months and had a far more all-encompassing mission statement that didn’t explicitly name homosexuality, even though it was obviously included. In any case, your reference is out of date by at least 20 years, not that it even matters since it’s irrelevant to the subject of the thread. I hope the history lesson is out of the way now.

 

[Haloman800]

Are you saying gender and sex are synonymous? If so, then my previous post commending you for your progressive stance of saying things like hairstyle, clothes, etc. are biologically innate stands.

Get back to me when you can change your chromosomes. Until then, you will never be a woman .

 

[Foxi4]

Get back to me when you can change your chromosomes. Until then, you will never be a woman .

I don’t think @Lacius is transgender, so that’s not exactly a concern for him. That doesn’t exclude him from the conversation, or from having an opinion, or from stating that there is a distinction between biological sex and how one chooses to present themselves to the world.

 

[MadonnaProject]

The Gay Liberation movement didn’t enter the scene until the late 1960’s, and the first mention of “transgender women of colour” I can find dates back to the Stonewall Riots of 1969. The LGBT movement in America dates back to at least 1950, the first openly gay organisation was started by a gay man named Harry Hay, it was called the Mattachine Society and it was co-founded by Rudi Gernreich who provided financial support. The Daughters of Bilitis, founded by Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon in 1955 also comes to mind. You could even argue that the Society for Human Rights started by Henry Gerber in 1924 “counts”, but it was shut down within a few months and had a far more all-encompassing mission statement that didn’t explicitly name homosexuality, even though it was obviously included. In any case, your reference is out of date by at least 20 years, not that it even matters since it’s irrelevant to the subject of the thread. I hope the history lesson is out of the way now.

When you deleted my post I wasn't best pleased. It showed to the blind ignorance of the person I was speaking to towards the "heejra" culture in the indian subcontinent and the middle east. (Because americans like to mostly be late to a party and then claim they discovered it). I thought you did me a disservice in deleting the post.

I found your post above quite intelligent and steeped in fact. I also feel you deleted my post not to be biased but to keep the topic, on topic.

Pleasantly surprised.

 

[Foxi4]

When you deleted my post I wasn't best pleased. It showed to the blind ignorance of the person I was speaking to towards the "heejra" culture in the indian subcontinent and the middle east. (Because americans like to mostly be late to a party and then claim they discovered it). I thought you did me a disservice in deleting the post.

I found your post above quite intelligent and steeped in fact. I also feel you deleted my post not to be biased but to keep the topic, on topic.

Pleasantly surprised.

Thank you for the compliment, but I did ask to keep personal matters to other channels, we have a private message system if you want to express gratitude or disappointment. This section of the forum is notorious for going off the rails and well into the mud slinging contest territory, so I once again implore all participants to stick to the topic or not post at all.

 

[The Catboy]

The Gay Liberation movement didn’t enter the scene until the late 1960’s, and the first mention of “transgender women of colour” I can find dates back to the Stonewall Riots of 1969. The LGBT movement in America dates back to at least 1950, the first openly gay organisation was started by a gay man named Harry Hay, it was called the Mattachine Society and it was co-founded by Rudi Gernreich who provided financial support. The Daughters of Bilitis, founded by Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon in 1955 also comes to mind. You could even argue that the Society for Human Rights started by Henry Gerber in 1924 “counts”, but it was shut down within a few months and had a far more all-encompassing mission statement that didn’t explicitly name homosexuality, even though it was obviously included. In any case, your reference is out of date by at least 20 years, not that it even matters since it’s irrelevant to the subject of the thread. I hope the history lesson is out of the way now.

I noted that and I am talking more about what we consider the current LGBT+ movement, not the history of the movement as a whole. Of course I did completely butcher my own history lesson as it was more to make a point that the trans community isn’t something new and asking for respect for both the LGBT+ as well as for the trans community are nothing new. I digress though and won’t continue my wonky history lesson as it’s off topic and also has way more additional details that are also off topic.

 

[Foxi4]

I noted that and I am talking more about what we consider the current LGBT+ movement, not the history of the movement as a whole. Of course I did completely butcher my own history lesson as it was more to make a point that the trans community isn’t something new and asking for respect for both the LGBT+ as well as for the trans community are nothing new. I digress though and won’t continue my wonky history lesson as it’s off topic and also has way more additional details that are also off topic.

Excellent, seems like both sides of the debate are pleased with the resolution. The whole point of the law is whether or not there should be a legal requirement to refer to people based on how they choose to present themselves, or more broadly, by the name and gender they identify as, or whether that’s a violation of First Amendment rights. It would be nice if we discussed that, since it’s far more interesting than discussing who did what “first”. It’s a fairly well-known fact that gays, lesbians and transgender people have existed for as long as our species has, the same phenomena exist in nature in other species, so that’s not “news”.

 

[The Catboy]

On topic, I feel like you should either respect trans people or not deserve respect yourself. Trans people are just everyday people who are trying to live their lives to the fullest, they doesn’t deserve to be disrespected by others for doing so. There shouldn’t need to be a law to protect trans people as transphobia should come with the same social stigma as racism. Unfortunately, I can see why the government feels the need to step in because we haven’t gotten to the point where it’s socially unacceptable to be transphobic.

 

[forerofore]

1. With regard to sex, a majority of humans can be classified as biologically male or biologically female, but many humans are intersex.
2. Gender and sex are two different things.

Being transgender isn't "a delusional state of mind." People who are transgender perfectly acknowledge that their gender identity doesn't comport with their biological sex.

i agree with you on this, but that doesnt mean we should regulate how people refer to them.
whatever pronoun should be used is based on how you look, and asking people what pronoun they prefer is silly.
if you are transgender and look like a girl, i might aswell refer to you as a "her" or "she" but if you dont look like a girl, i will most likely call you a dude.
i agree with the ruling on this, extremes are bad on both sides of the political spectrum.
calling people by what they look like is inherently an instinct to be respecful to them and how they dress up, etc.

 

[Foxi4]

On topic, I feel like you should either respect trans people or not deserve respect yourself. Trans people are just everyday people who are trying to live their lives to the fullest, they doesn’t deserve to be disrespected by others for doing so. There shouldn’t need to be a law to protect trans people as transphobia should come with the same social stigma as racism. Unfortunately, I can see why the government feels the need to step in because we haven’t gotten to the point where it’s socially unacceptable to be transphobic.

I’m of a similar mindset when it comes to the government criminalising any kind of speech, it seems like a violation of basic human rights to me. The First Amendment protects speech, this includes speech we don’t like, and unless one can demonstrate quantifiable damages (defamation/libel, and even those are exceedingly difficult to argue in court, especially in states with anti-SLAPP laws. Incitement is another exception, and one that’s considerably easier to prove) the speech is protected. The right to speak freely includes the right to be an asshole, and it is up to the employer (in this case healthcare establishment) to set their own rules of conduct. If the establishment is private, they have full authority to dictate what is expected of their employees, if it’s under the purview of the government then the government cannot violate its own laws, including the supreme law of the land.

 

[forerofore]

I’m of a similar mindset when it comes to the government criminalising any kind of speech, it seems like a violation of basic human rights to me. The First Amendment protects speech, this includes speech we don’t like, and unless one can demonstrate quantifiable damages (defamation/libel, and even those are exceedingly difficult to argue in court, especially in states with anti-SLAPP laws. Incitement is another exception, and one that’s considerably easier to prove) the speech is protected. The right to speak freely includes the right to be an asshole, and it is up to the employer (in this case healthcare establishment) to set their own rules of conduct. If the establishment is private, they have full authority to dictate what is expected of their employees, if it’s under the purview of the government then the government cannot violate its own laws, including the supreme law of the land.

i can tell you this, there is training in healthcare to avoid being disrespectful to transgender people, or people who would like to undergo hormonal therapy. if a nursing home is being disrespectful to a transgender patient, then report the incident, and if its systematic (eg involving all personell) switch to another one (even if that means getting a diff insurance this year).

 

[The Catboy]

I’m of a similar mindset when it comes to the government criminalising any kind of speech, it seems like a violation of basic human rights to me. The First Amendment protects speech, this includes speech we don’t like, and unless one can demonstrate quantifiable damages (defamation/libel, and even those are exceedingly difficult to argue in court, especially in states with anti-SLAPP laws. Incitement is another exception, and one that’s considerably easier to prove) the speech is protected. The right to speak freely includes the right to be an asshole, and it is up to the employer (in this case healthcare establishment) to set their own rules of conduct. If the establishment is private, they have full authority to dictate what is expected of their employees, if it’s under the purview of the government then the government cannot violate its own laws, including the supreme law of the land.

I am of the mindset that the best the government can do is lead by example. The best example is fighting against anti-trans laws and being vocal while doing so. Anti-trans laws are a massive government overreach and just as much violates humans rights. Laws that protect trans people sound great on paper but they are easy to shot down with very little effort. At the same time, those arguments that shutdown those laws can be flipped to fight against unjust laws, which sends a stronger message that doesn’t limit others. It can also send a message that transphobia is unacceptable without directly going after it.

 

[Foxi4]

I am of the mindset that the best the government can do is lead by example. The best example is fighting against anti-trans laws and being vocal against them. Anti-trans laws are a massive government overreach and just as much violates humans rights. Laws that protect trans people sound great on paper but they are be shot down with very little effort. At the same time, those arguments that shutdown those laws can be flipped to fight against unjust laws, which sends a stronger message that doesn’t limit others. It can also send a message that transphobia is unacceptable without directly going after it.

I don’t know if I agree with this sentiment or not - my favourite kind of government is so small you can barely see it, or hear it for that matter. With that being said, I can find some common ground in disapproving of any restrictive laws since I also believe it’s none of the government’s business to dictate how people choose to live their lives. What you do in your own house doesn’t cost me anything and doesn’t impede the exercise of my own rights, I don’t need the government to enforce any particular moral standard. The problem here is that most efforts to combat discrimination are conducted by giving government more legal power over the citizens, as opposed to taking power away from the government so that it is not empowered to dictate ridiculous policy in the first place.

 

[The Catboy]

I don’t know if I agree with this sentiment or not - my favourite kind of government is so small you can barely see it, or hear it for that matter. With that being said, I can find some common ground in disapproving of any restrictive laws since I also believe it’s none of the government’s business to dictate how people choose to live their lives. What you do in your own house doesn’t cost me anything and doesn’t impede the exercise of my own rights, I don’t need the government to enforce any particular moral standard. The problem here is that most efforts to combat discrimination are conducted by giving government more legal power over the citizens, as opposed to taking power away from the government so that it is not empowered to dictate ridiculous policy in the first place.

I quite agree and also want a small and quiet government, but right now we don’t have that. My point is more that the counter to anti-trans laws shouldn’t be aggressively pro-trans laws, it should be shutting down the anti-trans laws and arguing that they violate human rights. This approach argues that trans rights are already protected by basic human rights while not making laws that limit others. This can send a better example of social acceptance of trans people without overstepping. It can also be argued that anti-trans laws are overstepping and thus unacceptable, again without overstepping.

 

[mikefor20]

You can do whatever you want. I'll call you whatever i want. I'll respect you IF you respect me. If you're a moron. Then in will call you moron. I don't care what you wear or who you screw. What's it to me?

I'll respect the pronoun if you're not being ridiculous. I have a good friend, born female, who dresses like a man but if you call her a man she gets mad and says that she's a woman. I call her she but she is obviously just confusing the issue. She has a mustache. Hides her boobs. Wears mens clothes. Even boxers. She's great. But she's constantly complaining about identity. I tell her all the time she's ridiculous and shouldn't care. She's just Johnny. This is San Francisco. We are progressive but if you want to cause a problem because you're confusing the hell out of everybody you can kiss my ass.

And once again if you respect me I will respect you. I know a lot of lgbtq people. I live in SF. My whole life in the bay. Some of them are way cool. Amazing people. Some of them are total fucking jerks. Because we are all just people. Just because you belong to a "new and fragile Community," doesn't mean you get a pass on being a human being. My friends are as diverse as it gets. And by that I don't mean strictly not white. That's not diverse either.

There shouldn't be a law restricting what you call people. That wouldn't be fair or free.

It doesn't matter if you're gay straight red white purple or Jew . Most of you still suck. Just like the everyone else. Get over it.

 

[Foxi4]

I quite agree and also want a small and quiet government, but right now we don’t have that. My point is more that the counter to anti-trans laws shouldn’t be aggressively pro-trans laws, it should be shutting down the anti-trans laws and arguing that they violate human rights. This approach argues that trans rights are already protected by basic human rights while not making laws that limit others. This can send a better example of social acceptance of trans people without overstepping. It can also be argued that anti-trans laws are overstepping and thus unacceptable, again without overstepping.

Depending on what we consider to be trans rights, the vast majority of them are already protected adequately under the U.S. Constitution. The problem here is deciding whether or not referring to people in a specific way is included in that list of rights - in my estimation it is not, it’s compelled speech. Anyone can “misgender” others regardless of whether they’re trans or not, it’s a fairly common (albeit childish) form of insult. “You punch like a girl” is as old as time, for instance. I don’t see how it’s any different than any other insult, and if it’s used in earnest then it’s an expression of belief that identifying biological sex trumps personal self-identification, both of which would seem protected to me. Regardless of the scenario, I don’t think there is an enumerated right to not have your jimmies rustled - you’re the one in charge of your jimmies. There are legal protections against harassment if an individual contacts you repeatedly against your wishes, and those also protect all citizens regardless of whether they’re trans or not. I was always of the opinion that enumerating rights that only apply to a specific subset of society is counterproductive - rights should apply to everyone equally and encompass everybody. When slavery was outlawed, it wasn’t outlawed based on a specific skin tone, it was outlawed outright, not piecemeal.

 

[The Catboy]

Depending on what we consider to be trans rights, the vast majority of them are already protected adequately under the U.S. Constitution. The problem here is deciding whether or not referring to people in a specific way is included in that list of rights - in my estimation it is not, it’s compelled speech. Anyone can “misgender” others regardless of whether they’re trans or not, it’s a fairly common (albeit childish) form of insult. “You punch like a girl” is as old as time, for instance. I don’t see how it’s any different than any other insult, and if it’s used in earnest then it’s an expression of belief that identifying biological sex trumps personal self-identification, both of which would seem protected to me. Regardless of the scenario, I don’t think there is an enumerated right to not have your jimmies rustled - you’re the one in charge of your jimmies. There are legal protections against harassment if an individual contacts you repeatedly against your wishes, and those also protect all citizens regardless of whether they’re trans or not. I was always of the opinion that enumerating rights that only apply to a specific subset of society is counterproductive - rights should apply to everyone equally and encompass everybody. When slavery was outlawed, it wasn’t outlawed based on a specific skin tone, it was outlawed outright, not piecemeal.

I am not in any disagreement with this post because really just adds to the point I am trying to make. This to say that anti-trans laws should be shutdown with the notion that they violate laws already in place to protect human rights. There’s already laws against harassment and there doesn’t need to be laws specifically protecting trans people, as the current one just needs to be enforced and upheld for trans people equally. My extended argument is that this stance should be the one held as it doesn’t make trans people the target and is inclusive to say that laws that protect everyone should extend to everyone regardless of gender, sex, race, and so on.

 

[Lacius]

Get back to me when you can change your chromosomes. Until then, you will never be a woman .

I'm a cis male, so no, I am not a woman. However, there is a difference between one's biological sex (which isn't itself binary) and one's gender identity, and they often don't comport with one another.

 

[AncientBoi]

You do realize gay folk and trans folk are different, they just come together in seeking equality and fair representation, right? Some trans folk are "straight" by conservative definitions, and gay folk certainly don't have to be trans to love someone of their gender.

hear hear, hear hear

Gay to the end.

 

[The Catboy]

I'm a cis male, so no, I am not a woman. However, there is a difference between one's biological sex (which isn't itself binary) and one's gender identity, and they often don't comport with one another.

I find the notion of “you can’t change your chromosomes” to be silly. I am literally XX intersex, I am and have always been closer to biologically female. I was born with both parts (external male, internal female,) so which one am I? Do my female chromosomes determine that I am female or do my external parts determine me as male? What about the rest of my genetics? I definitely developed traits from both, so which one am I? The argument of chromosomes only gets muddier the more one researches the topic and gets past a middle school understanding of biology. I find it sad that transphobes don’t actually appreciate this kind of stuff, the biology and psychology of trans and intersex people is deeply fascinating. To keep this on topic, it’s ridiculous to reduce laws to external parts alone.