Tennessee poised to ban public drag shows, hormone therapy for children

[Jayro]

So glad this bill got shot down. How idiotic of Tennessee.

 

[RetroGen]

So-called libertarians have so-called issues with the so-called progressives because you’re trying to compel their speech (Bill C-16 in Canada is a good example). There’s also the issue of trying to establish a so-called protected class, which is inherently contrary to the idea of equal justice under so-called law (HR-1913, for instance). They don’t like people’s rights being abridged or denied, but the so-called progressives keep delegating control of those spheres of life to the government, which will always lead to rights being trampled at some point down the so-called line, so maybe you’re just reaping what you sow, so to speak… but that’s none of my business, I’m just sipping tea.

That seems to suggest a Petersonesque misunderstanding of C-16 (which is understandable, as Peterson seems to be incapable of formulating or articulating a clear thought). Although a bigoted, disrespectful, action, intentionally misgendering people is unlikely to meet the standard of hate speech in Canada and thus unlikely to see any criminal charges, although other corrective actions might apply depending upon the province and institution. Bill C-16 adds gender diverse people to the list of groups afforded legal protection against discrimination in Canada.

People like Peterson seem to want to maximize their own freedoms whilst publicly degrading and denying others fundamental recognition of their gender identity. Perhaps how one views this matter depends upon one's evaluation of the relative importance of various rights as well as to what degree their rights ought to overrule the competing rights of others. Moral egoism seems compatible with such a notion of libertarianism (i.e. maximize my liberty at the expense of everyone else). Obviously, that is not an ethical framework I find defensible.

This article outlines the actual legal implications of C-16: https://sds.utoronto.ca/blog/bill-c-16-no-its-not-about-criminalizing-pronoun-misuse/

Can you cite any actual examples/cases of compelled speech, directly due to C-16?

 

[Foxi4]

That seems to suggest a Petersonesque misunderstanding of C-16 (which is understandable, as Peterson seems to be incapable of formulating or articulating a clear thought). Although a bigoted, disrespectful, action, intentionally misgendering people is unlikely to meet the standard of hate speech in Canada and thus unlikely to see any criminal charges, although other corrective actions might apply depending upon the province and institution. Bill C-16 adds gender diverse people to the list of groups afforded legal protection against discrimination in Canada.

People like Peterson seem to want to maximize their own freedoms whilst publicly degrading and denying others fundamental recognition of their gender identity. Perhaps how one views this matter depends upon one's evaluation of the relative importance of various rights as well as to what degree their rights ought to overrule the competing rights of others. Moral egoism seems compatible with such a notion of libertarianism (i.e. maximize my liberty at the expense of everyone else). Obviously, that is not an ethical framework I find defensible.

This article outlines the actual legal implications of C-16: https://sds.utoronto.ca/blog/bill-c-16-no-its-not-about-criminalizing-pronoun-misuse/

Can you cite any actual examples/cases of compelled speech, directly due to C-16?

Of course it’s compelled speech, it adds gender expression and identity to the list of protected grounds under the Canadian Human Rights Act and introduces a plethora of hate crime laws into the criminal code. You can say that it’s a “Peterson-like misunderstanding of the code”, that doesn’t change the content of the provisions. Don’t take it from me, take it from Brenda Cossman, law professor from the University of Toronto who doesn’t want us to worry while simultaneously telling us that the concern is completely warranted.

According to legal experts, including law professors Brenda Cossman of the University of Toronto and Kyle Kirkup of the University of Ottawa, not using preferred pronouns would not meet legal standards for the Criminal Code offence of promoting hatred.

According to Cossman, accidental misuse of a pronoun would be unlikely to constitute discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act, but "repeatedly, consistently refus[ing] to use a person's chosen pronoun" might.

Oh, it might? Then it’s a non-starter for me. The “corrective action” is nothing - people are not obligated to respect how you want to be called. If the government steps in to ensure that other people don’t call you names, that’s compelled speech and it has no place in a civil society.

 

[RetroGen]

Of course it’s compelled speech, it adds gender expression and identity to the list of protected grounds under the Canadian Human Rights Act and introduces a plethora of hate crime laws into the criminal code. You can say that it’s a “Peterson-like misunderstanding of the code”, that doesn’t change the content of the provisions. Don’t take it from me, take it from Brenda Cossman, law professor from the University of Toronto who doesn’t want us to worry while simultaneously telling us that the concern is completely warranted.

Oh, it might? Then it’s a non-starter for me. The “corrective action” is nothing - people are not obligated to respect how you want to be called. If the government steps in to ensure that other people don’t call you names, that’s compelled speech and it has no place in a civil society.

Where's the list of people who have been charged under C-16? It's been in effect for five years. Guessing you'd like Canada to strike down the rest of its hate speech laws too, if we're being consistent here. Why not start with holocaust denial? Such laws don't concern me because I don't generally like to make bigoted and hateful comments against marginalized groups, and also because I'm not a free speech absolutist because that position is untenable in reality. Am I worried about the government making political dissent a form of hate speech? No.

 

[Foxi4]

Where's the list of people who have been charged under C-16? It's been in effect for five years. Guessing you'd like Canada to strike down the rest of its hate speech laws too, if we're being consistent here. Why not start with holocaust denial? Such laws don't concern me because I don't generally like to make bigoted and hateful comments against marginalized groups, and also because I'm not a free speech absolutist because that position is untenable in reality. Am I worried about the government making political dissent a form of hate speech? No.

I’m against hate crime laws, compelled speech and protected categories, yes. I don’t think these matters are within the government’s purview. If there’s one person convicted on the basis of this bill then that’s one too many - the content of the speech shouldn’t matter. This is not to be confused with harassment, which is the refusal to stop pestering another person regardless of what the content of that pestering may be or libel/defamation, which first of all is a civil matter and second, when you sue for defamation or libel, you sue because of the (most commonly) monetary damages.

 

[Xzi]

I’m against hate crime laws, compelled speech and protected categories, yes.

Is hate speech not compelled speech? Something is compelling them to be miserable assholes all day every day, certainly. As I've mentioned before, tolerance and acceptance are passive qualities. You really have to put quite a bit of active effort in to be a POS.

 

[WalterSlovotsky]

I am just over here wondering who the hell thinks about sex THIS MUCH.

 

[RetroGen]

According to Freedom House and World Population Review, Canada rates significantly higher than the USA:

https://freedomhouse.org/countries/freedom-world/scores?sort=desc&order=Total Score and Status
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/freedom-index-by-country

Of course, there are a variety of different kinds of freedom. Some nations have greater individual liberties and/or freedom of expression, whilst others have greater economic liberties, etc.... That said, the freedom to live authentically is one of the greatest freedoms of all and a freedom which is currently under threat in many Republican states, Hungary, and elsewhere. Canada deemed this important enough to protect under federal law and it is a freedom which takes precedence over absolute free speech in my view. Musk found out very quickly that that notion was a non-starter in the real world... never mind his megalomaniacal desire to control the speech of others.

 

[Foxi4]

Is hate speech not compelled speech? Something is compelling them to be miserable assholes all day every day, certainly. As I've mentioned before, tolerance and acceptance are passive qualities. You really have to put quite a bit of active effort in to be a POS.

That’s not for me to decide and none of the government’s business - I don’t associate myself with hateful people. I find the notion of a hate crime to be nebulous at best - there’s no legitimate reason why one premeditated murder should carry a 10 year sentence and another 15 because the prosecutor has decided that the act was “motivated by hate”. Yeah, no shit - they killed someone on purpose. All of this runs contrary to the equal under law doctrine as far as I’m concerned. I don’t want the government deciding what is and isn’t “hateful”, that’s one step removed from deciding that perhaps criticising the government is hateful too. What if it incites hate, specifically hate of the government? Sounds pretty violent, better shut it down. No thanks - I’m against anything that hands the government a loaded gun because I know that loaded gun is very easy to point at someone at a later date.

According to Freedom House and World Population Review, Canada rates significantly higher than the USA:

https://freedomhouse.org/countries/freedom-world/scores?sort=desc&order=Total Score and Status
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/freedom-index-by-country

Of course, there are a variety of different kinds of freedom. Some nations have greater individual liberties and/or freedom of expression, whilst others have greater economic liberties, etc.... That said, the freedom to live authentically is one of the greatest freedoms of all and a freedom which is currently under threat in many Republican states, Hungary, and elsewhere. Canada deemed this important enough to protect under federal law and it is a freedom which takes precedence over absolute free speech in my view. Musk found out very quickly that that notion was a non-starter in the real world... never mind his megalomaniacal desire to control the speech of others.

I don’t mind how you live, knock yourself out and be as authentic as you want to be, so long as you’re not using the long arm of the government to enforce fealty from strangers. Other people, who have the same rights as you do, are not required to listen to you, call you the way you want to be called, treat you nicely or support whatever lifestyle you may have - your rights exist to prevent the *government* from encroaching on your freedoms, they do not exist to compel your fellow man to alter the way they live or think for your benefit.

 

[RetroGen]

I don’t mind how you live, knock yourself out and be as authentic as you want to be, so long as you’re not using the long arm of the government to enforce fealty from strangers. Other people, who have the same rights as you do, are not required to listen to you, call you the way you want to be called, treat you nicely or support whatever lifestyle you may have - your rights exist to prevent the *government* from encroaching on your freedoms, they do not exist to compel your fellow man to alter the way they live or think for your benefit.

Well, for certain, we don't want the government involved in property rights. Interesting choice of the word 'lifestyle'. Are you suggesting that LGBTQ+ is not an authentic part of an individual's identity, but merely a "lifestyle choice"? Try misgendering the next police officer or judge you see and report what happens.... we'll wait.

 

[Foxi4]

Well, for certain, we don't want the government involved in property rights. Interesting choice of the word 'lifestyle'. Are you suggesting that LGBTQ+ is not an authentic part of an individual's identity, but merely a "lifestyle choice"? Try misgendering the next police officer or judge you see and report what happens.... we'll wait.

I’m not suggesting anything, I’m using the word lifestyle because tolerance encompasses significantly more than who you’re sexually attracted to or why. Who’s “we” by the way? You don’t speak for anyone but yourself. If that’s your best attempt at a gotcha moment, you’ll have to try harder than that. Fact of the matter is, you and I have a fundamental disagreement on the role of government *or* what constitutes a right, and that’s fine. You’re welcome to have a different opinion, I’m not forcing mine on you. I’m describing a different perspective on the matter. The whole point of tolerance is to make allowances for all sorts of different points of view, which must necessarily include points of view that you disagree with, regardless of how distasteful or repugnant you might personally find them. Before we get to that point, if you spring out with the Popper’s paradox of tolerance comic made for dummies like a jack-in-the-box of cringe, I’m going to drink the contents of that bucket from earlier, vomit them out again and have an aneurism, so please be kind to me, let’s skip that part and you can just read what Popper actually said instead at your own convenience.

 

[omgcat]

I feel the need to reiterate that the law was repealed by a federal judge, on the grounds that it violates the first amendment. Since conservatives have decided to consistently and constantly associate dressing in drag with gender identity/being trans, it sets the precedent that gender identity is protected as freedom of expression too. Congratulations, you played yourselves.

Never forget that the second amendment is only there to protect the others, making all the others more important in the grand scheme of things. There are lots of nations that have easy access to guns, but very few with our level of freedom of speech protections.

the judge blocked it for those people, it was a narrow judgment right?

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) — Saying gender identity is real, a federal judge temporarily blocked portions of a new Florida law that bans transgender minors from receiving puberty blockers, ruling Tuesday that the state has no rational basis for denying patients treatment.

The ruling was narrowly focused on the three children whose parents brought the suit.

Post automatically merged: Jun 7, 2023

Couldn't agree more, I actually had a high school friend who died from DIY HRT, it's really scary how many people I've seen pushing others to do DIY transition. What these lawmakers want to do isn't going to stop that aspect, it may actually increase it.

Also yeah American healthcare does have a serious issue when it comes to overprescribing drugs, not sure if it's the same with HRT but it probably is.

it's the same shit that's happening with abortion and pregnant women across the US. some states are seeing almost ALL of their OBGYN's leaving for fear of attack and prosecution (either from the state who bans any procedure that could harm a fetus even to save the mothers life, while also getting prosecuted by the feds for not rendering care). the end result is back-ally abortions and over-all maternal mortality increasing by a lot.

Idaho's strict abortion ban forces OB-GYN exodus

like look at texa's stats right now

Severe medical complications from pregnancy and childbirth also increased significantly between 2018 and 2020, surging from 58.2 to 72.7 cases per 10,000 deliveries in Texas.

so from 5.82/1000 people to 7.27/1000 people. 7 in 1000 is not great odds, and women have a lot to fear when they can't get the care they need. i expect a HUGE drop in birth rate in response to this crap.

 

[Xzi]

All of this runs contrary to the equal under law doctrine as far as I’m concerned. I don’t want the government deciding what is and isn’t “hateful”, that’s one step removed from deciding that perhaps criticising the government is hateful too.

"You're being hateful by limiting my ability and capacity to hate" is a fallacy if I've ever seen one. As long as the laws are written in the general sense that they protect whole classes of people on the basis of religion, gender, race, ethnicity, etc, things tend to keep running smoothly. It's only when you're trying to give one specific group or individual preferential treatment within the law that everything goes to shit.

the judge blocked it for those people, it was a narrow judgment right?

I was referring to the Tennessee law. Your quote is about the Florida one.

 

[Foxi4]

"You're being hateful by limiting my ability and capacity to hate" is a fallacy if I've ever seen one. As long as the laws are written in the general sense that they protect whole classes of people on the basis of religion, gender, race, ethnicity, etc, things tend to keep running smoothly. It's only when you're trying to give one specific group or individual preferential treatment within the law that everything goes to shit.

First of all, you can’t expect any of that from another human because you can’t enforce what people have in their heads, all you’re actually doing is breeding discontent. Hateful speech is effectively a benchmark of whether speech in a given country is actually free or not. Let’s say that I say something hurtful or demeaning about an entire group of people - so what? Just don’t listen to me. The law should only step in when I intend to do harm to that specific group and my threats are actionable because the state has an obligation to protect its citizens from harm. Physical harm, not harm to their fee-fees, because nobody’s responsible for your emotional state except for you.

Secondly, preferential treatment is the founding principle of affirmative action, the premise being that in order to make up for years of discrimination you’re giving disaffected groups preferential treatment and additional protections not afforded to anybody else so that the scales can “balance out”. If you’re against preferential treatment then you must necessarily be against affirmative action, yes?

Lastly, nobody says we should tolerate bigotry as a society, just that enforcing tolerance is not within the government’s purview. For instance, this very site is a private venture - we have a code of conduct and we enforce it. If you want to use the site, you abide by it - if you can’t, you’re not part of our group of users anymore. We don’t enforce our TOS on *the rest of the Internet*, that would be absurd. My point is that if you don’t like hanging around with bigots, you can just not hang around with them - it’s actually fairly simple. I reject the notion that the state has a right to enforce any kind of discrimination laws because people become part of a nation primarily by the dint of their birth, whereas they become part of communities voluntarily and by choice. You have freedom of association, but you don’t have a choice in regards to your birth. The enforcement of societal standards of behaviour falls on the society, not the government - that’s not the government’s job.

On writing laws, if you want to write a fair bill, it should apply equally to everyone. If you focus on specific classes of people, you are purposefully designing your laws around the idea that different people should be treated differently. A fair law treats every citizen exactly the same, regardless of any inherent or acquired characteristics.

 

[Xzi]

The law should only step in when I intend to do harm to that specific group and my threats are actionable because the state has an obligation to protect its citizens from harm.

That's...exactly how it works? We have precedent for fighting words, but I've literally never heard of the cops being called for that on its own. It's always after the fight has already broken out. The other common scenario, being a Karen losing their minds at a CSR, usually just results in them being forcibly removed from the building with no actual charges.

Secondly, preferential treatment is the founding principle of affirmative action, the premise being that in order to make up for years of discrimination you’re giving disaffected groups preferential treatment and additional protections not afforded to anybody else.

If it's for the purpose of righting a wrong, that's not preferential. That's net zero. A lot of people would also say affirmative action doesn't go far enough and benefits only a small percentage of the people whose ancestors were forced into slavery.

My point is that if you don’t like hanging around bigots, you can just not hang around with them - it’s actually fairly simple.

In a vacuum I'd agree with you, but the premise is flawed. Bigotry is often the result of insecurity, and insecure angry people are almost always attention-seeking. You say GBAtemp can't enforce its rules across the entire internet, but for a number of years there was a right-wing campaign trying to do exactly that, a take over all social media sites including this one. They're not content with just staying in their own safe spaces and echo chambers any more.

 

[omgcat]

I was referring to the Tennessee law. Your quote is about the Florida one.

my bad, crazy how this shit is happening so much i can't even keep track.

 

[Foxi4]

That's...exactly how it works? We have precedent for fighting words, but I've literally never heard of the cops being called for that on its own. It's always after the fight has already broken out. The other common scenario, being a Karen losing their minds at a CSR, usually just results in them being forcibly removed from the building with no actual charges.

Police officers in America have no obligation to intervene in a dispute, there is no duty to protect. “Protect and serve” is a meme. Law enforcement is there to enforce the law, not to Minority Report the population. There’s legal precedent for this being the case.

If it's for the purpose of righting a wrong, that's not preferential. That's net zero. A lot of people would also say affirmative action doesn't go far enough and benefits only a small percentage of the people whose ancestors were forced into slavery.

Of course it’s preferential - you have a law that treats people differently depending on a specific characteristic. The correct course of action to combat inequality is with equality. Your point of view punishes the sons for the sins of their fathers - it’s collective responsibility and the antithesis of equal justice under the law. You can make peace with it in your head because you support the government engaging in social engineering - I don’t. Positive discrimination and negative discrimination is all discrimination - I am no better or worse than another person who looks or behaves slightly different than me, I deserve the exact same treatment under the law. Where *I* draw the line is expecting other people to treat me a certain way - that’s crazy to me. Our positions are diametrically opposed - you want people to treat each other equally under threat of force, but you applaud the government treating people differently so long as you approve of the cause.

In a vacuum I'd agree with you, but the premise is flawed. Bigotry is often the result of insecurity, and insecure angry people are almost always attention-seeking. You say GBAtemp can't enforce its rules across the entire internet, but for a number of years there was a right-wing campaign trying to do exactly that, a take over all social media sites including this one. They're not content with just staying in their own safe spaces and echo chambers any more.

…and how would you call what you’re supporting? You’re also in favour of laws based in subjective morality, just from the other side of the spectrum. You’re closer to someone like DeSantis than I am, you just have different moral precepts than he does. You want to ban different things, but your thought process is the same - “thing X is bad for society, so I will outlaw it”. The libertarian position is to leave the society alone and let the gears grind themselves out in their own time.

 

[DoomKratos]

Define, "Woman." Also, I find it despicable that there are adults here defending pedophilia. What upsets you that other adults are trying to defend children, from physically being present, and looking at adults performing provocative dances, and almost in the nude at most cases? You all need mental health evaluations because this is a pre-indicative cursor for fetishizing children. Seek help immediately.

 

[Xzi]

Police officers in America have no obligation to intervene in a dispute, there is no duty to protect. “Protect and serve” is a meme. Law enforcement is there to enforce the law, not to Minority Report the population. There’s legal precedent for this being the case.

Oh I know, I'm just saying there's no real criminal penalty for words alone unless it escalates to harassment over a long period of time.

Of course it’s preferential - you have a law that treats people differently depending on a specific characteristic. The correct course of action to combat inequality is with equality.

Because we had a law in the past which completely dehumanized them for the same characteristic. Until you make them whole they're still in the red, and pretending the past didn't happen creates even more problems.

Your point of view punishes the sons for the sins of their fathers - it’s collective responsibility and the antithesis of equal justice under the law.

Odds are a lot of those sons are still sitting on blood money, but I'm not interested in tracking down every individual who had slave-owning ancestors anyway. Just take reparations out of corporate welfare or 0.0000001% of the military budget instead, easy peasy.

…and how would you call what you’re supporting?

As far as hate speech/crime laws go? I support continuing to enforce them as we always have. One of the few instances in which the status quo is working fine.

You’re also in favour of laws based in subjective morality, just from the other side of the spectrum. You’re closer to someone like DeSantis than I am, you just have different moral precepts than he does.

Nonsense, I'm not interested in enforcing "woke" laws on the federal level like he is in enforcing "anti-woke" laws. He's incapable of tackling real-world problems so he just goes after imaginary ones instead.

 

[Foxi4]

Oh I know, I'm just saying there's no real criminal penalty for words alone unless it escalates to harassment over a long period of time.

Not in America and not yet. Let’s hope it stays that way.

Because we had a law in the past which completely dehumanized them for the same characteristic. Until you make them whole they're still in the red, and pretending the past didn't happen creates even more problems.

Who’s “them”? You’re thinking like a collectivist again. The only true path to equality is to treat everyone exactly the same. That’s what uplifts people. You’re replacing one kind of discrimination with another, so for all intents and purposes, that’s -ist. Choose your favourite -ism, because you’re that.

Odds are a lot of those sons are still sitting on blood money, but I'm not interested in tracking down every individual who had slave-owning ancestors anyway. Just take reparations out of corporate welfare or 0.0000001% of the military budget instead, easy peasy.

So we’re cool with racism *and* theft then, that’s cool. I didn’t know you were that kind of guy.

As far as hate crime laws go? I support continuing to enforce them as we always have. One of the few instances in which the status quo is working fine.

So killing someone because they’re black is worse than killing someone because of any other reason by a number of years you can quantify on a chart, I understand. Listen, there’s all sorts of hate out there, some more fiery than others. I can imagine worse kinds of hate than racism. Let’s say someone assaults your daughter. I think you’d hate that person quite a bit. Maybe enough to kill them. Is that a hate crime? It’s motivated by hate, no? Who are you to decide what kinds of hate are more rational than others?

Nonsense, I'm not interested in enforcing "woke" laws on the federal level like he is in enforcing "anti-woke" laws. He's incapable of tackling real-world problems so he just goes after imaginary ones instead.

Can we not say “woke” anymore? Just say ultraprogressive or something, and yes you are, you’ve just demonstrated that.