First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
NYC fines employers $250,000 for getting someone's "gender" wrong
Banned
20728 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 12/25/15 , edited 12/25/15
I'm never moving or working in NYC ever. Fuck that place.

New York law makers have passed new laws that you can actually be charged up to $250,000 for 'misgendering' some one.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/nyc-will-fine-employers-up-to-250000-for-referring-to-transsexuals-by-their


Failing to use an individual’s preferred name or pronoun, under the new ban, will be considered a violation of New York City Human Rights Law, punishable by fines up to $250,000.

“Refusal to use a transgender employee’s preferred name, pronoun, or title (e.g., Ms./Mrs.) may constitute unlawful gender-based harassment,” the new NYC Pronoun Ban reads.
Posted 12/25/15 , edited 12/27/15
I think the fine is a bit high, but knowingly addressing someone by their gender they prefer not to be addressed as needs some repercussions in my opinion. I mean seriously, is it that hard to address someone by their preferred gender identity? In my opinion, such gender policing is a type of harassment.



Also, site seems a bit biased, whatnot with the pro life ad at the bottom. Another thing to be aware of is the fine is likely to be much lower than the maximum.
16073 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 12/25/15 , edited 12/28/15
This does not warrant a fine of 250k.

A chicken will never be a rooster. People need to accept that already.
Banned
20728 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 12/25/15 , edited 12/25/15

PeripheralVisionary wrote:

I think the fine is a bit high, but knowingly addressing someone by their gender they prefer not to be addressed as needs some repercussions in my opinion. I mean seriously, is it that hard to address someone by their preferred gender identity?



Also, site seems a bit biased, whatnot with the pro life ad at the bottom.


So you don't agree with freedom of speech? Freedom of speech means I can say stuff you dislike and it is my right to do so. Adding repercussions is the same as doing away with free speech and having government sanctioned "acceptable speech".

Are you debating that the article is misrepresenting the law that was passed? If not then the ad you dislike is completely irrevalent and is nothing more than a red herring.
Posted 12/25/15

descloud wrote:

This does not warrant a fine of 250k.

A chicken will never be a rooster. People need to accept that already.


Does that matter? Is it that hard to refer to someone by their preferred gender identity? What's stopping you?
34071 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / U.S.A.
Offline
Posted 12/25/15 , edited 12/25/15

descloud wrote:

This does not warrant a fine of 250k.

A chicken will never be a rooster. People need to accept that already.

I think people would much prefer to be triggered all the time.
Banned
20728 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 12/25/15 , edited 12/25/15

PeripheralVisionary wrote:


descloud wrote:

This does not warrant a fine of 250k.

A chicken will never be a rooster. People need to accept that already.


Does that matter? Is it that hard to refer to someone by their preferred gender identity? What's stopping you?


Why should I refer to a human as an elf because it is their preferred racial identity? They are what they were born as and if they have an issue with it then it is THEIR problem not mine,

If steven hawking worried about his disability as much as SJW's worry about their gender he would be on disability and hate his life too.
Posted 12/25/15 , edited 12/25/15

Rujikin wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:

I think the fine is a bit high, but knowingly addressing someone by their gender they prefer not to be addressed as needs some repercussions in my opinion. I mean seriously, is it that hard to address someone by their preferred gender identity?



Also, site seems a bit biased, whatnot with the pro life ad at the bottom.


So you don't agree with freedom of speech? Freedom of speech means I can say stuff you dislike and it is my right to do so. Adding repercussions is the same as doing away with free speech and having government sanctioned "acceptable speech".

Are you debating that the article is misrepresenting the law that was passed? If not then the ad you dislike is completely irrevalent and is nothing more than a red herring.


Freedom of speech does not cover harassment of individuals. It differs in cases where you are knowingly affecting individuals, especially those that do not consent. Gender policing is mild harassment of itself. It's basically enforcing gender guidelines and whatnot and I feel that is harmful.


I feel it could misrepresent the law in question, but I'd have to check.
16073 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 12/25/15 , edited 12/27/15

PeripheralVisionary wrote:


descloud wrote:

This does not warrant a fine of 250k.

A chicken will never be a rooster. People need to accept that already.


Does that matter? Is it that hard to refer to someone by their preferred gender identity? What's stopping you?


Physical traits do not define what you are. Your chromosomes do, but you already know this.
3446 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
16 / M / Ente Isla
Offline
Posted 12/25/15 , edited 12/27/15
While I do think referring to them with their preferred pronoun is the polite and decent thing to do, I don't think this is an area the law should step into it. The government shouldn't be fining people over such trivial matters.
Posted 12/25/15

Rujikin wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:


descloud wrote:

This does not warrant a fine of 250k.

A chicken will never be a rooster. People need to accept that already.


Does that matter? Is it that hard to refer to someone by their preferred gender identity? What's stopping you?


Why should I refer to a human as an elf because it is their preferred racial identity? They are what they were born as and if they have an issue with it then it is THEIR problem not mine,

If steven hawking worried about his disability as much as SJW's worry about their gender he would be on disability and hate his life too.


I trust such thing such as WebMD, Mayo-clinic, and various other organizations for scientific truths. Studies have shown that gender dysphoria is a thing and that various measure such as therapy, hormonal and regular, can help a person express their own gender identity.
Banned
20728 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 12/25/15 , edited 12/29/15

PeripheralVisionary wrote:


Rujikin wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:

I think the fine is a bit high, but knowingly addressing someone by their gender they prefer not to be addressed as needs some repercussions in my opinion. I mean seriously, is it that hard to address someone by their preferred gender identity?



Also, site seems a bit biased, whatnot with the pro life ad at the bottom.


So you don't agree with freedom of speech? Freedom of speech means I can say stuff you dislike and it is my right to do so. Adding repercussions is the same as doing away with free speech and having government sanctioned "acceptable speech".

Are you debating that the article is misrepresenting the law that was passed? If not then the ad you dislike is completely irrevalent and is nothing more than a red herring.


Freedom of speech does not cover harassment of individuals. It differs in cases where you are knowingly affecting individuals, especially those that do not consent. Gender policing is mild harassment of itself. I'm basically enforcing gender guidelines and whatnot and I feel that is harmful.


I feel it could misrepresent the law in question, but I'd have to check.


That is not harassment. That's like referring to a red head as a red head. Or referring to a Indian as an Indian. Is calling someone "British" or "French" harassment if they were born in those countries? NO! NO SPECIAL PRIVILEGES FOR LGTBQWERTY!!!
3448 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / Seoul, South Korea
Offline
Posted 12/25/15

PeripheralVisionary wrote:


Rujikin wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:

I think the fine is a bit high, but knowingly addressing someone by their gender they prefer not to be addressed as needs some repercussions in my opinion. I mean seriously, is it that hard to address someone by their preferred gender identity?



Also, site seems a bit biased, whatnot with the pro life ad at the bottom.


So you don't agree with freedom of speech? Freedom of speech means I can say stuff you dislike and it is my right to do so. Adding repercussions is the same as doing away with free speech and having government sanctioned "acceptable speech".

Are you debating that the article is misrepresenting the law that was passed? If not then the ad you dislike is completely irrevalent and is nothing more than a red herring.


Freedom of speech does not cover harassment of individuals. It differs in cases where you are knowingly affecting individuals, especially those that do not consent. Gender policing is mild harassment of itself. I'm basically enforcing gender guidelines and whatnot and I feel that is harmful.


I feel it could misrepresent the law in question, but I'd have to check.


Yes it does, that's where the "freedom" part comes in. The right to self expressions trumps anything someone might feel offends them. If this law gets passed, than every insult, every low blow comment, every generalization will have to get funded for equality before the law, otherwise this is LGBT safe space law and it should be abolished.

No law shall be made to protect a group.
Banned
20728 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 12/25/15

Magical-Soul wrote:



Yes it does, that's where the "freedom" part comes in. The right to self expressions trumps anything someone might feel offends them. If this law gets passed, than every insult, every low blow comment, every generalization will have to get funded for equality before the law, otherwise this is LGBT safe space law and it should be abolished.

No law shall be made to protect a group.


I bet this law isn't to last the first lawsuit in the courts thankfully. It is so blatantly against the first amendment.
Posted 12/25/15 , edited 12/27/15

Rujikin wrote:

That is not harassment. That's like referring to a red head as a red head. Or referring to a Indian as an Indian. Is calling someone "British" or "French" harassment if they were born in those countries? NO! NO SPECIAL PRIVILEGES FOR LGTBQWERTY!!!


It reminds me of a case where I was referred to Chinese in my youth repeatedly even though I was of Vietnamese national origin and it pissed me off greatly. I do think such cases are harassment in itself. However, if you refuse to call someone by say their given name or knowingly use things that would trigger them, that's just being an asshole.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.