First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
Post Reply Not using right trans pronoun in Calif could put people in jail (LGBT Long-Term Care Resident Bill of R
7691 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Pensacola
Offline
Posted 8/19/17 , edited 8/19/17
[inappropriate and presumptive remark removed by mod]
11291 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
14 / F / California
Offline
Posted 8/19/17 , edited 8/19/17

riverjustice wrote:


VZ68 wrote:

The feds will come down on them like a ton of bricks. Free speech and all that. Plus being a "little fucking bitch" knows no genders.


Feds? No supreme court rulings..

Seriously can you stop pretending to be a 14 year-old female...


Seriously you can stop pretending to be a 24 year old male.

But the first is going to overturn that state law so fast moonbeam will spin.
38463 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 8/19/17 , edited 8/21/17
Here's a link straight to the California legislation at issue, SB 219.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB219

The legislation serves a large number of very important functions, not the least of which are protecting LGBT seniors from being refused admission to or ejected from care facilities based on their sexual orientation and/or gender identity/expression, protecting their privacy by preventing facility staff not directly giving them care from being present when they're disrobed, and protecting them from being separated from their partner and refused their right to associate and live with them. It can't be boiled down to just pronoun use by facility staff, though that is part of it and the part we're here to discuss. I just wanted to stress that this legislation serves a useful purpose even if the provision on pronoun use was discarded.

So, what does SB 219 say about pronoun use?



Okay, so specifically facility staff and facilities themselves are not to repeatedly and willfully fail to use the name or pronouns a senior under their care wants used. This isn't a standard being applied to the general public. What happens if they don't comply?



Per Section 1417 the "Long-Term Care, Health, Safety, and Security Act of 1973" apparently refers to the provisions in Chapter 2.4 of the Health and Safety Code. This part is for outlining what standards facilities are expected to meet and what penalties might be imposed should they fail to meet those standards, though Chapter 2 makes individuals culpable for violations thereof as well. Let's start with facilities' prospective penalties.



https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=HSC&division=2.&title=&part=&chapter=2.4.&article=

This says a facility might, depending upon the severity and frequency of violations, face suspension, get their public funding pulled, or be forced to close down. We're talking about regulations governing issues ranging from relatively minor ones like whether or not grandpa has been allowed to keep a non-prescription topical balm he likes at his bedside all the way up to whether or not safe, sanitary care facilities are even available. That's a pretty big range, and one would imagine the maximum penalties would be reserved for particularly severe or very frequent repeat violators. A facility isn't going to be closed down because grandpa was denied his balm or a transgender person wasn't called the right name by one bad nurse.

Moving over to Chapter 2, Article 4 we arrive at a part about offences where individuals come into the picture.



https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=HSC&division=2.&title=&part=&chapter=2.&article=4.

So yes, if a violation of Chapter 2.4 was somehow the basis of a complaint about pronoun or name use (if not through 2.45 from SB 219 then maybe someone could try it through 1418.91 since the cited definition from the Welfare and Institutions Code leaves room for mental suffering) it is hypothetically possible for an individual working as long-term staff at a senior care facility to be issued either a $2,500 fine, sentenced to imprisonment in a county jail for up to 180 days, or maybe even both for refusing to call a senior by their preferred name and pronouns.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=WIC&division=9.&title=&part=3.&chapter=11.&article=2.

But if you look at the rest of the article to see if severity and frequency were taken into account (because again, we're talking about violations of a part of the code covering everything from grandpa getting to keep his non-prescription balm with him all the way up to taking actions that physically endanger him) it becomes clear that such a hypothetical comes with an asterisk the size of the Death Star.



In other words, a $2,500 fine or a term of 180 days in jail is a maximum penalty that is to be applied to particularly severe violators of Chapter 2.4, and the courts are allowed to take all relevant facts into consideration. In other words, while it is hypothetically possible someone could be thrown in jail merely for refusing to call a senior under their care by their preferred name and pronouns based on Chapter 2.4 it is very bloody unlikely. I doubt such a judgment would survive an appeal without a pretty good rationale. More likely the matter would be handled internally at the facility with a far less dramatic form of disciplinary action, probably a verbal warning at first. I'd expect termination before incarceration.

Next up is Section 3.2, where the Resident's Bill of Rights may be found.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=HSC&division=2.&title=&part=&chapter=3.2.&article=2.5.

As you peruse through that document you'll probably start noticing that a lot of what it says already lines up with what's being said in SB 219, with that legislation merely outlining more specific and explicit interpretations thereof for LGBT residents and providing legal infrastructure for action upon violations by adding to Chapter 2.4. In fact, these are explained to be the primary aims in the legislation's rationale. Just read Section 1 of SB 219. It's obvious what they're going for here. But if one is having trouble, (e) might help clarify it:



So it's the same bill of rights that's already existed, only now with LGBT-specific examples for further information and more specific infrastructure for LGBT people to seek comparable remedies to those for anyone else suffering discrimination, neglect, or abuse based on a protected class.

That now established, what happens if a care provider violates a resident's rights?



So not only are the rights enumerated in SB 219 not unique to LGBT people (feel free to complain on the same grounds as a transgender person if your nurse likes to annoy you by calling you "Martha" or denies you the right to wear trousers, gentlemen) I don't see anything in Chapter 3.2 of the Health and Safety Code or in SB 219 specifying that either the processes for addressing complaints or the penalties to be applied are unique to LGBT victims. And again, the courts apply scrutiny and consider relevant material facts when determining what, if any, penalty ought to be levied against an individual, facility, or both.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=HSC&division=2.&title=&part=&chapter=3.2.&article=4.

Now, who is it that's telling everyone that people are going to go to jail for refusing to use peoples' preferred pronouns?

*looks up the source*

The California Family Council. An uber far-right Christian activist think tank. Colour me shocked. Absolutely bloody shocked.

Finally, I'll leave these videos about free speech in Canada for everyone's enjoyment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd95T66YjSQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfL5pTVlbIo
31423 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
51
Offline
Posted 8/19/17 , edited 8/19/17

MonoDreams wrote:

Can we cut off California now?


The US landscape would be interesting. The main reason why Democrats have a fighting chance in the government and presidency is because of a few very populous states, California being chief among them.

Despite what they say, most Democrats don't want Calexit.
18 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Somewhere in America
Offline
Posted 8/19/17 , edited 8/19/17
Addressing the bill: It's bullshit. You have the right to be an asshole, you shouldn't be put behind bars for it. That wouldn't create any sort of actual social tolerance, it would just be forcing people to pretend that they're tolerant. Not to mention this is completely censoring people's freedom of speech and right to have a fucking opinion.

Addressing the people saying "only 2 genders": I believe that there are biologically two sexes, and that you can transition between either one. However, I also believe that human emotions aren't something that should always have to be justified by science. If someone feels like they don't fit in with male or female, or if a biological female feels uncomfortable being referred to as a woman, then we shouldn't question them. I have no idea what it feels like to be in their position, and neither do you if you aren't them. As an example of having indescribable feelings about your personal identity, I'll reference my sexuality. I don't believe I really have one that's commonly known or accepted. I'm a woman and I am completely attracted to men, however I am also attracted to women- just not romantically. I don't know if there's a word for this, and I hope there is because I hate being called straight, but regardless that's who I am. Can I explain this? Not at all. It's as impossible to describe as why macaroni is my favorite food. I just like it that way.

TL;DR, if you're a dick to transgender people, then I strongly disagree with your beliefs and probably won't like you very much. But "I don't like you because you're mean" is NOT a reason a reason to throw someone in jail.
35958 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / U.S.A.
Offline
Posted 8/19/17 , edited 8/19/17

BlueOni wrote:

Okay, so specifically facility staff and facilities themselves are not to repeatedly and willfully fail to use the name or pronouns a senior under their care wants used. This isn't a standard being applied to the general public. What happens if they don't comply?

Who it applies to is a non-issue.


But if you look at the rest of the article to see if severity and frequency were taken into account (because again, we're talking about violations of a part of the code covering everything from grandpa getting to keep his non-prescription balm with him all the way up to taking actions that physically endanger him) it becomes clear that such a hypothetical comes with an asterisk the size of the Death Star.



In other words, a $2,500 fine or a term of 180 days in jail is a maximum penalty that is to be applied to particularly severe violators of Chapter 2.4, and the courts are allowed to take all relevant facts into consideration. In other words, while it is hypothetically possible someone could be thrown in jail merely for refusing to call a senior under their care by their preferred name and pronouns based on Chapter 2.4 it is very bloody unlikely. I doubt such a judgment would survive an appeal without a pretty good rationale. More likely the matter would be handled internally at the facility with a far less dramatic form of disciplinary action, probably a verbal warning at first. I'd expect termination before incarceration.

And I also have to disagree with you, here. American court does not search for truth. It serves the party throwing the most money into the pot. So while, on paper, it may be told to consider the above, in reality every single one of those stipulations are so generalized that they can be spun any number of ways by an attorney with a good enough silver tongue.

• "John's refusal to refer to poor Sam's pronouns led Sam to many suicidal thoughts, on which he has personally confided to me as, on few occasions, having been very close to realizing."

• "As you can see, the mental trauma that this patient has suffered on the account of John has caused a certain amount of decline to Sam's overall well-being."

Etc.

Otherwise great post.
48174 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 8/19/17 , edited 8/19/17
It's just one more conduct law for people working in long term care facilities There are tons of legal regulations in that industry, and for good reasons. Many nursing homes were little more than Victorian asylums before legislation in the late 80's. People are really crying over just mandating gender terms in a business practically none of them work in. Here's a kleenex, bro-flake.
1165 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Lights & Sounds
Offline
Posted 8/19/17 , edited 8/19/17

saksiss wrote:

..aaaaand cross Cali off my to go list. There are only 2 genders, period. Not gonna admit otherwise in order to go there.


Not the popular opion but I agree here.

If someone wants to be a woman, go for it.
If you someone wants be a man, go for it.

Non-binary gender ugh.
47839 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / F / SC
Offline
Posted 8/19/17 , edited 8/19/17

PumaConcolor wrote:


exiledcourtney999 wrote:

Am I the only transgender person that doesn't support this kind of stuff? I mean it 100% seems to drastic. Why even consider something like this?

I mean really going to jail for the not using the right pronouns. I mean I can admit I don't like it, I won't get mad or anything. Personally & truthfully I would be completely embarrassed, You would literally see my face become red but that's just me lol, but to throw someone in jail for it is a bit to far in all honesty.


It's not just messing up, it's doing it repeatedly and on purpose. Not on the level of 'honest mistake', but on a 'I'm disrespecting who you are as a person out of my own will with full knowledge I'm doing it'. I'm often misgendered and I don't get mad for it, but there's a clear difference between someone not knowing any better/making an honest mistake/still adapting to change and someone doing it out of malice. The law would take care of the later.


people say things out of malice all the time. we've all done it. so let's all go to jail! /

see ya'll on the other side of the bars
49975 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / F / New Jersey, USA
Offline
Posted 8/19/17 , edited 8/19/17
People man, just fucking people.
Posted 8/19/17 , edited 8/19/17
Oh great another transphobic post
Also THERE ARE MORE THAN TWO SEXES
xxy
Xxyy
Posted 8/19/17 , edited 8/19/17

ironh19 wrote:

lol who is the pansy loser that reported the original post? there are only 2 genders, what you make up in your little mind is irrelevant. I wonder if this is what Rome was dealing with right before it fell.


I'm non binary and I think they were dealing with Germans
2090 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 8/19/17 , edited 8/19/17
This title is Wrong.

It basically adds intentional misgendering and various other forms of willful transphobia to the forms of discrimination that had already been outlined in earlier bills, with regards to healthcare for the elderly.

It also doesn't allow for jail-time, only sanctions.

FAKE NEWS! SAD!
157 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
38 / M
Offline
Posted 8/19/17 , edited 8/19/17

Kefkapwnsall wrote:

Oh great another transphobic post
Also THERE ARE MORE THAN TWO SEXES
xxy
Xxyy


Boys have penises and girls have vaginas. If there are more than two genders, then what genitalia are associated with these other genders? I'll wait.
Posted 8/19/17 , edited 8/19/17

czmead wrote:


Kefkapwnsall wrote:

Oh great another transphobic post
Also THERE ARE MORE THAN TWO SEXES
xxy
Xxyy


Boys have penises and girls have vaginas. If there are more than two genders, then what genitalia are associated with these other genders? I'll wait.

Does it matter also I'm a girl who kept her penis
And because we insist on only 2 genders this happens
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.