Compelled Speech VS Respecting Trans-person's pronouns

[Icelandic]

So, I figured that this would be of interest for a few of you: https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/teacher-fired-refusing-use-transgender-students-preferred-pronouns-153607960.html

In short, a (apparently well-liked teacher judging by the fact that he got a student walkout in his name) teacher was fired for refusing to use a transgender person's preferred pronouns, citing his Christian faith. Now I assume that the high school he was fired from was a public school, and that alone made me wonder a couple of things.



1: Would the PROC-goers here consider this compelled speech? If not, why?

2: If yes, which right would you figure is more important, and why? The right to not be compelled to say something? Or the right to have your gender identity respected?



I'm just posting this to see what the PROC-goers here think about this topic, and those questions. Although I'm sure this will turn into a debate in no time, and I can definitely share my own views if I find myself disagreeing enough or if someone asks. ;)

[Kinghex]

1. Yes, this is compelled speech. Compelled speech is compelling someone to engage in speech against their will. This describes contradictions of opinion or coercions from silence. The school was using the teacher's employment as the coercion. Succinctly, 'say it, or you're fired'. However, this is legal. Pronouns are a category of low-value speech. Similar to how product information disclosure can be coerced because it's not a pact, overture, or binding agreement, pronouns can be coerced. While this is classified as compelled speech, it's also an example of a legal form.

2. The right not to be compelled is far more important. To make this clear, I'm comfortable with the freedoms of compulsion set forth. If law was modified to allow high value compulsions, consequences could be quite dire. People could be fired and hired for refusals to enter extraneous and unrelated work agreements. When I refer to valuing the right to not be compelled first, I refer to a disagreement and distrust for the government introducing more laws supporting compulsions. For instance, depriving private institutions from the choice of whether to require customer or student pronoun respect in their work contracts, rules, or regulations. This creates several new legal complications. To enforce this empirically, the law would need to define a transgender person by proof. Meaning, the likelyhood for any pre-transition, questioning, or even poorly passing person to reach a legal settlement would be low. Non-binary people would likely be excluded altogether. The byproduct of the complications and unavailability to pursue cases on clear grounds will inevitably result in a lot of wasted work, time, and money over increased social malice toward transgender people and little legal gains.

(Some universities have attempted passing out pronoun contracts- shout-out to the guy that picked 'his majesty'. There's absolutely shortfalls with that method of enforcement too.)

I think advocating pronoun respect as a matter of courtesy is a more pervasive and effective manner of garnering support than legal grounds; contrasting it against freedom of religion or freedom of speech would be far more likely to inspire opposition than support. By contrast, a respectful discussion can at least resolve some disagreements.

[Deamonbane]

[Icelandic]

How so?

[Deamonbane]

Because you're using an inflammatory news story to prove a point. Oversimplifying the options for debate and guiding the topic of debate (point 2) away from any discussion that would disprove the point that you want to make. It's well done, but still bait.

The point being, as was proved by the NFL over the kneeling during the national anthem and the Cowboys owner threatening to fire any player or member of staff of the team who did so, private companies including schools that are run by boards, have the right to fire people over expressing viewpoints that the owner or directors feel do not properly represent their company. Is it legal? Yes. Is it moral and adhering to the spirit of the law? I don't think so.

So, is the conversation about controlled speech, or is it about respecting trans persons pronouns?

[Skynet]

Schools in the United States have long had more restrictions on freedom of speech as the consequence of having a conductive environment to teaching. There's compelled speech for teachers and students to show respect to each other. And barring genuine ignorance (not knowing a trans person's identity or coming from a culture or environment where LGBT people are invisible) intentionally using the wrong pronouns is an act of disrespect.

It is basically saying that a transgender person's own thoughts, own feelings, own lived experiences and even the predominant knowledge of the medical community takes a back-seat to the social norms of "have penis = dude, have vagina = girl."

Every society has some form of compelled speech. It can be used for oppression and evil, such as sending doxxing and sending bomb threats to people, or jailing protestors and dissidents who point out government corruption. But it can also be used to reduce suffering and enforce consequences for negative behavior. The man who screeched "Heil Hitler" at a Fiddler On the Roof play is most definitely going to lose his job and had lots of people in the theater condemn and film him. But in light of a spate of anti-Semitic hate crimes (and the historical specter of said anti-Semitism) this is a good form of compelled speech by showing the world that such acts are still intolerable to many people.

[Icelandic]

Because you're using an inflammatory news story to prove a point. Oversimplifying the options for debate and guiding the topic of debate (point 2) away from any discussion that would disprove the point that you want to make. It's well done, but still bait.

I'm actually not going to address your argument directly relating to the topic at hand because personally accusing me of trolling is a lot more serious for me. The news story makes a very good case about an issue with seemingly no way to please everyone as far as rights go, and my questions were very open-ended, as to allow people to express their views in an equally open-ended matter. I'm sorry the question was not asked in a way that you liked.

Ultimately, you have no idea what side of the fence I lean on in terms of this case, and I have not indicated anything close to my own views. And I'm also not going to tolerate baseless accusations like yours.

So, is the conversation about controlled speech, or is it about respecting trans persons pronouns?

It's about both.

[Deamonbane]

I never accused you of trolling. I'm accusing you of baiting a debate towards a certain point of view. The way that you laid your opening post out insinuated that if you're for respecting trans persons' pronouns, you are for controlled speech, and then guiding the conversation past that errant point.

But hey, if you don't want to address my argument directly, that's on you.

[Skynet]

I'm actually not going to address your argument directly relating to the topic at hand because personally accusing me of trolling is a lot more serious for me. The news story makes a very good case about an issue with seemingly no way to please everyone as far as rights go, and my questions were very open-ended, as to allow people to express their views in an equally open-ended matter. I'm sorry the question was not asked in a way that you liked.

There are still privately-funded religious schools in the United States which discriminate against LGBT students, as well as students who get pregnant out of wedlock or are not of the appropriate religion. The teacher citing his Christian faith is more than welcome to work at a teaching environment to his liking.

And no, you cannot please everyone; but the people who cite Scripture to discriminate are using a very selective interpretation of the Bible to keep an artificial status quo that does far more harm than good. It's still a field with lots of research, but the fact that transgender people do not choose their gender identity posits the possibility that if the Abrahamic god exists, then He intentionally created transgender people to be so. Meaning that the Christian thing to do is to show respect and do that which will reduce needless suffering. And at the end of the day, calling a trans girl "she" is no skin off the average Christian's back. Certainly not as great a sacrifice as giving up one's wealth so that you can get into Heaven, or refusing to murder even in self-defense or defense of one's family.

[Iniquitous]

You know what?  It's called respect.  Agree with it or disagree with it, it is a matter of respect.  There is nothing in the bible that says it is wrong to call a person by the pronoun they identify as.  Matter of fact, there is nothing in the bible that says it is wrong to be something other than what you were assigned at birth.

Is it controlled speech? It falls under the guidelines of how an adult educator treats a minor student.  It is part of the 'rules', if you will, for being hired by the employer.  Every single job in this world has conditions to continued employment and every condition to continued employment has a consequence if the employee fails to meet the provided expectation.

The school was right to fire him.  All employers are right to set the expectations they desire of their employees.   

The only one wrong in this story is the asshat who couldn't respect someone.

[Vaer]

If the government puts law in what you can and cannot say to a person (the exception always be direct threats and lying about a dire situation), that's compelled speech. Nothing complex about the jurisdiction.

What people will do to each other, in terms of opressing others, of childishly hitting and berating those you disagree with, if you riot against corruption, or you fight the working man for your ideology, the thing we do understand is to be civil. Pronouns can be an act of respect, it can be an act of submission against tyrannical ideologues. That's IS a complicated matter, should be handled per situation and person demanding/requesting the pronoun.


But to ever think you can control others with what they say is tyranny and a lust for power, the other side of the coin of oppression that must be confronted now. Nothing to justify there.

[Icelandic]

There are still privately-funded religious schools in the United States which discriminate against LGBT students, as well as students who get pregnant out of wedlock or are not of the appropriate religion. The teacher citing his Christian faith is more than welcome to work at a teaching environment to his liking.

And no, you cannot please everyone; but the people who cite Scripture to discriminate are using a very selective interpretation of the Bible to keep an artificial status quo that does far more harm than good. It's still a field with lots of research, but the fact that transgender people do not choose their gender identity posits the possibility that if the Abrahamic god exists, then He intentionally created transgender people to be so. Meaning that the Christian thing to do is to show respect and do that which will reduce needless suffering. And at the end of the day, calling a trans girl "she" is no skin off the average Christian's back. Certainly not as great a sacrifice as giving up one's wealth so that you can get into Heaven, or refusing to murder even in self-defense or defense of one's family.

I think the issue is (for me), what is acceptable in a public school. If the person worked at a private school and was fired for misgendering a student, then I would not really have any sort of issue with it. I'm not even saying that I explicitly have a problem with him being fired, but the overall 'compelled speech for respect' is kinda concerning to me.

Schools in the United States have long had more restrictions on freedom of speech as the consequence of having a conductive environment to teaching. There's compelled speech for teachers and students to show respect to each other. And barring genuine ignorance (not knowing a trans person's identity or coming from a culture or environment where LGBT people are invisible) intentionally using the wrong pronouns is an act of disrespect.

It is basically saying that a transgender person's own thoughts, own feelings, own lived experiences and even the predominant knowledge of the medical community takes a back-seat to the social norms of "have penis = dude, have vagina = girl."

Every society has some form of compelled speech. It can be used for oppression and evil, such as sending doxxing and sending bomb threats to people, or jailing protestors and dissidents who point out government corruption. But it can also be used to reduce suffering and enforce consequences for negative behavior. The man who screeched "Heil Hitler" at a Fiddler On the Roof play is most definitely going to lose his job and had lots of people in the theater condemn and film him. But in light of a spate of anti-Semitic hate crimes (and the historical specter of said anti-Semitism) this is a good form of compelled speech by showing the world that such acts are still intolerable to many people.

I agree, even here in the US we don't have absolute free speech. Although I think just because something is, does not mean that it ought to be accepted that way, although my views on that will vary heavily depending on the topic.

But for cases like this, where one's rights are going to be violated no matter what, I would use my own 'Is/Ought' fallacy and point out that an individual's right to their "thoughts, own feelings, own lived experiences and even the predominant knowledge of the medical community" is not really existent in the US. Racist language is very much legal aside from when it causes a public disturbance, and college courses exist today that are profoundly racist and sexist. So when these examples exist, I wonder why these sorts of norms are allowed to carry on except in the case of Trans-people. Unless you are arguing for general 'hate speech' laws, which is another can of worms entirely.

And for the record, I have been more then willing to respect trans-people's preferred pronouns when asked. I just dislike the compelled aspect some seem to be pushing for.

[Icelandic]

I never accused you of trolling. I'm accusing you of baiting a debate towards a certain point of view. The way that you laid your opening post out insinuated that if you're for respecting trans persons' pronouns, you are for controlled speech, and then guiding the conversation past that errant point.

But hey, if you don't want to address my argument directly, that's on you.

Yea, you are accusing me of acting in bad-faith and trying to 'bait' the conversation to a certain outcome. None of that is true and there is no reason to think that is true.

The topic was about the possibility of using compelled speech for respecting trans-person's pronouns. I was very clear what the topic was about.

[Deamonbane]

Yes, that is exactly what I'm accusing you of. Very different from trolling, though. As someone who has done his fair share of trolling, I can tell you that much. And either you are ignorant about the term and just heard is used, or you are trying to twist my words. Which, again, bad-faith.

And reading the opening post shows that there's every reason to think that it's true. The topic asks 'Do you think what happened was compelled speech? if not, why not? No.2, if you think it is, then do you consider your freedom of speech more important than people respecting your gender?'

I stand by it. That was baiting the conversation to a T. And coming from someone who's done that a lot too (more than once on this very topic) I like to think that I know what I'm talking about.

[Icelandic]

Yes, that is exactly what I'm accusing you of. Very different from trolling, though. As someone who has done his fair share of trolling, I can tell you that much. And either you are ignorant about the term and just heard is used, or you are trying to twist my words. Which, again, bad-faith.

And reading the opening post shows that there's every reason to think that it's true. The topic asks 'Do you think what happened was compelled speech? if not, why not? No.2, if you think it is, then do you consider your freedom of speech more important than people respecting your gender?'

I stand by it. That was baiting the conversation to a T. And coming from someone who's done that a lot too (more than once on this very topic) I like to think that I know what I'm talking about.

Ultimately it just sounds like you are accusing me of baiting because I did not ask the question 'correctly'.

But no, you are wrong and I'm not interested in keeping this up with you. Do not respond to me again please.

[Deamonbane]

That's exactly what baiting is. Asking the question in a very specific way so as to guide the topic of conversation in a manner that befits you. So yes, you are right about that, but again, oversimplifying, because the whole of the point would not support you.

But yes, let's move past how you asked your question, and how I answered it, then?

The point being, as was proved by the NFL over the kneeling during the national anthem and the Cowboys owner threatening to fire any player or member of staff of the team who did so, private companies including schools that are run by boards, have the right to fire people over expressing viewpoints that the owner or directors feel do not properly represent their company. Is it legal? Yes. Is it moral and adhering to the spirit of the law? I don't think so.

[Icelandic]

That's exactly what baiting is. Asking the question in a very specific way so as to guide the topic of conversation in a manner that befits you. So yes, you are right about that, but again, oversimplifying, because the whole of the point would not support you.

But yes, let's move past how you asked your question, and how I answered it, then?

No. As I said. Don't talk to me at all. I have added my thoughts about the topic at hand elsewhere in this thread. Read that if you are interested in hearing my thoughts.

Don't message me again.

[Skynet]

I think the issue is (for me), what is acceptable in a public school. If the person worked at a private school and was fired for misgendering a student, then I would not really have any sort of issue with it. I'm not even saying that I explicitly have a problem with him being fired, but the overall 'compelled speech for respect' is kinda concerning to me.




I agree, even here in the US we don't have absolute free speech. Although I think just because something is, does not mean that it ought to be accepted that way, although my views on that will vary heavily depending on the topic.

But for cases like this, where one's rights are going to be violated no matter what, I would use my own 'Is/Ought' fallacy and point out that an individual's right to their "thoughts, own feelings, own lived experiences and even the predominant knowledge of the medical community" is not really existent in the US. Racist language is very much legal aside from when it causes a public disturbance, and college courses exist today that are profoundly racist and sexist. So when these examples exist, I wonder why these sorts of norms are allowed to carry on except in the case of Trans-people. Unless you are arguing for general 'hate speech' laws, which is another can of worms entirely.

And for the record, I have been more then willing to respect trans-people's preferred pronouns when asked. I just dislike the compelled aspect some seem to be pushing for.

IANAL but many laws, federal and otherwise, use experts in various fields for consultation on legislation. Not always, but it does happen. The medical community's conclusions can and have played a role in laws, including those relating to LGBT people. I cannot name specifics, but US law does have precedent in this case.

Transgender people don't really have some unique privilege in this matter over other disenfranchised groups in the USA. The last...half-decade I think...has had transgender people gain much more publicity relatively speaking due to online communities and changing cultural norms which gives the impression that they're more far-reaching and prominent in liberal and leftist spaces than they are. If this were the 1920s the issue of the day would be Native American tribes getting universal US citizenship and how Indian issues are popping up everywhere! Hell, our VP Charles Curtis is an Osage tribesman!

Another thing is that there are still racist/sexist/etc speech in colleges and elsewhere against other groups. Israel-Palestinian issues are a hot topic on campuses, and some Jewish students in general have been targeted with coded anti-Semitism regardless of their actual views on settlements in the Palestinian Territories.

And even if there was some case of transgender people getting say, some special exemption, it doesn't necessarily make the case for intentionally misgendering them.

[Deamonbane]

I'm not messaging you. I'm posting and debating in an open debating forum.

Until then, if you don't want people contesting your dishonest debating style, I'd suggest that you stop debating in a dishonest fashion.

[Icelandic]

I'm not necessarily saying that trans-people get any sort of special privileges in this case (although I do consider respect to not be a right), I guess I was asking if you think that compelled speech for respect should be applied in cases that don't involve trans-people. Like in cases of racism or sexism.

[Icelandic]

I'm not messaging you. I'm posting and debating in an open debating forum.

Until then, if you don't want people contesting your dishonest debating style, I'd suggest that you stop debating in a dishonest fashion.

Reported. Twice actually.

One for violating rule 2 and for brushing very closely against rule 1.

Don't talk to me, and from here on out, I'm not responding to you.

[Skynet]

I'm not necessarily saying that trans-people get any sort of special privileges in this case (although I do consider respect to not be a right), I guess I was asking if you think that compelled speech for respect should be applied in cases that don't involve trans-people. Like in cases of racism or sexism.

Yes. And it already does, and not just cases of racism and sexism.

I'll use my own "personal experience" example as I am not transgender, but I am autistic. I'm totally in favor of people telling anti-vaxxers to shut the hell up, as in addition to promoting harmful pseudoscience they would much rather have children be dead than autistic even if they wouldn't admit this part out loud. In addition to just convincing people to put their kids in unnecessary danger, they're promoting the idea that all autistic people are invalids who are a constant burden and will starve to death or kill themselves if left unattended for more than 5 seconds. This is not solely their fault (pop culture is also to blame) but they ignore the success stories of austistic people like Bill Gates and Pokemon's creator such as Satoshi Tajiri, as well as all the millions of other autistic people who managed to make good and fruitful lives for themselves in spite of their condition.

Anti-vaxxers view me as a burden, somebody who should not have been born. If I were their kid they would have been more than happy to indirectly inflict horrible diseases on me. If you do not have a weak stomach, google audio videos of children with whooping cough. This is the world they want to return to.

Why should respect for their speech in public conversation be extended to them when they cannot extend the same to my own existence?

[Skynet]

PS let's tie it back in to the classroom. Children of anti-vaxxers are having their children barred from school as health risks to other kids. Anti-vaxxers, much like right-wing Christians, would argue that this is in violation of their beliefs and ideology. They may have a point of discrimination, but it is a measure of health and safety risk and overall harmony of the classroom.

Now misgendering transgender students and teachers may not be an immediate physical risk, tranpshobic and other forms of bigotry in a consistent, systemic environment can and do have provable risks to the afflicted's state of well-being. Transgender people have depressingly high suicide rates, and while some of this is from personal dysphoria a lot of it is from society's rejection of them.

[Blythe]

I'll weigh in with my two cents. I'm a transman. Probably relevant to my opinion here.

The school had a policy about this. The teacher knew that policy. Almost all workplaces have some sort of social code or policy that employees are expected to follow. If they can't, it's not the right job for them.

Vlaming was given multiple chances. He failed in those chances. This isn't some 'oh but he was fired suddenly with no notice' situation. This was him willfully violating a policy he knew about multiple times. Vlaming was wrong. He got fired. I support his termination.

This isn't really the controversy people think it is. If it wasn't trans pronouns but was some other form of violation of their code, Vlaming would be in the same situation. He just wouldn't be able to pretend he's some sort of martyr for his faith (which he isn't. There's nothing in his holy book that remotely talks about pronouns or addresses trans people).

Vlaming has the capability to appeal the decision or even file a lawsuit.

To be frank, I doubt this is going to affect his ability to find employment elsewhere. There's plenty of educators that believe as he does, and a lot of private Christian schools would probably be happy to hire him. If he wants a job that aligns with his chosen faith, I think he should consider jobs that specifically are in alignment with it.

Compelled speech is nothing new. People seem to be acting like it is just because the subject is trans pronouns. But a large majority of companies have always been able to terminate someone for speaking in a way that is not in line with policy or company image. Any adult in the real world knows this. In this case, the 'company' is a school, and I really don't see the big deal.

If Vlaming weren't Christian, I highly doubt there would even have been an article written about this.

I'm unlikely to post my opinion here again, mostly as I'm a bit sensitive to pronoun-related topics as of late, but I wanted to comment at least once.

[Icelandic]

Now misgendering transgender students and teachers may not be an immediate physical risk, tranpshobic and other forms of bigotry in a consistent, systemic environment can and do have provable risks to the afflicted's state of well-being. Transgender people have depressingly high suicide rates, and while some of this is from personal dysphoria a lot of it is from society's rejection of them.

I just don't know if we want to be legislating laws based around respect out of fear that not being compelled to show respect will then cause physical harm... All things considered, I imagine compelled speech laws like this might even cause people to grow more hateful, not less.

[Kinghex]

There's some unfair presumptions made that I'd like to briefly resolve for the sake of aiding continuations. Anti-vaxxers are against autism spreading, they're not against people with autism. Similarly, people taking vaccinations against the flu are against having the flu, not against people with the flu. It's this distinction, or fair possibility considering the alternative could exist but it's not as likely, that facilitates the existence of this argument. If there is a harmless alternative, and there's reasonable evidence this alternative context is prevalent, it's a bad basis for censorship.

Within the segment on suicide rates: rejection and misgendering are two different concepts. They may overlap. However, there's instances where fair error is not a product of malice. Without knowing about gender theory, it's assumed someone could misgender another on the honest premise that they believe it to be an absurd or false claim. Again, it's an instance where a non-harmful context is present.

So, the illuminated problem here is assuming the severity is inherently live or die, wound or no wound. It's not. I think it should be possible to argue the issue without targeting that extreme, especially because media and public acceptance is overall rising.

It may be more productive to adhere more closely to whether further legal adoption of this issue should be taken, and the grounds that it's rightful to do so. There's a subordinate argument over whether freedom of religion contradicts or supercedes other free speech rights; that should probably be labeled and discussed in that frame to make it clear it's not overlapping with the general coercion theme. (Topics like this are difficult to keep orderly, there's a lot to touch on.)

Carry on.

[Skynet]

I just don't know if we want to be legislating laws based around respect out of fear that not being compelled to show respect will then cause physical harm... All things considered, I imagine compelled speech laws like this might even cause people to grow more hateful, not less.

We already have laws which are based around preemptively preventing harm. Disturbing the peace follows a similar line of logic.


Now in regards to legislation in regards to pronouns, a lot of the fear comes from Jordan Peterson's public freakout over a Canadian Human Rights Bill. That was a myth propagated by conservative groups. You can tell it's a myth because no Canadian citizen has yet to serve jail time for using the wrong pronoun. The bill to my knowledge is specifically in regards to healthcare and housing providers prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity or expression.

Here's a news article about it, and how legal experts disagree with him on it:

Dr Peterson is concerned proposed federal human rights legislation "will elevate into hate speech" his refusal to use alternative pronouns.

Legal experts disagree.

Bill C-16, currently before Canada's parliament, prohibits discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act on the basis of gender identity and expression. The bill covers the federal government and federally regulated industries like banks or airlines. It also extends hate speech provisions under Canada's criminal code to transgendered people.

"I don't think any legal expert would say using an inappropriate pronoun, while not something that respects the human rights of trans people, would ever result in a criminal conviction," said Kyle Kirkup, a law professor with the University of Ottawa who specialises in gender identity and sexuality law.

But Dr Peterson could face sanction under Ontario's human rights code, which extended protection to trans people in 2012.

Penalties range from fines and damages to mandatory anti-discrimination training.

So the worst are fines and anti-discrimination training, which is not at all uncommon for professors, employers, and others with a state of power over those who they provide service.

As for making people more hateful, hate and bigotry will always be around in some form. Rather, civil rights legislation made racism and other "isms" go underground due to the changing cultural climate. They resorted to code words, private online groups, etc. But they were still there, and where a powerful political bloc:

Legal and human rights are there to mitigate their worst excesses. The United States is perhaps one of the most Free Speech countries on the planet, but we have a large amount of hate groups.

[Skynet]

There's some unfair presumptions made that I'd like to briefly resolve for the sake of aiding continuations. Anti-vaxxers are against autism spreading, they're not against people with autism. Similarly, people taking vaccinations against the flu are against having the flu, not against people with the flu. It's this distinction, or fair possibility considering the alternative could exist but it's not as likely, that facilitates the existence of this argument. If there is a harmless alternative, and there's reasonable evidence this alternative context is prevalent, it's a bad basis for censorship.

When you're disagreeing with 99% of the scientific community, cherrypick evidence, and only ever talk and acknowledge a tiny sliver of autism horror stories, you're on some level either malicious or deep in denial. And many anti-vaxxers when presented with evidence of how they'll be responsible for disease outbreaks, they shrug their shoulders and don't care. "I don't care about other kids, just my kids." But they don't even care about the latter.

Within the segment on suicide rates: rejection and misgendering are two different concepts. They may overlap. However, there's instances where fair error is not a product of malice. Without knowing about gender theory, it's assumed someone could misgender another on the honest premise that they believe it to be an absurd or false claim. Again, it's an instance where a non-harmful context is present.

A "fair error" is not what is being discussed, either in the article or by Icelandic. It's about whether there should be social (as well as legal) consequences for being intentionally disrespectful.

[Kinghex]

When you're disagreeing with 99% of the scientific community, cherrypick evidence, and only ever talk and acknowledge a tiny sliver of autism horror stories, you're on some level either malicious or deep in denial. And many anti-vaxxers when presented with evidence of how they'll be responsible for disease outbreaks, they shrug their shoulders and don't care. "I don't care about other kids, just my kids." But they don't even care about the latter.

A "fair error" is not what is being discussed, either in the article or by Icelandic. It's about whether there should be social (as well as legal) consequences for being intentionally disrespectful.

'Or in deep denial' is the principle I'm illuminating. People don't learn consistently. There's a resurgence of flat earthers too. Neither are credible, that's beyond debate. Whether they're malicious by intention in consistent enough a manner to be barred from podium is debated. My position is they're not. They're stupid, but it's a form of stupidity best voiced. (Especially because the ability to disagree with them and engage with their positions, rather than conduct amongst themselves silently, is a worse alternative. This public shame against them came about in contention, and while they are significant enough a population to note, they're also known for being mocked and shamed for the aforementioned stats.) It's not concrete, consistent, or credible enough a malicious form of stupidity to legislate against without unintended losses. But I support social shaming.

On the later note, I disagree. Once it hits a legislative body, there is a chance that utterance despite context will be penalized. Whether context or intent influence legal coercion is absolutely relevant once a penalty for a phrase or word being spoken is applied. The case linked was deliberate and intentional, so in that instance, no debate about use.

My point for bringing that up related to the broader discussion. It's possible and likely intent would contribute to legal reasoning on this matter for a broader sum of cases, and that some would involve mistaken or ignorant examples.

I've already posted by position to the central argument earlier, so I'll try not to be redundant, haha. My position is that I support social consequence, support the ability for workplaces to integrate rules that prevent employees from misgendering, but I'm against federal regulation.

I suspect we may agree with the fundamental decisions this discussion brings, and I agree with many supporting arguments.

[Skynet]

My point for bringing that up related to the broader discussion. It's possible and likely intent would contribute to legal reasoning on this matter for a broader sum of cases, and that some would involve mistaken or ignorant examples.

Of course it will. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done, for there are many cases where even reasoned laws are improperly applied. But US law can and does separate intent; it's why there are differences between 1st degree murder (planning over time on how to kill someone) vs. 2nd degree murder (stranger shooting another stranger in a fit of road rage) vs. manslaughter (accidentally causing a car crash which results in death).

As for mistaken and ignorant examples, this would likely be cases of first-time offences, which in the US are treated more leniently than repeat offenders. Courtrooms would (and already do) take those into account.

[Kinghex]

Of course it will. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done, for there are many cases where even reasoned laws are improperly applied. But US law can and does separate intent; it's why there are differences between 1st degree murder (planning over time on how to kill someone) vs. 2nd degree murder (stranger shooting another stranger in a fit of road rage) vs. manslaughter (accidentally causing a car crash which results in death).

As for mistaken and ignorant examples, this would likely be cases of first-time offences, which in the US are treated more leniently than repeat offenders. Courtrooms would (and already do) take those into account.

Yes, exactly! See, this is why I think we're already on the same page for the fundamentals. To summarize what we've mutually agreed on: legal system already seperates intent. Courts already seperate consequences. We're even agreed that the likely consequences of this law would not be significant enough to match the rationalization that it would necessitate jail time.

Prior (my second thread post) , I mistakenly believed the insinuation of your posts was that a majority of misgendering instances contributed to the transgender suicide rate, or that anti-vaxxers are necessarily and consistently a hate group against autistic people. Further, that this was the basis for expanding federal legislation on coercing speech. That was a premise I wanted to clarify. Now, I have a better grasp of your position. While I still disagree with the expansion of legislation, I'm happy to better understand the premises shared.

[Mithlomwen]

Due to the number of reports and issues this thread has caused, it is being locked to avoid anymore of these problems.