"Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
"Eschew flamebait."
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and sticking to the rules, we'd be grateful.
You see male/female as being genetic therefore effectively unalterable, therefore the label of male/female cannot be changed.
I am comfortable with the idea that if a person wishes to be seen in a particular way that I do so. Actual example: a couple I know were F/F when I first met them. Now one prefers to use a male name and be referred to as 'he'. Took a bit of adjusting to, ok.
Now genetically one thing, but socially speaking another, isn't it just polite to make them feel comfortable? Would you call them 'her' to their face, knowing how it could upset them?
>Would you call them 'her' to their face, knowing how it could upset them?
Maybe, maybe not. What I don't want to do however is keep track of everyones imaginary genders, and face legal repercussions for "misgendering" them.
Here's an interesting search to look through: https://duck.com/?q=illegal+misgendering
If they are transitioning they're very forgiving of genuine mistakes.
Your links don't support your position - did you read them yourself?
"Good News: Law Penalizing “Misgendering” with Hefty Fine and/or Jail Time being Legally Challenged" (california)
"Misgendering is not a crime and not a hate-crime, no. However, it can be a hate-crime if done in combination with another criminal offence, which suggests that the offender is motivated by a hatred for transgender people." (UK)
"California health care workers who “willfully and repeatedly” decline to use a senior transgender patient's “preferred name or pronouns” could face punishments ranging from a fine to jail time under a newly signed law." (california)
so as you see it's mostly about intent.
I don't think you actually know any TG people.
My position is that it's stupid, and I was illustrating that there are forces that want to make it illegal. And they have succeeded in some places. The Canadian Bill C16 is one example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Act_to_amend_the_Canadian_H...
>I don't think you actually know any TG people.
And I think you have no basis for making that assumption. You are wrong.
Yep, in the context of a hate crime. Not standalone. Seems reasonable.
I don't think you read the link you posted. To quote from it
" Speaking for the [Canadian Bar Association], the President, [...] made explicit the protections for transgender people which were already contained in the prohibition on discrimination based on sexual orientation; and did not pose any risk to freedom of expression"
So it's about discrimination, and freedom of expression is not affected. Further
"Peterson argued that the law would classify the failure to use preferred pronouns of transgender people as hate speech. 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 hate speech"
So getting him/her wrong is not hate speech, so... problem?
What I'm getting from you is anger+fear, and what I'm not getting is why treating TGs decently bother you so much.
He posted honestly, I posted honestly in response factually and no shouting. So I don't get it.
You just did it again, predictably starting a flamewar. Not cool.