Jail, fines. For using improper pronouns.

[Shadow Wolf]

Provided the judicial branch doesn't play a role as the legislative branch and attempts to rewrite the Constitution and laws of the country.

Here's something for you to consider:
California is the only state that has banned using "transpanic" as a defense for murdering someone who is transgender. Every other state, 49 of the 50, you can plea that is your defense in front of a judge.

 

[icehorse]

I bolded an increased the font size of the part I want to discuss here.

1439.51.
(a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), it shall be unlawful for a long-term care facility or facility staff to take any of the following actions wholly or partially on the basis of a person’s actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) status:
...
(5) Willfully and repeatedly fail to use a resident’s preferred name or pronouns after being clearly informed of the preferred name or pronouns.
...
(8) Deny or restrict medical or nonmedical care that is appropriate to a resident’s organs and bodily needs, or provide medical or nonmedical care in a manner that, to a similarly situated reasonable person, unduly demeans the resident’s dignity or causes avoidable discomfort.

And then from @Shadow Wolf

We went over this in Icehorse's thread. People are so concerned about this, but it doesn't happen. Until there is verifiable proof this is going on (especially in the face of those never punished who were so sure they would be punished), it should be taken as nothing more than anti-trans rhetoric.

@Shadow Wolf - You seem to have a misapprehension about the law. For the most part laws are written very intentionally. If lawyers took the time to add a provision, they did it for a reason. The same applies to contracts. If anyone ever tells you to sign something and that you can ignore a certain paragraph, DO NOT believe them. Every provision, every paragraph, is there for a reason!

It matters not that no one has YET to enforce a particular provision in a particular law. That historical lack of enforcement is no protection. That provision can be enforced at any time.

The "it doesn't happen" argument carries no water whatsoever.

 

[Willamena]

A similar bill came up in Canada recently, and the general response on RF was "nothing to worry about". But I think that fundamental rights like free speech get removed in tiny, incremental steps like this one. I think we need to call out even these little incursions, and stop them in their tracks.

Free speech gets removed when someone fails to refer to a "he" as he?

 

[Mister Silver]

This reminds me of a time in my youth when I worked in a supermarket and we were required to wear white coats in the seafood area.

I had long hair, and I had it tied up in a ponytail that exited the hole in the back of a baseball cap.

I was standing with my back to the counter, working on something, and a guy behind me said, "Excuse me, Ma'am".

He was certainly surprised to find that when I turned around I was not a woman at all.

But hey, you know, mistakes happen.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It matters not that no one has YET to enforce a particular provision in a particular law. That historical lack of enforcement is no protection. That provision can be enforced at any time.

Do you honestly have a problem with care facilities not being able to call women men and men women? That's what you bolded. And not that if you do it there will be consequences, but repeatedly and willfully using improper nouns. It also includes HIV status, but people aren't talking about that one (though, really, that was needed 30 years ago).

The "it doesn't happen" argument carries no water whatsoever.

It matters when you're trying to say this is what the law will do, and people have tried to test it, to no avail.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

He was certainly surprised to find that when I turned around I was not a woman at all.

But hey, you know, mistakes happen.

Clearly, he should have been allowed to have been a raging ******* and continually and incessantly refer to you as a woman.

 

[Willamena]

Clearly, he should have been allowed to have been a raging ******* and continually and incessantly refer to you as a woman.

That misses the point.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That misses the point.

It seems to be the point of this thread.

 

[icehorse]

Do you honestly have a problem with care facilities not being able to call women men and men women? That's what you bolded. And not that if you do it there will be consequences, but repeatedly and willfully using improper nouns.

I have a problem with compelled speech.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I have a problem with compelled speech.

They are long-term care facility employees. When you take a job, it's a given certain things you must curtail. Speech is one of the most common. You can't work with customers and expect to keep your job if you call them **** wits. Is that compelled speech as well?

 

[Mister Silver]

They are long-term care facility employees. When you take a job, it's a given certain things you must curtail. Speech is one of the most common. You can't work with customers and expect to keep your job if you call them **** wits. Is that compelled speech as well?

For someone who might have Aspergers, I find it quite easy to tell customers that they're being stupid.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

For someone who might have Aspergers, I find it quite easy to tell customers that they're being stupid.

It would be very easy for me. But you can't do that and expect to keep your job. The point being, anyways, that when you take a job you are expected to follow certain rules. This especially follows for health-care related fields. It's probably illegal for a health care professional to shirk real medicine and tell their patients to go seek out a snake oil salesman who distributes religion-approved miracle cure all oils. Should this person be allowed to do that, even though they are neglecting their obligations and duties to the patient?

 

[icehorse]

They are long-term care facility employees. When you take a job, it's a given certain things you must curtail. Speech is one of the most common. You can't work with customers and expect to keep your job if you call them **** wits. Is that compelled speech as well?

An employee policy is distinct from a law.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

An employee policy is distinct from a law.

When it comes to medical care (including mental health) there is a great deal of overlap (HIPAA laws, for example). And then where there is not a law, there are professional ethical standards that must be upheld (such as prohibitions against clinician and client getting to be anything more than that, for no less that two years after services are no longer provided - you can be fired and lose your license to practice over this, and this isn't an issue of employer policy).