If The Thomas Boy

[Beebs52]

You're correct that I omitted the term "brother-in-law's." I've corrected the omission. Apparently you have a narrower view of family than I do. So be it.

The fundamental point remains. You're deliberately elevating your own comfort level with a social choice over another human being's very real pain. That's a choice that can and should have social consequences. --Bob

WTF are you talking about? Who's pain? Social versus scientific? Do you need a snack or something?

Why do you want to nit-pick a perfectly good insane rant?

That's just me. Watching Astros bungle so why not...

[Bob78164]

First, I have no relatives who are transgender so none of my nieces would be pleased with me doing what you think I should do. You should work on your reading comprehension or consider Prevagen.

Two, my choice is to be correct, not cause pain. And being correct, refusing to submit to the absurd is a practical impact.

You're correct that I omitted the term "brother-in-law's." I've corrected the omission. Apparently you have a narrower view of family than I do. So be it.

The fundamental point remains. You're deliberately elevating your own comfort level with a social choice over another human being's very real pain. That's a choice that can and should have social consequences. --Bob

WTF are you talking about? Who's pain? Social versus scientific? Do you need a snack or something?

Deliberately misgendering the transgender, as BiT insists on doing, causes them very real pain. There's a reason they typically refer to their original name as their "deadname."

Did you not know that? --Bob

[Beebs52]

You're correct that I omitted the term "brother-in-law's." I've corrected the omission. Apparently you have a narrower view of family than I do. So be it.

The fundamental point remains. You're deliberately elevating your own comfort level with a social choice over another human being's very real pain. That's a choice that can and should have social consequences. --Bob

WTF are you talking about? Who's pain? Social versus scientific? Do you need a snack or something?

Deliberately misgendering the transgender, as BiT insists on doing, causes them very real pain. There's a reason they typically refer to their original name as their "deadname."

Did you not know that? --Bob

First of all I don't know if he does that to people he interacts with. Second, what evidence do you have for your statement? And, what about those transgendered people who regret what they've done? Do you really think they're upset about that? You are not an expert.

[Bob78164]

WTF are you talking about? Who's pain? Social versus scientific? Do you need a snack or something?

Deliberately misgendering the transgender, as BiT insists on doing, causes them very real pain. There's a reason they typically refer to their original name as their "deadname."

Did you not know that? --Bob

First of all I don't know if he does that to people he interacts with. Second, what evidence do you have for your statement? And, what about those transgendered people who regret what they've done? Do you really think they're upset about that? You are not an expert.

What makes you think there are any transgendered people who regret what they've done? Or more than a tiny handful, compared to the number of people who are happy they've transitioned? And in any event, how would the existence of such people excuse deliberately misgendering people who have no such regrets?

I'm pretty sure BiT has acknowledged deliberately misgendering his brother-in-law's niece. He probably doesn't do so at work (if he has to interact with anyone who's transgender), but only because deliberately misgendering someone is an act of discrimination that could get his employer sued and himself fired. --Bob

[Beebs52]

Deliberately misgendering the transgender, as BiT insists on doing, causes them very real pain. There's a reason they typically refer to their original name as their "deadname."

Did you not know that? --Bob

First of all I don't know if he does that to people he interacts with. Second, what evidence do you have for your statement? And, what about those transgendered people who regret what they've done? Do you really think they're upset about that? You are not an expert.

What makes you think there are any transgendered people who regret what they've done? Or more than a tiny handful, compared to the number of people who are happy they've transitioned? And in any event, how would the existence of such people excuse deliberately misgendering people who have no such regrets?

I'm pretty sure BiT has acknowledged deliberately misgendering his brother-in-law's niece. He probably doesn't do so at work (if he has to interact with anyone who's transgender), but only because deliberately misgendering someone is an act of discrimination that could get his employer sued and himself fired. --Bob

More business for you, eh?

[Bob78164]

First of all I don't know if he does that to people he interacts with. Second, what evidence do you have for your statement? And, what about those transgendered people who regret what they've done? Do you really think they're upset about that? You are not an expert.

What makes you think there are any transgendered people who regret what they've done? Or more than a tiny handful, compared to the number of people who are happy they've transitioned? And in any event, how would the existence of such people excuse deliberately misgendering people who have no such regrets?

I'm pretty sure BiT has acknowledged deliberately misgendering his brother-in-law's niece. He probably doesn't do so at work (if he has to interact with anyone who's transgender), but only because deliberately misgendering someone is an act of discrimination that could get his employer sued and himself fired. --Bob

More business for you, eh?

I don't do much employment law. Our Employment Department usually represents employers, not plaintiffs. I understand they usually recommend that our clients fire such employees to avoid a lawsuit that would be indefensible because it's meritorious. In other words, it's the type of business we try to help our clients avoid giving us. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

First of all I don't know if he does that to people he interacts with. Second, what evidence do you have for your statement? And, what about those transgendered people who regret what they've done? Do you really think they're upset about that? You are not an expert.

What makes you think there are any transgendered people who regret what they've done? Or more than a tiny handful, compared to the number of people who are happy they've transitioned? And in any event, how would the existence of such people excuse deliberately misgendering people who have no such regrets?

I'm pretty sure BiT has acknowledged deliberately misgendering his brother-in-law's niece. He probably doesn't do so at work (if he has to interact with anyone who's transgender), but only because deliberately misgendering someone is an act of discrimination that could get his employer sued and himself fired. --Bob

More business for you, eh?

How the hell did referring to a biological male as 'he' get to be against the law? Can I get a law that says people have to refer to me as 'Your Royal Highness' or I can sue them or get them fired?
I guess it came from other above average lawyers who felt that they've reached a point in their careers where they could make a 'difference'.
I hope that is just in the People's Insane Asylum of California.

[Beebs52]

What makes you think there are any transgendered people who regret what they've done? Or more than a tiny handful, compared to the number of people who are happy they've transitioned? And in any event, how would the existence of such people excuse deliberately misgendering people who have no such regrets?

I'm pretty sure BiT has acknowledged deliberately misgendering his brother-in-law's niece. He probably doesn't do so at work (if he has to interact with anyone who's transgender), but only because deliberately misgendering someone is an act of discrimination that could get his employer sued and himself fired. --Bob

More business for you, eh?

I don't do much employment law. Our Employment Department usually represents employers, not plaintiffs. I understand they usually recommend that our clients fire such employees to avoid a lawsuit that would be indefensible because it's meritorious. In other words, it's the type of business we try to help our clients avoid giving us. --Bob

Bless y'all's heart.

[Bob78164]

What makes you think there are any transgendered people who regret what they've done? Or more than a tiny handful, compared to the number of people who are happy they've transitioned? And in any event, how would the existence of such people excuse deliberately misgendering people who have no such regrets?

I'm pretty sure BiT has acknowledged deliberately misgendering his brother-in-law's niece. He probably doesn't do so at work (if he has to interact with anyone who's transgender), but only because deliberately misgendering someone is an act of discrimination that could get his employer sued and himself fired. --Bob

More business for you, eh?

How the hell did referring to a biological male as 'he' get to be against the law? Can I get a law that says people have to refer to me as 'Your Royal Highness' or I can sue them or get them fired?
I guess it came from other above average lawyers who felt that they've reached a point in their careers where they could make a 'difference'.
I hope that is just in the People's Insane Asylum of California.

Gender discrimination (and that's what this is) is against federal law, so you're SOL. You can thank the recent opinion written by Justice Gorsuch, construing the Fair Employment Act passed about 55 years ago. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

I guess it only applies to English? Do people who speak Spanish, Swahili or Korean get a list of what pronouns they can use and not get sued?

[Bob78164]

I guess it only applies to English? Do people who speak Spanish, Swahili or Korean get a list of what pronouns they can use and not get sued?

If someone is deliberately and repeatedly misgendered in any language, it's actionable. I know that Spanish uses gendered nouns and pronouns. I don't know Swahili or Korean so I don't know whether those languages also use gendered nouns and pronouns to refer to people. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

I guess it only applies to English? Do people who speak Spanish, Swahili or Korean get a list of what pronouns they can use and not get sued?

If someone is deliberately and repeatedly misgendered in any language, it's actionable. I know that Spanish uses gendered nouns and pronouns. I don't know Swahili or Korean so I don't know whether those languages also use gendered nouns and pronouns to refer to people. --Bob

I assume you're referring to Bostock v. Clayton County. Perhaps I'm wrong. To my untrained eye I think the issue there was about firing someone because they were gay or transsexual. Not firing someone else because they used the 'wrong' pronoun. I would tend to think the First Amendment would kind of take precedence.

I am not going to get into a legal argument with you. I think you have come to your conclusion because that is how, in your lawyerly fashion, with all your practise, you would interpret it. Not that that is what the decision actually said. And I have explained my position elsewhere. But if I decide, based on the situation, to refer to someone as 'he' or 'she', I am as free to do that as I am to refer to you as an asshole.

[Bob78164]

I guess it only applies to English? Do people who speak Spanish, Swahili or Korean get a list of what pronouns they can use and not get sued?

If someone is deliberately and repeatedly misgendered in any language, it's actionable. I know that Spanish uses gendered nouns and pronouns. I don't know Swahili or Korean so I don't know whether those languages also use gendered nouns and pronouns to refer to people. --Bob

I assume you're referring to Bostock v. Clayton County. Perhaps I'm wrong. To my untrained eye I think the issue there was about firing someone because they were gay or transsexual. Not firing someone else because they used the 'wrong' pronoun. I would tend to think the First Amendment would kind of take precedence.

I am not going to get into a legal argument with you. I think you have come to your conclusion because that is how, in your lawyerly fashion, with all your practise, you would interpret it. Not that that is what the decision actually said. And I have explained my position elsewhere. But if I decide, based on the situation, to refer to someone as 'he' or 'she', I am as free to do that as I am to refer to you as an asshole.

The decision concluded that federal statutes against gender discrimination apply to transsexual employees and those in same-sex relationships. And creating a hostile environment is well established as an act of discrimination.

But if you don't believe me, feel free to test your theory at your own place of business. Just be prepared to write a large check at the end of the day. --Bob

[tlynn78]

Didn't I read just recently about a teacher who was awarded a significant sum after he was sanctioned for not using a student's preferred pronoun?

[flockofseagulls104]

If someone is deliberately and repeatedly misgendered in any language, it's actionable. I know that Spanish uses gendered nouns and pronouns. I don't know Swahili or Korean so I don't know whether those languages also use gendered nouns and pronouns to refer to people. --Bob

I assume you're referring to Bostock v. Clayton County. Perhaps I'm wrong. To my untrained eye I think the issue there was about firing someone because they were gay or transsexual. Not firing someone else because they used the 'wrong' pronoun. I would tend to think the First Amendment would kind of take precedence.

I am not going to get into a legal argument with you. I think you have come to your conclusion because that is how, in your lawyerly fashion, with all your practise, you would interpret it. Not that that is what the decision actually said. And I have explained my position elsewhere. But if I decide, based on the situation, to refer to someone as 'he' or 'she', I am as free to do that as I am to refer to you as an asshole.

The decision concluded that federal statutes against gender discrimination apply to transsexual employees and those in same-sex relationships. And creating a hostile environment is well established as an act of discrimination.

But if you don't believe me, feel free to test your theory at your own place of business. Just be prepared to write a large check at the end of the day. --Bob

I didn't hear that, beebs. Thanks.
https://nypost.com/2022/04/18/professor ... -pronouns/

I don't believe you, bob.

[Bob78164]

I assume you're referring to Bostock v. Clayton County. Perhaps I'm wrong. To my untrained eye I think the issue there was about firing someone because they were gay or transsexual. Not firing someone else because they used the 'wrong' pronoun. I would tend to think the First Amendment would kind of take precedence.

I am not going to get into a legal argument with you. I think you have come to your conclusion because that is how, in your lawyerly fashion, with all your practise, you would interpret it. Not that that is what the decision actually said. And I have explained my position elsewhere. But if I decide, based on the situation, to refer to someone as 'he' or 'she', I am as free to do that as I am to refer to you as an asshole.

The decision concluded that federal statutes against gender discrimination apply to transsexual employees and those in same-sex relationships. And creating a hostile environment is well established as an act of discrimination.

But if you don't believe me, feel free to test your theory at your own place of business. Just be prepared to write a large check at the end of the day. --Bob

I didn't hear that, beebs. Thanks.
https://nypost.com/2022/04/18/professor ... -pronouns/

I don't believe you, bob.

Read the actual opinion. He didn't win the case. He avoided losing it on a motion to dismiss on the pleadings, and then the University settled. The case completely ignores Bostock, and it relies heavily on the fact that this was a public university.

But go ahead and take your chances. It's your money. --Bob

[silverscreenselect]

Didn't I read just recently about a teacher who was awarded a significant sum after he was sanctioned for not using a student's preferred pronoun?

The case was actually settled. The professor claimed that his rights to free speech and free exercise of religion had been infringed by the university (which was a state college). The trial court dismissed the case and the professor appealed. The Sixth Circuit reversed, saying that the District Court should not have dismissed the case because the professor might be able to win at trial. They did not say he had proved his case on the merits.

The Sixth Circuit held that the First Amendment protects the academic freedom of professors at a public university. Key language:

Thus, the academic-freedom exception covers all classroom speech related to matters of public concern, whether that speech is germane to the contents of the lecture or not. The need for the free exchange of ideas in the college classroom is unlike that in other public workplace settings. And a professor’s in-class speech to his students is anything but speech by an ordinary government employee.

This ruling does not apply to employers in general or even public employers in general or even "teachers" in general. It merely addresses the facts as alleged in the professor's complaint. And the facts as alleged in the complaint indicated that the school refused to compromise (he called the student in question "Doe" for the remainder of the semester instead of "Ms. Doe" as she requested) and that their investigation into the whole matter was rather slipshod. Again, these are allegations in the complaint, not anything that was proved at trial.