Given new yorks new laws about how Transgender people have to be called by their appropriate pronouns or I could be fined up to $250(Section 3: http://www.nyc.gov/html/cchr/downloads/pdf/publications/GenderID_InterpretiveGuide_2015.pdf)
I decided to try and understand this whole Trans things, as the LGB part is pretty easy to understand (people just want to fuck what they want). But with the T being a mental disorder that regardless of social stigmas, still causes dysphoria, I keep running into problems understanding it and it even being relatively associated to the other 3 in the movement. These people have actual mental health needs and need aid, not a social movement for acceptance that doesn't get rid of their dysphoria and staggering suicide rates. So why are we grouping people with mental health needs up with people who were subjugated for just liking to fuck what they want?
And given that notion, why should tax payer dollars go to their surgeries any less than someone with body dysmorphic disorder, when in the end it doesn't get rid of their root mental problem they have with themselves?
So to the point, what do you make of this article /lgbt/?
http://individual.utoronto.ca/james_cantor/index_files/Blanchard2000.pdf
>ctrl + f "pronoun"
>The NYCHRL requires employers and covered entities to use an individual’s preferred
name, pronoun and title.
Okay, seems legit in terms of employer/employee politics.
>Some transgender and gender non-conforming people prefer to use pronouns other than he/him/his or she/her/hers, such as they/them/theirs or ze/hir.
My preferred pronoun is "xzzyxyxplksplgfjtlpk".
>>5446782
There's a social movement for acceptance because assholes like you stigmatized it in the first place. Get fucked.
I don't like it when the government forces anyone to do anything
>>5446924
Does that include paying taxes? What about refraining from killing their fellow human beings, or is that okay because it's a negative not a positive restraint? Is it okay to force convicts to go to prison? I'm not being smarmy, I just want to understand your position.
>>5446782
>But with the T being a mental disorder that regardless of social stigmas, still causes dysphoria, I keep running into problems understanding it and it even being relatively associated to the other 3 in the movement. These people have actual mental health needs and need aid, not a social movement for acceptance that doesn't get rid of their dysphoria and staggering suicide rates.
Transitioning is the treatment for dysphoria. Suicide rates go down dramatically when you control for supportive environments
>>5446782
You're mad that you have to pay a fine for harassing people?
Grow up, sometimes you have to take responsibility for your actions.
>>5446974
In this case, "harassment" just means "not bending over backwards to participate in my made up crocks of shit"
>>5446974
The guide in the linked pdf is obviously not perfect. Requiring employers to refer to employees as "ze/zir" on pain of fine is not acceptable. I prefer laws to cater to the vulnerable rather than the secure, and edge cases are just that, but there's some cause for complaint.
>>5446947
I was being a little bit exaggerated.
I think taxes are theft, but if the government were streamlined a bit they'd be a bit lower and I wouldn't mind paying so much.
I don't need a law to tell me not to kill someone, but there should be serious repercussions for it.
Yes, if rehabilitation is the goal and not just locking them up.
>>5447024
>I don't need a law to tell me not to kill someone, but there should be serious repercussions for it.
Isn't that what a law is?
>>5446782
Only employers who violate an employment contract, and they aren't fined, just subject to suit where contract breaking could cost them up to that.
That's capitalism and rule of law for you. If you try and cheat your clients out of a contract, then there can be consequences.
Don't do business if you can't handle rule of law.
new york is a shit state
you should move out
>>5446996
No, it means making a conscious and deliberate effort to make your employees uncomfortable.
>>5446882
Yeah, pretty much this. The fact that this needed to be a law in the first place says more about bigots than anything else. Call people what they want to be called and quit being obstinate cunts.
>>5446782
>And given that notion, why should tax payer dollars go to their surgeries any less than someone with body dysmorphic disorder, when in the end it doesn't get rid of their root mental problem they have with themselves?
the state of being a gender is not a root mental problem. the state of discordance between mind and body is; altering the body placates the discordance.
I'd just like to take the time to say fuck you <3
>>5446782
>when in the end it doesn't get rid of their root mental problem they have with themselves?
If it treats the symptoms, then it should be done. Curative medicine isn't the only medicine you know.
just call people they, no issue
>>5448179
Actually i have met a lot of cis people who get upset by this. However they only get upset when its done for a transperson or when you try to say there are gender neutral pronouns
>>5448179
this desu
>made a habit of calling people they/them until i hear someone else refer to them with he/she pronouns and he/she is not objecting to the correlating pronouns
>>5450281
Not a law, just that an employer that breaks employee contracts can be subject to suits.
It's literally just hostile work environment civil law being defined.
>>5450297
You don't have to, only thing that will happen is they can file a civil suit. Now if the courts would think you were being unreasonable, then you might owe the employee something.
It literally hasn't changed anything and if you were hypothetically going out of your way to harass your employed then that would be against contract any how. People can always sue if they think they're being cheated.
Don't play with capitalism if you can't handle it.
>>5450325
Rule of law has been part of capitalism since the start.
Don't break a contract unless you can do the fine.
>So why are we grouping people with mental health needs up with people who were subjugated for just liking to fuck what they want?
People with mental disabilities are also protected by most human rights legislation from discrimination. Your employer can't fire you if he finds out you have bipolar disorder or call you a retard either.
This is really a complete non-sequitur.
>>5447328
>>5450315
This is a really bad mischaracterization. The common law of contract has historically been based in the fundamental principle of freedom of contract, whereby people can contract on whatever terms with whomever they want. Civil rights protections cannot be contracted out of and moreover prohibit certain reasons for refusing to contract with a person. While you can characterize severe harassment amounting to a hostile work environment as a breach of the employment contract, in the vast majority of cases which this law covers (refusal to hire; firing (let's not forget that under pure freedom of contract most employment contracts are at-will rather than requiring notice); refusal to promote; and lesser incidents like a refusal to use a certain pronoun) there is no breach of contract under the common law. And even if there were, employers could simply include a term stating that the person accepts that they will not be called by their correct pronoun, and under pure freedom of contract that would be permitted (and let's face it, most employees, especially vulnerable ones like most trans people, would have to just accept that or end up jobless).
>>5446782
9/11 didn't kill enough people :(
>>5450325
Corporatism would mean a system where private businesses are so powerful they can ignore the law whenever they want to. Literally the opposite of what's being discussed here.
>>5450397
>The common law of contract has historically been based in the fundamental principle of freedom of contract, whereby people can contract on whatever terms with whomever they want.
Establishing a business and employing people is a contract between you and the government. All these worker protection laws just say the government will not agree to a contract with you unless you meet these terms. As an individual you're still free to refuse to agree to a contract with the government if you don't like their terms, and the government is free to refuse to agree to a contract with you if they don't like your terms. Thus, freedom of contract is preserved.
>>5450588
Okay but no it isn't, and no one characterizes it as such, not even the government. No one thinks they are contracting. You have to have an intention to create mutually binding legal relations in order to have a valid contract. When the government passes anti-discrimination law, it has no thought of being bound to any terms. The legislature can alter the conditions of doing business in any way it likes, and you cannot sue them for breaching the terms you ostensibly agreed to at first.
Also, you need consideration for any variation in the terms of a contract, as otherwise it's a gratuitous promise. But the government can make the legislation more onerous at any time it pleases without providing fresh consideration.
Furthermore, privity of contract would preclude a third party from suing for breach of that contract if it did exist, and so an employee who is discriminated against would not be able to sue on the basis of that contract.
Finally, a term of a contract which creates restraints on how you can contract with a third party is presumptively void as a restraint of trade precisely because it infringes freedom of contract.
Please read a book on contract law before you make silly analogies.
>>5450747
>Okay but no it isn't, and no one characterizes it as such, not even the government. No one thinks they are contracting.
Yes, if you establish a business (a construct that exists within the legal framework provided by the government) you are agreeing to a contract.
>The legislature can alter the conditions of doing business in any way it likes, and you cannot sue them for breaching the terms you ostensibly agreed to at first.
>Also, you need consideration for any variation in the terms of a contract, as otherwise it's a gratuitous promise. But the government can make the legislation more onerous at any time it pleases without providing fresh consideration.
Because, that's part of the contract. You ever see one of those contracts that say "the terms may be changed at any time"? That's what this contract is like. If you don't like the new terms, you're free to leave the contract at any time. It's not like they're changing the terms without telling you.
>>5450843
Like I said, no one characterizes it as such and it bears none of the legal features of a contract. You are alone in this. Your opinion has no legal relevance.
No contract can provide that all terms may be changed at any time, as at that point you do not have a contract. Consensus ad idem is a legal requirement for a valid contract and there can be no consensus ad idem where all terms can be unilaterally altered at any time. Furthermore, the legislation contains no such term, nor does any other related legislation.
>>5450872
>Like I said, no one characterizes it as such and it bears none of the legal features of a contract. You are alone in this. Your opinion has no legal relevance.
Really? Okay, what do you have to do to start a business? Don't you have to fill out some paperwork or something? You can't just be some random person that starts hiring people.
>>5450325
>>>leddit
