1) Not only should the state be involved in determining what constitutes harassment and discriminator, the state ALREADY is responsible for doing that, and would be regardless of the bill in question. Furthermore, the notion that the state should not be involved is nonsense - the state is inextricably involved, and what you term as neutrality is actually just a decision in favor of one side over the other.
2) Given that the state is inextricably involved, we have no option but to consider the question of pronoun usage on its merits. We must either find complaints about pronoun usage reasonable, and move to restrict usage, or we must find them unreasonable, and move to protect usage (or in many cases continue to protect usage).
3) The notion that attempting to evaluate complaints on their reasonableness is fraught or otherwise untenable is contradicted by the fact that courts already are evaluating similar complaints on their reasonableness, and have been doing so for many years. The fact that there is ideological disagreement over pronoun use is irrelevant - there also exists ideological disagreement over many discriminator or harassment claims that courts have handled.
4) Attempting to handle complaints by nebulous notions of "intent" and "consequence" without evaluating the reasonableness of those complaints IS untenable. If we take any complaint seriously, no matter how nonsensical (attack helicopters, apples, etc.) then we will find ourselves in the nightmare scenario of empowering anyone to arbitrarily restrict others' speech.
1) Not only should the state be involved in determining what constitutes harassment and discriminator, the state ALREADY is responsible for doing that, and would be regardless of the bill in question. Furthermore, the notion that the state should not be involved is nonsense - the state is inextricably involved, and what you term as neutrality is actually just a decision in favor of one side over the other.
I did not say the state should not be involved.
I said that I don't accept that
the state should be almost solely responsible for determining what is and is not discrimination with regards to pronoun use on a case by case basis
.
That is quite a specific statement.
2) Given that the state is inextricably involved, we have no option but to consider the question of pronoun usage on its merits. We must either find complaints about pronoun usage reasonable, and move to restrict usage, or we must find them unreasonable, and move to protect usage (or in many cases continue to protect usage).
Yes, but on what basis are we evaluating what constitutes a reasonable complaint? I don't accept the idea of just letting judges decide- what expectations should there be of judges in making this decision?
3) The notion that attempting to evaluate complaints on their reasonableness is fraught or otherwise untenable is contradicted by the fact that courts already are evaluating similar complaints on their reasonableness, and have been doing so for many years. The fact that there is ideological disagreement over pronoun use is irrelevant - there also exists ideological disagreement over many discriminator or harassment claims that courts have handled.
I never said that it would be untenable to evaluate complaints on their reasonableness.
In fact I specifically argued how I think that should be done.
I was arguing that evaluating complaints on the basis of what a 'reasonable belief' is should not be the primary method, if used at all. Because I don't think people should be allowed to discriminate against someone because the state decided their personal conception of their gender identity is not reasonable.
4) Attempting to handle complaints by nebulous notions of "intent" and "consequence" without evaluating the reasonableness of those complaints IS untenable
No, what I am arguing is that intent and consequence DEFINES a reasonable complaint.
Nebulous notions of intent and consequence? May I introduce you to malice aforethought. That's a start. The law is already involved in judging intent and consequence- this is not a new idea.
How do you intend to arbitrate what a reasonable belief is? Because this argument started with whether refusing to use preferred pronouns is discrimination, then came the idea of deciding what a valid gender pronoun or use of a gender pronoun is, and now you are talking about what judges consider to be a reasonable complaint.
Glancing at the list presented, it appears most of the ones listed are either region-specific, historical (I mean, one of them is from Ancient Egypt), or umbrella categories containing multiple gender identities that share some commonalities.
1) Not only should the state be involved in determining what constitutes harassment and discriminator, the state ALREADY is responsible for doing that, and would be regardless of the bill in question. Furthermore, the notion that the state should not be involved is nonsense - the state is inextricably involved, and what you term as neutrality is actually just a decision in favor of one side over the other.
2) Given that the state is inextricably involved, we have no option but to consider the question of pronoun usage on its merits. We must either find complaints about pronoun usage reasonable, and move to restrict usage, or we must find them unreasonable, and move to protect usage (or in many cases continue to protect usage).
3) The notion that attempting to evaluate complaints on their reasonableness is fraught or otherwise untenable is contradicted by the fact that courts already are evaluating similar complaints on their reasonableness, and have been doing so for many years. The fact that there is ideological disagreement over pronoun use is irrelevant - there also exists ideological disagreement over many discriminator or harassment claims that courts have handled.
4) Attempting to handle complaints by nebulous notions of "intent" and "consequence" without evaluating the reasonableness of those complaints IS untenable. If we take any complaint seriously, no matter how nonsensical (attack helicopters, apples, etc.) then we will find ourselves in the nightmare scenario of empowering anyone to arbitrarily restrict others' speech.
I did not say the state should not be involved.
I said that I don't accept that
.
That is quite a specific statement.
Yes, but on what basis are we evaluating what constitutes a reasonable complaint? I don't accept the idea of just letting judges decide- what expectations should there be of judges in making this decision?
I never said that it would be untenable to evaluate complaints on their reasonableness.
In fact I specifically argued how I think that should be done.
I was arguing that evaluating complaints on the basis of what a 'reasonable belief' is should not be the primary method, if used at all. Because I don't think people should be allowed to discriminate against someone because the state decided their personal conception of their gender identity is not reasonable.
No, what I am arguing is that intent and consequence DEFINES a reasonable complaint.
Nebulous notions of intent and consequence? May I introduce you to malice aforethought. That's a start. The law is already involved in judging intent and consequence- this is not a new idea.
How do you intend to arbitrate what a reasonable belief is? Because this argument started with whether refusing to use preferred pronouns is discrimination, then came the idea of deciding what a valid gender pronoun or use of a gender pronoun is, and now you are talking about what judges consider to be a reasonable complaint.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)