ADVERTISEMENT

New York City Will Fine You $250K For Mis-gendering a Transexual

Nat Algren

HB Legend
Nov 23, 2014
19,359
6,211
113
NYC Will Fine You $250,000 For ‘Misgendering’ A Transsexual


Bruce-Caitlyn-Jenner-GettyImages-640x480.jpg

Kevin Winter/Getty Images

by ALLUM BOKHARI27 Dec 20154,585

Did you call a transsexual person “he” or “she” when they preferred to be called “zhe?” According to a newly updated anti-discrimination law in New York City, you could be fined an eye-watering $250,000.
In the latest, astonishing act of draconian political correctness, the NYC Commission on Human Rights have updated a law on “Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Expression” to threaten staggering financial penalties against property owners who “misgender” employees or tenants.

Incidents that are deemed “wilful and malicious” will see property owners face up to $250,000 in fines, while standard violations of the law will result in a $125,000 fine. For small business owners, these sums are crippling.

It’s not as simple as referring to transmen “he” or transwomen as “she,” either. The legislation makes it clear that if an individual desires, property owners will have to make use of “zhe,” “hir” and any other preferred pronoun. From the updated legislation:

The NYCHRL requires employers and covered entities to use an individual’s preferred name, pronoun and title (e.g., Ms./Mrs.) regardless of the individual’s sex assigned at birth, anatomy, gender, medical history, appearance, or the sex indicated on the individual’s identification. Most individuals and many transgender people use female or male pronouns and titles.

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

Other violations of the law include refusing to allow individuals to use single-sex facilities such as bathrooms that are “consistent with their gender identity,” failing to provide employee health benefits for “gender-affirming care” and “imposing different uniforms or grooming standards based on sex or gender.”

Examples of such illegal behaviour include: “requiring female bartenders to wear makeup,” “Permitting only individuals who identify as women to wear jewellery or requiring only individuals who identify as male to have short hair,” and “permitting female but not male residents at a drug treatment facility to wear wigs and high heels.”

In other words, if a bar owner prevents male bartenders from wearing lipstick and heels, they’ll be breaking the law. They’ve now got a choice between potentially scaring off customers, and paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines. Regardless of the establishment’s clientèle or aesthetic, every property owner will be forced to conform to the same standard.

This is the latest in what Spiked Online editor-in-chief Brendan O’Neill calls “The Crisis of Character” in the west, in which identities become grounded in subjective interpretation rather than objective reality. The state is now forcing society to recognise the subjective identities of individuals, regardless of how absurd or surreal they may seem. In New York City, recognising someone’s identity is no longer a matter of case-by-case common sense and courtesy. It’s zir way or the highway.
 
The sooner the "big ones" hit the coasts sending them out to sea the sooner common sense reigns supreme.
 
Is this seriously real? I knew the SJW's where crazy and that they had a lot of power. But it's scary if they have this much power.
 
  • Like
Reactions: icu81222
Is this seriously real? I knew the SJW's where crazy and that they had a lot of power. But it's scary if they have this much power.

You'd be better off punching him/her in the face instead of trying to talk to him/her. The punishment is less for that.
 
What does it mean that every time you use SJW I have to look it up?

What's wrong with being a warrior for social justice? Why is that a mock-worthy concept?

In and of itself it does not sound bad, it's the over the top nature of it that makes it mock worthy. For example wanting to fine companies a quarter of a million dollars for misgendering their trans employee's is highly mock-worthy.

Concepts such as micro-aggression deserves to be mocked.

Seeing victimization in nearly everything is mock-worthy.

Wanting a college president fired because of a poop swastika that he didn't himself draw is also mock-worthy.
 
Naturalz people
Wanna play dress up with me? Maybe we could get a payday out of it? But how are these my people? I like my gender and all the bits that come with it. I'm nearly the opposite of a tranny. Most of you have more in common with the trans folk as you too lust after bits you don't have. I'm just a loyal ally in favor of adults doing what they want with their own bodies.
 
Wanna play dress up with me? Maybe we could get a payday out of it? But how are these my people? I like my gender and all the bits that come with it. I'm nearly the opposite of a tranny. Most of you have more in common with the trans folk as you too lust after bits you don't have. I'm just a loyal ally in favor of adults doing what they want with their own bodies.

What do you think about a $250K fine for accidentally calling Cait Jenner "he"?
 
In and of itself it does not sound bad, it's the over the top nature of it that makes it mock worthy. For example wanting to fine companies a quarter of a million dollars for misgendering their trans employee's is highly mock-worthy.

Concepts such as micro-aggression deserves to be mocked.

Seeing victimization in nearly everything is mock-worthy.

Wanting a college president fired because of a poop swastika that he didn't himself draw is also mock-worthy.
Oh, I agree on some of those. But if we are talking about seeing faux victimization, let's get back to the war on Christmas.
 
What does it mean that every time you use SJW I have to look it up?

What's wrong with being a warrior for social justice? Why is that a mock-worthy concept?
Ummmm...did you read the OP?

Let's be honest. You know if exactly what the hell he is talking about. It's impossible not to see the idiocy the left wing SJW nut jobs bring out each day. Hell, you are one of them.

I distinctly remember you (and over 30%of democrats polled) saying you favor prosecuting people that do not go along with climate change alarmist bullshit.

You and those like you are pathetic excuses for humans.
 
Oh, I agree on some of those. But if we are talking about seeing faux victimization, let's get back to the war on Christmas.

And those who believe that there is some sort of war on Christmas existing by secularist forces are mocked too. Hell I'll mock someone who thinks "Happy Holidays" is some sort of insult.

There is a war on Christmas but it's a war against the meaning of Christmas by mammon and the retailers and many conservative Christians are the allies of mammon and the retailers in this war on Christmas. And this war has been going on for a long time and secularists are not very involved. I think they might sort of be rooting for mammon in a sense because they like the fact that it undermines the religious value of the holiday, but the secularists arn't really directly involved in this one.

Some Conservative Christians on the other hand have been swindled because their political movement has taught them that nothing on earth is more important then the almighty dollar. Certainly not God or family, so they are downright insulted by the notion that perhaps retail employees should be given time off during the Holidays to spend with their families or in worship.

Don't you know that Jesus was born so that we could all spend a bunch of money at the end of the year and retail companies can make a ton of money?

But I digress. . . Anyways Christians who think Happy Holidays is some sort of attack on Christmas are mocked. . . But SJW's who believe in things like Micro-aggressions, and fining companies for misgendering employees, and that an astrophysist's shirt are the reason women arn't entering STEM fields deserve to be mocked.
 
Last edited:
And those who believe that there is some sort of war on Christmas existing by secularist forces are mocked too. Hell I'll mock someone who thinks "Happy Holidays" is some sort of insult.

There is a war on Christmas but it's a war against the meaning of Christmas by mammon and the retailers and many conservative Christians are the allies of mammon and the retailers in this war on Christmas. And this war has been going on for a long time and secularists are not very involved. I think they might sort of be rooting for mammon in a sense because they like the fact that it undermines the religious value of the holiday, but the secularists arn't really directly involved in this one.

Some Conservative Christians on the other hand have been swindled because their political movement has taught them that nothing on earth is more important then the almighty dollar. Certainly not God or family, so they are downright insulted by the notion that perhaps retail employees should be given time off during the Holidays to spend with their families or in worship.

Don't you know that Jesus was born so that we could all spend a bunch of money at the end of the year and retail companies can make a ton of money?

But I digress. . . Anyways Christians who think Happy Holidays is some sort of attack on Christmas are mocked. . . But SJW's who believe in things like Micro-aggressions, and fining companies for misgendering employees, and that an astrophysist's shirt are the reason women arn't entering STEM fields deserve to be mocked.
Good points.

I have to thank you for introducing me to another new one: "micro-aggressions." Had to look that one up, too.

Since I think of you as one of our more reasonable Christians and moderate conservatives, I'm a little disturbed that you are throwing around what strike me as invented labels that seem intended to denigrate people because they can be labeled, rather than for what they stand for. I find myself wondering where you are picking up such labels.

If I am a social justice warrior, does that make you a social injustice warrior? If I "believe in micro-aggressions" does that make you a macro-aggressor?

I don't like where this is headed. But if that's the game, I guess I'll have to learn to play.
 
Good points.

I have to thank you for introducing me to another new one: "micro-aggressions." Had to look that one up, too.

Since I think of you as one of our more reasonable Christians and moderate conservatives, I'm a little disturbed that you are throwing around what strike me as invented labels that seem intended to denigrate people because they can be labeled, rather than for what they stand for. I find myself wondering where you are picking up such labels.

If I am a social justice warrior, does that make you a social injustice warrior? If I "believe in micro-aggressions" does that make you a macro-aggressor?

I don't like where this is headed. But if that's the game, I guess I'll have to learn to play.

Ultimately everyone takes labels, it's hard to exist without them. . . I'd be opposed to being labeled as a moderate conservative as you have labeled me. I feel as though I'm neither conservative nor liberal in politics and in theology since conservative/liberal don't really work all that well I would just take the label of being a confessional Lutheran.

The SJW label is one that probably shouldn't be overthought. It's a label applied to people who get caught up in victimization and see such victimization at the root of nearly everything. People that will support switching out the Vagina Monologues (which used to be an SJW favorite) because they don't think it's inclusive to Trans people.

And I recognize that people are individuals and so they might not be SJW's on everything perhaps someone is an SJW when it comes to race but is perfectly reasonable if not conservative when it comes to gender issues or sexual identity issues. But when acting on those particular issues the label applies.

In fact there seems to be some conflict within what I would label the SJW community as some SJW feminists (who I personally detest the most of all the SJW's) feel that someone can not just transition to being a woman and have a full understanding of just how much they have been victimized by being born female.

Heck some people might call me an SJW when it comes to poverty issues.

Shoot I often get the religious nut label (not necessarily from you but from others here) because of my opposition to abortion while I feel those people ignore my support of things like legalized prostitution.

I suppose it is a bit of a pejorative label, but I know of no other label to use in this situation.
 
The SJW label is one that probably shouldn't be overthought. It's a label applied to people who get caught up in victimization and see such victimization at the root of nearly everything. People that will support switching out the Vagina Monologues (which used to be an SJW favorite) because they don't think it's inclusive to Trans people.
But when did showing concern for victims and wanting better for them become mock-worthy?

The label short-circuits thinking. Not trying to impose my expectations on you but, frankly, I'd think a Christian would be very upset when concern for victims is swapped out for a disparaging label.

The pushback against political correctness or the accusations of playing the race card have become more important to some people than the actual racism or the actual good reasons why we don't use the N-word or call people retards and so on.

Sure, you can always come up with individual instances of people going overboard. But, again, harping on those exceptions is too often used to distort and down-play the plight of those who have real needs or legit concerns - and ends up justifying fear-mongering, hate-mongering and uncivilized behavior in general.
 
But when did showing concern for victims and wanting better for them become mock-worthy?

The label short-circuits thinking. Not trying to impose my expectations on you but, frankly, I'd think a Christian would be very upset when concern for victims is swapped out for a disparaging label.

The pushback against political correctness or the accusations of playing the race card have become more important to some people than the actual racism or the actual good reasons why we don't use the N-word or call people retards and so on.

Sure, you can always come up with individual instances of people going overboard. But, again, harping on those exceptions is too often used to distort and down-play the plight of those who have real needs or legit concerns - and ends up justifying fear-mongering, hate-mongering and uncivilized behavior in general.

There are ALOT of instances of it going overboard.

Concern for victims is fine, when you have actual victims of actual repression. But I see a ton of invented repression and the remedy is almost always to hurt someone else and disparage them. Limit their freedoms so that this other person can have extra freedoms just to help counter all the so call repression they are facing.

And the invented repression never stops, it never ceases. And when they do *occasionally* hit on an actual problem they blow it up and make it worse.

Lets take BLM for example, I get and understand that there are issues and mistrust between law enforcement and the black community. And there are problems on both sides of the coin that cause these problems. I'd welcome anyone who wants to work to solve these problems and create communication and accountability for both sides. But is that what the SJW's give us?

No the SJW's give us talk about how police officers everywhere are out there just with the intention of shooting a black guy. They give us protests that interfere with other's daily lives. They try to solve the problem by causing more problems. They inherently make the relationship between the black community and law enforcement worse, not better.

SJW's solution to problems is to always blame someone and punish them and call that "equality". They don't look for answers to real problems, they look for people to blame and more "problems" to blame them for.

Just look at the topic we are posting about. . . First of all you have SJW's inventing genders for people to select, so invented problem there. Then I think the invented problem of people not being called what they want to be called (I'm wondering why no one will call me "the great one"). Then if you accept this as a problem, what is their solution to this problem? PUNISH THEM. A quarter million dollars if you accidentally refer to someone's birth gender as opposed to the gender they have decided that they want to be no matter if that's he or she or zhe or whatever the heck pronouns they want to invent for themselves.

A quarter million bucks if a business owner where to simply ask you to decide between male and female instead of trying to be a zhe. And honestly I personally think allowing you to decide what gender you are is more then accommodating. But that's SJW's for you. . . you must be punished if you don't buy into their mindset of 30 different genders (is there really a number?) And God help you if you believe that gender is a set thing. Kind of like how they apparently believe race is a set thing.

(That's another thing I don't get, they accept transsexuals, but transracial people are wannabe's even while race is far more socially constructed then gender.)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: The Tradition
There are ALOT of instances of it going overboard.

Concern for victims is fine, when you have actual victims of actual repression. But I see a ton of invented repression and the remedy is almost always to hurt someone else and disparage them. Limit their freedoms so that this other person can have extra freedoms just to help counter all the so call repression they are facing.

And the invented repression never stops, it never ceases. And when they do *occasionally* hit on an actual problem they blow it up and make it worse.

Lets take BLM for example, I get and understand that there are issues and mistrust between law enforcement and the black community. And there are problems on both sides of the coin that cause these problems. I'd welcome anyone who wants to work to solve these problems and create communication and accountability for both sides. But is that what the SJW's give us?

No the SJW's give us talk about how police officers everywhere are out there just with the intention of shooting a black guy. They give us protests that interfere with other's daily lives. They try to solve the problem by causing more problems. They inherently make the relationship between the black community and law enforcement worse, not better.

SJW's solution to problems is to always blame someone and punish them and call that "equality". They don't look for answers to real problems, they look for people to blame and more "problems" to blame them for.

Just look at the topic we are posting about. . . First of all you have SJW's inventing genders for people to select, so invented problem there. Then I think the invented problem of people not being called what they want to be called (I'm wondering why no one will call me "the great one"). Then if you accept this as a problem, what is their solution to this problem? PUNISH THEM. A quarter million dollars if you accidentally refer to someone's birth gender as opposed to the gender they have decided that they want to be no matter if that's he or she or zhe or whatever the heck pronouns they want to invent for themselves.

A quarter million bucks if a business owner where to simply ask you to decide between male and female instead of trying to be a zhe. And honestly I personally think allowing you to decide what gender you are is more then accommodating. But that's SJW's for you. . . you must be punished if you don't buy into their mindset of 30 different genders (is there really a number?) And God help you if you believe that gender is a set thing. Kind of like how they apparently believe race is a set thing.

(That's another thing I don't get, they accept transsexuals, but transracial people are wannabe's even while race is far more socially constructed then gender.)
I simply disagree that there are a lot of noteworthy excesses. There is certainly an orchestrated effort to find them and make a fuss about them. And I can point to the success of those efforts in your posts. This comment, for example: "...the SJW's give us talk about how police officers everywhere are out there just with the intention of shooting a black guy."

Who are these SJWs telling us that police officers everywhere are out there just with the intent of shooting a black guy?

This is the kind of overreach that your side indulges in constantly. The occasional overreach by the SJWs, such as the OP instance, is the embarrassing exception. But they keep the Social Injustice Warriors yammering and convinced that they are being victimized by the left.
 
I simply disagree that there are a lot of noteworthy excesses. There is certainly an orchestrated effort to find them and make a fuss about them. And I can point to the success of those efforts in your posts. This comment, for example: "...the SJW's give us talk about how police officers everywhere are out there just with the intention of shooting a black guy."

Who are these SJWs telling us that police officers everywhere are out there just with the intent of shooting a black guy?

This is the kind of overreach that your side indulges in constantly. The occasional overreach by the SJWs, such as the OP instance, is the embarrassing exception. But they keep the Social Injustice Warriors yammering and convinced that they are being victimized by the left.

How often where the words "It's open season on black people" spoken?

"Hands up don't shoot". . . That kind of implies that the police are looking for an excuse to shoot you.

We got a lot of that instead of "Police shootings should be investigated by an independent entity" or "Why did it take Chicago a year to release that video and prosecute that police officer?"

Open season on black people and Hands up don't shoot have implications that the officers are out to get black people. And not just a few or anything like that, but that police officers are by their nature out there looking for black people to shoot. That sort of implication makes things worse.

Saying that you need to investigate police shootings with an independent entity and questioning why it took Chicago so long to prosecute a clearly guilty police officer is pointing out that something in our system isn't working the way it should and needs to be fixed.

I'm sure a lot of cops can get behind independent investigations and "why the heck did it take a year to prosecute someone for murder when you had a freaking video of the murder". It's a lot harder to get behind statements about how it's open season on black people. That is a freaking accusation that either you or at the very least several of your co workers signed up for this job so that they could shoot a black guy. That sort of thing makes people defensive and angry. It also make's police officers feel as though they are political targets. Us vs. them doesn't solve much.

But disparaging their "enemy" and inventing ways to punish them is all SJW's know how to do. So like I said, when they do hit on an actual problem like this, they just make things worse, they don't solve things.

And their overreaches are far more common then you want to acknowledge. Their show trials for college rape accusations, their continued insistent on redefining rape itself, their attempts to force out college presidents for not being "racially sensitive enough", their attempts at documenting everyone's micro-aggressions, their attempts at banning ordinary words because apparently a mere word can turn a girl from a budding CEO to a depressed emotional mess, their attempts at trying to force models out of work for being too skinny because skinny and pretty women make the bigger and less pretty ones feel bad about themselves, their attempts to blame men (and only men) for crowded subways, and oh yeah THIS STUFF where they have literally invented genders out of the blue and are willing to fine people a quarter million dollars for using the wrong pronoun.

I mean I'm just getting started here. SJW's overreaching is very common. And yet they still get a seat at the table with the Dems.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT