112

74 comments

[–] Turtlefuzz Flairy Godmother 88 points (+88|-0)

Great news! I think that freedom of speech/compelled speech will be a major turning point for us in the USA.

Also:

"Study after study has shown that trans people who are misgendered face alarming and life-threatening rates of depression and suicidal behavior. And older LGBTQ+ people face feelings of isolation, poor mental health and extreme vulnerability to communicable diseases like COVID-19.

"Misgendering" causes covid 🤔

[–] VeggieAnnie 63 points (+63|-0)

LGB do not require special pronouns! Those two things are not related. That's a really stupid conflation. It should be, "Misgendering upsets T people." And then, "LGB people face such-and-such problems..."

[–] Alexiares 11 points (+11|-0)

LGB shouldn’t be dragged into the T attempt to impose authoritarian language rules at all.

[–] notyourfetish 8 points (+8|-0) Edited

They're always ignorantly grouping us together and I hate it. I think most people don't understand that the T was only included in the first place because trans were mostly just gay people with gender dysphoria. Now trans means having AGP and wanting to rape lesbians. Times have changed, but people who are out of touch don't seem to realize it at all.

I know I was completely oblivious until that Bruce Jenner crap. You'd think more people would have peaked because of of him, but I guess not.

[–] Researcher1536 13 points (+13|-0)

This could be one of the more outlandish claims I've seen regarding this collective of most special snowflakes.

Load more (5 comments)
[–] goneharolding 70 points (+70|-0) Edited

I hate to be a wet blanket, but: ”The Court upheld the provision in the law that requires nursing homes to place transgender patients in rooms that match their gender identity.”

So, you still have to put the old man who thinks he’s a woman in the women’s ward, you just don’t have to call him ‘ma’am.’

It feels big that any court in California is reconsidering any of this, but it’s aggravating that they ruled against that part on free speech grounds but left the material problem intact. Way to piss off everyone, geez!

And what about women’s right to privacy??? It’s terrifying how that argument seems to have just disappeared from the discourse.

Edit: formatting

[–] Baileyscheesecake 30 points (+30|-0)

Yes, I noticed that, too. The nurse doesn't have to call a man "she," but grandma still has to room with him.

And what is with misgendering being 'harassment"? Third person pronouns are generally used when the individual is not present. How then is the person being harassed?

[–] chrysthefeminist 28 points (+28|-0)

"Misgendering" is not even misgendering. It's correct gendering, whether the trans person likes it or not.

[–] goneharolding 8 points (+8|-0)

Exactly. They’re so worried about men’s hurt feelings and disregarding women’s safety.

[–] Lumos 29 points (+29|-0)

I agree but we have to take the small victories when we can get them 😔

[–] YpsiRadFem Blerg 15 points (+15|-0)

At this point, this "free speech" victories are no longer a victories. They are active repudiations of women's rights.

[–] PeakNarcissism 16 points (+16|-0)

Huh - this is interesting also bc as I have heard elderly trans (almost always Tims) as their memory goes will forget they have dedicated their lives to masquerading as women, and will revert back to their bio sex. Nursing home attendants are trained to placate the end of lifers and do whatever they can to not confuse them I assume, so to possibly accuse the attendants of hate crimes or open them up to lawsuits for not using the right pronoun or addressing the person by a name they have forgotten is especially absurd.

[–] remquarqk 14 points (+14|-0) Edited

So, you still have to put the old man who thinks he’s a woman in the women’s ward, you just don’t have to call him ‘ma’am.’

This has got to be a stepping stone though. And decent precedent for further battles down the line. If you're not required to call the man a ma'am, that surely leads to a violation of women's privacy like you hinted at, since it isn't just about surface level speech and it actually goes deeper into what you're actually thinking when you refuse to call the man a she. There's definitely a bunch of contradictions waiting to be picked apart here.

[–] Lilith-Fair 3 points (+3|-0) Edited

I honestly don't know how these judges can go to sleep at night. ETA: is there any likelihood they'll appeal the men in women's ward part?

[–] WatcherattheGates 42 points (+42|-0)

Wait, a court in California did something right? Hell must have frozen over . . .

[–] Luckystar 23 points (+23|-0)

Lol I came here to say this. The Wi Spa incident inspired me to look deeper into our laws and regulations and it's actually way worse than I had first realized...

[–] Tnetennba 18 points (+18|-0)

Let’s be clear: refusing to use someone’s correct name and pronouns isn’t an issue of free speech

You're absolutely right, sir. It's not a free speech issue—it's state sanctioned legally compelled speech, which is illegal.

[–] sarahsmile 5 points (+5|-0)

Exactly. Compelled speech is as offensive under the First Amendment as quashing/punishing protected speech is.

[–] NotCis 16 points (+21|-5)

Woohoo! IMO, nursing facilities should be able to require staff to ask for clients' pronouns as part of the intake process - I don't see anything wrong with that, even though I personally think it's stupid as hell. However, they should NOT be required (as this lawsuit confirms) to actually use those pronouns. That's where the free speech violation comes in.

[–] Luckystar 14 points (+14|-0)

It IS stupid but it's still the safest method I can see for providing accurate medical care. I live in CA and when I go to a clinic or hospital usually the form will ask for your "sex at birth" (USUALLY doesn't say "assigned" but I have seen that before) or "gender on your original birth certificate" and then there's a separate line for "gender identity" and "pronouns" (I just leave those blank).

At first I thought it was ridiculous, but then I realized if it just said "sex" that you'd have gender specials lying, putting bs like "non binary" in there, etc. By asking for both, you're more likely to get the correct information.

[–] Jade 4 points (+4|-0)

and then there's a separate line for "gender identity" and "pronouns" (I just leave those blank).

I’m past the point of leaving it blank. Now I write “your majesty / your majesty’s”

[–] Tesserae_Tali 9 points (+9|-0) Edited

The right of employers to require certain workplace behavior from their employees intersects messily with the basic principle of freedom of speech. I know that I will get downvoted to the ninth circle of hell for saying this, but as long as the trans train keeps chugging along, I understand why employers mandate the use of preferred pronouns. The customer isn't always right, but you do want to avoid making the customer mad, even if it means playing along with the customer's delusions.

The question of whether or not to play along with preferred pronouns becomes especially morally charged when it comes to vital services like healthcare. My impression is that many trans-identified females (and probably males as well) simply will not seek basic, necessary care if they are not humored in their belief that they are the opposite sex (or sexless they/them entities). Now, in principle they should reconcile themselves with reality, or at least accept that they don't have the right to dictate other people's perceptions and speech. But in practice, "misgendering" erects a barrier to trans people's healthcare access, even if that barrier is entirely in their heads. You could make a loose analogy here with devoutly religious people who won't accept certain kinds of treatment, won't fully disrobe even for necessary exams, etc. Forcing the issue doesn’t make these people reconsider their priorities; it just drives them away altogether.

I'm certainly not saying that healthcare providers should play the gender affirmation game to the extent of placing male patients in female wards or performing gynecological exams on male people or any of that lunacy. But while everyone should be free to "misgender" to their heart's content outside of the workplace, "misgendering" patients in a healthcare setting does mean that many of them will forgo necessary care. If a doctor examining a trans-identified female patient turns to the nurse in front of said patient and says "please make a note in her file that she's due for a well woman exam," odds are good that the patient not only won't get the well woman exam she needs, she won't set foot in a doctor's office for the next decade.

(I agree with NotCis that healthcare workers should have the option of respectfully talking around trans people's gender identities, for instance by referring to them by their names rather than their preferred pronouns.)

[–] remquarqk 6 points (+6|-0)

Completely agree with you. In a healthcare setting, I don't really see the harm of referring to patients by gender pronouns. They are being paid. If you're a psychologist or psychiatrist working with mentally ill populations, you also have to cater to them in unique ways to get your job done. It's just part of the job. But I do think we should talk about it like this--a duty as part of a paid healthcare position, not as something political like free speech. If we talk about it like a healthcare duty, it is also easier to maintain boundaries, especially when it comes to maintaining boundaries around sex. I think things get weird when everything is conflated and pronouns are treated like a big deal.

[–] NotCis 10 points (+10|-0)

I think these are important points in terms of "meeting people where they are," but there are also implications to playing along with pronouns. To me, it's no different from telling an anorexic "yes you are fat if you say you're fat." Your duty to the patient is tricky. Maybe using preferred pronouns gets the patient in the door - but does lying help them long-term?

[–] ProxyMusic 6 points (+6|-0) Edited

But this case isn't about health care settings. It's about longterm health care facilities - nursing homes - where elderly people live 24/7/365. These are the patients'/clients' legal places of residence. In most cases people in LTCFs do not have an option of another place to live. Many cannot even leave for an afternoon's outing because of mobility & other health issues.

I can easily see how requiring staff in LTCFs to use incorrect sex pronouns could easily make life difficult for elderly women.

For example: Mary, a 5'4" 110 lb lesbian of 85 in a wheelchair feels intimidated & uncomfortable around Alex, a 6'4" 275 lb, 78 year-old TIM with a ponytail & beard who uses a walker but is still much more mobile than Mary. Alex, who claims to be a lesbian like Mary, keeps hanging around Mary, positioning his big body too close for Mary's personal comfort, often standing & looming over her so she feels even smaller & more vulnerable & so his crotch with its clear bulge is in Mary's face or field of vision. When not right in her face, Alex constantly leers at Mary from across the room or dining table. Alex often makes suggestive, off-color "jokes" & asks Mary about her past sex life, wanting to know if she's a "gold star lesbian" & so on. Alex tells Mary he's really attracted to her & wants to date her, or at least to be "friends with benefits." When Mary rebuffs him, Alex calls her a bigot... and so on.

When Mary complains to the staff that this large intimidating, inappropriate man who pretends he's a woman is pestering her in ways Mary believes to be sexually inappropriate & harassing, the staff members all respond as they learned to in the "diversity & inclusion" training sessions they had to attend: "Don't be silly, Mary. Alex is a lovely woman. She wouldn't hurt a fly. You're probably misinterpreting what she says & just imagining that she's always looking at you. We've never noticed her say or do anything inappropriate

"Of course, if you insist, we can have a talk with her. But really, you're probably imagining things or making a mountain out of molehill. Alex is a doll, just give her a chance. Also, it sounds like you might be reacting to her the way you are because of transphobia. How do you think she would feel if she found out you called her a man? If she found out you'd misgendered her, she'd be extremely hurt. Why don't you try to put yourself in her shoes and try to have some compassion for her?"

Now just imagine all the issues that can come up when Mary is made to share a room, toilet & bathroom with someone like Alex.

IMO, this policy is green light for institutional gaslighting of elderly & infirm women living in nursing homes.

[–] sarahsmile 4 points (+4|-0)

A patient isn’t a customer, though. I hear you regarding the barrier issue, but the trans lobby wants entertainment of this delusion to extend well beyond pronoun usage.

[–] Lilith-Fair 4 points (+4|-0)

A hard disagree. Not because I don't see where you're coming from, but because in America at least, the freedom of speech absolutely trumps every other right and concern. Our founding fathers had the foresight to draft the 1st Amendment precisely because no government officials can ever be trusted not to abuse their power to suppress the freedom of speech. If the court or government is allow to make exception in one case, then there'll be no reason why the exception can't apply to the next thing, and the next thing, and so forth. This is especially true for our court system which gives huge deference to precedents. If one precedent is set to give an exception, that precedent will be used by all the litigating parties in future cases in any unforeseen and unimaginable circumstances. And there'll be no way to not apply the precedent. It'll be the end of the First Amendment,

It is not worth it. Delusional sick patients refusing to seek care is unfortunate. But the very small group of such people are absolutely not worth the majority and future generations losing our right to free speech. Not at all.

[–] hedy 7 points (+7|-0)

I may be misunderstanding something here, but I don't think organizations should be able to require staff to ask for clients' pronouns as part of the intake process. I don't want to go to my gynecologist's office only to have to wonder whether they understand what a woman is or are being compelled to appear not to understand what a woman is. I think that as someone who does understand what a woman is, I should be able to retain this as a screening mechanism.

If you mean just nursing homes should be able to require this, that's less fraught but still, I think, problematic for more clients than not.

[–] remquarqk 0 points (+3|-3)

Personally I'd rather the staff (while on the clock) be required to use pronouns for politeness sake, while still keeping everything sex segregated. aka respecting personal gender preferences while maintaining material sex based reality. I honestly feel like this would be the best compromise and make the most sense for all parties involved.

[–] NotCis 11 points (+11|-0)

Social workers and clinicians often have to testify in court (the former more than the latter). Should they be required to lie under oath and use "preferred pronouns" they don't agree with? What about in cases where males abuse women in nursing homes (which is very common)? Should any of those men who may identify as women be referred to as "she"? I don't think you can compel pronoun speech and also maintain that "material sex-based reality" that you support. The conflicts are innumerable.

[–] remquarqk 2 points (+2|-0)

Should they be required to lie under oath and use "preferred pronouns" they don't agree with?

No. I think it should only be when interacting one-on-one with the patient.

What about in cases where males abuse women in nursing homes (which is very common)? Should any of those men who may identify as women be referred to as "she"?

No, I would think politeness would get thrown out the window with an abuser.

So I guess I think that healthcare institutions should be able to require their workers to use pronouns under specific conditions. But it shouldn't be something dictated by the law.

[–] mittimithai 3 points (+3|-0) Edited

It could harm the workers by making them say very silly and unreasonable things and subjecting them to penalties in adversarial situations even if they try and comply. Better to leave the worker's compliance with odd requests to the worker's judgement.

[–] SueGen -8 points (+4|-12)

I guess I don't see why workers' free speech is protected in a health care setting. Are they allowed to call the patients assholes? I guess I don't see why using the pronouns that the patients want is a lot to ask of health care workers.

[–] NotCis 19 points (+19|-0)

Because it requires those health care workers to state a political belief they may not agree with. I don't think it's analogous to banning profanity. Health care workers who opt not to indulge the fiction that men can be women should still be respectful of all patients; I would suggest avoiding pronouns for those patients, especially when they are in earshot, but they should also continue communicating the reality of biological sex when it is needed (e.g., "Patient Smith is due for a well-woman exam" and so on). Pronouns don't actually make a difference to what the patient's medical and biological needs are. You could argue that they may feel stigmatized, which is important to consider, but the fact is that if you opt to "transition" to the opposite sex, you are setting yourself up for disappointment. The world cannot deny sex with you - not when you need medical care and services and have needs/rights related to privacy from the opposite sex. It is ESSENTIAL to recognize sex and have clear language in this setting.

[–] remquarqk 2 points (+2|-0)

Referring to preferred pronouns in a healthcare setting isn't denying sex though, if on the forms their pronouns are just listed for vanity next to their real sex.

I would suggest avoiding pronouns for those patients, especially when they are in earshot, but they should also continue communicating the reality of biological sex when it is needed

This is a lot to overthink about. Some healthcare workers need more straightforward direction and don't have time to feel anxious over this stuff. Direction that pronouns should be used for politeness while sticking to biological sex when it comes to the treatment would be a more straightforward solution.

The more savvy GC healthcare worker is going to do as you suggested, but there are a ton of others who are going to just get confused with all of it.

Same as it’s a lot to ask of anyone. They shouldn’t be required to lie , or to pander to a cult.

[–] Lilith-Fair 2 points (+2|-0)

Because under our US legal system, there is no good constitutional argument to make an exception for health care that will not apply in the very same way to anything else. You make this exception and you open the floodgate to any employer to require you to say whatever they want you to say. The First Amendment will be dead.

[–] YpsiRadFem Blerg 12 points (+12|-0) Edited

So, the non-gendered right to free speech will be robustly upheld. Women's rights to dignity, equality, safety, and privacy will be repudiated. Hmmmm.....

[–] sconsolato 9 points (+9|-0)

I never would have expected this in California. Very pleasantly surprised.

[–] A_Lady 7 points (+7|-0) Edited

I wonder how many transgender and non-binary seniors there are? Especially non-binary. I can’t imagine an 85 year old demanding zie, zer or something. Maybe that’s the key, get the seniors on board with gender ideology and it will seem uncool to the younger kids.

Edit: forgot to mention I’m glad for this victory. Every small step helps.

[–] XXathlete 4 points (+4|-0)

Much like the prison system, more and more men will identify over as they realize it allows easy access to prey and not being "seen" as a predator.

[–] ProxyMusic 3 points (+3|-0)

There may not be many non-binary seniors, but there are tons of trans-identified ones, particularly het males with AGP.

There are many, many TIMs in particular in their late 60s, 70s & 80s. Jan Morris died last year at 94. Renee Richards is 88. Jenner is 71. Pritzker is 70. There's a huge number of TIMs in their late 50s & early 60s who soon will be seniors. Like Zoey Tur & Jennifer Finney Boylan.

https://www.cnn.com/style/article/transgender-older-adults-portraits/index.html

The Williams Institute in 2015 said that one out every 200 seniors in the US is trans. There are probably more now because being "trans" has become so acceptable.

Most trans-identified seniors areTIMs with AGP because heterosexual males have been coming out as "trans" in droves in late middle age & old age.

[–] UberBitchcraft 1 points (+1|-0) Edited

My thoughts exactly. Among the thousands of seniors in senior care, what percentage is transgender, and do any of them ask to be referred to as tree/trees?

Load more (5 comments)