112

74 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?