[–] Thrillcheesier 0 points (+0|-0)

When my dad was in a facility, he certainly didn't hear staff discussing him. In fact, no client should hear staff discussing any client, including themselves

[–] Totallyrad 0 points (+0|-0)

I'm shocked...but Scott Wiener is going to dispute it as usual.

[–] 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.....

[–] 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.

[–] 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.


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.

[–] 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.

[–] 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?

[–] 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.

[–] sconsolato 9 points (+9|-0)

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

[–] 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

[–] 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?

[–] 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.

[–] 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.

Load more (5 comments)