Agency in New York threatens tine people for... Read it yourself.

I don't think that ze/hir "carries an obvious political connotation (endorsement of the “non-binary” view of gender)". Ze/hir are just some of the many epicene pronouns that have been proposed since the 19th century.

Have you heard them used, goofy? This is the first time I've heard of them.

I tink it's the illogical position the government is taking -- not forcing you ro use certain words, then decreeing you must here -- that grates.

I don't see the problem with referring to people the way they want to be referred to.
Even if you think the punishment is too much, intentionally and continuously not respecting someone's wish in how they want to be referred to is a jerky thing to do.

http://www.snopes.com/transgender-pronouns-fine-nyc/

No one should be forced by the government to use language they disagree with. This is assuming they know what term the aggrieved person wishes tohave used. Government fiat shouldn't trump freedom of speech. Using the "wrong" term may br rude or even insulting but people should learn to live with it.

I disagree as well, because your position, Proof, would make it OK to use any racial slur you felt like as well as sexual slurs, extreme insulting language of any nature.
"Learn to live with it" is the creed of the tyrant and the bully.

New York City Commission on Human Rights Legal Enforcement Guidance on Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Expression: Local Law No. 3 (2002); N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(23) (about 10 pages)

quote:

would make it OK to use any racial slur you felt like as well as sexual slurs, extreme insulting language of any nature.
"Learn to live with it" is the creed of the tyrant and the bully.

This seems to be an essential difference between the US and UK. It comes down to who makes the determination. Certainly there are many terms that people find distasteful or insulting but is it right for the government to decree certain terms off-limits? Right now the Republican candidate has said nasty things about many groups and I abhor his statements. But to shut him off would be a serious impediment to the political process.
Today I saw a story about a UK citizen who has been charged with a "hate crime" because he posted a picture of his dog giving a "Nazi salute". This was in front of a photo of Hitler. Perhaps it wasn't in good taste but it certainly isn't a crime, at least not here.
In another UK case, a man was fined 200 (?) pounds for calling someone a long phrase endin "codswallop" or something close.That's a crime? Sounds more like the worst of a nanny state.

Yes, in the U.S. we are quite serious about the First Amendment. The closest laws to this are probably our hate crimes laws. They have provisions about "intimidating," which I suppose could be used when calling people ethnic slurs. However, I think the hate crimes laws are mostly used for violence. Apparently some local laws support this, though, because Tinman's NYC link specifically says it's a violation to fail to use an individual's preferred name or pronoun.

I tend to agree with Proof here. While I think it respectful, courteous and moral to refer to people by how they wish to be called, you really can't legislate that, in my opinion, any more than you can legislate liking certain people or being happy.

There are, however, exceptions to the First Amendment.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,

It's a bad idea to look at who was charged - especially given that rags like the Daily Mail have, in themselves, a hate-filled agenda. I don't know that particular story but a better way would be to look at who was actually convicted.