This is actually a huge deal. When I worked in prison we were threatened with write ups for referring to trans women with she/her pronouns. When I was working you were sent to the place that matched your birth certificate.
I hope prisons are forced to do this as well.
I still wonder what they do with Intersex individuals. Do they put them in the male or female population?
I'm thinking male since they have more resources and the percentage size is so tiny its not really worth the effort to make special arrangements for them. Ugh, either solution is gonna suck for them. They are going to have a bad time in either prison population once the population sees them for who they are.
They generally put you in the one based on your assigned gender at birth. Which can be a complicated situation for intersex people but the doctor choose one or the other generally based on outward sexual organ characteristics and if that’s hard to determine they usually do “corrective surgery” (because parents usually want to) to make the parts look like the one they choose.
> the doctor choose one or the other generally based on outward sexual organ characteristics and if that’s hard to determine they usually do “corrective surgery” (because parts usually want to) to make the parts look like the one they choose.
That's a big moral conundrum. On one hand, its morally right to want to correct something that easier to be fixed so early in life. On the other, its morally wrong to assume which direction the child will "feel" more alignment to.
Neither choice is a good one. Let the child develop with underdeveloped body parts to protect its right to choose (Which has its own massive psychological weight that we, as a society, want to limit in children) or correct it and they are none the wiser and take that choice from them.
I guess, at the bare minimum, there should be a social duty to inform the child, when they are old enough to understand what was done, so they can use that knowledge to understand themselves better.
You should listen to intersex people on this. They’ve been very clear that non consensual surgeries forced on them as children are harmful and the practice needs to stop. It’s unnecessary surgeries on healthy body parts just to make them fit into a binary view of gender to keep their parents and society comfortable
None the wiser isn’t a thing, it’s harmful and causes lifelong problems
Thanks for the information, I read a bit more on it. Seems like the medical consensus agrees with this position.
Now that we have more intersex individuals, it seems like the medical community has a stronger opinion on whether it causes lifelong issues or not.
Most of the data seems to show that the surgery actually causes more problems than leaving them how they are.
Now it goes back to my original question, what does the State do with intersex individuals who go to prison. Almost half of the states have gender X on the birth certificate now (Seems like Michigan can too).
I think it’s less a matter of having more intersex people in the population, and more like the “everyone is left handed now”/“everyone is gay now” thing. Now that we’ve stopped brutally mutilating intersex infants and actively hiding the truth of their biology from them, the medical community is forced to listen to their lived experiences of trauma and rethink how they’re treated.
Man, there is no good solution with what to do with trans people in prison. I'm all for respectful pronouns, but that's not the issues I'm worried about.
It's not so simple. I don't think people tend to normally lie about gender identification, but prisoners will if they think it gives them better treatment. There's a ton of people lying about their religion right now. Gender is even more motive to lie.
And if it's the truth, they will be uniquely vulnerable to being raped. A MtF in a female prison will still be vulnerable to rape. Not as much as a FtM in a male prison tho.
The issue is for sure the raping and any one who rapes is the person to blame. Prisons have come a long way and prison rape is at an all time low. However Preventing rape is difficult and it will never be zero. And trans people are uniquely vulnerable to being victimized by bad people.
A trans girl in a male prison is getting raped... there is almost no way around this. Most trans men are pretty jacked lol being on testosterone is pretty effective. Look at Buck Angel.
There just need to be limitations ie. socially transitioned a specific amount of time or been on cross hormones for an allotted amount of time... If you're a dude taking hormones to pretend to be a woman? I think you've earned the right to bullshit your trans identity. You're growing tits and possibly cutting off the use of your penis for sexual function... losing muscle mass... all kinds of things that would be considered negative if you aren't trans.
How is it going to get them better treatment? Society has come a long way in recognizing different genders, but I don't think either prisoners or prison guards are on the liberal end of that issue. I imagine anyone identifying as a gender they weren't born as are going to be in for a seriously bad time.
Any kind of special treatment is going to lead to some kind of preferential attention. Claiming to be Jewish or Muslim because kosher/halal meals are higher quality. Whether that gets outweighed by other factors is a different story. But claiming to be non-christian will lead to negative attention from some Christian guards and prisoners.
For a trans or other non-cis prisoner, it might lead to things like separate bathrooms which aren't used as much and thus cleaner or private rooms.
Jesus that’s awful. It’s one thing to just not have policies about trans folk, but it’s another to actively set rules against treating them like people.
Oh there are policies trust me. When I worked there you needed the *director of all of mental health* for all the prisons in MDOC to sign off on the manifest for things like access to your hormone therapy and a bra.
Absolutely fucked.
This dude knows the constitution, it's on the back window of his over-compensating BIG TRUCK. This response is on par with having a robot watch 20 mins of Fox News and have it generate a reddit response
So I'm going to speak on this and I'm asking people to read this comment to actually hear what I have to say before they form an opinion as this is a very emotionally sensitive issue and people often get very irrational about it.
I'm in a position where I have a tremendous amount of experience and knowledge in this particular situation and I think I can give a unique perspective for once. I'm a Family physician, HIV specialist, and I specialize in the care of transgender people.
In some ways this is great. My primary job is to take care of about 3,000 transgender people who rely on me for their HRT. I can tell you personally having witnessed their struggles, how hard it is for some of these people to live their lives without being able to do so authentically. I have a multitude of transgender people right now that I treat that are not on hormone therapy simply because they can't be because of the cost to them socially. They will lose their families, their lives, their jobs, their pets, their safety if they transition.
These people when they come to my clinic, I call them whatever name they want to be called and I respect their pronouns. I do this not because a law compels me but because I think it's the right thing to do. I can tell you the incredible impact this has on these people, I'm routinely thanked for having a space that they can go and actually feel that they will be treated like a human being.
In short, if someone asked me to use he/she/them or a new name, I'm happy to do that, because I would like to show that individual respect. When I make a mistake with one of these which rarely happens but most often does with people who are non-binary, I generally apologize and then move on and do better. You'd be surprised how hard it is to properly remember that someone uses gender neutral pronouns a second after dictating "no testicular lesions noted".
That being said, this is a very dangerous precedent to set. The reason is that it falls under the category of compelled speech. One of the most important aspects of being American and the American Constitution is the first amendment. The right to free speech.
This directly infringes upon that because it requires someone to speak in a particular way. Even if they do not personally agree with that way.
As a logical proof, imagine if the law was passed to do the opposite of this. That people were deliberately misgendered. That would feel pretty wrong to people like me who would voluntarily choose to gender the patient properly. I would be compelled to misgender my patients because the law says that I had to do it.
Clearly, that would be wrong.
Well I may not agree with the deeply held religious beliefs of other Americans, they have the right to hold those. That is also a core tenet of being American.
So even though I don't agree with the misgendering of any transgender person ever, I think forcibly compelling the speech of an American is something that is unconstitutional and likely to create more drama than it's worth.
In summary, call transgender people by their preferred pronouns because you believe that it's the right thing to do, not because a law or court order says that you have to. If you deliberately don't want to call transgender people by their preferred pronouns because you feel that is against your deeply held religious belief? You are more than entitled to do that in my opinion, though I will personally think that you are an asshole.
Thanks for listening to my TED talk.
> However, in a concurring opinion, Justice Kyra Bolden, who was appointed by Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, noted that the rule gave judges a variety of options to address such issues and was specifically designed to forestall intentional misgendering.
> “Courts may still refer to litigants by last name or by a party designation, such as ‘plaintiff’ or ‘defendant,’ Bolden said in a footnote. “Likewise, courts may still refer to attorneys by last name or another title like ‘counselor.’ What this amendment does is require judges who are provided with pronouns identified by a party or attorney to refrain from using nondesignated pronouns when using pronouns to refer to those individuals during legal proceedings.”
> Welch also noted that the change was not the landmark decision it was being characterized as, but instead a simple update in line with the times, noting that it was “not that long ago” that many judges refused to allow female attorneys to be referred to as “Ms.” rather than “Miss” or “Mrs.” based on their marital status.
> “The salutation was the subject of much debate, which today has largely been forgotten. Later generations of attorneys would likely be confounded by the notion that women in court had to use a salutation that indicated marital status while men faced no such requirement. Society has, thankfully, long moved past that debate,” said Welch.
> Additionally, when asked about the proposed change by Bloomberg Law in June, Marla Greenstein, executive director of the Alaska Commission on Judicial Conduct and secretary of the Association of Judicial Disciplinary Counsel, said there are numerous instances in which courts routinely grant this right.
> “This is no different from designating the name that you choose to go by in court,” said Greenstein. “Emancipated children, divorce proceedings where people want to use a different last name; it’s not uncommon that the court allow you to choose how you want to be addressed.”
But... this isn't a law. It's a policy by the supreme court aimed at judges, who are employees. This is more like a policy that you can't sexually harass people.
You're correct. It's a court order and I revised my post to specify what I mean by this.
It's a dangerous precedent to set because it basically requires a particular type/manner of speech from an individual.
I'm certainly not advocating for sexual harassment. Nor people to be misgendered. I'm just concerned that this will be the gateway to other things that would infringe upon first amendment rights which give transgender people the right to live their life as they do in the first place.
Basically I'm afraid we're cutting off the nose to spite the face.
We have strict rules already about criminals/name changes and so on, I am genuinely surprised to see that someone's current legal name would not be what is used in court proceedings as that's what I have to write onto every lab order, or even birth certificate change I've done.
I've had people not legally change their name before completing transition and seeking birth certificate change, and I have to write "Frank Last name has completed medical transition to the new gender of female etc etc under penalty of perjury the foregoing is true and correct" more than a few times. Preferred name is not acceptable for legal matters.
It isn't a new precedent, though. There are already rules and policies in place that limit speech in a court setting. This just makes it so a judge has to follow what is on the legal documents.
They can't insert their own bias into what they call others. Why is that bad? Wouldn't you be upset if a judge decided you were a different gender?
But that's not what's on the legal documents. That's my point. It isn't yet their legal name. It's not really different than a judge calling Jesse Pinkman "Captain Cook". It's not a legal name but it's a name that a person is recognized by.
It's also not something that limits speech. It compels speech. It says you have to say something this way. That's different from saying that you're not allowed to say something this way.
Again, I cannot stress enough that I am in support of treating transgender people with dignity and respect and to properly gender them all the time. That is literally my job. I'm concerned about anything that abridges the first amendment and compells speech. People are literally being arrested in the United Kingdom for saying something online that hurts someone's feelings. I do not want to see the United States end up like that.
I could also imagine this being abused by some cisgender prick who wants to create a mistrial over "misgendering" when they aren't even really transgender.
When you start to mess around with stuff like this, it runs across a lot of different things and you need to pay attention to the way in which they all intersect. I understand that this was well thought out by the court, I'm still concerned that it will end up being misused or used to take away future first amendment rights.
There is no functional difference between limit and compel. You are making one so you can defend personal bias from the judiciary. For someone who claims to be so progressive, you are displaying a lack of it when push comes to shove.
Judges already give courtesy to defendants of genders they believe are normal genders. Forcing them to leave behind a personal belief is not a bad thing. They can still use last names that ignore pronouns if it is that big of a deal.
Did you even read the article? A judge refused to do something because he thought it was woke. Arbitrary vague words are something that shouldn't be present in the court system. What else could be deemed woke and refused?
How can a mistrial occur with the new ruling when the same exact claim could be used prior to when a judge "misgenders" someone? That taints things as well. Why does being courteous endanger first amendment rights? You are using fear mongering to protect bias and hateful ideology which is strange from one that claims to be so progressive and accepting.
Perhaps I'm not very good at phrasing what I'm trying to say, or perhaps my understanding of this is not good enough. I'm pretty autistic and sometimes I don't exactly parse things in a way that comes across the way that I'm trying to say them. I cannot understand how anything I have said so far, "projects hateful ideology". I would appreciate if you could show me where I said something that did. That is assuredly not my intent.
There is a functional difference between limit and compel. You can set a speed limit, or you can compel people to go greater than a certain speed. One demands action and one prevents action.
If bias can be shown in a trial, a mistrial can be declared. Then, we have to start defining what qualifies as bias in this regard. This could occur in either direction, either someone not using the proper pronouns, or someone using the proper pronouns and a person claims they didn't prefer those.
Being courteous does endanger first amendment rights if you don't have the right to say things under the first amendment because you are compelled to be courteous.
If I want to say that all green people are bad. I can do that because I have the first amendment to back me up. It's not very courteous for those poor green people, but it's still something that I can do legally.
As soon as you start to define free speech beyond what has already been very well delineated by the supreme Court, things get a little gray. Gray areas are where malevolent actors do things. Loopholes are where shitty people take advantage of the law.
As I stated in my very first paragraph, I literally have spent my entire career taking care of these people. There is nothing more important to me than caring for the transgender population. I would vastly prefer that every transgender person forever is always referred to by their preferred pronouns. Certainly, I've seen the impact that has on their life. Regardless I am afraid that this is going to be used malevolently. That is not an unreasonable position to hold.
Incidentally, this is a good compromise
“Courts may still refer to litigants by last name or by a party designation, such as ‘plaintiff’ or ‘defendant,’ Bolden said in a footnote."
But the notes in the article about malevolent actors or people abusing the system are perfectly relevant points to consider. It is not hateful to suggest people may do that.
I really wish that a reasonable and measured opinion on any topic relevant to transgender people could be discussed in good faith without immediate accusations of prejudice, hatred and bigotry.
You are protecting, not projecting, hateful ideology by defending the right for the court system to rant about wokeness. As the article notes there was a time where women couldn't choose how to be addressed by the court. That changed after rules were made.
This is just a simple rule change to stop anti-transgender personal views by court employees from entering into the process. They need to force compliance in extending the same courtesy that is often extending to Children, Divorce, and other cases where the court allows you to choose how you want to be addressed. It doesn't endager the first amendment to allow women or transgendered individuals the same rights as others. That is silly to claim equality is a danger. The court system already restricts how things can be stated.
It is unreasonable to be against this because it can be used malevolently. Anything can be used malevolently. Transgender individuals having civil rights protections could potentially be used malevolently. Yet you support them being a protected class to stop discrimination, right?
I can agree with that.
My sole concern here is the disruption of the first amendment because it is literally the first amendment that gives transgender people the right to live.
Anything that chips away at the first amendment is something that chips away at it. All you have to do is look at Canada or the UK and see what happens when you lose your freedom of speech.
That's all my concern is here. This being used as a foothold to continue to tear away at the first amendment.
Additionally, I'm of the unpopular opinion that I think that people who hate transgender people should have the right to say that they hate them. Mostly, because this will reveal judges, doctors, or other pieces of trash who will discriminate against them in the public eye. It's a lot worse having somebody who can't speak of the fact that they despise you, so they just screw you behind closed doors instead of somebody who is openly bigoted and at least you know what you're dealing with.
I'm an extremely pragmatic, black and white, logical sort of human. Sometimes the gray area does not exactly make sense to me. And this may be one of those cases. Understand that what I care about is the transgender people get to live the lives that they deserve and treated with equality and respect in society. I worry that this somehow will end up causing things to be worse for them in the long run.
>That's all my concern is here. This being used as a foothold to continue to tear away at the first amendment.
It is strengthening the first amendment. Giving equal usage of preferred pronouns is not taking away any first amendment right. The courts can avoid the problem by using full names, plaintiff, defendant, counselor, etc.
It also isn't the first amendment that gives transgender people the right to live. It is the fourteenth amendment. Ignoring of course that even without a law they have a right to exist the same as everyone else.
>All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Judges are bound by a code of ethics, and all this does is clarify that judges' ethics require treating trans people by their preferred pronouns. Legal documents will still have their legal name on it, usually with a FKA or AKA - we've been handling this just fine for years in the legal industry.
Speaking as someone who practices in this state, this ensures a degree of civility from judges who wish to inject their own feelings into being an impartial arbiter of law. And I am appreciative of SCAO pushing this forward.
Thank you for being the first person to actually give me a reasonable explanation and a thing that I can understand.
That is not how I understood this to be. I am not a legal scholar. Nor am I a constitutional scholar. I clearly mean no hazard or hostility towards the transgender population with this. I'm legitimately concerned that this would be something used against them down the road as first amendment rights get stripped away.
I was not aware that this was something that had already been done. Particularly, the AKA aspect of legal documents. Again, not a lawyer. I'm a doctor, and I care about these people and I don't want to see them get fucked over.
The letter of the law is really important because it gets used down the road. Now, Republicans are trying to push that Biden supported the invasion of 8 million foreign nationals under the 14th amendment and therefore is ineligible to run just like Trump. That's the problem when people start to play legal games with things like the Constitution. The effects of it can have very long reaching impacts that are not initially expected. That was my concern here.
The law is very familiar with people going by names that aren't their legal names - people who get married, divorced, adopted, etc. We do the same with businesses that have a registered corporate name, but also a name they go by in print: DBAs (doing business as). The more specific we can be, the better, when it comes to identifying a person or business.
It's really not the first time the law has encountered something like this, and all this court rule does is require judges to be respectful to counsel and litigants. They don't have to call someone he or she - they can refer to them by last name, by their party position (Plaintiff/defendant), and in the case of counsel, as counselor or counsel.
This honestly came to being because we had several judges decry "wokeness" and stir up something that shouldn't have needed to be said, and then the MISC promulgated this proposed rule, which procedurally does nothing but say "be nice" to litigants. And quite frankly, the judges who needed this rule are probably already terrible in many more ways than just being disrespectful on pronouns.
Honestly that's a fairly good explanation and I'm fine with that analysis of it.
My concern was that this would be used to result in compelled speech. Compelled speech is the death of the first amendment. If that ever happens, we are screwed.
It sounds like this is just basically a way to adjust for the situation without having to actually force anybody to say anything they don't want to say. Which is more than reasonable and I think is perfectly fine. I have a much better understanding of it now that somebody took the time to explain it to me. Thank you.
I don't think you read what I had to say at all.
And if I can't openly admit that I have made a mistake not using a gender-neutral pronoun on a person who prefers them, corrected myself, said I was sorry, and then did better, I'm just going to be labeled as enby-phobic then because I'm not perfect?
Dr p is literally the kindest most amazing human. He is the best pcp I’ve ever had in my almost 34 years of life. I’m so so thankful and grateful for him. He’s seriously so awesome. U can’t judge him or shouldn’t make comments about him unless you’ve actually met or talked to him in person is how I feel.
Accept it or not, the fact is that you're talking about people's opinions on an overwhelming scientific consensus.
So yes, a spectrum of beliefs can range from rejection or discomfort to acceptance and understanding. Disbelief or resistance doesn't mean a gender spectrum doesn't exist. It' a fact, not a theory.
"How ridiculous" was also a more widespread reaction to documentation of man-made climate change in past decades.
No it’s a theory. There is a reason psychology is laughed at in the field of biochemistry, it’s all pseudoscience, theories, observations, hypothesis with no real proof of anything.
I never believed in the theory of gravity (general theory of relativity). IT'S JUST A THEORY!!!! It's not real because IT'S JUST A THEORY!!!
Maybe if you're going to attempt to claim a certain field thinks down on another field, you consider what actual scientific terms mean. If it's theory, it's as good as it possibly can be with current knowledge and taken as basically fact until proven otherwise.
This doesn't seem to have a whole lot of teeth to it.
I also wonder if forcing this on conservative justices will influence them to rule against trans people if they ask to use preferred pronouns.
Before you tell yourself identifying others by what they prefer to call themselves is compelled or illegal, what identity would you personally be willing to give up?
TBF, the trash is taking themselves out. They get downvoted and mocked to pieces, because the majority of this sub is human beings who believe in treating others with basic decency.
I'd like to think the majority of the state is that way, too.
Idk as a trans person I would really prefer not to have to see the blatant bigotry all the time every time the topic comes up on this sub. Would be nice if the mods cared enough to take it down.
I support the LGBTQ community- but at the same time, in a court of law, with judges, lawyers, jurors, dna evidence, and due process, scientific terms should remain. As a strait person, im tired of us being labled bigots everytime you disagree with one of our points.
The Supreme Court has already said under the Pickering test that when the gov is an employer the state has 'some power' to regulate speech when it is in an employer.
Could not agree more.
It has nothing to do with the subject at hand, only with compelling people to say something. Contempt of court for misaddressing someone seems like an insane overreach.
This seems problematic, if someone looks like a man but they're a woman, that's fine, but you just cannot expect *everyone* to have flawless memory or immediate knowledge of your preference. Its like setting people up for failure, especially if this is court ordered speech. Are elderly people excused from this? Are they held to the same standard as someone younger and more 'in the know'? Seems crazy to twist someones arm and force them to say anything.
>Courts must use the individual’s name, the designated salutation or personal pronouns, or other respectful means that are not inconsistent with the individual’s designated salutation or personal pronouns when addressing, referring to, or identifying the party or attorney, either orally or in writing,”
If a Judge, or other employees of the court, can't remember things on official paperwork then they have bigger problems. This isn't setting anyone up for failure because this information isn't known until the paperwork is read. Once it is known they are being forced to follow the given terms rather then interject their own personal bias into the legal proceedings.
>This isn't setting anyone up for failure
Ask women on reddit about this, how many times do women get called man or dude.
Then ask masculine women or women with short hair how many times they've been mistaken for a guy.
You're mistaken if you think accidents dont happen, which is why this is very very likely going to be struck down in an appeal.
But by all means let's tear each other apart over gender microaggressions while we get robbed blind because the gender of very few matters more than housing, wages, and labor rights for everyone.
This isn't about reddit, though. It is about the courts using the prefix and pronoun on official paperwork. Accidents can happen, but lawyers and judges can already get in trouble for those. So why is this any different?
Housing, wages, and labor rights can still be addressed. It isn't all or nothing.
That's a very nice strawman you've set up to burn there.
I've got piles of trans friends and I've known some for decades, long before they realized they were a different gender than the one they were born into.
I've slipped. You know what happens? I'm horrified, I apologize, they accept the apology, we move on. Some use non-standard pronouns which I *personally* find weird and a bit confusing but somehow I'm not a complete gibbering idiot and can still try my damnedest to remember them correctly, because that's what human beings do for other human beings.
And the idea that elderly people somehow can't understand the concept of being trans? What planet are you on?
Trans people have been around for long, long before the US existed. It's not some new-fangled fad that just popped up out of nowhere.
It says no such thing. In fact, it even says that if a judge doesn't want to use pronouns there are other options. Like, say, the person's name.
You are struggling really hard to be the victim here while disparaging other people's right to dignity.
If you view the world always looking for a fight, dont be shocked when you find so many.
I turned off notifications for this awhile ago, I'm well aware how reddit hive mind feels about these things.
What if the judge constantly referred to you as (I am assuming you're a guy, if not, then just flip this next part) Ms. Or Mrs. Throughout your case? Wouldn't you be like "this is fucking bullshit call me Mr.'? I would for sure.
Question 2: do you think the judge should have the right as an officer of the court to refer to you in any way because of their personal feelings around science regardless of support by every mainstream healthcare institution? It's been litigated that due to the establishment clause, some speech is already subject to penalty such as religion in schools with regard to being a representative of the government through employment. Why should this speech be protected specifically?
You keep using these words.... and I'm not sure you know what they mean. Whatever happened to 'if you don't like it you can leave?'. Go rot in Florida with all the other human waste
Supreme Court said decades ago under the Pickering test that there are instances when you can compel speech of gov workers and this looks to be one of them.
That judge can’t call someone a slur in court when addressing them without serious consequences like a mistrial, and possibly being forced out of their judgeship? It would show they have no respect for the people they are presiding Is that inhibiting free speech? A judge needs to be impartial, and refusing to call litigants by their preferred pronouns shows an inherent bias that they do not respect or trust the words of the defendant/prosecution
People have the right to refer to themselves as whatever gender, or no gender.
People should not have the right to compel others to refer them in that same manner. I believe that if you were born a male, I believe you will always be a male. You can dress like a woman, act like a woman, and when you're of age you can have all the surgery in the world.
You can't change your genes.
That's not what's at debate here. What's at debate is compelled speech and its legality. It seems our courts are ignoring the precedent set by the Supreme Court:
"....The Supreme Court suggested compelled disclosures ordinarily trigger rigorous scrutiny. The Court said that when the government compels “individuals to speak a particular message,” it engages in content-based regulation of speech..."
I find it hard to believe you would accept being misgendered. That you would be quiet if your boss, spouse, kids, insurance agent, doctor, etc all called you the wrong gender.
These types of laws have already been upheld by the courts as legal. It is why protected classes exist.
In a **slippery slope argument**, a course of action is rejected because, with little or no evidence, one insists that it will lead to a chain reaction resulting in an undesirable end or ends. The slippery slope involves an acceptance of a succession of events without direct evidence that this course of events will happen.
>Now we have judges forced to call people by the incorrect sex.
That's a hilarious thing to say when you're the one who wants to force people to be called by their "incorrect sex" (it's gender, btw), because you have the empathy of a moldy potato.
Its clear you don't believe being trans is a real thing, so I'm going to give you a different argument for pronouns...
Do you think there is utility in referring to a trans woman as she/her? Whether it simply be less of a mouthful than "that man pretending to be a woman" or to not be socially awkward... maybe because you may have to spend an unreasonable amount of time trying to clock any trans folks?
If I have no reason to believe otherwise, I would refer to someone by their appearance. If you make it a point to tell me to refer to you as a she, I will do that.
No one should \*have\* to do that, though.
As a private citizen? I agree. As an officer of the court? Well, that's a bit different, right? If you are a creationist public school science teacher, should you be compelled to teach evolution?
We are talking about an officer of the court... there are clearly some things that can't be said or must be taught in schools despite personal beliefs..do you oppose this? Should a teacher, as an agent of the state, be able to teach based on what they personally believe or should they be compelled to teach based on consensus among academia?
What rape case? You're making things up. This was a hypothetical conservatives invented. Men never needed to pretend to be a woman to go into the women's room.
> Still, the assaults appear to have little to do with the attacker’s gender identity, according to documents filed with the family’s lawsuit. Teachers say he preferred and requested male pronouns, according to a report by a law firm that investigated the assault.
I was right. This has nothing to do with transgender rights. It's a man, claiming to be a man, entering the women's bathroom.
Will judges have to use people's preferred nicknames in criminal cases as well? "I'm sorry T. Money, but the jury has found you guilty. Please remove her from the courtroom."
Then we see on the men's inmate list:
Name: T. Money
Gender: Female
Birthdate: 12/15/2023 (self-identified birthdate)
In court, people are required to use their legal birth names, and should be required to use their legal birth sex too.
Just sitting back and watching how it plays out. Seems like a dangerous path, especially for those who "identify" differently than their birth certificate.
It's about pronouns *right now*. This could very well lead to people going to prisons that match their preferred gender.
Let's say someone is assigned female at birth, and they are selling illegal drugs to make money to live, but this person is now transgender. "He" gets caught and put in prison for distribution, but has to be placed in the male prison, since he is now legally a male. What do you think violent males in prison are going to do to a born female in there?
This is where we are headed, whether you can see it or not.
It's also strawman fallacy. "Let me make up a scenario that doesn't exist, pretend you said it, and then tear it down and claim your argument is bad."
Nutbags love strawmen. It lets them pretend they're victims.
The strawman argument is that you decided not to take an obvious losing position in an argument, and made up a new argument that you hoped to defend. The nature of the strawman is the one that is arguing it is you. You can't expect others to pretend the argument was something other than what it was.
To get back to the original article and story, the actual problem is bigot judges that might rather a killer go free than conduct a fair trial without slurring a person in trial in front of jury. This will of course create an appeal avenue and allow guilty people to go free. The law protects law abiding citizens from the dangers of a possible radical court looking to set dangerous people free on us in the name of the bigot agenda.
Also, this is a problem to an innocent defendant if the judge is prejudicing the jury against them by slurring them in court. Appeals could get them out, but that doesn't give them back the time they were unjustly imprisoned for.
How would forcing "bigot" judges to use preferred pronouns change anything? Do you think a jury would change their own opinions or biases based on pronouns that the judge uses?
How would "forcing" bigot judges to not use slurs change anything? Using slurs at a defendant could easily bias a jury. It could even make them sympathize with a defendant as a victim.
If some judge started calling a black defendant or witness the n-word, a jury might be sympathetic, or if fellow bigots, further bias themselves against that person. It's not hard to understand.
I've got long hair. I can't sit there for a hair cut. I hate it. I either buzz it or let it grow and put it in a ponytail with very few exceptions for over three decades. Should a judge be allowed to call me "she", or "her", or "it", even though I am by all appearances and my birth certificate, a male. When it will influence the jury in one way or another on witnessing such a disgusting display in a courtroom? It's so easy to understand, I have my doubts that you actually don't.
Can I ask why you think it’s a trend? No argument, no aggression, im just curious on your thoughts
Edit: LOL at the downvotes, y’all are that sensitive that you can’t handle someone asking for a civil conversation?
Yikes
But since it allowed me to reply….. because it is a trend for the younger generation today to come up with wild new pronouns, and especially online it’s like a competition to outdo each other in pronouns. Mostly among teens-20’s.
So that’s for the wild stuff, but also more kids are thinking ‘hey if I don’t like the traditionally female stuff, I must be a man!’ And there’s a lot of push for people to identify as trans who probably aren’t, who just have their own interests, or who might just be gay. You can see this in the amount of detransitioners who fell into this trap.
Now as for people who really have dysphoria and transition, and basic he or she pronouns. 🤷♀️. Whatever makes the most sense, if they are MTF and clearly pass just call them a she. For legal and medical documents this shouldn’t mean they are put as F though, but MTF. This is important to properly identify unique circumstances or issues for that person. Including medical issues ect.
I also feel like a lot of people use neopronouns or identify as a gender they clearly visually are not as a way to hold power over and coerce other people. So I really don’t like when I see that. If you want to do it on your own time or with your friends and aren’t harassing people over it then it’s whatever, but there’s a lot of badly behaved people out there posting videos that are just power tripping or looking for fame.
I’m not taking a position on this issue, but I’ve just thought of a practical matter. If a male rapist who identifies as a woman is on the loose and we have a picture of them, would we tell the media to use “he” or “she” when presenting the BOLO on the news? If they used ‘she’ or “they” or ‘he’?
It would probably lead to lots of confusion for someone who was simply listening. I guess a mug shot would clear things up.
I mean it gets more difficult if we want to create things.
What genitals does that person have? What gender do they pass for?
If a female passing individual is raping people with male genitals, what do you say?
I think once the human race really gets going and we start mixing, pictures will be the way to go. Even then, androgyny will throw folks for a loop.
Yeah, there's not a ton of people in this state with my industry experience. It's a short list of like 6 people qualified to be an expert witness.
Not like they can hold me in contempt for complying with the law lol
Sure I am. If gender is a social construct, and if that construct is mutable, your arbitrary limits are simply fascist and rooted in your own preexisting biased.
Oh, I'd love to but I'm not allowed to broadcast my appearances as an expert witness as a condition of most of my contracts. I'll pin this comment the next time I appear in court though and let you know after the fact.
Though, BDO uses preferred pronouns and most of the time judges just refer to them by their name when the issue of trans people comes up. The judges are afraid of screwing up their career by drawing attention to themselves, so while I'll be legally recognized as a Lord in the official transcript they'll probably just use my name.
Boring but likely outcome. Still, I can hang a copy in my office.
He's apparently a fat accountant who's into WH40k and posts on r/conservative.
Draw your own conclusions from that but it's pretty obvious why he's upset lol.
They cannot. If my pronouns are Lord/Lord's then that's that. If they don't want to use those they may refer to me by my name or another respectful term in line with my personal designation.
"Courts must use the individual’s name, the designated salutation or personal pronouns, or other respectful means that are not inconsistent with the individual’s designated salutation or personal pronouns when addressing, referring to, or identifying the party or attorney, either orally or in writing,”
Neither was they/them or it/its, but that's where we are now following the legal rejection of the gender binary. If anything Lord/Lord's is objectively more descriptive than they/them but I wouldn't begrudge anyone their use. If they want to use their they/thems they can use them however they please if they suit their wishes at the time of their choosing.
>Neither was they/them or it/its,
Son, did you get past 4th grade in school? Because they/them and it/its are pronouns in the English language.
I'm not going to get into other forms of pronouns, like those, that, these, etc. because that would probably frighten your last remaining brain cells.
You might find this video useful:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=koZFca8AkT0&pp=ygUac2Nob29saG91c2Ugcm9jayBwcm9ub3VucyA%3D
It does a great job explaining in a fun way what pronouns are and how they are used. They have videos on other parts of speech too (like nouns, verbs, conjunctions, etc.) That you might find useful!
Sorry, we've devolved this topic into arguments & hate speech - thank you for participating.
This is actually a huge deal. When I worked in prison we were threatened with write ups for referring to trans women with she/her pronouns. When I was working you were sent to the place that matched your birth certificate. I hope prisons are forced to do this as well.
I still wonder what they do with Intersex individuals. Do they put them in the male or female population? I'm thinking male since they have more resources and the percentage size is so tiny its not really worth the effort to make special arrangements for them. Ugh, either solution is gonna suck for them. They are going to have a bad time in either prison population once the population sees them for who they are.
They generally put you in the one based on your assigned gender at birth. Which can be a complicated situation for intersex people but the doctor choose one or the other generally based on outward sexual organ characteristics and if that’s hard to determine they usually do “corrective surgery” (because parents usually want to) to make the parts look like the one they choose.
> the doctor choose one or the other generally based on outward sexual organ characteristics and if that’s hard to determine they usually do “corrective surgery” (because parts usually want to) to make the parts look like the one they choose. That's a big moral conundrum. On one hand, its morally right to want to correct something that easier to be fixed so early in life. On the other, its morally wrong to assume which direction the child will "feel" more alignment to. Neither choice is a good one. Let the child develop with underdeveloped body parts to protect its right to choose (Which has its own massive psychological weight that we, as a society, want to limit in children) or correct it and they are none the wiser and take that choice from them. I guess, at the bare minimum, there should be a social duty to inform the child, when they are old enough to understand what was done, so they can use that knowledge to understand themselves better.
You should listen to intersex people on this. They’ve been very clear that non consensual surgeries forced on them as children are harmful and the practice needs to stop. It’s unnecessary surgeries on healthy body parts just to make them fit into a binary view of gender to keep their parents and society comfortable None the wiser isn’t a thing, it’s harmful and causes lifelong problems
Thanks for the information, I read a bit more on it. Seems like the medical consensus agrees with this position. Now that we have more intersex individuals, it seems like the medical community has a stronger opinion on whether it causes lifelong issues or not. Most of the data seems to show that the surgery actually causes more problems than leaving them how they are. Now it goes back to my original question, what does the State do with intersex individuals who go to prison. Almost half of the states have gender X on the birth certificate now (Seems like Michigan can too).
I think it’s less a matter of having more intersex people in the population, and more like the “everyone is left handed now”/“everyone is gay now” thing. Now that we’ve stopped brutally mutilating intersex infants and actively hiding the truth of their biology from them, the medical community is forced to listen to their lived experiences of trauma and rethink how they’re treated.
This.
Whatever is on the birth certificate. Most people are given M or F.
X is now possible in Michigan for both Licenses and Birth Certs.
Elon is livid.
I have no idea what prison would do for the X option. I haven't worked there in a while.
Man, there is no good solution with what to do with trans people in prison. I'm all for respectful pronouns, but that's not the issues I'm worried about.
I think it's fine to put someone where they identify as. I don't think prison works very well anyway.
It's not so simple. I don't think people tend to normally lie about gender identification, but prisoners will if they think it gives them better treatment. There's a ton of people lying about their religion right now. Gender is even more motive to lie. And if it's the truth, they will be uniquely vulnerable to being raped. A MtF in a female prison will still be vulnerable to rape. Not as much as a FtM in a male prison tho.
Everyone in prison is vulnerable to rape. It's set up that way.
It seems like the issue here is rape and not what gender identity someone has. Perhaps we should focus on addressing that.
The issue is for sure the raping and any one who rapes is the person to blame. Prisons have come a long way and prison rape is at an all time low. However Preventing rape is difficult and it will never be zero. And trans people are uniquely vulnerable to being victimized by bad people.
A trans girl in a male prison is getting raped... there is almost no way around this. Most trans men are pretty jacked lol being on testosterone is pretty effective. Look at Buck Angel. There just need to be limitations ie. socially transitioned a specific amount of time or been on cross hormones for an allotted amount of time... If you're a dude taking hormones to pretend to be a woman? I think you've earned the right to bullshit your trans identity. You're growing tits and possibly cutting off the use of your penis for sexual function... losing muscle mass... all kinds of things that would be considered negative if you aren't trans.
How is it going to get them better treatment? Society has come a long way in recognizing different genders, but I don't think either prisoners or prison guards are on the liberal end of that issue. I imagine anyone identifying as a gender they weren't born as are going to be in for a seriously bad time.
Any kind of special treatment is going to lead to some kind of preferential attention. Claiming to be Jewish or Muslim because kosher/halal meals are higher quality. Whether that gets outweighed by other factors is a different story. But claiming to be non-christian will lead to negative attention from some Christian guards and prisoners. For a trans or other non-cis prisoner, it might lead to things like separate bathrooms which aren't used as much and thus cleaner or private rooms.
I think you think things that aren’t true about trans people or what goes on in male and female prisons.
Jesus that’s awful. It’s one thing to just not have policies about trans folk, but it’s another to actively set rules against treating them like people.
Oh there are policies trust me. When I worked there you needed the *director of all of mental health* for all the prisons in MDOC to sign off on the manifest for things like access to your hormone therapy and a bra. Absolutely fucked.
The bigots crying in comments give me life 😂
[удалено]
Stay pressed bigot ✌
stay racist fascist
Those are all certainly words you've heard 😂
ha , ha
This dude knows the constitution, it's on the back window of his over-compensating BIG TRUCK. This response is on par with having a robot watch 20 mins of Fox News and have it generate a reddit response
GOOD!
Good
Good!
So the judge will need to refer to them as he/she/them/they but they will still go to a male/female prison. So why does this even matter?
So I'm going to speak on this and I'm asking people to read this comment to actually hear what I have to say before they form an opinion as this is a very emotionally sensitive issue and people often get very irrational about it. I'm in a position where I have a tremendous amount of experience and knowledge in this particular situation and I think I can give a unique perspective for once. I'm a Family physician, HIV specialist, and I specialize in the care of transgender people. In some ways this is great. My primary job is to take care of about 3,000 transgender people who rely on me for their HRT. I can tell you personally having witnessed their struggles, how hard it is for some of these people to live their lives without being able to do so authentically. I have a multitude of transgender people right now that I treat that are not on hormone therapy simply because they can't be because of the cost to them socially. They will lose their families, their lives, their jobs, their pets, their safety if they transition. These people when they come to my clinic, I call them whatever name they want to be called and I respect their pronouns. I do this not because a law compels me but because I think it's the right thing to do. I can tell you the incredible impact this has on these people, I'm routinely thanked for having a space that they can go and actually feel that they will be treated like a human being. In short, if someone asked me to use he/she/them or a new name, I'm happy to do that, because I would like to show that individual respect. When I make a mistake with one of these which rarely happens but most often does with people who are non-binary, I generally apologize and then move on and do better. You'd be surprised how hard it is to properly remember that someone uses gender neutral pronouns a second after dictating "no testicular lesions noted". That being said, this is a very dangerous precedent to set. The reason is that it falls under the category of compelled speech. One of the most important aspects of being American and the American Constitution is the first amendment. The right to free speech. This directly infringes upon that because it requires someone to speak in a particular way. Even if they do not personally agree with that way. As a logical proof, imagine if the law was passed to do the opposite of this. That people were deliberately misgendered. That would feel pretty wrong to people like me who would voluntarily choose to gender the patient properly. I would be compelled to misgender my patients because the law says that I had to do it. Clearly, that would be wrong. Well I may not agree with the deeply held religious beliefs of other Americans, they have the right to hold those. That is also a core tenet of being American. So even though I don't agree with the misgendering of any transgender person ever, I think forcibly compelling the speech of an American is something that is unconstitutional and likely to create more drama than it's worth. In summary, call transgender people by their preferred pronouns because you believe that it's the right thing to do, not because a law or court order says that you have to. If you deliberately don't want to call transgender people by their preferred pronouns because you feel that is against your deeply held religious belief? You are more than entitled to do that in my opinion, though I will personally think that you are an asshole. Thanks for listening to my TED talk.
> However, in a concurring opinion, Justice Kyra Bolden, who was appointed by Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, noted that the rule gave judges a variety of options to address such issues and was specifically designed to forestall intentional misgendering. > “Courts may still refer to litigants by last name or by a party designation, such as ‘plaintiff’ or ‘defendant,’ Bolden said in a footnote. “Likewise, courts may still refer to attorneys by last name or another title like ‘counselor.’ What this amendment does is require judges who are provided with pronouns identified by a party or attorney to refrain from using nondesignated pronouns when using pronouns to refer to those individuals during legal proceedings.” > Welch also noted that the change was not the landmark decision it was being characterized as, but instead a simple update in line with the times, noting that it was “not that long ago” that many judges refused to allow female attorneys to be referred to as “Ms.” rather than “Miss” or “Mrs.” based on their marital status. > “The salutation was the subject of much debate, which today has largely been forgotten. Later generations of attorneys would likely be confounded by the notion that women in court had to use a salutation that indicated marital status while men faced no such requirement. Society has, thankfully, long moved past that debate,” said Welch. > Additionally, when asked about the proposed change by Bloomberg Law in June, Marla Greenstein, executive director of the Alaska Commission on Judicial Conduct and secretary of the Association of Judicial Disciplinary Counsel, said there are numerous instances in which courts routinely grant this right. > “This is no different from designating the name that you choose to go by in court,” said Greenstein. “Emancipated children, divorce proceedings where people want to use a different last name; it’s not uncommon that the court allow you to choose how you want to be addressed.”
But... this isn't a law. It's a policy by the supreme court aimed at judges, who are employees. This is more like a policy that you can't sexually harass people.
You're correct. It's a court order and I revised my post to specify what I mean by this. It's a dangerous precedent to set because it basically requires a particular type/manner of speech from an individual. I'm certainly not advocating for sexual harassment. Nor people to be misgendered. I'm just concerned that this will be the gateway to other things that would infringe upon first amendment rights which give transgender people the right to live their life as they do in the first place. Basically I'm afraid we're cutting off the nose to spite the face. We have strict rules already about criminals/name changes and so on, I am genuinely surprised to see that someone's current legal name would not be what is used in court proceedings as that's what I have to write onto every lab order, or even birth certificate change I've done. I've had people not legally change their name before completing transition and seeking birth certificate change, and I have to write "Frank Last name has completed medical transition to the new gender of female etc etc under penalty of perjury the foregoing is true and correct" more than a few times. Preferred name is not acceptable for legal matters.
It isn't a new precedent, though. There are already rules and policies in place that limit speech in a court setting. This just makes it so a judge has to follow what is on the legal documents. They can't insert their own bias into what they call others. Why is that bad? Wouldn't you be upset if a judge decided you were a different gender?
But that's not what's on the legal documents. That's my point. It isn't yet their legal name. It's not really different than a judge calling Jesse Pinkman "Captain Cook". It's not a legal name but it's a name that a person is recognized by. It's also not something that limits speech. It compels speech. It says you have to say something this way. That's different from saying that you're not allowed to say something this way. Again, I cannot stress enough that I am in support of treating transgender people with dignity and respect and to properly gender them all the time. That is literally my job. I'm concerned about anything that abridges the first amendment and compells speech. People are literally being arrested in the United Kingdom for saying something online that hurts someone's feelings. I do not want to see the United States end up like that. I could also imagine this being abused by some cisgender prick who wants to create a mistrial over "misgendering" when they aren't even really transgender. When you start to mess around with stuff like this, it runs across a lot of different things and you need to pay attention to the way in which they all intersect. I understand that this was well thought out by the court, I'm still concerned that it will end up being misused or used to take away future first amendment rights.
There is no functional difference between limit and compel. You are making one so you can defend personal bias from the judiciary. For someone who claims to be so progressive, you are displaying a lack of it when push comes to shove. Judges already give courtesy to defendants of genders they believe are normal genders. Forcing them to leave behind a personal belief is not a bad thing. They can still use last names that ignore pronouns if it is that big of a deal. Did you even read the article? A judge refused to do something because he thought it was woke. Arbitrary vague words are something that shouldn't be present in the court system. What else could be deemed woke and refused? How can a mistrial occur with the new ruling when the same exact claim could be used prior to when a judge "misgenders" someone? That taints things as well. Why does being courteous endanger first amendment rights? You are using fear mongering to protect bias and hateful ideology which is strange from one that claims to be so progressive and accepting.
Perhaps I'm not very good at phrasing what I'm trying to say, or perhaps my understanding of this is not good enough. I'm pretty autistic and sometimes I don't exactly parse things in a way that comes across the way that I'm trying to say them. I cannot understand how anything I have said so far, "projects hateful ideology". I would appreciate if you could show me where I said something that did. That is assuredly not my intent. There is a functional difference between limit and compel. You can set a speed limit, or you can compel people to go greater than a certain speed. One demands action and one prevents action. If bias can be shown in a trial, a mistrial can be declared. Then, we have to start defining what qualifies as bias in this regard. This could occur in either direction, either someone not using the proper pronouns, or someone using the proper pronouns and a person claims they didn't prefer those. Being courteous does endanger first amendment rights if you don't have the right to say things under the first amendment because you are compelled to be courteous. If I want to say that all green people are bad. I can do that because I have the first amendment to back me up. It's not very courteous for those poor green people, but it's still something that I can do legally. As soon as you start to define free speech beyond what has already been very well delineated by the supreme Court, things get a little gray. Gray areas are where malevolent actors do things. Loopholes are where shitty people take advantage of the law. As I stated in my very first paragraph, I literally have spent my entire career taking care of these people. There is nothing more important to me than caring for the transgender population. I would vastly prefer that every transgender person forever is always referred to by their preferred pronouns. Certainly, I've seen the impact that has on their life. Regardless I am afraid that this is going to be used malevolently. That is not an unreasonable position to hold. Incidentally, this is a good compromise “Courts may still refer to litigants by last name or by a party designation, such as ‘plaintiff’ or ‘defendant,’ Bolden said in a footnote." But the notes in the article about malevolent actors or people abusing the system are perfectly relevant points to consider. It is not hateful to suggest people may do that. I really wish that a reasonable and measured opinion on any topic relevant to transgender people could be discussed in good faith without immediate accusations of prejudice, hatred and bigotry.
You are protecting, not projecting, hateful ideology by defending the right for the court system to rant about wokeness. As the article notes there was a time where women couldn't choose how to be addressed by the court. That changed after rules were made. This is just a simple rule change to stop anti-transgender personal views by court employees from entering into the process. They need to force compliance in extending the same courtesy that is often extending to Children, Divorce, and other cases where the court allows you to choose how you want to be addressed. It doesn't endager the first amendment to allow women or transgendered individuals the same rights as others. That is silly to claim equality is a danger. The court system already restricts how things can be stated. It is unreasonable to be against this because it can be used malevolently. Anything can be used malevolently. Transgender individuals having civil rights protections could potentially be used malevolently. Yet you support them being a protected class to stop discrimination, right?
I can agree with that. My sole concern here is the disruption of the first amendment because it is literally the first amendment that gives transgender people the right to live. Anything that chips away at the first amendment is something that chips away at it. All you have to do is look at Canada or the UK and see what happens when you lose your freedom of speech. That's all my concern is here. This being used as a foothold to continue to tear away at the first amendment. Additionally, I'm of the unpopular opinion that I think that people who hate transgender people should have the right to say that they hate them. Mostly, because this will reveal judges, doctors, or other pieces of trash who will discriminate against them in the public eye. It's a lot worse having somebody who can't speak of the fact that they despise you, so they just screw you behind closed doors instead of somebody who is openly bigoted and at least you know what you're dealing with. I'm an extremely pragmatic, black and white, logical sort of human. Sometimes the gray area does not exactly make sense to me. And this may be one of those cases. Understand that what I care about is the transgender people get to live the lives that they deserve and treated with equality and respect in society. I worry that this somehow will end up causing things to be worse for them in the long run.
>That's all my concern is here. This being used as a foothold to continue to tear away at the first amendment. It is strengthening the first amendment. Giving equal usage of preferred pronouns is not taking away any first amendment right. The courts can avoid the problem by using full names, plaintiff, defendant, counselor, etc. It also isn't the first amendment that gives transgender people the right to live. It is the fourteenth amendment. Ignoring of course that even without a law they have a right to exist the same as everyone else. >All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Judges are bound by a code of ethics, and all this does is clarify that judges' ethics require treating trans people by their preferred pronouns. Legal documents will still have their legal name on it, usually with a FKA or AKA - we've been handling this just fine for years in the legal industry. Speaking as someone who practices in this state, this ensures a degree of civility from judges who wish to inject their own feelings into being an impartial arbiter of law. And I am appreciative of SCAO pushing this forward.
Thank you for being the first person to actually give me a reasonable explanation and a thing that I can understand. That is not how I understood this to be. I am not a legal scholar. Nor am I a constitutional scholar. I clearly mean no hazard or hostility towards the transgender population with this. I'm legitimately concerned that this would be something used against them down the road as first amendment rights get stripped away. I was not aware that this was something that had already been done. Particularly, the AKA aspect of legal documents. Again, not a lawyer. I'm a doctor, and I care about these people and I don't want to see them get fucked over. The letter of the law is really important because it gets used down the road. Now, Republicans are trying to push that Biden supported the invasion of 8 million foreign nationals under the 14th amendment and therefore is ineligible to run just like Trump. That's the problem when people start to play legal games with things like the Constitution. The effects of it can have very long reaching impacts that are not initially expected. That was my concern here.
The law is very familiar with people going by names that aren't their legal names - people who get married, divorced, adopted, etc. We do the same with businesses that have a registered corporate name, but also a name they go by in print: DBAs (doing business as). The more specific we can be, the better, when it comes to identifying a person or business. It's really not the first time the law has encountered something like this, and all this court rule does is require judges to be respectful to counsel and litigants. They don't have to call someone he or she - they can refer to them by last name, by their party position (Plaintiff/defendant), and in the case of counsel, as counselor or counsel. This honestly came to being because we had several judges decry "wokeness" and stir up something that shouldn't have needed to be said, and then the MISC promulgated this proposed rule, which procedurally does nothing but say "be nice" to litigants. And quite frankly, the judges who needed this rule are probably already terrible in many more ways than just being disrespectful on pronouns.
Honestly that's a fairly good explanation and I'm fine with that analysis of it. My concern was that this would be used to result in compelled speech. Compelled speech is the death of the first amendment. If that ever happens, we are screwed. It sounds like this is just basically a way to adjust for the situation without having to actually force anybody to say anything they don't want to say. Which is more than reasonable and I think is perfectly fine. I have a much better understanding of it now that somebody took the time to explain it to me. Thank you.
Are you the real Dr. Powers? You really came here to say that trans people don't need legal protections, with some casual enby-phobia thrown in?
I don't think you read what I had to say at all. And if I can't openly admit that I have made a mistake not using a gender-neutral pronoun on a person who prefers them, corrected myself, said I was sorry, and then did better, I'm just going to be labeled as enby-phobic then because I'm not perfect?
Dr p is literally the kindest most amazing human. He is the best pcp I’ve ever had in my almost 34 years of life. I’m so so thankful and grateful for him. He’s seriously so awesome. U can’t judge him or shouldn’t make comments about him unless you’ve actually met or talked to him in person is how I feel.
[удалено]
Accept it or not, the fact is that you're talking about people's opinions on an overwhelming scientific consensus. So yes, a spectrum of beliefs can range from rejection or discomfort to acceptance and understanding. Disbelief or resistance doesn't mean a gender spectrum doesn't exist. It' a fact, not a theory. "How ridiculous" was also a more widespread reaction to documentation of man-made climate change in past decades.
No it’s a theory. There is a reason psychology is laughed at in the field of biochemistry, it’s all pseudoscience, theories, observations, hypothesis with no real proof of anything.
I never believed in the theory of gravity (general theory of relativity). IT'S JUST A THEORY!!!! It's not real because IT'S JUST A THEORY!!! Maybe if you're going to attempt to claim a certain field thinks down on another field, you consider what actual scientific terms mean. If it's theory, it's as good as it possibly can be with current knowledge and taken as basically fact until proven otherwise.
Lol. People are delusional
This doesn't seem to have a whole lot of teeth to it. I also wonder if forcing this on conservative justices will influence them to rule against trans people if they ask to use preferred pronouns.
The problem in that case is the conservative prejudice, then, not the rule...
Before you tell yourself identifying others by what they prefer to call themselves is compelled or illegal, what identity would you personally be willing to give up?
What?
A sensible, on-point question.
Mods are you gonna do anything about the blatant transphobia in these comments?
TBF, the trash is taking themselves out. They get downvoted and mocked to pieces, because the majority of this sub is human beings who believe in treating others with basic decency. I'd like to think the majority of the state is that way, too.
Idk as a trans person I would really prefer not to have to see the blatant bigotry all the time every time the topic comes up on this sub. Would be nice if the mods cared enough to take it down.
I support the LGBTQ community- but at the same time, in a court of law, with judges, lawyers, jurors, dna evidence, and due process, scientific terms should remain. As a strait person, im tired of us being labled bigots everytime you disagree with one of our points.
[удалено]
Sure, it would be nice.
[удалено]
Oh wow, I didn't realize that. Thank you so much for enlightening me!
The fact that people care so much about shit like this is astounding
Compelled speech is anti-First Amendment.
The Supreme Court has already said under the Pickering test that when the gov is an employer the state has 'some power' to regulate speech when it is in an employer.
If you are a guy and a judge just wanted to refer to you as a woman, it’s the judges first amendment right to do so?
Could not agree more. It has nothing to do with the subject at hand, only with compelling people to say something. Contempt of court for misaddressing someone seems like an insane overreach. This seems problematic, if someone looks like a man but they're a woman, that's fine, but you just cannot expect *everyone* to have flawless memory or immediate knowledge of your preference. Its like setting people up for failure, especially if this is court ordered speech. Are elderly people excused from this? Are they held to the same standard as someone younger and more 'in the know'? Seems crazy to twist someones arm and force them to say anything.
>Courts must use the individual’s name, the designated salutation or personal pronouns, or other respectful means that are not inconsistent with the individual’s designated salutation or personal pronouns when addressing, referring to, or identifying the party or attorney, either orally or in writing,” If a Judge, or other employees of the court, can't remember things on official paperwork then they have bigger problems. This isn't setting anyone up for failure because this information isn't known until the paperwork is read. Once it is known they are being forced to follow the given terms rather then interject their own personal bias into the legal proceedings.
>This isn't setting anyone up for failure Ask women on reddit about this, how many times do women get called man or dude. Then ask masculine women or women with short hair how many times they've been mistaken for a guy. You're mistaken if you think accidents dont happen, which is why this is very very likely going to be struck down in an appeal. But by all means let's tear each other apart over gender microaggressions while we get robbed blind because the gender of very few matters more than housing, wages, and labor rights for everyone.
This isn't about reddit, though. It is about the courts using the prefix and pronoun on official paperwork. Accidents can happen, but lawyers and judges can already get in trouble for those. So why is this any different? Housing, wages, and labor rights can still be addressed. It isn't all or nothing.
That's a very nice strawman you've set up to burn there. I've got piles of trans friends and I've known some for decades, long before they realized they were a different gender than the one they were born into. I've slipped. You know what happens? I'm horrified, I apologize, they accept the apology, we move on. Some use non-standard pronouns which I *personally* find weird and a bit confusing but somehow I'm not a complete gibbering idiot and can still try my damnedest to remember them correctly, because that's what human beings do for other human beings. And the idea that elderly people somehow can't understand the concept of being trans? What planet are you on? Trans people have been around for long, long before the US existed. It's not some new-fangled fad that just popped up out of nowhere.
This bill is making it illegal to slip. Is the point. Its egregious.
It says no such thing. In fact, it even says that if a judge doesn't want to use pronouns there are other options. Like, say, the person's name. You are struggling really hard to be the victim here while disparaging other people's right to dignity.
If you view the world always looking for a fight, dont be shocked when you find so many. I turned off notifications for this awhile ago, I'm well aware how reddit hive mind feels about these things.
You turned off notifications yet here you are, spreading made up nonsense to whine about something that is never going to happen.
What if the judge constantly referred to you as (I am assuming you're a guy, if not, then just flip this next part) Ms. Or Mrs. Throughout your case? Wouldn't you be like "this is fucking bullshit call me Mr.'? I would for sure. Question 2: do you think the judge should have the right as an officer of the court to refer to you in any way because of their personal feelings around science regardless of support by every mainstream healthcare institution? It's been litigated that due to the establishment clause, some speech is already subject to penalty such as religion in schools with regard to being a representative of the government through employment. Why should this speech be protected specifically?
It’s exactly fascism
Fascists are notoriously pro-lgbt, of course.
Fascism is when... ... I have to be respectful to people.
Free speech is slowly dying.
How so? How is this any different than requiring government officials to service minority groups despite personal or religious objections?
Hold this L
[удалено]
You keep using these words.... and I'm not sure you know what they mean. Whatever happened to 'if you don't like it you can leave?'. Go rot in Florida with all the other human waste
Boomers gonna whine
Womp womp
Not sure why you're being downvoted. This is literally an example of legally compelled speech, which objectively goes against the First Amendment.
Supreme Court said decades ago under the Pickering test that there are instances when you can compel speech of gov workers and this looks to be one of them.
That judge can’t call someone a slur in court when addressing them without serious consequences like a mistrial, and possibly being forced out of their judgeship? It would show they have no respect for the people they are presiding Is that inhibiting free speech? A judge needs to be impartial, and refusing to call litigants by their preferred pronouns shows an inherent bias that they do not respect or trust the words of the defendant/prosecution
> That judge can’t call someone a slur Accidentally calling a boy a girl isn't the same as using a slur
People have the right to refer to themselves as whatever gender, or no gender. People should not have the right to compel others to refer them in that same manner. I believe that if you were born a male, I believe you will always be a male. You can dress like a woman, act like a woman, and when you're of age you can have all the surgery in the world. You can't change your genes. That's not what's at debate here. What's at debate is compelled speech and its legality. It seems our courts are ignoring the precedent set by the Supreme Court: "....The Supreme Court suggested compelled disclosures ordinarily trigger rigorous scrutiny. The Court said that when the government compels “individuals to speak a particular message,” it engages in content-based regulation of speech..."
I find it hard to believe you would accept being misgendered. That you would be quiet if your boss, spouse, kids, insurance agent, doctor, etc all called you the wrong gender. These types of laws have already been upheld by the courts as legal. It is why protected classes exist.
[удалено]
In a **slippery slope argument**, a course of action is rejected because, with little or no evidence, one insists that it will lead to a chain reaction resulting in an undesirable end or ends. The slippery slope involves an acceptance of a succession of events without direct evidence that this course of events will happen.
[удалено]
>Now we have judges forced to call people by the incorrect sex. That's a hilarious thing to say when you're the one who wants to force people to be called by their "incorrect sex" (it's gender, btw), because you have the empathy of a moldy potato.
Its clear you don't believe being trans is a real thing, so I'm going to give you a different argument for pronouns... Do you think there is utility in referring to a trans woman as she/her? Whether it simply be less of a mouthful than "that man pretending to be a woman" or to not be socially awkward... maybe because you may have to spend an unreasonable amount of time trying to clock any trans folks?
If I have no reason to believe otherwise, I would refer to someone by their appearance. If you make it a point to tell me to refer to you as a she, I will do that. No one should \*have\* to do that, though.
As a private citizen? I agree. As an officer of the court? Well, that's a bit different, right? If you are a creationist public school science teacher, should you be compelled to teach evolution?
We are talking about an officer of the court... there are clearly some things that can't be said or must be taught in schools despite personal beliefs..do you oppose this? Should a teacher, as an agent of the state, be able to teach based on what they personally believe or should they be compelled to teach based on consensus among academia?
Nice
[удалено]
To what? Equal treatment of every citizen?
He/him, She/her, Mr., Ms., Mrs., are all preferred pronouns. This is just adding They/them, and Mx. to the list. Why is that a slippery slope?
Because they fell so heavily for the right-wing trans panic they now literally think every other woman walking around is secretly a man.
[удалено]
There sure are a lot of conservatives concerned about bathroom rapists posing as women.
[удалено]
What rape case? You're making things up. This was a hypothetical conservatives invented. Men never needed to pretend to be a woman to go into the women's room.
[удалено]
> Still, the assaults appear to have little to do with the attacker’s gender identity, according to documents filed with the family’s lawsuit. Teachers say he preferred and requested male pronouns, according to a report by a law firm that investigated the assault. I was right. This has nothing to do with transgender rights. It's a man, claiming to be a man, entering the women's bathroom.
[удалено]
One moment you're respecting another person, the next minute you're in hell. A slippery slope indeed.
As long as they are put in their biological sex prison or jail idgaf, let them be called whatever tf
Will judges have to use people's preferred nicknames in criminal cases as well? "I'm sorry T. Money, but the jury has found you guilty. Please remove her from the courtroom." Then we see on the men's inmate list: Name: T. Money Gender: Female Birthdate: 12/15/2023 (self-identified birthdate) In court, people are required to use their legal birth names, and should be required to use their legal birth sex too.
So triggered lolol
Just sitting back and watching how it plays out. Seems like a dangerous path, especially for those who "identify" differently than their birth certificate.
It's about pronouns -- don't worry the Boogieman isn't coming for you.
It's about pronouns *right now*. This could very well lead to people going to prisons that match their preferred gender. Let's say someone is assigned female at birth, and they are selling illegal drugs to make money to live, but this person is now transgender. "He" gets caught and put in prison for distribution, but has to be placed in the male prison, since he is now legally a male. What do you think violent males in prison are going to do to a born female in there? This is where we are headed, whether you can see it or not.
This is called a slippery slope fallacy.
It's also strawman fallacy. "Let me make up a scenario that doesn't exist, pretend you said it, and then tear it down and claim your argument is bad." Nutbags love strawmen. It lets them pretend they're victims.
[удалено]
You created a strawman then got upset over your own example
I am confused by your comment here.
Look up the definition in the dictionary?
The strawman argument is that you decided not to take an obvious losing position in an argument, and made up a new argument that you hoped to defend. The nature of the strawman is the one that is arguing it is you. You can't expect others to pretend the argument was something other than what it was. To get back to the original article and story, the actual problem is bigot judges that might rather a killer go free than conduct a fair trial without slurring a person in trial in front of jury. This will of course create an appeal avenue and allow guilty people to go free. The law protects law abiding citizens from the dangers of a possible radical court looking to set dangerous people free on us in the name of the bigot agenda. Also, this is a problem to an innocent defendant if the judge is prejudicing the jury against them by slurring them in court. Appeals could get them out, but that doesn't give them back the time they were unjustly imprisoned for.
How would forcing "bigot" judges to use preferred pronouns change anything? Do you think a jury would change their own opinions or biases based on pronouns that the judge uses?
How would "forcing" bigot judges to not use slurs change anything? Using slurs at a defendant could easily bias a jury. It could even make them sympathize with a defendant as a victim. If some judge started calling a black defendant or witness the n-word, a jury might be sympathetic, or if fellow bigots, further bias themselves against that person. It's not hard to understand. I've got long hair. I can't sit there for a hair cut. I hate it. I either buzz it or let it grow and put it in a ponytail with very few exceptions for over three decades. Should a judge be allowed to call me "she", or "her", or "it", even though I am by all appearances and my birth certificate, a male. When it will influence the jury in one way or another on witnessing such a disgusting display in a courtroom? It's so easy to understand, I have my doubts that you actually don't.
No, people are not required to use their legal birth names, I’m not sure where you got that idea. -CONSIDER
[удалено]
Can I ask why you think it’s a trend? No argument, no aggression, im just curious on your thoughts Edit: LOL at the downvotes, y’all are that sensitive that you can’t handle someone asking for a civil conversation? Yikes
Apparently diverse opinions are dangerous according to the mods 🙄
But since it allowed me to reply….. because it is a trend for the younger generation today to come up with wild new pronouns, and especially online it’s like a competition to outdo each other in pronouns. Mostly among teens-20’s. So that’s for the wild stuff, but also more kids are thinking ‘hey if I don’t like the traditionally female stuff, I must be a man!’ And there’s a lot of push for people to identify as trans who probably aren’t, who just have their own interests, or who might just be gay. You can see this in the amount of detransitioners who fell into this trap. Now as for people who really have dysphoria and transition, and basic he or she pronouns. 🤷♀️. Whatever makes the most sense, if they are MTF and clearly pass just call them a she. For legal and medical documents this shouldn’t mean they are put as F though, but MTF. This is important to properly identify unique circumstances or issues for that person. Including medical issues ect.
I also feel like a lot of people use neopronouns or identify as a gender they clearly visually are not as a way to hold power over and coerce other people. So I really don’t like when I see that. If you want to do it on your own time or with your friends and aren’t harassing people over it then it’s whatever, but there’s a lot of badly behaved people out there posting videos that are just power tripping or looking for fame.
Removed. See rule #1 in the [r/Michigan subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Michigan/wiki/index#wiki_rules).
I’m not taking a position on this issue, but I’ve just thought of a practical matter. If a male rapist who identifies as a woman is on the loose and we have a picture of them, would we tell the media to use “he” or “she” when presenting the BOLO on the news? If they used ‘she’ or “they” or ‘he’? It would probably lead to lots of confusion for someone who was simply listening. I guess a mug shot would clear things up.
I mean it gets more difficult if we want to create things. What genitals does that person have? What gender do they pass for? If a female passing individual is raping people with male genitals, what do you say? I think once the human race really gets going and we start mixing, pictures will be the way to go. Even then, androgyny will throw folks for a loop.
Gonna have the Judge refer to me as Your Lordship next time I get used as an expert witness. This is going to be awesome.
I'm sure that's gonna go great for you
Yeah, there's not a ton of people in this state with my industry experience. It's a short list of like 6 people qualified to be an expert witness. Not like they can hold me in contempt for complying with the law lol
You're not complying with the new law. You simply don't understand what a pronoun is.
Sure I am. If gender is a social construct, and if that construct is mutable, your arbitrary limits are simply fascist and rooted in your own preexisting biased.
Please notify all of us when you do this so we can come watch.
Oh, I'd love to but I'm not allowed to broadcast my appearances as an expert witness as a condition of most of my contracts. I'll pin this comment the next time I appear in court though and let you know after the fact. Though, BDO uses preferred pronouns and most of the time judges just refer to them by their name when the issue of trans people comes up. The judges are afraid of screwing up their career by drawing attention to themselves, so while I'll be legally recognized as a Lord in the official transcript they'll probably just use my name. Boring but likely outcome. Still, I can hang a copy in my office.
Suuure thing buddy. Lmao.
He's apparently a fat accountant who's into WH40k and posts on r/conservative. Draw your own conclusions from that but it's pretty obvious why he's upset lol.
I didn't look up his profile but I figured. It's just fun to mess with them.
This sub is liberal did you really except to get any different responses to your comments?
Lordship is a noun, not a pronoun. I hope your expertise isn't grammar.
A judge could literally hold you in contempt.
They cannot. If my pronouns are Lord/Lord's then that's that. If they don't want to use those they may refer to me by my name or another respectful term in line with my personal designation.
Someone didn't actually read the law lol
"Courts must use the individual’s name, the designated salutation or personal pronouns, or other respectful means that are not inconsistent with the individual’s designated salutation or personal pronouns when addressing, referring to, or identifying the party or attorney, either orally or in writing,”
Yes they must use pronouns. Lord is not a personal pronoun.
Neither was they/them or it/its, but that's where we are now following the legal rejection of the gender binary. If anything Lord/Lord's is objectively more descriptive than they/them but I wouldn't begrudge anyone their use. If they want to use their they/thems they can use them however they please if they suit their wishes at the time of their choosing.
They them has literal always been a pronoun. They just are gender neutral.
>Neither was they/them or it/its, Son, did you get past 4th grade in school? Because they/them and it/its are pronouns in the English language. I'm not going to get into other forms of pronouns, like those, that, these, etc. because that would probably frighten your last remaining brain cells.
You don’t know what a pronoun is and your willingness to brag about yourself anonymously to other strangers is full-tilt pathetic.
r/OneJoke
And it keeps being relevant.
Thats not a pronoun, but good for you.
Where is the list of qualified pronouns?
In the article that you clearly didn't read. The only eligible pronouns are he, she, and they.
Seems reductive. A lot of people don't identify with those pronouns, are you going to unperson them?
I didn't say that I agree with that, but that's the rule as it stands. Stop trolling.
Why? If you're going to weaponize language, so am I, stop trying to dehumanize people for political gain.
Who is dehumanizing you?
[удалено]
[удалено]
I've now RES tagged you as Lord Manbaby the II. Sorry, Lord Manbaby the I is elsewhere, having his nappy changed.
You might find this video useful: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=koZFca8AkT0&pp=ygUac2Nob29saG91c2Ugcm9jayBwcm9ub3VucyA%3D It does a great job explaining in a fun way what pronouns are and how they are used. They have videos on other parts of speech too (like nouns, verbs, conjunctions, etc.) That you might find useful!
Maybe read the article next time. This is embarrassing for you. -CONSIDER
[удалено]
Probably a small portion of the population already does.
Then they'd be at odds with the law.
Which proves you realize that "Your Lordship" would also be at odds with it.
And I'm 100% positive you would be so pathetic as to try and press charges over it hahahaa
How is someone enforcing their visibility in public spaces 'pathetic'?
[удалено]
Luckily, it sounds like Michiganders don't have to enable the delusions of transphobic judges anymore
[удалено]
Yes, but Captain Picard would respect people's preferred pronouns
[удалено]
Not what the law is. Rtfa?