• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Jail Time for Calling a Transgender the Wrong Sex?

Should We Imprison People who 'Misgender' Trans Folks?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • No

    Votes: 49 98.0%

  • My outtie is an innie

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • My innie is an outtie

    Votes: 1 2.0%
  • Total voters
    50
  • Poll closed .
Phys251 said:
That was supposed to be an absurd joke. What's next, marking Jews with a yellow star of David? Perhaps you would like to mark gays with a pink triangle.
Click to expand...

It is an absurd joke, though if I run into a demi-fluid, pan queer, other-kin, fox boy. How the hell am I supposed to know their pronouns without some kind of sign attached?

This whole premise is an absurd joke altogether.
 
ecofarm said:
One could refer to them as 'you' or 'they'. Just don't knowingly, willfully, intentionally and repeatedly use a pronoun the person objects to. If one objected to being called 'her' (because one is a man) and an employee persisted, it could amount to abuse. Using the name the person requests is obviously an obligation of the job.
Click to expand...

Bold: No, it couldn't. Not every little mean thing done is abuse.

Underlined: In which case the employer should deal with it. They're the ones that sets the obligations of their employee's.
 
Harshaw said:
I don't think it implied that. And I also think it would take less than you think to bring about action.
Click to expand...

Not only did it imply that, but you are confirming that false belief.

In any case, the First Amendment problems apply.
Click to expand...

It'd be an issue. It'll be interesting to see if it goes to SCOTUS how they see it.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Not only did it imply that,
Click to expand...

Sorry, CC, but you're reading into it.

but you are confirming that false belief.
Click to expand...

"Willful" is not a particularly high bar, legally speaking.

It'd be an issue. It'll be interesting to see if it goes to SCOTUS how they see it.
Click to expand...

The likelihood of it making it that far is small, for a multitude of reasons.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Makes things more specific.
Click to expand...
That does not really explain why. Might as well write one cover all law that states its illegal to do or say anything that a transgender does not like.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
Jail is going too far. But something must be done to keep people from denying the humanity of transgender, non-binary, genderqueer, gender-non-conforming, omnigender, demigender, and agender individuals. A small fine, misdemeanor, and requirement for public apology would suffice.
 
AtlantaAdonis said:
Jail is going too far. But something must be done to keep people from denying the humanity of transgender, non-binary, genderqueer, gender-non-conforming, omnigender, demigender, and agender individuals. A small fine, misdemeanor, and requirement for public apology would suffice.
Click to expand...
Puberty used to work. Used to be that by the time people were...say...4 they understood that words only have the power that you give them. Tragically...somewhere along the way people lost that message.



People would be well served to learn that until they love themselves, nothing else will matter. Once they learn to love themselves, NOTHING ELSE will matter.
 
trouble13 said:
IMO it can lead to problems without good cause. Most of the abuses this seems to be centered around I would catagorize as being disrespectful. Being disrespectful is something to be admonished by a polite and caring society but it is not something that should be litigated in a free society.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

You're completely dropping context. We're not talking about being disrespectful, we're talking about abuse. Surely you know the difference? These people are employed for the purpose of caring for the elderly. Them being "disrespectful" to people in their care amounts to abuse.

Were you not aware of the context, or were you dropping it for an agenda?


Kal'Stang said:
Bold: No, it couldn't. Not every little mean thing done is abuse.

Underlined: In which case the employer should deal with it. They're the ones that sets the obligations of their employee's.
Click to expand...

Do you believe verbal abuse of the elderly by those charged with their care should ever be prosecuted? Does it ever amount to a crime, or are you claiming verbal abuse never amounts to a crime. If it might, does the form really matter?
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
You're completely dropping context. We're not talking about being disrespectful, we're talking about abuse. Surely you know the difference? These people are employed for the purpose of caring for the elderly. Them being "disrespectful" to people in their care amounts to abuse.

Were you not aware of the context, or were you dropping it for an agenda?




Do you believe verbal abuse of the elderly by those charged with their care should ever be prosecuted? Does it ever amount to a crime, or are you claiming verbal abuse never amounts to a crime. If it might, does the form really matter?
Click to expand...
I dont have an agenda. I shared my opinion. Nothing I heard meets the legal level of abuse nor would I want it to be. Give me an example of what this law would prevent that you would consider abuse to the point that it requires a legal remedy because I honestly dont see it. Maybe I am missing it.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
I dont have an agenda. I shared my opinion. Nothing I heard meets the legal level of abuse nor would I want it to be. Give me an example of what this law would prevent that you would consider abuse to the point that it requires a legal remedy because I honestly dont see it. Maybe I am missing it.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

You do not agree that verbal abuse could amount to a crime? Weird.
 
ecofarm said:
You do not agree that verbal abuse could amount to a crime? Weird.
Click to expand...
Its weirder that you think it does. Having an opinion isnt a crime in this country.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
Its weirder that you think it does. Having an opinion isnt a crime in this country.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

If you're going to claim verbal abuse, even by those in a position of authority, cannot be a crime, then I guess we're done. You totally lose and I'm pretty sure our debate is over.

And I fear for those in your presence.
 
California, if it even tries this, will just get slapped down by the Supreme Court. There's this little thing called free speech, part of the Constitution, which California, as a government, is not permitted to violate. Little things.
 
ecofarm said:
If you're going to claim verbal abuse, even by those in a position of authority, cannot be a crime, then I guess we're done. You totally lose and I'm pretty sure our debate is over.

And I fear for those in your presence.
Click to expand...
LMAO, Its always fun when someone has nothing to defend their their position with so they declare the debate over and themselves the winner.

Im still waiting for you give me an example of the verbal abuse that merits legal protection. Seems to me you want live in an orwelian type society that makes dissenting opinions a criminal act.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
Harshaw said:
Sorry, CC, but you're reading into it.
Click to expand...

Nah, not at all.

"Willful" is not a particularly high bar, legally speaking.
Click to expand...

It's actually a pretty high and specific bar in this case. Add repetition to that, too.

The likelihood of it making it that far is small, for a multitude of reasons.
Click to expand...

Eh, probably.
 
trouble13 said:
That does not really explain why. Might as well write one cover all law that states its illegal to do or say anything that a transgender does not like.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Your comment is a complete non sequitur in response to what I said and the issue being discussed.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Nah, not at all.
Click to expand...

If you say so.

It's actually a pretty high and specific bar in this case. Add repetition to that, too.
Click to expand...

It's hardly anything. As defined by the CA penal code:

(1) The word “willfully,” when applied to the intent with which an act is done or omitted, implies simply a purpose or willingness to commit the act, or make the omission referred to.  It does not require any intent to violate law, or to injure another, or to acquire any advantage.
Click to expand...

California Code, Penal Code - PEN § 7 | FindLaw
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Your comment is a complete non sequitur in response to what I said and the issue being discussed.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry you feel that way. I still don't see why we need a law specially written to protect a certain groups feelings. That is what this law does. I am open to the possibility that I am wrong or overlooking something. That is why I asked for an explanation. Dismissing it as a non sequitur does nothing to convince me otherwise.

I also contend by passing this law it will drive homophobia underground making it even more difficult to address. I rather it be out in the open where it can be dealt with head on.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
Sensationalist topic, not applicable to 99.99% of Americans. Transgender and Gay are the favorite topics of the Right, as they alienate voters more than anything else. Only 2-3% of Americans are Gay. A poll of FOX News watchers revealed that they thought the number was over 25%.

Gay rights hurts the Democrats at the polls. There is no question about it. However, they have the correct stance, in that every citizen of the US should have the same rights, guaranteed by our Constitution.
 
truthatallcost said:
The insane Demented-cratic party is at it again in California. If their plan succeeds, residents could be imprisoned for calling a 'she' a 'he', and vice versa.
Click to expand...

If you were born with a penis, you're a man; if not you're a woman.

Some folks think they are kings and demand we do everything short of call them your Lordship. They're still just half wits on the Internet and a man dressed up like a woman is still a male. He may be a feminine male, but he's not a female.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom