My interpretation or feeling about this is non-consequential. Obviously.
The question rises because this is merely another example of elitists making the vast majority of people endorse by penalty of law insane stupidity.
The real test of dictatorial control is whether or not the rulers can make the subjects accept and support the obviously untrue.
When lies are forced upon the people by the elite, the real question is not, "Should the folks who question the lies question the lies?".
The real question is, "Why are the lies forced upon the people in the first place?".
A woman who is a woman is a woman. A man who is a man is a man. A man who self identifies as a woman is a man who self identifies as a woman.
This is not rocket science.
So you DON'T understand why this law came into being, got it.
I'll explain.
Although you initially declined to explain why YOU think this law came about, eventually, just a few lines later, you let your interpretation slip out anyway. Nice try at attempting to make it "non-consequential".
(I believe the term is "inconsequential".)
YOUR INTERPRETATION:
A woman who is a woman is a woman. A man who is a man is a man. A man who self identifies as a woman is a man who self identifies as a woman.
And here's the rub:
Even IF "A man who self identifies as a woman
is a man who self identifies as a woman", the fact remains that they wish to be identified by their female name and referred to as a female.
There apparently are people who refuse to do so, and many of them engage in a practice known as "deadnaming".
What is deadnaming? Say for instance I decide to transition from male to female.
My male name, Jeff, is dead to me. There is no more "Jeff" because for me, "Jeff is DEAD", HE no longer exists, or perhaps never really existed in the first place.
If I am not behaving like some troll, and truly and sincerely believe that Jeff no longer exists or never really existed, then the name itself, Jeff, is a DEAD NAME, it is the name of a being that is dead, dead to me, dead to everyone I know, dead to the universe.
If my name is Susan, and you continue to refer to me as "he" and as "Jeff", you're deadnaming me, which in effect means that you refuse to allow me my right to exist. My right to live as I see fit and to exist in society, no matter how YOU do not like it, is one of my CIVIL RIGHTS, and by continuing to deadname me, you're depriving me of my rights, including the right to be addressed in a manner of my choosing.
It is no different than calling me "BOY" or "NIGGER", or "JUDEN".
And in a work environment, it also constitutes a form of harassment, and by the way, it actually goes DEEPER than my sexual orientation or my sexual identity, because it also involves MY NAME.
Thus, in a very real sense, that is a separate issue because that last part can happen even if it had nothing to do with transitioning at all. I could be a woman who used to be Susan Phillips, until I married John Smith, and if you continue to refer to me as Susan Phillips instead of Susan Smith, despite my request that you stop referring to me as Susan Phillips, you are again depriving me of my civil rights.
And you're creating a hostile work environment. You might as well be calling me Susan Bitch, and that also applies to deadnaming, because it is much the same thing, with much the same result.
I have the right to be secure in my person and my personal effects, and I also have the right to be secure in my identity, my sense of self.
If you don't get all that, it is only because you refuse to get it, and that doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter if you like it, or get it, or don't get it, or don't like it.
This law, whether written well or written poorly, gets the job done because if you refuse to allow me the right to exist with an identity of my choosing, you're depriving me of my rights as a human being....MY RIGHT...my right AS A HUMAN BEING.
It does not cost you anything to refer to me as Susan Smith instead of Jeff H, but apparently the law says it will cost you if you insist on referring to me by the name of a dead person.
