Court rules California law requiring use of transgender pronouns is a violation of free speech

[ScreamingMeMe]

www.theblaze.com/news/california-trans-pronouns-free-speech#toggle-gdpr

The State of California Third District Court of Appeals ruled that a state law requiring the use of preferred pronouns by nursing home workers violated their free speech rights.

The court struck down the pro-transgender regulation on Friday in a unanimous 3-0 decision.

The State of California Third District Court of Appeals ruled that a state law requiring the use of preferred pronouns by nursing home workers violated their free speech rights.

Ah! Read more of the thread.

'I genuinely have no idea how some of you can possibly be as cruel as you seem happy to be to people as long as they're trans.'

This is eye opening thank you!

Bring a case that pulls the heart strings. Cruel to elderly trans people! You heartless bastards.

Get a precedent.

Go for everything else.

Because unless I see evidence that

There are a sizeable number of transgender ( not transsexual) residents in these homes
And that they have pronouns different to the ones people would assume
And that there is a problem with staff deliberately misgendering them/ not using their preferred name, in order to upset or make a point
And that the disciplinary procedures in place are for some reason not addressing this behaviour by staff

Then nope.

It's s strategic case and a pretty clever one TBH.

Imagine hearing that elderly people in care homes may have to suffer the indignity of being misgendered

Let's try to imagine how many elderly people have preferred pronouns.

'Preferred pronouns' and 'misgendering' are acts of a faith system to which I do not adhere. I cannot 'misgender' as I do not 'gender'. I use language as it has been used for millenia and use third person pronouns as they have always been used - to identify someone by their sex in their absence. This law criminalises people for not following the tenets of a faith system they do not believe in. It is a blasphemy law as bad as that in pakistan that has resulted in many christians in prison or facing death penalty. This is what this law is advocating, there is no difference:

www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-48198340

www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/6/4/pakistan-court-acquits-christian-couple-of-blasphemy-charges

www.google.com/amp/s/www.ucanews.com/amp/mob-attacks-pakistani-christian-in-hospital-over-blasphemy-claim/91207

www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9461087/amp/Christian-women-face-death-penalty-Pakistan-removing-sticker-Muslim-coworkers-locker.html

^^was just the first page of google.

I presume BlueberryCheezecake is totally supportive of the pakistani law too?

The Decline & Fall of the US Empire.

However, freedom of speech being the first amendment will be protected no matter what mantras as thrown around

What happens when an elderly resident with dementia no longer recognises themselves as trans, or no longer remembers that they were trans a few years previously?

Would the resident be regarded as a detransitioner, and supported in accessing the facilities appropriate to their sex, and receiving intimate care from staff of the same sex as them? Or would this be regarded as a symptom of their dementia, and staff be required to maintain the resident's trans identity? Would the employee who uses sex-accurate pronouns for them be penalised?

Imagine hearing that elderly people in care homes may have to suffer the indignity of being misgendered on top of all the other indignities that come with being elderly and in care and describing this state of affairs as "excellent" and "reassuring"

Imagine going through life trying to put the worst possible spin on everything you read to make yourself feel big.

Do you really want a world with one year prison sentences for those who don't agree people have a 'gender identity'.

If a staff member is bullying an elderly person they can and should be fired. State enforced speech is a very different thing.

Brava, @Tibtom! My sentiments exactly. I no more accept the premise of so-called misgendering than I accept other forms of blasphemy. I don't follow any religion

I wonder why this law is so specific to care home workers.

No one. No one at all should be compelled to use counter intuitive pronouns. Or go to prison or be fined when they can't use them.

@FlyPassed

Brava, *@Tibtom*! My sentiments exactly. I no more accept the premise of so-called misgendering than I accept other forms of blasphemy. I don't follow any religion

On another thread, someone posted a link to Live not by lies

A universal spiritual death has already touched us all, and physical death will soon flare up and consume both us and our children—but as before we still smile in a cowardly way and mumble without tongues tied.…
…
When violence intrudes into peaceful life, its face glows with self-confidence, as if it were carrying a banner and shouting: “I am violence. Run away, make way for me—I will crush you.” But violence quickly grows old. And it has lost confidence in itself, and in order to maintain a respectable face it summons falsehood as its ally—since violence can conceal itself with nothing except lies, and the lies can be maintained only by violence.…It demands from us only obedience to lies and daily participation in lies—all loyalty lies in that.

And the simplest and most accessible key to our self-neglected liberation lies right here: Personal non-participation in lies. Though lies conceal everything, though lies embrace everything, we will be obstinate in this smallest of matters: Let them embrace everything, but not with any help from me.

honestyculture.com/alexander-solzhenitsyn-live-not-by-lies/?

@BlueberryCheezecake Imagine hearing that elderly people in care homes may have to suffer the indignity of having to share a room with a person of the opposite sex on top of all the other indignities that come with being elderly and in care and describing this state of affairs as "excellent" and "reassuring". I genuinely have no idea how you can possibly be as cruel as you seem happy to be to people as long as they're women

@GNCQ

I wonder why this law is so specific to care home workers.

No one. No one at all should be compelled to use counter intuitive pronouns. Or go to prison or be fined when they can't use them.

If you read my posts I worked through this earlier. And came to s conclusion. Sorry they were a bit long do don't want to rehash!

If you do read interested in if you think that's what's going on.

I am still waiting for blueberry to demonstrate that this is an issue in USA care homes.

@GNCQ

I wonder why this law is so specific to care home workers.

No one. No one at all should be compelled to use counter intuitive pronouns. Or go to prison or be fined when they can't use them.

This is part of a wider bill about protection for LGBT people in care homes. I found the text of the bill by following links in the article in the OP.

leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB219

This bill would enact the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Long-Term Care Facility Residents’ Bill of Rights. Among other things, the bill would make it unlawful, except as specified, for any long-term care facility to take specified actions wholly or partially on the basis of a person’s actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) status, including, among others, willfully and repeatedly failing to use a resident’s preferred name or pronouns after being clearly informed of the preferred name or pronouns, or denying admission to a long-term care facility, transferring or refusing to transfer a resident within a facility or to another facility, or discharging or evicting a resident from a facility.

Thank you old crone.

Interesting bill.

It includes some important things about privacy and treatment.

The LGBT+ piece, again I'm interested to know if this is a widespread issue, and one that is not being handled through the disciplinary procedures at the homes involved.

I also note that, at least on the links earlier. The anger at it not passing seems entirely focussed on the trans name pronoun part.

While I honestly doubt that there are many elderly transgender people in the homes (note, I don't include transsexual). There will be plenty of gay men, lesbians and bi residents.

Where is the outrage for them, or for the privacy piece?

Unless-

It passed apart from the pronouns part?

Or

There's more general anger I've just not seen it.

To my mind this bill is 100% strategic.

Google says bill 219 was passed law Oct 2019. That's definitely the right one.

This is an appeal or something? Need to recheck op links!

www.mcknightsseniorliving.com/home/news/new-law-creates-lgbt-bill-of-rights-for-california-assisted-living-nursing-home-residents/

YY ok the law was struck down. Ignore me!

The strategic point still stands.

And it was passed 2018.

I wonder what went on after that on the precedent.

And someone is obviously working and paying to get that part removed from law.

@NiceGerbil

The strategic point still stands.

And it was passed 2018.

I wonder what went on after that on the precedent.

And someone is obviously working and paying to get that part removed from law.

Link to the judgment is here: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4302623-Court-rules-California-law-requiring-use-of-transgender-pronouns-is-a-violation-of-free-speech?msgid=109281863