• chakan2@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    Would it cover a situation where an individual repeatedly, consistently refuses to use a person’s chosen pronoun? It might.”

    So, yes, it forces people to use the correct pronouns.

    • starman2112
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I mean, kinda? Like, you could say that the law forces you to not throw rocks, but really the law only cares about you throwing rocks at other people and their things. Nobody is gonna call the cops on you because you called someone a ma’am when they’re actually a sir, unless you do it repeatedly as a form of discrimination.

      You can’t force me to use the right pronouns for you, because we’re just two dudes passing on the street. If I was your boss, it might be a different story.

      • chakan2@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m specifically talking about the harassment case. It codifies repeatedly using the wrong pronoun as a crime.

        Do I think that behavior is bad or morally wrong…Yes.

        Do I think it’s a crime? No.

        It’s a slippery slope when things like this become law.

        • starman2112
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          What are you talking about? In the case of harassment (or, more broadly, discrimination), it’s not the use of incorrect pronouns that gets you in trouble, it’s the discrimination. The use of incorrect pronouns is not the deciding factor on whether a person is discriminating, it’s only one piece of the puzzle, and the CHRT has already dismissed a case regarding refusal to use neopronouns because there wasn’t enough reason to consider it discrimination.