Reactionary Radical Eliminationists vs. Trans

Mom’s 93, she lives in Ohio, and she’s absolutely going to vote against it.

Hey @Uncle Albert, the law is very concerning, have you found the part of it that backs up your claims about it yet?

That there is potential for consequences for denying someone’s gender pronouns, or that someone has actually faced those consequences?

I'm not going to rehash the pedantry about it serving as enhancement to other charges. I don't accept that there is any "reasonable person" standard that would ever allow for any form of legal consequences for deliberately misgendering someone. Yes, I am well aware that the nonsense of "hate speech" laws already existed and this only amends it, and I was always opposed to it in all forms.

Now, do you want something other than that?

Great, then this law shouldn't be a concern for you! Since it contains nothing about misgendering, but is about threats as interpreted by a reasonable person.

Sorry you feel it's pedantry, but to quote a wise man:

Look, either the reasonable person standard is sufficient protection or it isn't. You can't have it both ways.

e) Gender identity or expression.

What does that point of Gender identity or expression appear under in the bill?

You are one tedious motherfucker. I'm not going to paste the whole thing again. If you think you have a point to make, fucking MAKE it already.

And for the love of god, it better be less idiotic than "It lacks the literal phrase 'misgendering people.'"

Where was this guy when we were discussing the "Don't Say Gay" bill?

And you're a spine tingling adventure that we all anticipate every day with baited breath.

Right here, pointing out the fact that it did no such thing, did nothing RESEMBLING that. What it DID was confine educators that actual education, not indoctrination through propaganda.

And anything you don't like will always be that.
And you'll always hate what you're told to.
Mister Individual.

Unless it's been in another thread, nothing you have posted in this one has backed up your claims about this bill, so no need to post anything you already have done again.

Like you just keep repeating to us why you initially assumed that. Which is nice to know, but the question of why you made your initial mistaken assumptions of what the bill is doesn't answer the different questions of what the bill actually does.

I can't give you more than the text of the bill, which adds gender identity to the list of protected classes, where causing them to feel threatened or harassed can be an enhancement to some other criminal charge. That absolutely is an avenue for punishing the use of the wrong gender pronouns in a certain context. You might prefer to pedant your way out of acknowledging it, but that changes nothing, and I am done repeating myself.

and what is that "certain context" other than actual threats or harassment?

I do believe his context was that UA is a reasonable person. Hence why we all blacked it out of our minds so we do not die from laughter at such an absurd idea.

Remember on TOS when Mister Spock used his PADD to watch Youtube videos from barely disguised Christian fanatics all day?
'Member when that episode happened?
Yeah, me neither.

Congress just pushed a bill through committee called KOSA, the "Kids Online Safety Act," and was approved by Republicans and Democrats alike. It seems like a decent idea on the surface, we want to protect kids, but the bill is so poorly drafted that it leaves it wide open for abuse by anti-LGBTQ+ proponents.

The Center for Democracy and Technology explains it better than I could:

Source: https://cdt.org/press/more-than-90-human-rights-and-lgbtq-groups-sign-letter-opposing-kosa/

The Satanic Panic was allegedly about kids, but while daycare providers were being locked up for imaginary Satanism, the Church people went through kids like
a Wall Street yuppie through coke.
We've been on this merry-go-round before.

I am hoping the problem here is that cishet dems do not understand the threat because they do not experience the need for access to online communities of support for GLBT children. Obviously if they pass such a thing the repugs would weaponize it based on their propaganda and lies.

This will probably pass as some great reach across the aisle bipartisan bill. There is a reality that policing the internet is extremely difficult, and GLBT people will find a way.

It has always been a way to suppress speech to associate it with protecting the children. The poison pill that will come from this is that most of the language used to censor GLBT theses is also very easily used to censor religious works because they are some of the most perverse and lewd things ever written. That is how we need to fight it. The same laws that would restrict sexual descriptions in online communications are also going to restrict those sexual stories of the bible, and discussion of that. Not to mention, it would be really hard to indoctrinate children into the sexual weirdness of religion while also limiting discussion of sex.

Oh, certainly I will find a way around it, but this will directly harm LGBTQ+ youth who don't have the resources I have to get around what will become a blockade against non-heteronormative censorship.

by do not have the resources you mean technical abilities and intelligence because getting around it will be free financially and most tech today has the capability of doing it.

Yeah, I mean by experience with protecting personal data and identity online. I'm not saying LGBTQ+ youth are not smart, they are, but they've grown up trusting a lot of the internet and I'm one of those cynical assholes who has seen the internet do some really heinous shit.

It's feeling like that's the real crux of the issue here.

A bunch of us are pointing out that there's nothing in the bill that would care about something like someone just using the wrong pronouns for someone.

The stance that UA is maintaining makes sense if you assume that in his mind, using the wrong pronouns are one way of attacking and intimidating them. He's telling on his own motivations.

I think that is more people in general. There is no privacy on the internet. I think a lot of kids run into that problem of sending some nudes to a significant other only to find out people do nasty shit when you break up, or even just in general.

bully and a coward?

Dem sponsors need to be reminded AGAIN that if The Heritage Foundation is for it, it's a VERRY BAD IDEA.

That's pretty much an iron rule.

https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out...droves-trans-women-are-told-cant-co-rcna96727

Well hang on a second, intimidation is broader than threats. True threats are illegal already. Intimidation is defined in this bill as a particular kind of harassment, namely that: both actually causes someone to feel threatened, terrorized, or frightened, and would also make a reasonable person feel threatened, terrorized, or frightened; and is repeated.