you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]WildApples 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I think that there is a good argument that it is unlawfully discriminatory. It would be unthinkable to make an employee prominently identify their race, national origin, religion, or disability status at work, and I would argue that the same applies to sex, which as others have noted can have a detrimental effect on female employees.

Secondly, if you live in a jurisdiction that protects discrimination on the basis of creed, you could argue that you are being forced to violate your creed by the requirement to choose an identity that you do not personally believe in.

Also, for anyone working in government (including public schools and hospitals) in the U.S., remember that government cannot infringe on your right to free speech. That protection includes freedom from compelled speech.

[–]MarkTwainiac 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Having to divulge this sort of info at work, school or in other settings is also 100% contrary to the thinking that led the US to pass very strict laws about privacy of medical records and personal information known as HIPPA. If you go to the website of US Health and Human Service Administration, you'll see the amazing lengths that armies of attorneys in the US have gone to make sure information about people's health history and status remains private.

Similarly, it's due to a respect for personal privacy and an awareness of the ways that people's personal information can be used - and has been used - to discriminate against them in the workplace (and other settings) that the US Congress was finally moved to pass the The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008. This law - and the reasons why it came into being and is necessary - strikes me as directly analogous to all this "provide your pronouns" nonsense today:

https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/genetic-information-nondiscrimination-act-2008

Also, people who go along with the idea that everyone should announce their "gender identities," political leanings, membership in the "LGBTQ" and other personal info at work, in school, and all over social media don't seem to have considered how this very same information might be used against them if there's a big cultural shift, or even a revolution, that causes the political climate to change 180 degrees. Like it did in Russia in 1917-19, in China in the 1940s and 1970s, in Cambodia in 1975, in Iran in 1979, in Poland in the 80s, in Berlin/East Germany in 1990, in the USSR in 1991 - and during the past few years in places like Hungary, Poland, Turkey and Ukraine.

The very same information that can be used to signal that you're "a good person" who's "on the right side of history" under one regime could well be used to make you as a pariah who is suddenly toast under the next one.

[–]SanityIsGC 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

protection includes freedom from compelled speech

This is a great point. How is this not compelled speech?

[–]ShieldMaiden 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It feels like every time we're asked to repeat "TWAW" is compelled speech, too. At least it's not legally compelled (yet, lol).

[–]SanityIsGC 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It would be compelled speech and those words will never cross my lips. Transgender women are transgender women as far as I am concerned and that is the whole truth of the matter.