• Whirlybird@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Coerced speech like how some places are now looking at making “misgendering” and “using the wrong pronouns” illegal.

    Not sure what word other than “invading” you would user for biological men going in to places designed specifically only for biological women?

    Do you even know what a strawman is?

        • DeadlineX@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Did you even read your boogey man bill or just take Fox News as gods word? The bill only says someone is guilty of a felony if they cause damage, bodily harm, or threaten a person because of sexual identity. It just adds a protection to people who are being victimize for a specific aspect of their identity.

          As long as you weren’t planning on any hate crimes you can misgender people as much as you want in Michigan. It makes you an asshole, but not a felon.

          If you would like to read the bill you’re parroting bullshit about, I can link you to the actual text of it on Michigan’s website so you don’t have to be scared of going to jail for misgendering someone anymore.

          Again unless you’re planning a hate crime against them. Then you’re n asshole and a felon. Because hate crimes are bad. That’s not a political thing right? Like damaging someone’s property or body is illegal all the time. It’s just more illegal when you do it intentionally because of an aspect of their identity. I mean you don’t think it’s okay to assault disabled folks because of their disability?

        • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          From the (fox news, of course) link:

          A recently passed bill in Michigan could make it a felony to intimidate someone by intentionally using the wrong gender pronouns, according to some legal experts.

          The article quotes only one person, but I suppose “some experts” is just an oversight, and not because fox knows its credulous audience won’t bother reading too closely or critically. Or looking up the “expert” around whom the story pivots. No huge surprise, he’s the founder of a Christian think tank that focuses on legislating Christianity as law. They’re anti-lgbt, anti-abortion, and antivaxx.

          Got someone who isn’t an alarmist bent on violating everyone’s religious liberty?

          • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Again though - the legislation is there. You’re simply saying that because the source is a company that you don’t like that the information they’re reporting on is wrong, which is false.

            I don’t know what sources reporting on the same actual legislation you’ll accept? I didn’t go to fox news to find it, i just googled it and that was the top name i recognized of the dozens of sites reporting it. Again - it’s in the legislation. It’s not a rumour, it’s not “fake news”.

            “Gender identity or expression means having or being perceived as having a gender-related self-identity or expression whether or not associated with an individual’s assigned sex at birth.”

            This was specifically added in to the bill when adding them as a “protected class”. The legislation introduced hate crime penalties for causing a person to “feel terrorized, frightened, or threatened,” regarding “sexual orientation” and “gender identity or expression.”

            Here’s an msn one: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/michigan-residents-could-be-charged-with-a-felony-and-fined-up-to-10000-over-wrong-pronouns/ss-AA1dibuC#image=1

            Is MSN acceptable for you? Got a list of approved websites that report on legislations?