Random Stuff...

Just a couple random issues to discuss.

The first this from New York City:

It's hard to believe that it could get any more absurd in NYC, but thank goodness we have our Commission On Human Rights to help. While we were all basking in holiday cheer and not paying attention apparently, the NYC Commission On Human Rights issued new set of guidelines on gender expression.

According to the new guidelines, it is now an actionable offense to address a person by "Miss", "Mr." or by using inappropriate pronouns like "he" or "she" etc. And employers are no longer allowed to require employees to dress within in any gender-normative clothing that goes against the employee's chosen gender "expression". This just in from them under the heading of "GENDER IDENTITY/GENDER EXPRESSION: LEGAL ENFORCEMENT GUIDE" New York City Commission on Human Rights Legal Enforcement Guidance on Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Expression: Local Law No. 3 (2002); N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102

According tot the new guidelines, if your employer requires that women to dress in skirts and men dress in suit and tie...well, you can't do that anymore apparently. All dress codes must be equal. If a person is "transitioning" then they must be allowed to dress the way they want or you will face the wrath of the court system. Each infraction will cost the employer up to $250,000 if a complaint is valid.

Under the heading of Failing To Use an Individual’s Preferred Name or Pronoun:

Examples of Violations

a. Intentional or repeated refusal to use an individual’s preferred name, pronoun or title. For example, repeatedly calling a transgender woman “him” or “Mr.” after she has made clear which pronouns and title she uses.

b. Refusal to use an individual’s preferred name, pronoun, or title because they do not conform to gender stereotypes. For example, calling a woman “Mr.” because her appearance is aligned with traditional gender-based stereotypes of masculinity.

c. Conditioning an individual’s use of their preferred name on obtaining a court ordered name change or providing identification in that name. For example, a covered entity may not refuse to call a transgender woman her preferred name, Jane, because her identification says that her first name is John.

d. Requiring an individual to provide information about their medical history or proof of having undergone particular medical procedures in order to use their preferred name, pronoun, or title.

So basically, if an potential employer requires proof of your identity and it does not conform to your expression of gender thereby confusing your potential employer, they are no longer allowed to require additional identification. So let's say your government issued ID identifies you as a man, but you are wearing a dress and stiletto heels, your employer or potential employer can no longer require additional ID that would conform with your chosen gender expression. And we wonder as we wander the streets of NYC why there are so many empty storefronts. Oy...

As a gender-normal person (oops, that could cost me $250K), I am now to be known as "cisgendered". When did this get to be a thing? Oh, and just for the record and the law, the title that I shall be forthwith referred by shall be the title of "Her Royal Highness". And if you don't, it will cost you...

And on the national front totally unrelated:

Many Dems are calling for DNC Chairperson Debbie Wasserman Schultz' head. It couldn't possibly be because under her direction, Dems have managed to lose the majority in the US House, Senate, and the majority of state governments too. No, it is apparently because she is too committed to protecting Hillary Clinton from public scutiny by limited the number and timing of presidential debates. All of the debates have been scheduled at inconveniently timed and so far have been sparsely watched by design. The next being this Sunday night on NBC.

As always, please feel free to discuss this or any other topic...