Back when this nonsense first started in earnest, the Effas of the world said
"It's just being polite, it's no big deal. Get back to us when they start
arresting people for not doing it."

Welp, here we are.

(Note: NY City passed an ordinance several years ago that makes it a criminal
offense for an employer or customer of a business to refuse to address someone
according to how they identify, so the UK is actually behind the curve here. I
totally would demand my boss call me "Your majesty" and under the NY law, he'd
either have to do it or face arrest. Ain't progressivism awesome?)

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/7mwg4m0z7x8tnv0wemfl5/BatmanGenderSlap.png?rlkey=fw3q2uk7krx9n3p0aq6rn7rc2&dl=0

--------------------------

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12631243/Deliberately-calling-wrong-gender-pronouns-land-jail-TWO-YEARS-Labour.html

Deliberately calling someone by the 'wrong' gender pronouns could become a
hate crime punishable by imprisonment under a Labour government, The Mail on
Sunday can reveal.

Vowing to toughen up the sentencing guidelines for abuse and violence targeted
at trans people, Labour would make attacks motivated by hatred of the victim's
gender identity into 'aggravated offences'. This would bring transphobic abuse
into line with assault and harassment motivated by hatred on the grounds of
race or religion, which are punishable by up to two years in prison.

Critics warn that the policy could therefore mean jail sentences for someone
refusing to use a transgender person's preferred pronouns, or referring to
them by their former name or their birth sex rather than their chosen gender.

On 10/20/2023 5:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> Back when this nonsense first started in earnest, the Effas of the world said
> "It's just being polite, it's no big deal. Get back to us when they start
> arresting people for not doing it."
>
> Welp, here we are.
>
> (Note: NY City passed an ordinance several years ago that makes it a criminal
> offense for an employer or customer of a business to refuse to address someone
> according to how they identify, so the UK is actually behind the curve here. I
> totally would demand my boss call me "Your majesty" and under the NY law, he'd
> either have to do it or face arrest. Ain't progressivism awesome?)
>
>
> https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/7mwg4m0z7x8tnv0wemfl5/BatmanGenderSlap.png?rlkey=fw3q2uk7krx9n3p0aq6rn7rc2&dl=0
>
> --------------------------
>
> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12631243/Deliberately-calling-wrong-gender-pronouns-land-jail-TWO-YEARS-Labour.html
>
> Deliberately calling someone by the 'wrong' gender pronouns could become a
> hate crime punishable by imprisonment under a Labour government, The Mail on
> Sunday can reveal.
>
> Vowing to toughen up the sentencing guidelines for abuse and violence targeted
> at trans people, Labour would make attacks motivated by hatred of the victim's
> gender identity into 'aggravated offences'. This would bring transphobic abuse
> into line with assault and harassment motivated by hatred on the grounds of
> race or religion, which are punishable by up to two years in prison.
>
> Critics warn that the policy could therefore mean jail sentences for someone
> refusing to use a transgender person's preferred pronouns, or referring to
> them by their former name or their birth sex rather than their chosen gender.

Do you think that "assault and harassment [per] race or religion" should
be permitted?

On Oct 20, 2023 at 3:14:03 PM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:

> On 10/20/2023 5:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>
>> Back when this nonsense first started in earnest, the Effas of the world
>> said
>> "It's just being polite, it's no big deal. Get back to us when they start
>> arresting people for not doing it."
>>
>> Welp, here we are.
>>
>> (Note: NY City passed an ordinance several years ago that makes it a
>> criminal
>> offense for an employer or customer of a business to refuse to address
>> someone
>> according to how they identify, so the UK is actually behind the curve
>> here. I
>> totally would demand my boss call me "Your majesty" and under the NY law,
>> he'd
>> either have to do it or face arrest. Ain't progressivism awesome?)
>>
>>
>>
>> https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/7mwg4m0z7x8tnv0wemfl5/BatmanGenderSlap.png?rlkey=fw3q2uk7krx9n3p0aq6rn7rc2&dl=0
>>
>> --------------------------
>>
>>
>> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12631243/Deliberately-calling-wrong-gender-pronouns-land-jail-TWO-YEARS-Labour.html
>>
>> Deliberately calling someone by the 'wrong' gender pronouns could become a
>> hate crime punishable by imprisonment under a Labour government, The Mail on
>> Sunday can reveal.
>>
>> Vowing to toughen up the sentencing guidelines for abuse and violence
>> targeted
>> at trans people, Labour would make attacks motivated by hatred of the
>> victim's
>> gender identity into 'aggravated offences'. This would bring transphobic
>> abuse
>> into line with assault and harassment motivated by hatred on the grounds of
>> race or religion, which are punishable by up to two years in prison.
>>
>> Critics warn that the policy could therefore mean jail sentences for someone
>> refusing to use a transgender person's preferred pronouns, or referring to
>> them by their former name or their birth sex rather than their chosen
>> gender.
>
> Do you think that "assault and harassment [per] race or religion" should
> be permitted?

I don't think calling a male "he" is even in the same universe as assault and
harassment and has nothing to do with either race or religion.

On 10/20/23 5:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> Back when this nonsense first started in earnest, the Effas of the world said
> "It's just being polite, it's no big deal. Get back to us when they start
> arresting people for not doing it."
>
> Welp, here we are.
>
> (Note: NY City passed an ordinance several years ago that makes it a criminal
> offense for an employer or customer of a business to refuse to address someone
> according to how they identify, so the UK is actually behind the curve here. I
> totally would demand my boss call me "Your majesty" and under the NY law, he'd
> either have to do it or face arrest. Ain't progressivism awesome?)
>
>
> https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/7mwg4m0z7x8tnv0wemfl5/BatmanGenderSlap.png?rlkey=fw3q2uk7krx9n3p0aq6rn7rc2&dl=0
>
> --------------------------
>
> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12631243/Deliberately-calling-wrong-gender-pronouns-land-jail-TWO-YEARS-Labour.html
>
> Deliberately calling someone by the 'wrong' gender pronouns could become a
> hate crime punishable by imprisonment under a Labour government, The Mail on
> Sunday can reveal.
>
> Vowing to toughen up the sentencing guidelines for abuse and violence targeted
> at trans people, Labour would make attacks motivated by hatred of the victim's
> gender identity into 'aggravated offences'. This would bring transphobic abuse
> into line with assault and harassment motivated by hatred on the grounds of
> race or religion, which are punishable by up to two years in prison.
>
> Critics warn that the policy could therefore mean jail sentences for someone
> refusing to use a transgender person's preferred pronouns, or referring to
> them by their former name or their birth sex rather than their chosen gender.
>
>

Yeah, and I've been one of those critics. What the fuck are you talking
about now? Anyone?

I've never given two fucks about pronouns and think the whole thing is
stupid, since nobody can keep a running total of who wants to be called
what anyway.

You keep lying about my position on topics I've never weighed in on.

Stop lying, Oathkeeper. Or (insert BIG LAUGH here) provide some receipts.

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

On 10/20/23 6:14 PM, moviePig wrote:
> On 10/20/2023 5:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> Back when this nonsense first started in earnest, the Effas of the
>> world said
>> "It's just being polite, it's no big deal. Get back to us when they start
>> arresting people for not doing it."
>>
>> Welp, here we are.
>>
>> (Note: NY City passed an ordinance several years ago that makes it a
>> criminal
>> offense for an employer or customer of a business to refuse to address
>> someone
>> according to how they identify, so the UK is actually behind the curve
>> here. I
>> totally would demand my boss call me "Your majesty" and under the NY
>> law, he'd
>> either have to do it or face arrest. Ain't progressivism awesome?)
>>
>>
>> https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/7mwg4m0z7x8tnv0wemfl5/BatmanGenderSlap.png?rlkey=fw3q2uk7krx9n3p0aq6rn7rc2&dl=0
>>
>>
>> --------------------------
>>
>> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12631243/Deliberately-calling-wrong-gender-pronouns-land-jail-TWO-YEARS-Labour.html
>>
>>
>> Deliberately calling someone by the 'wrong' gender pronouns could
>> become a
>> hate crime punishable by imprisonment under a Labour government, The
>> Mail on
>> Sunday can reveal.
>>
>> Vowing to toughen up the sentencing guidelines for abuse and violence
>> targeted
>> at trans people, Labour would make attacks motivated by hatred of the
>> victim's
>> gender identity into 'aggravated offences'. This would bring
>> transphobic abuse
>> into line with assault and harassment motivated by hatred on the
>> grounds of
>> race or religion, which are punishable by up to two years in prison.
>>
>> Critics warn that the policy could therefore mean jail sentences for
>> someone
>> refusing to use a transgender person's preferred pronouns, or
>> referring to
>> them by their former name or their birth sex rather than their chosen
>> gender.
>
> Do you think that "assault and harassment [per] race or religion" should
> be permitted?
>
>

You should have stopped after the word "think". He doesn't.

He just named me as one of those people, and all I've ever said was I
didn't give two shits about what people call themselves - I'm not
keeping track of it.

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

On 10/20/2023 6:53 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On Oct 20, 2023 at 3:14:03 PM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/20/2023 5:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>
>>> Back when this nonsense first started in earnest, the Effas of the world
>>> said
>>> "It's just being polite, it's no big deal. Get back to us when they start
>>> arresting people for not doing it."
>>>
>>> Welp, here we are.
>>>
>>> (Note: NY City passed an ordinance several years ago that makes it a
>>> criminal
>>> offense for an employer or customer of a business to refuse to address
>>> someone
>>> according to how they identify, so the UK is actually behind the curve
>>> here. I
>>> totally would demand my boss call me "Your majesty" and under the NY law,
>>> he'd
>>> either have to do it or face arrest. Ain't progressivism awesome?)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/7mwg4m0z7x8tnv0wemfl5/BatmanGenderSlap.png?rlkey=fw3q2uk7krx9n3p0aq6rn7rc2&dl=0
>>>
>>> --------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12631243/Deliberately-calling-wrong-gender-pronouns-land-jail-TWO-YEARS-Labour.html
>>>
>>> Deliberately calling someone by the 'wrong' gender pronouns could become a
>>> hate crime punishable by imprisonment under a Labour government, The Mail on
>>> Sunday can reveal.
>>>
>>> Vowing to toughen up the sentencing guidelines for abuse and violence
>>> targeted
>>> at trans people, Labour would make attacks motivated by hatred of the
>>> victim's
>>> gender identity into 'aggravated offences'. This would bring transphobic
>>> abuse
>>> into line with assault and harassment motivated by hatred on the grounds of
>>> race or religion, which are punishable by up to two years in prison.
>>>
>>> Critics warn that the policy could therefore mean jail sentences for someone
>>> refusing to use a transgender person's preferred pronouns, or referring to
>>> them by their former name or their birth sex rather than their chosen
>>> gender.
>>
>> Do you think that "assault and harassment [per] race or religion" should
>> be permitted?
>
> I don't think calling a male "he" is even in the same universe as assault and
> harassment and has nothing to do with either race or religion.

If some poor fuck is so invested in his femininity that he's chopped off
his dick, I submit that taunting him by calling him "he" could be as
malicious and injurious as any other slur.

In article <R8HYM.65694$HwD9.51516@fx11.iad>,
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:

> On 10/20/2023 6:53 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > On Oct 20, 2023 at 3:14:03 PM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 10/20/2023 5:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>
> >>>Back when this nonsense first started in earnest, the Effas of the
> >>>world said "It's just being polite, it's no big deal. Get back to us
> >>>when they start arresting people for not doing it."
> >>>
> >>>Welp, here we are.
> >>>
> >>>(Note: NY City passed an ordinance several years ago that makes it a
> >>>criminal offense for an employer or customer of a business to refuse
> >>>to address someone according to how they identify, so the UK is
> >>>actually behind the curve here. I totally would demand my boss call
> >>>me "Your majesty" and under the NY law, he'd either have to do it or
> >>>face arrest. Ain't progressivism awesome?)
> >>>
> >>>https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/7mwg4m0z7x8tnv0wemfl5/BatmanGenderSlap.png?
> >>>rlkey=fw3q2uk7krx9n3p0aq6rn7rc2&dl=0
> >>>
> >>> --------------------------
> >>>
> >>>https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12631243/Deliberately-calling-wro
> >>>ng-gender-pronouns-land-jail-TWO-YEARS-Labour.html
> >>>
> >>>Deliberately calling someone by the 'wrong' gender pronouns could
> >>>become a hate crime punishable by imprisonment under a Labour government,
> >>>The Mail on Sunday can reveal.
> >>>
> >>>Vowing to toughen up the sentencing guidelines for abuse and violence
> >>>targeted at trans people, Labour would make attacks motivated by hatred
> >>>of the victim's gender identity into 'aggravated offences'. This would
> >>>bring transphobic abuse into line with assault and harassment motivated
> >>>by hatred on the grounds of race or religion, which are punishable by
> >>>up to two years in prison.
> >>>
> >>>Critics warn that the policy could therefore mean jail sentences for
> >>>someone refusing to use a transgender person's preferred pronouns,
> >>>or referring to them by their former name or their birth sex rather
> >>>than their chosen gender.
> >>
> >> Do you think that "assault and harassment [per] race or religion" should
> >> be permitted?
> >
> > I don't think calling a male "he" is even in the same universe as assault
> > and harassment and has nothing to do with either race or religion.
>
> If some poor fuck is so invested in his femininity that he's chopped off
> his dick, I submit that taunting him by calling him "he" could be as
> malicious and injurious as any other slur.

That still doesn't mean he's factually not a 'he' and the state has no
business forcing people through threat of violence to lie or deny
reality to service the delusions of the mentally ill. Compelled speech
is anathema enough. Compelled lying is repugnant.

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>On Oct 20, 2023 at 3:14:03 PM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>On 10/20/2023 5:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

>>>Back when this nonsense first started in earnest, the Effas of the
>>>world said "It's just being polite, it's no big deal. Get back to us
>>>when they start arresting people for not doing it."

>>>Welp, here we are.

>>>(Note: NY City passed an ordinance several years ago that makes
>>>it a criminal offense for an employer or customer of a business to
>>>refuse to address someone according to how they identify, so the UK is
>>>actually behind the curve here. I totally would demand my boss call me
>>>"Your majesty" and under the NY law, he'd either have to do it or face
>>>arrest. Ain't progressivism awesome?)

>>>https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/7mwg4m0z7x8tnv0wemfl5/BatmanGenderSlap.png?rlkey=fw3q2uk7krx9n3p0aq6rn7rc2&dl=0

>>>--------------------------

>>>https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12631243/Deliberately-calling-wrong-gender-pronouns-land-jail-TWO-YEARS-Labour.html

>>>Deliberately calling someone by the 'wrong' gender pronouns could become a
>>>hate crime punishable by imprisonment under a Labour government, The Mail on
>>>Sunday can reveal.

>>>Vowing to toughen up the sentencing guidelines for abuse and violence
>>>targeted at trans people, Labour would make attacks motivated by hatred
>>>of the victim's gender identity into 'aggravated offences'. This would
>>>bring transphobic abuse into line with assault and harassment motivated
>>>by hatred on the grounds of race or religion, which are punishable by
>>>up to two years in prison.

>>>Critics warn that the policy could therefore mean jail sentences for someone
>>>refusing to use a transgender person's preferred pronouns, or referring to
>>>them by their former name or their birth sex rather than their chosen
>>>gender.

>>Do you think that "assault and harassment [per] race or religion" should
>>be permitted?

>I don't think calling a male "he" is even in the same universe as assault and
>harassment and has nothing to do with either race or religion.

That is so a straight line.

You don't think people can be assaulted with words? I give you moviePig.

On 10/21/2023 12:06 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <R8HYM.65694$HwD9.51516@fx11.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/20/2023 6:53 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> On Oct 20, 2023 at 3:14:03 PM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/20/2023 5:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Back when this nonsense first started in earnest, the Effas of the
>>>>> world said "It's just being polite, it's no big deal. Get back to us
>>>>> when they start arresting people for not doing it."
>>>>>
>>>>> Welp, here we are.
>>>>>
>>>>> (Note: NY City passed an ordinance several years ago that makes it a
>>>>> criminal offense for an employer or customer of a business to refuse
>>>>> to address someone according to how they identify, so the UK is
>>>>> actually behind the curve here. I totally would demand my boss call
>>>>> me "Your majesty" and under the NY law, he'd either have to do it or
>>>>> face arrest. Ain't progressivism awesome?)
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/7mwg4m0z7x8tnv0wemfl5/BatmanGenderSlap.png?
>>>>> rlkey=fw3q2uk7krx9n3p0aq6rn7rc2&dl=0
>>>>>
>>>>> --------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12631243/Deliberately-calling-wro
>>>>> ng-gender-pronouns-land-jail-TWO-YEARS-Labour.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Deliberately calling someone by the 'wrong' gender pronouns could
>>>>> become a hate crime punishable by imprisonment under a Labour government,
>>>>> The Mail on Sunday can reveal.
>>>>>
>>>>> Vowing to toughen up the sentencing guidelines for abuse and violence
>>>>> targeted at trans people, Labour would make attacks motivated by hatred
>>>>> of the victim's gender identity into 'aggravated offences'. This would
>>>>> bring transphobic abuse into line with assault and harassment motivated
>>>>> by hatred on the grounds of race or religion, which are punishable by
>>>>> up to two years in prison.
>>>>>
>>>>> Critics warn that the policy could therefore mean jail sentences for
>>>>> someone refusing to use a transgender person's preferred pronouns,
>>>>> or referring to them by their former name or their birth sex rather
>>>>> than their chosen gender.
>>>>
>>>> Do you think that "assault and harassment [per] race or religion" should
>>>> be permitted?
>>>
>>> I don't think calling a male "he" is even in the same universe as assault
>>> and harassment and has nothing to do with either race or religion.
>>
>> If some poor fuck is so invested in his femininity that he's chopped off
>> his dick, I submit that taunting him by calling him "he" could be as
>> malicious and injurious as any other slur.
>
> That still doesn't mean he's factually not a 'he' and the state has no
> business forcing people through threat of violence to lie or deny
> reality to service the delusions of the mentally ill. Compelled speech
> is anathema enough. Compelled lying is repugnant.

It's not about 'denying reality' or 'free speech' or any other
disingenuous dog-whistle. Rather, it's about 'deliberate harassment'
....a threshold I think any reasonable person easily recognizes.

On 10/21/2023 3:15 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 20, 2023 at 3:14:03 PM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>> On 10/20/2023 5:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>
>>>> Back when this nonsense first started in earnest, the Effas of the
>>>> world said "It's just being polite, it's no big deal. Get back to us
>>>> when they start arresting people for not doing it."
>
>>>> Welp, here we are.
>
>>>> (Note: NY City passed an ordinance several years ago that makes
>>>> it a criminal offense for an employer or customer of a business to
>>>> refuse to address someone according to how they identify, so the UK is
>>>> actually behind the curve here. I totally would demand my boss call me
>>>> "Your majesty" and under the NY law, he'd either have to do it or face
>>>> arrest. Ain't progressivism awesome?)
>
>>>> https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/7mwg4m0z7x8tnv0wemfl5/BatmanGenderSlap.png?rlkey=fw3q2uk7krx9n3p0aq6rn7rc2&dl=0
>
>>>> --------------------------
>
>>>> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12631243/Deliberately-calling-wrong-gender-pronouns-land-jail-TWO-YEARS-Labour.html
>
>>>> Deliberately calling someone by the 'wrong' gender pronouns could become a
>>>> hate crime punishable by imprisonment under a Labour government, The Mail on
>>>> Sunday can reveal.
>
>>>> Vowing to toughen up the sentencing guidelines for abuse and violence
>>>> targeted at trans people, Labour would make attacks motivated by hatred
>>>> of the victim's gender identity into 'aggravated offences'. This would
>>>> bring transphobic abuse into line with assault and harassment motivated
>>>> by hatred on the grounds of race or religion, which are punishable by
>>>> up to two years in prison.
>
>>>> Critics warn that the policy could therefore mean jail sentences for someone
>>>> refusing to use a transgender person's preferred pronouns, or referring to
>>>> them by their former name or their birth sex rather than their chosen
>>>> gender.
>
>>> Do you think that "assault and harassment [per] race or religion" should
>>> be permitted?
>
>> I don't think calling a male "he" is even in the same universe as assault and
>> harassment and has nothing to do with either race or religion.
>
> That is so a straight line.
>
> You don't think people can be assaulted with words? I give you moviePig.

Not yours to give. (Though it would appear that you are mine...)

> moviePig
> > BTR1701
> >
> > Deliberately calling someone by the 'wrong' gender pronouns could become a
> > hate crime punishable by imprisonment under a Labour government, The Mail
> > on Sunday can reveal.
>
> Do you think that "assault and harassment [per] race or religion" should
> be permitted?

Do you think calling a man a man is "assault and harassment"?

In article <ZySYM.114636$0UVe.48707@fx17.iad>,
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:

> On 10/21/2023 12:06 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <R8HYM.65694$HwD9.51516@fx11.iad>,
> > moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 10/20/2023 6:53 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>> On Oct 20, 2023 at 3:14:03 PM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 10/20/2023 5:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Back when this nonsense first started in earnest, the Effas of the
> >>>>> world said "It's just being polite, it's no big deal. Get back to us
> >>>>> when they start arresting people for not doing it."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Welp, here we are.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> (Note: NY City passed an ordinance several years ago that makes it a
> >>>>> criminal offense for an employer or customer of a business to refuse
> >>>>> to address someone according to how they identify, so the UK is
> >>>>> actually behind the curve here. I totally would demand my boss call
> >>>>> me "Your majesty" and under the NY law, he'd either have to do it or
> >>>>> face arrest. Ain't progressivism awesome?)

> >>>>> Deliberately calling someone by the 'wrong' gender pronouns could
> >>>>> become a hate crime punishable by imprisonment under a Labour
> >>>>> government, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Vowing to toughen up the sentencing guidelines for abuse and violence
> >>>>> targeted at trans people, Labour would make attacks motivated by hatred
> >>>>> of the victim's gender identity into 'aggravated offences'. This would
> >>>>> bring transphobic abuse into line with assault and harassment motivated
> >>>>> by hatred on the grounds of race or religion, which are punishable by
> >>>>> up to two years in prison.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Critics warn that the policy could therefore mean jail sentences for
> >>>>> someone refusing to use a transgender person's preferred pronouns,
> >>>>> or referring to them by their former name or their birth sex rather
> >>>>> than their chosen gender.
> >>>>
> >>>> Do you think that "assault and harassment [per] race or religion" should
> >>>> be permitted?
> >>>
> >>> I don't think calling a male "he" is even in the same universe as assault
> >>> and harassment and has nothing to do with either race or religion.
> >>
> >> If some poor fuck is so invested in his femininity that he's chopped off
> >> his dick, I submit that taunting him by calling him "he" could be as
> >> malicious and injurious as any other slur.
> >
> > That still doesn't mean he's factually not a 'he' and the state has no
> > business forcing people through threat of violence to lie or deny
> > reality to service the delusions of the mentally ill. Compelled speech
> > is anathema enough. Compelled lying is repugnant.
>
> It's not about 'denying reality' or 'free speech' or any other
> disingenuous dog-whistle. Rather, it's about 'deliberate harassment'
> ...a threshold I think any reasonable person easily recognizes.

Deliberately not lying to or reinforcing a crazy person's delusions is
not harassment.

I'm not harassing a paranoid schizophrenic who thinks snakes are coming
out of his ears by telling him that there are not, in fact, snakes
coming out of his ears.

Likewise, I'm not harassing a dysphoric person who believes he's a woman
by telling him he's actually not a woman or, even more innocuously,
simply (and accurately) referring to him as 'he'.

On 10/21/2023 2:12 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <ZySYM.114636$0UVe.48707@fx17.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/21/2023 12:06 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <R8HYM.65694$HwD9.51516@fx11.iad>,
>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/20/2023 6:53 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 20, 2023 at 3:14:03 PM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/20/2023 5:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Back when this nonsense first started in earnest, the Effas of the
>>>>>>> world said "It's just being polite, it's no big deal. Get back to us
>>>>>>> when they start arresting people for not doing it."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Welp, here we are.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (Note: NY City passed an ordinance several years ago that makes it a
>>>>>>> criminal offense for an employer or customer of a business to refuse
>>>>>>> to address someone according to how they identify, so the UK is
>>>>>>> actually behind the curve here. I totally would demand my boss call
>>>>>>> me "Your majesty" and under the NY law, he'd either have to do it or
>>>>>>> face arrest. Ain't progressivism awesome?)
>
>>>>>>> Deliberately calling someone by the 'wrong' gender pronouns could
>>>>>>> become a hate crime punishable by imprisonment under a Labour
>>>>>>> government, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Vowing to toughen up the sentencing guidelines for abuse and violence
>>>>>>> targeted at trans people, Labour would make attacks motivated by hatred
>>>>>>> of the victim's gender identity into 'aggravated offences'. This would
>>>>>>> bring transphobic abuse into line with assault and harassment motivated
>>>>>>> by hatred on the grounds of race or religion, which are punishable by
>>>>>>> up to two years in prison.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Critics warn that the policy could therefore mean jail sentences for
>>>>>>> someone refusing to use a transgender person's preferred pronouns,
>>>>>>> or referring to them by their former name or their birth sex rather
>>>>>>> than their chosen gender.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you think that "assault and harassment [per] race or religion" should
>>>>>> be permitted?
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think calling a male "he" is even in the same universe as assault
>>>>> and harassment and has nothing to do with either race or religion.
>>>>
>>>> If some poor fuck is so invested in his femininity that he's chopped off
>>>> his dick, I submit that taunting him by calling him "he" could be as
>>>> malicious and injurious as any other slur.
>>>
>>> That still doesn't mean he's factually not a 'he' and the state has no
>>> business forcing people through threat of violence to lie or deny
>>> reality to service the delusions of the mentally ill. Compelled speech
>>> is anathema enough. Compelled lying is repugnant.
>>
>> It's not about 'denying reality' or 'free speech' or any other
>> disingenuous dog-whistle. Rather, it's about 'deliberate harassment'
>> ...a threshold I think any reasonable person easily recognizes.
>
> Deliberately not lying to or reinforcing a crazy person's delusions is
> not harassment.
>
> I'm not harassing a paranoid schizophrenic who thinks snakes are coming
> out of his ears by telling him that there are not, in fact, snakes
> coming out of his ears.
>
> Likewise, I'm not harassing a dysphoric person who believes he's a woman
> by telling him he's actually not a woman or, even more innocuously,
> simply (and accurately) referring to him as 'he'.

Helpfully correcting someone's delusion is different from declaiming
against their philosophy ...particularly when they haven't asked you.

In article <PzVYM.57731$MJ59.21093@fx10.iad>,
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:

> On 10/21/2023 2:12 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <ZySYM.114636$0UVe.48707@fx17.iad>,
> > moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 10/21/2023 12:06 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>> In article <R8HYM.65694$HwD9.51516@fx11.iad>,
> >>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 10/20/2023 6:53 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>>> On Oct 20, 2023 at 3:14:03 PM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
> >>>>> wrote:

> >>>>>> Do you think that "assault and harassment [per] race or religion"
> >>>>>> should be permitted?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I don't think calling a male "he" is even in the same universe as
> >>>>> assault and harassment and has nothing to do with either race or
> >>>>> religion.
> >>>>
> >>>> If some poor fuck is so invested in his femininity that he's chopped
> >>>> off his dick, I submit that taunting him by calling him "he" could be
> >>>> as malicious and injurious as any other slur.
> >>>
> >>> That still doesn't mean he's factually not a 'he' and the state has no
> >>> business forcing people through threat of violence to lie or deny
> >>> reality to service the delusions of the mentally ill. Compelled speech
> >>> is anathema enough. Compelled lying is repugnant.
> >>
> >> It's not about 'denying reality' or 'free speech' or any other
> >> disingenuous dog-whistle. Rather, it's about 'deliberate harassment'
> >> ...a threshold I think any reasonable person easily recognizes.
> >
> > Deliberately not lying to or reinforcing a crazy person's delusions is
> > not harassment.
> >
> > I'm not harassing a paranoid schizophrenic who thinks snakes are coming
> > out of his ears by telling him that there are not, in fact, snakes
> > coming out of his ears.
> >
> > Likewise, I'm not harassing a dysphoric person who believes he's a woman
> > by telling him he's actually not a woman or, even more innocuously,
> > simply (and accurately) referring to him as 'he'.
>
> Helpfully correcting someone's delusion is different from declaiming
> against their philosophy ...particularly when they haven't asked you.

A mental illness is not a 'philosophy'.

On 10/21/2023 4:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <PzVYM.57731$MJ59.21093@fx10.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/21/2023 2:12 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <ZySYM.114636$0UVe.48707@fx17.iad>,
>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/21/2023 12:06 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article <R8HYM.65694$HwD9.51516@fx11.iad>,
>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/20/2023 6:53 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> On Oct 20, 2023 at 3:14:03 PM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>> Do you think that "assault and harassment [per] race or religion"
>>>>>>>> should be permitted?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't think calling a male "he" is even in the same universe as
>>>>>>> assault and harassment and has nothing to do with either race or
>>>>>>> religion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If some poor fuck is so invested in his femininity that he's chopped
>>>>>> off his dick, I submit that taunting him by calling him "he" could be
>>>>>> as malicious and injurious as any other slur.
>>>>>
>>>>> That still doesn't mean he's factually not a 'he' and the state has no
>>>>> business forcing people through threat of violence to lie or deny
>>>>> reality to service the delusions of the mentally ill. Compelled speech
>>>>> is anathema enough. Compelled lying is repugnant.
>>>>
>>>> It's not about 'denying reality' or 'free speech' or any other
>>>> disingenuous dog-whistle. Rather, it's about 'deliberate harassment'
>>>> ...a threshold I think any reasonable person easily recognizes.
>>>
>>> Deliberately not lying to or reinforcing a crazy person's delusions is
>>> not harassment.
>>>
>>> I'm not harassing a paranoid schizophrenic who thinks snakes are coming
>>> out of his ears by telling him that there are not, in fact, snakes
>>> coming out of his ears.
>>>
>>> Likewise, I'm not harassing a dysphoric person who believes he's a woman
>>> by telling him he's actually not a woman or, even more innocuously,
>>> simply (and accurately) referring to him as 'he'.
>>
>> Helpfully correcting someone's delusion is different from declaiming
>> against their philosophy ...particularly when they haven't asked you.
>
> A mental illness is not a 'philosophy'.

Neither is a rutabaga. But believing, say, that there's a transcendent
sense wherein you're exactly who you fervently wish to be is.

In article <GAWYM.68431$HwD9.53300@fx11.iad>,
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:

> On 10/21/2023 4:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <PzVYM.57731$MJ59.21093@fx10.iad>,
> > moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 10/21/2023 2:12 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>> In article <ZySYM.114636$0UVe.48707@fx17.iad>,
> >>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 10/21/2023 12:06 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>>> In article <R8HYM.65694$HwD9.51516@fx11.iad>,
> >>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 10/20/2023 6:53 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Oct 20, 2023 at 3:14:03 PM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >
> >>>>>>>> Do you think that "assault and harassment [per] race or religion"
> >>>>>>>> should be permitted?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I don't think calling a male "he" is even in the same universe as
> >>>>>>> assault and harassment and has nothing to do with either race or
> >>>>>>> religion.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If some poor fuck is so invested in his femininity that he's chopped
> >>>>>> off his dick, I submit that taunting him by calling him "he" could be
> >>>>>> as malicious and injurious as any other slur.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That still doesn't mean he's factually not a 'he' and the state has no
> >>>>> business forcing people through threat of violence to lie or deny
> >>>>> reality to service the delusions of the mentally ill. Compelled speech
> >>>>> is anathema enough. Compelled lying is repugnant.
> >>>>
> >>>> It's not about 'denying reality' or 'free speech' or any other
> >>>> disingenuous dog-whistle. Rather, it's about 'deliberate harassment'
> >>>> ...a threshold I think any reasonable person easily recognizes.
> >>>
> >>> Deliberately not lying to or reinforcing a crazy person's delusions is
> >>> not harassment.
> >>>
> >>> I'm not harassing a paranoid schizophrenic who thinks snakes are coming
> >>> out of his ears by telling him that there are not, in fact, snakes
> >>> coming out of his ears.
> >>>
> >>> Likewise, I'm not harassing a dysphoric person who believes he's a woman
> >>> by telling him he's actually not a woman or, even more innocuously,
> >>> simply (and accurately) referring to him as 'he'.
> >>
> >> Helpfully correcting someone's delusion is different from declaiming
> >> against their philosophy ...particularly when they haven't asked you.
> >
> > A mental illness is not a 'philosophy'.
>
> Neither is a rutabaga. But believing, say, that there's a transcendent
> sense wherein you're exactly who you fervently wish to be is.

Except the same people who have that 'philosophy' will insist adamantly
that you can't fervently wish to be a different race, even though race
is much less a scientific and biological certainty than sex and gender.

It's not a philosophy, it's a political agenda, and you're not harassing
someone for arguing with or denying their politics, even intentionally.

On 10/21/2023 5:17 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <GAWYM.68431$HwD9.53300@fx11.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/21/2023 4:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <PzVYM.57731$MJ59.21093@fx10.iad>,
>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/21/2023 2:12 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article <ZySYM.114636$0UVe.48707@fx17.iad>,
>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/21/2023 12:06 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <R8HYM.65694$HwD9.51516@fx11.iad>,
>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 10/20/2023 6:53 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Oct 20, 2023 at 3:14:03 PM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Do you think that "assault and harassment [per] race or religion"
>>>>>>>>>> should be permitted?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't think calling a male "he" is even in the same universe as
>>>>>>>>> assault and harassment and has nothing to do with either race or
>>>>>>>>> religion.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If some poor fuck is so invested in his femininity that he's chopped
>>>>>>>> off his dick, I submit that taunting him by calling him "he" could be
>>>>>>>> as malicious and injurious as any other slur.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That still doesn't mean he's factually not a 'he' and the state has no
>>>>>>> business forcing people through threat of violence to lie or deny
>>>>>>> reality to service the delusions of the mentally ill. Compelled speech
>>>>>>> is anathema enough. Compelled lying is repugnant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's not about 'denying reality' or 'free speech' or any other
>>>>>> disingenuous dog-whistle. Rather, it's about 'deliberate harassment'
>>>>>> ...a threshold I think any reasonable person easily recognizes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Deliberately not lying to or reinforcing a crazy person's delusions is
>>>>> not harassment.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not harassing a paranoid schizophrenic who thinks snakes are coming
>>>>> out of his ears by telling him that there are not, in fact, snakes
>>>>> coming out of his ears.
>>>>>
>>>>> Likewise, I'm not harassing a dysphoric person who believes he's a woman
>>>>> by telling him he's actually not a woman or, even more innocuously,
>>>>> simply (and accurately) referring to him as 'he'.
>>>>
>>>> Helpfully correcting someone's delusion is different from declaiming
>>>> against their philosophy ...particularly when they haven't asked you.
>>>
>>> A mental illness is not a 'philosophy'.
>>
>> Neither is a rutabaga. But believing, say, that there's a transcendent
>> sense wherein you're exactly who you fervently wish to be is.
>
> Except the same people who have that 'philosophy' will insist adamantly
> that you can't fervently wish to be a different race, even though race
> is much less a scientific and biological certainty than sex and gender.
>
> It's not a philosophy, it's a political agenda, and you're not harassing
> someone for arguing with or denying their politics, even intentionally.

For the guy who takes extreme measures to become "female", it's not a
political agenda. And *he's* who I'd protect from harassment.

On 10/20/23 11:06 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <R8HYM.65694$HwD9.51516@fx11.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/20/2023 6:53 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> On Oct 20, 2023 at 3:14:03 PM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/20/2023 5:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Back when this nonsense first started in earnest, the Effas of the
>>>>> world said "It's just being polite, it's no big deal. Get back to us
>>>>> when they start arresting people for not doing it."
>>>>>
>>>>> Welp, here we are.
>>>>>
>>>>> (Note: NY City passed an ordinance several years ago that makes it a
>>>>> criminal offense for an employer or customer of a business to refuse
>>>>> to address someone according to how they identify, so the UK is
>>>>> actually behind the curve here. I totally would demand my boss call
>>>>> me "Your majesty" and under the NY law, he'd either have to do it or
>>>>> face arrest. Ain't progressivism awesome?)
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/7mwg4m0z7x8tnv0wemfl5/BatmanGenderSlap.png?
>>>>> rlkey=fw3q2uk7krx9n3p0aq6rn7rc2&dl=0
>>>>>
>>>>> --------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12631243/Deliberately-calling-wro
>>>>> ng-gender-pronouns-land-jail-TWO-YEARS-Labour.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Deliberately calling someone by the 'wrong' gender pronouns could
>>>>> become a hate crime punishable by imprisonment under a Labour government,
>>>>> The Mail on Sunday can reveal.
>>>>>
>>>>> Vowing to toughen up the sentencing guidelines for abuse and violence
>>>>> targeted at trans people, Labour would make attacks motivated by hatred
>>>>> of the victim's gender identity into 'aggravated offences'. This would
>>>>> bring transphobic abuse into line with assault and harassment motivated
>>>>> by hatred on the grounds of race or religion, which are punishable by
>>>>> up to two years in prison.
>>>>>
>>>>> Critics warn that the policy could therefore mean jail sentences for
>>>>> someone refusing to use a transgender person's preferred pronouns,
>>>>> or referring to them by their former name or their birth sex rather
>>>>> than their chosen gender.
>>>>
>>>> Do you think that "assault and harassment [per] race or religion" should
>>>> be permitted?
>>>
>>> I don't think calling a male "he" is even in the same universe as assault
>>> and harassment and has nothing to do with either race or religion.
>>
>> If some poor fuck is so invested in his femininity that he's chopped off
>> his dick, I submit that taunting him by calling him "he" could be as
>> malicious and injurious as any other slur.
>
> That still doesn't mean he's factually not a 'he' and the state has no
> business forcing people through threat of violence to lie or deny
> reality to service the delusions of the mentally ill. Compelled speech
> is anathema enough. Compelled lying is repugnant.

You're lying as usual. I doubt the U.K. had any statutes on how a
person is to be referred to, except maybe in the case of royalty and
Knighthood. I'm sure you'll be able to prove otherwise, right?

On 10/20/23 10:00 PM, moviePig wrote:
> On 10/20/2023 6:53 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> On Oct 20, 2023 at 3:14:03 PM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/20/2023 5:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>
>>>>   Back when this nonsense first started in earnest, the Effas of the
>>>> world
>>>> said
>>>>   "It's just being polite, it's no big deal. Get back to us when
>>>> they start
>>>>   arresting people for not doing it."
>>>>   Welp, here we are.
>>>>   (Note: NY City passed an ordinance several years ago that makes it a
>>>> criminal
>>>>   offense for an employer or customer of a business to refuse to
>>>> address
>>>> someone
>>>>   according to how they identify, so the UK is actually behind the
>>>> curve
>>>> here. I
>>>>   totally would demand my boss call me "Your majesty" and under the
>>>> NY law,
>>>> he'd
>>>>   either have to do it or face arrest. Ain't progressivism awesome?)
>>>>
>>>> https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/7mwg4m0z7x8tnv0wemfl5/BatmanGenderSlap.png?rlkey=fw3q2uk7krx9n3p0aq6rn7rc2&dl=0
>>>>   --------------------------
>>>>
>>>> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12631243/Deliberately-calling-wrong-gender-pronouns-land-jail-TWO-YEARS-Labour.html
>>>>   Deliberately calling someone by the 'wrong' gender pronouns could
>>>> become a
>>>>   hate crime punishable by imprisonment under a Labour government,
>>>> The Mail on
>>>>   Sunday can reveal.
>>>>   Vowing to toughen up the sentencing guidelines for abuse and violence
>>>> targeted
>>>>   at trans people, Labour would make attacks motivated by hatred of the
>>>> victim's
>>>>   gender identity into 'aggravated offences'. This would bring
>>>> transphobic
>>>> abuse
>>>>   into line with assault and harassment motivated by hatred on the
>>>> grounds of
>>>>   race or religion, which are punishable by up to two years in prison.
>>>>   Critics warn that the policy could therefore mean jail sentences
>>>> for someone
>>>>   refusing to use a transgender person's preferred pronouns, or
>>>> referring to
>>>>   them by their former name or their birth sex rather than their chosen
>>>> gender.
>>>
>>> Do you think that "assault and harassment [per] race or religion" should
>>> be permitted?
>>
>> I don't think calling a male "he" is even in the same universe as
>> assault and
>> harassment and has nothing to do with either race or religion.
>
> If some poor fuck is so invested in his femininity that he's chopped off
> his dick, I submit that taunting him by calling him "he" could be as
> malicious and injurious as any other slur.

The operative words in Oath Keeper Troon's statement concluded that he
doesn't think.