washingtonpost.com

You can be fined for not calling people ‘ze’ or ‘hir,’ if that’s the pronoun they demand that you use
By Eugene Volokh


http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/05/17/you-can-be-fined-for-not-calling-people-ze-or-hir-if-thats-the-pronoun-they-demand-that-you-use/
That’s the official legal guidance from the New York City Commission on Human Rights:

The NYCHRL [New York City Human Rights Law] requires employers[, landlords, and all businesses and professionals] to use an [employee’s, tenant’s, customer’s, or client’s] preferred name, pronoun and title (e.g., Ms./Mrs.) regardless of the individual’s sex assigned at birth, anatomy, gender, medical history, appearance, or the sex indicated on the individual’s identification.

Most individuals and many transgender people use female or male pronouns and titles. Some transgender and gender non-conforming people prefer to use pronouns other than he/him/his or she/her/hers, such as they/them/theirs or ze/hir. [Footnote: Ze and hir are popular gender-free pronouns preferred by some transgender and/or gender non-conforming individuals.] …

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 …

Covered entities may avoid violations of the NYCHRL by creating a policy of asking everyone what their preferred gender pronoun is so that no individual is singled out for such questions and by updating their systems to allow all individuals to self-identify their names and genders. They should not limit the options for identification to male and female only.

So people can basically force us — on pain of massive legal liability — to say what they want us to say, whether or not we want to endorse the political message associated with that term, and whether or not we think it’s a lie.

We have to use “ze,” a made-up word that carries an obvious political connotation (endorsement of the “non-binary” view of gender). We have to call people “him” and “her” even if we believe that people’s genders are determined by their biological sex and not by their self-perceptions — perceptions that, by the way, can rapidly change, for those who are “gender-fluid” — and that using terms tied to self-perception is basically a lie. (I myself am not sure whether people who are anatomically male, for example, but perceive themselves as female should be viewed as men or women; perhaps one day I’ll be persuaded that they should be viewed as women; my objection is to being forced to express that view.) We can’t be required to even display a license plate that says “Live Free or Die” on our car, if we object to the message; that’s what the court held in Wooley v. Maynard (1978). But New York is requiring people to actually say words that convey a message of approval of the view that gender is a matter of self-perception rather than anatomy, and that, as to “ze,” were deliberately created to convey that a message.

What’s more, according to the City, “refusal to use a transgender employee’s preferred name, pronoun, or title may constitute unlawful gender-based harassment.” The label “harassment” is important here because harassment law requires employers and businesses to prevent harassment by co-workers and patrons and not just by themselves or their own employees; this is particularly well established for harassment by co-workers, but it has also been accepted for harassment by fellow patrons. So an employer or business that learns that its employees or patrons are “refus[ing] to use a transgender employee’s preferred” pronoun or title would have to threaten to fire or eject such people unless they comply with the City’s demands. (The logic would also apply to landlords having to threaten to eject tenants who refuse to use co-tenants’ preferred pronouns or titles, but that’s less certain.)

But of course “ze” and “Ms./Mrs.” are just examples. We have to use the person’s “preferred … pronoun and title,” whatever those preferences might be. Some people could say they prefer “glugga” just as well as saying “ze”; the whole point is that people are supposed to be free to define their own gender, and their own pronouns and titles. Seems improbable that some people would come up with new terms like that? Well, 10 or 20 years ago it would have seemed pretty improbable that today New Yorkers would be required to call some people “ze.” Check out this list, which already includes “zie,” “sie” (not the German version), “ey,” “ve,” “tey,” “e,” “(f)ae,” “per” and “xe.” Why wouldn’t some creative folks decide they want to add still more?

Or what if some people insist that their title is “Milord,” or “Your Holiness”? They may look like non-gender-related titles, but who’s to say? What if someone decides that one of the 56 genders is indeed especially noble or holy and that those really are the preferred gender terms? Or even if “Your Holiness” is understood as purely religious (again, why would that be so, given that the point is that people are supposed to be free to define their own gender self-conception and the words that go with it), presumably the same logic that applies to gender-related self-chosen titles would apply to religion-related self-chosen titles. Both sex and religious discrimination are, after all, prohibited by the same laws; by the City’s logic, if you call a Catholic priest “Father,” you’d have to use whatever other self-chosen religious titles people insist on. Nor is the mandated “ze”-talk analogous to simple requirements that people be treated the same regardless of race or religion (requirements that may themselves be constrained by the First Amendment in some situations). The analogy would be if the government demanded that people have to be addressed using their own preferred race- or religion-linked titles — hypothetically, enforcing people’s demands that “you need to use the title ‘Sun Person’ when you refer to me, because I’m black,” or “you need to use the title ‘rav’ with me because I’m Jewish,” or “you need to use the title ‘friend’ with me because I’m a Quaker,” or “you need to address me as ‘thee’ rather than ‘you’ because I’m a Quaker.” Such a requirement would be just as bad as the “ze” one.

And this isn’t just the government as employer, requiring its employees to say things that keep government patrons happy with government services. This is the government as sovereign, threatening “civil penalties up to $125,000 for violations, and up to $250,000 for violations that are the result of willful, wanton, or malicious conduct” if people don’t speak the way the government tells them to speak. Nor is this likely to stay in New York City: The New York officials are arguing that this is just what the New York gender identity discrimination ban requires, and indeed it is part of the standard ideology expressed by many transgender rights activists; the same logic would be easily applicable by jurisdictions that have gender identity discrimination bans, or will have such bans; the federal government is taking the view that existing federal bans on sex discrimination also in effect ban gender identity discrimination, and the New York analysis would equally apply to that view; and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has already taken the view that it is illegal under federal law to persistently call employees by pronouns that correspond to their anatomical sex but not their gender identity, though it has not yet had occasion to opine about “ze.”

Feel uncomfortable about being forced to use terms that express social status views (“Milord”) or religious views (“Your Holiness”) that you may not endorse? Well, you should feel uncomfortable about people being forced to use “ze,” which expresses a view about gender that they might not endorse. And, more broadly, I think we should all feel uncomfortable about government regulators forcing people to say things that convey and support the government’s ideology about gender.

Thanks to the pseudonymous Richard E. Thompson (Federalist Society Blog) for the pointer; Prof. Josh Blackman also blogged about this issue a few months ago.

Well.. Adolf Hitler, wanted what he referred to as " A Zee Society ".
I guess he won.

He said the third Reich would last a thousand years. I think I it lasted 12 years. Zoooo, I dont rink zoo her frauline. Lol.

Here in the desert southwest we'll probably be saying, zee idiot or hir stupidness. But it will probably be 1000 years from now.

There are two separate issues: titles and pronouns.

There is a great difference between titles such as 'His Holiness' or 'Her Majesty' which are used to make a few people seem important (whether they are or not) and terms like Mr or Mrs. Even so, they can usually be avoided by using the person's name or job title: Pope Fred and Queen Sandra seem quite respectful and clear.
I have always hated neologisms like Ms. The obvious solution there, if you really must use a title, would have been simply to follow the male interpretations, where Mr is for an adult and Master is for a child, and use Mrs for an adult and Miss for a child, irrespective of marital status.

English does have a problem in the gender-neutral third person pronoun having connotations of lack of humanity: 'it' just doesn't seem appropriate to use for people. 'If the driver wants to stop, it should press the brake' sounds terrible (but not as bad as using 'he or she'). Such cases can be avoided by rephrasing or using the plural ('If drivers want to stop, they should press the brake'). I would be happy if we could come up with a new pronoun that is both pronounceable and not just plain silly. Even though it grates to my ear, perhaps 'they' as a singular is the right answer (just as the singlular 'thee' was replaced by the plural 'you'). Note that this has absolutely nothing to do with a person's sexual identity.

12years,3months and 9days to be exact!
But the Ideology definitely hasn't disappeared!

I don't trust anyone's reporting on this, until I've read the actual text of the law myself...

...but this is exactly the kind of BS which many sjws would LOVE to see passed.

F this idea. I actually _believe_ in calling people their "preferred pronoun" out of basic courtesy, but it should never be mandated by law. Ug. Its enough to make me want to stop being courteous.

If you are a transgender person who thinks its okay to legally force me to call you with a certain pronoun, then you are _not_ deserving of that courtesy anyway.

Crazy ideologies never die. But now it's a one legged vermin. Left to live to show the inadequacy of itself.

Just some good 'ol Zes
Never meanin' no harm
Beats all you ever saw
Been in trouble with the law
Since the day they were born...


Wait, should've I used "hir" instead? I get confused

Won't do any of the above and definitely don't pay fines.

There are two separate issues here but not as you suggest. First this title issue, that is pure slavery where some want to appear as a master while others are below them. And no Pope anybody and Queen anyone else is not quite respectful but downright belligerent towards the speaker, demanding they bow to another. Respect, what respect?

Next is an issue with the language, asking that one deviate from clear communications to solve a problem that is a problem only because another wants to be a deviate and DEMAND that others accept what is not there for their benefit. For them I say, learn to live with it, it was your choice.

By the way the above is the correct usage of "it", inanimate, not either a he or she; a living breathing being.

Is this jazz even in an updated Webster's dictionary? If not, they can stick it. It's no proper english. So they can stick it. New York, New York, a town so messed up they named it twice.

Mmmm, no. I am not completely opposed to the idea behind this kind of law.

I'm not sure I support having it pass, since it's so difficult to have fair enforcement, however...

what this is really about, isn't some kind of regulating of society, and pigeonholing of people by the government.

This is about calling for EVERYONE to treat every other citizen of the United States (New York, in this case) as EQUAL UNDER THE LAW.

There is a deep and unpleasant history in this country, and elsewhere, of using the way that people are referred to, as an attack on their right to exist, and to connote public disrespect.

It has often been a direct and significant component part, of enforcing social persecution of others.

So. I approve of it being addressed, that no citizen should be allowed to publicly disrespect another in this fashion. Whether this particular law is well enough and carefully enough written to deal with the concern or not, is a separate matter.

Utter nonsense.


Those titles are simply acknowledgements of an office. Do you also object to "President Smith" or "Judge Andrews"? It reads like you are the belligerent one here.


As I wrote explicitly, this is nothing to do with sexual identity.
It is the opposite of what you claim: circumlocutions prevent clear communication.


So it was someone's choice to be born with ambiguous genitals (for example)?


In my example ('If the driver wants to stop, it should press the brake') 'it' refers to the driver, a living, breathing being, presumably. I think you'll have to go a long way to find common usage of 'it' like that.

newspeak, anyone?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak

Not really. In 1984, the government was deciding and then instructing everyone to speak a certain way.

In this case, the selected form of address, is being set by the INDIVIDUAL, and others are being called upon to respect them as fellow, equal Americans (or in this case, New Yorkers), by following their preferences.

Not remotely the same.

.. i don't remember the New Yorkers voting on this...

Igor, you shall call me Mr. MassageTrade from now on, and third person shall be "he".

No, wait.... you shall call me LiberalsAreStupidAmIRight MassageTrade from now on, and the third person shall be "imprisonAllLiberals"

Zhe Child ate zhe Sandwitsch wit zhe Schinken on it!