1362
Ted rule (files.mastodon.social)
submitted 11 months ago by Masimatutu@mander.xyz to c/196@lemmy.blahaj.zone

alt text

Tweet by San Antonio Express-New, saying: "Sen. Rafael Edward Cruz, who uses the preferred name Ted, has introduced a bill to limit the use of preferred names and pronouns."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] money_loo@lemmy.world 60 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

So he just wants to stop the federal government from enforcing pronouns or aliases in government settings…?

When does the government actually FORCE or ENFORCE pronoun usage though, using government money?

Am I taking crazy pills or is he just making shit up?

*Just wanted to say I appreciate all the people replying, the implications of his bill may be more severe than I initially read into it.

[-] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 26 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

It would stop HR from protecting public employees from being harassed by coworkers or leadership who repeatedly, intentionally and maliciously misgender or deadname trans people. Or clientele for that matter. It would make enforcing policies to treat trans employees and customers with the most basic of respect in using their preferred names and pronouns. If your boss wants to call you by your dead name at every chance, they can. If the DMV clerk wants to call every trans person that comes to their counter by the wrong gender, they can. Anyone that enforces those policies, or scolds or refuses rewards or advancements to those individuals would be in violation of this law.

[-] money_loo@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Is that what it’s saying in the bill though?

I could be wrong but it literally looks like he just wants to make it illegal to FUND the act of calling people their preferred pronouns, as in, not allow internal PSA’s to be made telling people they CAN do it.

It doesn’t appear to have any teeth or weight to prevent people from still respecting it if they want to.

It’s attempting to block a problem that doesn’t exist.

[-] fadingembers@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 11 months ago

It might not have any teeth, but if this passes it sets precedent for bills in the future that do have teeth.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
this post was submitted on 03 Dec 2023
1362 points (100.0% liked)

196

16501 readers
2239 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS