@condalmo

Exactly and thus proving me rcorrect, thank you.

As you describe it this does **not** limit the use of preferred names and pronouns.

In fact the opposite, it ensures that an employees speech can not be limited and compelled with regard to pronouns and names.

It also provides a **protection** for transpeople as it does allow someone to force an employee (or through a law) to use a persons legal name, meaning if a transperson has changed their name the employee is forced to address them properly.

@georgetakei

@condalmo

You may need to read it again carefully.. it specifically states a law can not **force** a federal employee (limit speech) to use specific pronouns or names.. its literally the opposite of limiting speech since an employee retains the **option** to use alternative pronouns but cant be legally forced to do so.

@georgetakei

@freemo @georgetakei I think you might want to take a minute to reconsider that you may be misinterpreting what you're reading, especially given that the bill is from Cruz, who spends virtually all of his legislative and leisure time railing against the sort of thing you believe this bill does.

@condalmo the bill says what it does, thereis no need to speculate.

Big bad Ted Cruz doesnt magically change what the bill says it does just cause he is the ass that created it.

I am not saying he created it to protect transpeople, but that is effectively what it does by only allowing employees to be forced to use legal names, so employees therefore can be compelled to use a persons changed name and not their "dead name" but the other way around is not allowed, they cant be forced to use a non-official name (like calling someone by their dead name after a name change).

@freemo
1. No funds for any rules about misgendering.
2. No consequences for misgendering.
3. No recourse for employees misgendered. "You don't like that we deadname you at work? Tough luck!"

@condalmo

Correct, and you may rightfully think those sorts of things dont belong in a bill. Thats a fair debate.

But it does **not** limit speech, in fact it prevents the government from being able to limit speech. Its just that you think the way it protects speech from being limited is a way you feel speech should be limited... and again im not even saying yoru wrong. But saying this limits speech when it does the exact opposite is simply wrong.

@freemo I see what you're saying now. I can see how the headline could be misinterpreted. I also think that it benefits Cruz and his ilk to discuss this bill from a framework of "it's about free speech" when, of course, it's about enflaming culture wars and "fighting the woke." Free speech isn't intended to be free without consequences, universally.

@condalmo

I myself can see both sides of this.

It allows regulations which force people to use official sex and name (which a person can freely change)... so it allows for laws that enforce proper naming and gendering as long as its official.

On the other hand it can be quite rude to someone who is transitioning but havent officially made the changes yet, and im not sure thats doing much.

But I think those protections, while perhaps unintentional, may not be a horrible way to go about it since it does leave the **option** for them to use a suggested sex that is different than the official one, it just cant be compeled.

So regardless of intent I think it may not be so bad and even a good thing for many.

The other things you suggested may be problematic. while I do think its the respectful thing to do to call someone by their preferred pronoun I think it is quite dangerous to enforce legally a person use particular forms of speech