orathaic,

Actually, you're arguing two different things. I've only at any point responded to the legal. I continue to deny that there is any legal violation of any kind going on here, which is a straightforwardly true position. (The UNDoHR has no legal force in the US, of course).

The problem with your interpretation of the "clear" language of article 5 is that "degrading treatment," if so broadly interpreted, is almost boundless. I might consider it degrading to be told I'm wrong about something or have any of my opinions contradicted. I might consider it degrading to have somebody disagree with my religion (which is certainly part of my identity). I might consider it degrading to have to apologize for my behavior, or indeed to be punished in any way for my wrongdoings.

Since the principle is open to this extreme overbreadth, some kind of narrowing interpretation is needed. The most obvious is to look at the context and what is being addressed in the article, and to see that we're talking about forced degrading treatment by a state actor, and that degrading here is carrying its traditional connotation of behavior that would be universally recognized as extremely humiliating.

" Buying a company and firing the employees is a thing. But you can't do it if that would breach their contracts. "

Sure but they may have no contracts. In that case, I am plainly harming them.

"Lastly, are you arguing that you CAN harm people or that you SHOULD harm people? "

That you can. You made an absurd legal argument, which is all I have been addressing at any point in this thread. Many behaviors are legal that are immoral. I have not taken a position one way or the other in this thread on the behavior you are arguing against, nor have I responded to any of your extra-legal arguments.

You're right of course, ora, that even in the case of at-will, contract-less employment, the employee did freely enter that state.

Other examples, though, would include general good-faith parenting mistakes (such as those that do not violate any progressive shiboleths). These inevitably happen, and they are sad, and they are harmful; but they are not violations of legal rights. The world is not so black and white and legally perfectible.

Wow you sure do have a lively sense of entitlement Orathaic. I'll bet you are very successful and effective in the real world. Nothing but kicking ass and taking names right?
It must be exhausting batlling so much 'thought-crime' all day! Good for you!

Orathaic, why do you bother being the "nice police?" People commit suicide for countless reasons. If you want to label, and prosecute, this as abuse, then you need to say any comment calling someone fat or ugly, or disagreeing with religion or politics is hate speech and abuse as well. You are cherry picking this.

" I continue to deny that there is any legal violation of any kind going on here, which is a straightforwardly true position. (The UNDoHR has no legal force in the US, of course)."

There is no legal issue here when it comes to how you refer to people. That is true.

There is likely a legal issue when it comes to how her parents destroyed her; but that is down to what the legal definition of abuse is...

So i'm not argueing that it is illegal; no, but i am argueing a moral standard.

"I might consider it degrading to have somebody disagree with my religion (which is certainly part of my identity)" - actually yes; I could tell you that you worship god wrong, and that you're going to hell. You might shrug that off, but if everyone everyday told you this - or implied it by their choice of pronouns - you would find it very damaging.

If your parents told you that you were going to hell because of this part of your identity, you may very well try to change it. But unlike religion (and this is where your comparison differs) it is very hard to change your gender, i would like to claim it is impossible, but i'm not everyone, but most people aren't able to change their gender.

I believe it is a biological fact, set during development (much like sexuality) It is the way God made you; if that helps.

I do know people who have changed their religion - and not to dismiss this point, it was a part of their identity, and their identity changed - but then we're always changing. Some things are not as flexible. (though people who identify as genderfluid would i suspect claim gender is flexible, i'm only sure that the trans-gender and cis-gender people i know do not believe their gender is flexible)

"degrading here is carrying its traditional connotation of behavior that would be universally recognized as extremely humiliating."

Fair point; and i'm glad you agree; thus i will state for the record, i believe it is universally regarded as extremely humiliating to misgender someone. If you, for example, were called a women, you would be humiliated. Is that a fair comment?

"If you want to label, and prosecute, this as abuse, then you need to say any comment calling someone fat or ugly, or disagreeing with religion or politics is hate speech and abuse as well. You are cherry picking this." - Im using this big media sensation as an example in an attempt to educate others.

Are you saying that so long as any injustice is left in the world that we shouldn't address any of them? Cause that's great.

Nice police?

Ok, let's talk about freedom of speech and the westboro baptist church, shall we?

There are two perfectly fair positions to take:
1) The westboro baptist church are wrong but we should still protect free speech (and their right to be wrong)
OR
2) The westboro baptist church are wrong and we should change the law to protect people.

I'm find with you taking either position. And the choice between them is an arguement about the merits of free speech.

But that's not what we're arguing here. I'm just arguing the first part.

That misgendering someone is humiliating and wrong.

As for thought police, yes, i'm trying to change how you think about something. But not in a I AM THE POLICE, kind of way, by discussing it. Sharing my opinion.

I'm not trying to change the law regarding the gender pronouns we use; but i am trying to raise awareness of this issue so people like Leelah don't have to go through the same thing she did.

No, Orathaic, I am saying you a hypocrite. Not once have you said that disagreeing with my religion, or calling me fat, or ugly, or any other sort of derogatory comment is equally as abusive as this case. You are completely cherry picking, and therefore I don't believe that you actually care about who is "abused" in these ways, but only in pushing your own opinions and "morally obligating" people to follow them. And legally obligate, judging by your comments.

"I'm not trying to change the law regarding the gender pronouns we use; but i am trying to raise awareness of this issue so people like Leelah don't have to go through the same thing she did."

Bull shit. You said they maybe should be executed if the law allows. You are the bigot who is so unable to tolerate others' opinions that you believe they should be prosecuted and even executed.

"If the parents drove her to this as discussed above they should be tried (maybe even executed if that's what US law says is good for this kind of torture)"

@smeck:
'Sure but they may have no contracts. In that case, I am plainly harming them.'

If they have no contract they have no job security and should have no expectation that their job will last the week, or maybe even the day.

I don't know what the employment law looks like in your country; but here we have decent default legal protections even without a contract. Still without a contract, yeah i'm sure you CAN harm them... but that does not mean you SHOULD.

"As for thought police, yes, i'm trying to change how you think about something. But not in a I AM THE POLICE, kind of way, by discussing it. Sharing my opinion.

I'm not trying to change the law regarding the gender pronouns we use; but i am trying to raise awareness of this issue so people like Leelah don't have to go through the same thing she did."

You're not helping.

@KingCyrus: "No, Orathaic, I am saying you a hypocrite. Not once have you said that disagreeing with my religion, or calling me fat, or ugly, or any other sort of derogatory comment is equally as abusive as this case..."

Have you been following everything i've ever said, or are you exaggerating for effect?

It sounds like you think this one thing is ok. At the very least.

And FYI, i have certainly called people out on fat-shaming. I see a lot of religious tolerance in the world, so it's not an issue which touches me personally.

I don't have inifinte time to address all the injustices in the world, and i'm not omnipotent to do them all at once. So you are attempting to disregard my arguement by imposing unrealistic demands on me.

That's not really a valid response.

"and therefore I don't believe that you actually care about who is "abused" in these ways"

What does whether i care matter; these other humans (who happen to be trans) do care. You may not, you may continue to ignore their voices, but i will not.

"Bull shit. You said they maybe should be executed if the law allows" - no, in reality, the US allows execution for murder - and if this can be proven to be their fault, then that doesn't require a change in the law.

So fuck you with your cherry picking of my arguements.

orathaic,

"Fair point; and i'm glad you agree; thus i will state for the record, i believe it is universally regarded as extremely humiliating to misgender someone. If you, for example, were called a women, you would be humiliated. Is that a fair comment?"

Depends on the circumstances, of course, but as a matter of course? Yes, probably. Calling somebody by the wrong sex is indeed humiliating. This situation is more subtle, though. They called him by a gender different from his preference because they don't *believe* in gender distinct from sex. Humans are not insensitive to context such as motivation; if I were called a woman by somebody who (bizarrely) did not believe in any other sex, I would not find it nearly as humiliating. There is a big difference between deliberately humiliating somebody (such as the article is talking about) and holding different beliefs about some aspect of their professed identity; the latter is innately less humiliating.

"I don't know what the employment law looks like in your country; but here we have decent default legal protections even without a contract."

Default is at-will in most states (for your reference -- not that this is relevant to our discussion). That means somebody can be fired for any or no reason at any time, other than a few proscribed reasons.

Anyway -- if you are trying to talk about what should happen and not what legally must, then you should be clearer about doing so. Frequently bringing in legal language, as you have, only substantially muddies your point.

@semck: "There is a big difference between deliberately humiliating somebody (such as the article is talking about) and holding different beliefs about some aspect of their professed identity; the latter is innately less humiliating."

and this is exactly the same problem we're facing if conservative christians opposing gay marriage (and many other topic, this is just the first one that came to my mind). one of their arguments is "being gay is a choice, and i do not respect that choice". yet this is still homophobic. just because their belief system, be it religion or whatever else tells them something, that doesn't make it less humiliating.

"Depends on the circumstances, of course, but as a matter of course? Yes, probably. Calling somebody by the wrong sex is indeed humiliating. This situation is more subtle, though. They called him by a gender different from his preference because they don't *believe* in gender distinct from sex."

Fair enough, but and maybe i should be trying to change peoples mind about the separation between gender and sex. But i'm not trying to change your beliefs, i'm trying to get you to follow this 'treat others the way you would like them to treat you' idea.

That is take their position into account before you decide how the should be treated. You can still hold onto your beliefs while pushing for hits.

It sounds like you're argueing that if i'm talking a different language it is ok to use that language's gender pronouns; and if (for example) that language only has female gender pronouns, then sure, that's how you will refer to them.

I'm not sure that this is the same thing. Also, i believe i have stated that you have no right to know what their private parts look like, and thus bio-sex is not the usual criteria you base your choice of gender pronouns on. (you might note i keep saying gender pronouns, as if that's a thing... which clearly shows the bias in my position, but i don't think this takes away from the arguement)

"and this is exactly the same problem we're facing if conservative christians opposing gay marriage (and many other topic, this is just the first one that came to my mind). one of their arguments is "being gay is a choice, and i do not respect that choice". yet this is still homophobic."

- not to get too off topic, but that's fine; you can be homophobic in your own home if you want; and you don't have to get into a gay marriage. But that is NOT an arguement against letting other people having the freedom to marry who they want.

Your religious freedoms also end when you begin to impose them on others. Those others deserve equal religious freedom (or freedom from religion, for those atheists who think atheism is not a religion - but that's semantics)

"Anyway -- if you are trying to talk about what should happen and not what legally must, then you should be clearer about doing so. Frequently bringing in legal language, as you have, only substantially muddies your point."

Apologies if i'm not clearer.

I believe we already have abuse laws which cover the treatment that Leelah's parents showed her.

I do not believe their religious convictions should be a shield from the law.

I do not believe that we should be deciding whether what they did counts as abuse, but we do have a court system to judge these things; thus i believe they should be tried.

I don't think any of this requires any changes to the law.
(is that clear enough?)

Orathaic, you say that people don't have to accept these people's beliefs, but they have to act like they do.

How is this different than forcing people to use the proper terms of respect when referencing Muslim figures? Or showing reverence to any religion?

Well, @kasi, that may or may not make it less humiliating, but unless we're going to start having forced speech or draconian censorship, that will continue to be protected speech.

@semck: i don't say it isn't protected. i just say that religion or any belief system makes anything less humiliating, or less anything.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/leelah-alcorn-suicide-parents-stopped-best-friend-from-attending-transgender-teenagers-funeral-9980986.html

Oh, but her parents are good people! In fact, they're GREAT people! They don't deserve to be publicly shamed for causing their daughter to commit suicide AT ALL!

No. No they don't.

They are transphobic shits that barred their deceased daughter's best friend from attending her funeral because they blamed her for making the story of their abuse public instead of OWNING UP to the fact that they drove their kid to kill herself, or, at the very least, owning up to the fact that their actions prompted her to do so, even if they don't think it makes sense.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/gay-south-florida/article4055600.html

"Transphobia isn't real"
"Trans people need to shut up and stay in their own bodies"
"It's not disrespectful to call someone by a gender they aren't"
"I'm not a transphobic I have a trans friend"

I really don't get the whole "homo/transphobic" You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

"Transphobia (or less commonly transprejudice) is a range of antagonistic attitudes and feelings against transsexuality and transsexual or transgender people, based on the expression of their internal gender identity (see Phobia – Terms for prejudice). Researchers describe transphobia as emotional disgust, fear, anger or discomfort felt or expressed towards people who do not conform to society's gender expectations,[1][2] and say that although it is an aspect of homophobia,[3][4] and is similar to racism and sexism, those attitudes are becoming generally unacceptable in modern society, whereas significantly more individuals still maintain transphobic views without fear of censure.[5]"

Wikipedia ^

So basically it is a made up word not at all in keeping with the traditional usage of the word phobia. A "phobia" traditionally being defined as an irrational fear of something. Never will you hear some one called an arachnophobe for being "uncomfortable" with spiders, or not liking them. The "phobia" term has been hijacked for political persons to try to foist some sort of irrationality on those who simply disagree with someone.

Yeah, sure, I can't disagree. But it means what it means, just like the word "feminism" - it is slightly misleading, but it means what it means.

You said I don't understand what "transphobia" (and homophobia) means, so I pointed you to everyone's favorite internet encyclopedia. I didn't look up "phobia." That's not what you claimed I didn't understand. You told me I didn't understand transphobia, so I showed you what definition I roll with. I guess you don't have to follow it, but then it's you that doesn't understand what transphobia means, not me.