In Michigan, Improper Pronoun Use Could Land You in Jail

It is a hate crime bill. There is no reference to “pronouns” in the bill. I read it and then used the search function for “noun” but feel free to point it out if I missed it. Thank Fox News for the breakdown of a bill to address hate crimes being limiting of right wingers ability to bully. Not sure what is already covered by law in the bill. It has not gone to Senate.

Here is the text:
Bill tracking in Michigan - HB 4474 (2023-2024 legislative session) - FastDemocracy

A relevant snippet:

 

Thanks. But this is one of the threads that you knew right away that the bill doesn't really say what the headline and first link claim it does.

 

I think some specific language to outline what would be considered "threatening" needs to be added to the bill.

But City has a clip in his post that comes pretty darn close.

I dont think misgendering falls under the "threatening" language in the bill any more than calling someone a slur or just a mean name. Words are protected speech and the bill clearly addresses that.

 

If a person can be intimidated by a pronoun, I think they have bigger issues than the English language.

 

“They focus” = what you hear from media (and an ever increasing “focused media” that serves only what you consume). Hint: discussing details of re-insurance, capital markets, and the world wide Property & Casualty industry does not get clicks.

And, FYI, Government does not control everything. Although Govt can affect markets (to some extent) it’s not as though Govt can pass a law and Voila! all is well.

 

You should read the thread…. The word “pronoun”, and the misuse of pronouns, is not mentioned anywhere in this legislation. This was a thread created for right wing suckers, who don’t do their own research before commenting, to get worked up about.

 

I think the bill actually penalizes miss-Gendering which is using the wrong pronoun

 

You think, huh? You realize, this is a case where you could actually know if you read the bill... but hey, as long as you imagine it's true ..

Look, they even specified what intimidate means, and says that it does not include constitutionally protected speech ...

Again ... a thread for suckers to get worked up about ...

The bill would provide that a person is guilty of a hate crime if they maliciously and
intentionally do any of the following to another individual based in whole or in part on an
actual or perceived characteristic of that individual, regardless of the existence of any other
motivating factors:
• Use force or violence on the other individual.
• Cause bodily injury to the other individual.
House Fiscal Agency Page 1 of 7
• Intimidate the other individual.
• Damage, destroy, or deface any real, personal, digital, or online property of the other
individual without that individual’s consent.
• Threaten, by word or act, to do any of the above.
Intimidate would mean a willful course of conduct involving repeated or continuing
harassment of another individual that would cause a reasonable individual to feel
terrorized, frightened, or threatened, and that actually causes the victim to feel
terrorized, frightened, or threatened. However, the term intimidate would not include
constitutionally protected activity or conduct that serves a legitimate purpose.

And no ... the word "misgendering" doesn't appear in the text, either...

 

The bills seems to be a start: don't be a d!ck and intimidate and harass people who are transgendered - Okay, got it. No problem with that in and of itself. Then, the issue is "What is intimidation and harassment?" We've heard activists say "Silence is violence."

So, now what?
You stay silent - you're being violent.
You use the wrong pronoun - you're harassing people.
You use the right pronoun, but do so in a dismissive way - you're harassing people.
ERGO: if you don't completely and unabashedly agree with us then it's off to re-education camp for you and your ilk. Silly? I'm sure most folks in Europe felt the same way in the 30's
But, when a CEO can get dumped for just contributing to a cause https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/04/mozilla-ceo-resignation-free-speech/7328759/; and, when a POC accuses "white boys" of heinous acts and they get smeared by their own school; then, we realize the sh!t is already here. Duke Lacrosse Incident Oh, and btw, pipe down in your School Board meetings - we have the FBI surveilling parents.

 

That's in the bill... no need to slide down your slippery slope of whatever you can imagine it could mean ...

Intimidate would mean a willful course of conduct involving repeated or continuing
harassment of another individual that would cause a reasonable individual to feel
terrorized, frightened, or threatened, and that actually causes the victim to feel
terrorized, frightened, or threatened. However, the term intimidate would not include
constitutionally protected activity or conduct that serves a legitimate purpose.

 

lol. Nice try. You left out 2 rather important pieces of information from your diatribe;

(1) Gender Identity or expression (what we sometimes refer to as pronouns) is a specifically “protected class” under the bill; and
(2) to state reps have publicly (and likely officially) stated it was passed to protect Lgbtqxzz (or something like that)

so don’t try and come on here with your cnn talking points claiming this is a right wing conspiracy . Also, let me tell you how it’s going to be used:

Chuck Norris: “sir, let me get that door for you”
Dude in woman’s costume: “it’s ma’am!”
Chuck Norris: “sir, I couldn’t help but notice the beard and Adam’s apple.”
Dude in woman’s costume: “IT’S MA,AM!!!”
Chuck Norris: “what ever dude, hold your own door”
Dude in woman’s costume: “hello, 911…I’d like to report a crime”
Chuck Norris”. Roundhouse kick to the dude’s Adam’s apple…..

Chuck Norris wins a 6-3 victory in SCOTUS declaring the law a violation of the 1st Amendment.

 

I'm beginning to think I'm talking to Nancy Pelosi, here ... you should read the bill before voting on it. It specifically says it doesn't' apply to any constitutionally protected freedoms (and I can't believe I have to explain this to guy who says he's lawyer, but that would include the 1st amendment). Also, it qualifies harassment and intimidation as "repeated or continuing" to the point that it "actually causes the victim to feel terrorized, frightened, or threatened". .... And it's fine with me making that a felony. I mean, harassment and intimidation that rises that level should be a crime under all circumstances, trans person or not. But I get, you are sad that you may be losing your "freedom" to terrorize, frighten, and threaten gay people in Michigan. Don't worry, DeSantis will still allow it.

 

Proper headline:

Michigan takes a shit on the first amendment.

 

are you naïve enough to think that all speech is constitutionally protected? if it’s not speech which is prohibited when directed towards gender identity or expression, then what is it? You can’t say violence, because violence is already prohibited against everybody. Also, if, as you claim, Misgendering someone is not going to be a crime, then how simple it would have been for the legislature to simply have put in the legislation, “Misgendering is not to be included as criminal conduct under this code.” The other reason that everybody knows you’re wrong here, is because the Michigan legislature has told you you are wrong. They have come out and stated they drafted this in order to protect trans people.

 

No, I'm not. Speech that is "repeated or continuing" and rises to the level of "actually causes the victim to feel terrorized, frightened, or threatened" should not be constitutionally protected. Why do you have such a problem with law that says that? But, If Misgendering is part of a "repeated or continuing" pattern of harassment and intimidation that "actually causes the victim to feel terrorized, frightened, or threatened" then it should be illegal ... right? That's what the proposed law actually says, and I agree with that.

 

I'll just repost what I posted above, tell me what part you disagree with ...

If using the "N" work is part of a "repeated or continuing" pattern of harassment and intimidation that "actually causes the victim to feel terrorized, frightened, or threatened" then it should be illegal ... right? That's what the proposed law actually says, and I agree with that.

 

you miss the point. You believe calling a dude in a dress a “dude” is misgendering, which if repeated over and over again rises to a crime. 50% of this country disagree or otherwise don’t give a shit. It should never be a crime to call a person with a dick a “dude.” The song “once, twice, three times a lady” is a lyric, not a truth. Your “preferred” pronouns don’t Trump others “preferred” proper grammar. Finally, any criminal statute which uses a person’s subjective “feelings” as a gauge to determine criminality is FUBAR.

 

How does the State prove the victim’s feelings? How does a defendant defend himself from your subjective feelings. I see a lot back and forth screaming at trial…”am not, am too, am not, am too…” Also, if the N word terrorizes you, then you are not permitted to listen to hip hop….for life.

 

LOL ... quoting the actual bill gets an "off topic" from @Orange_and_Bluke ... goes to show that they just want to live in their fact-free fantasy world.