Not content with the myriad anti-discrimination laws already on the books, and in what I can only surmise to be a hell-bent intent to out-do the other politically-correct, social justice, statist hellhole cities scattered around the country, New York City recently issued a ruleset intended to debar discrimination on the basis of “gender identity or expression.” The word “gender” has been thoroughly divorced from its old colloquial synonymity with “sex,” and is now considered a social construct that each individual gets to declare. This is a relatively recent societal development, breaking out of the realm of psychological esoterica and into the mainstream some time in the mid to late 20th century. Although several sources suggest the etymological and societal/medical/psychological distinction has always existed, it’s a bit hard to pin down when this colloquial change began, because every discussion I came across in my searches was aggressively interdicted by those who want make sure the distinction is strongly entrenched. I’m not here to pick at that fight. I’m not a psychologist, nor do I play one on television, nor do I wish to go down either path, and so I’ll leave the “science” of it all to those who are interested. Rather, I want to address the latest development on this matter within the context of liberty.
Generally speaking, I do my best to defer to another’s appellational preferences. If I meet someone who wants to be called Robert, I won’t insist on calling him Bob. Respecting Robert’s wishes is good manners and respectful behavior that acknowledges him as a fellow human being, while declaring that he should be Bob is condescending, aggressive and disrespectful. Now, it may come to pass that Robert acts in a manner that pisses me off (I have a select number of long-time friends who call me “Pete,” and it is a familiarity I embrace from them, but if I introduce myself as “Peter” to someone new, being called “Pete” grinds my gears), I might be less inclined to respect his “Robert” wishes, and call him “Bob” as a riposte or form of challenge. That’s an individualized and personalized response, as is calling the against-the-light jaywalker who made me slam my car’s brakes an “asshole.” While it’s an aside from the general point, it affirms that my approach to appellations is individual.
So, if someone wants to be referred to by a particular set of pronouns, I don’t consider it my place to disagree or be contrarian, simply as a matter of manners. That’s me, though, and I consider it outside the boundaries of a free society to use the force of the state to mandate my manners. That, however, is exactly what the city of New York seeks to do.
Consider its Gender ID Interpretive Guide.
Therein are definitions for sex, gender and related terms, and therein is also the scope of the anti-discrimination law: employment, public accommodations and housing. I suspect the breadth of the statute is limited to those areas because going farther would be an infringement of free speech so overt that even the statist social justice warriors would have trouble mounting a defense. However, over the last half century, the individual liberties of those who provide employment, who run businesses that are deemed “public accommodations” and who provide housing have been eroded to near-nothingness, and it’s now broadly established that one’s economic liberty and freedom of association are not applicable when one chooses to do any of those things. What’s incredibly onerous about this new law is that it doesn’t focus on actual discrimination (already debarred), but on spoken words. In other words, an employer’s or retailer’s or restaurant owner’s speech itself is mandated to conform to the wishes of the person hearing that speech.
It’s, in my opinion, rude and obnoxious to insist on calling a transgender woman in one’s employ “Mister” instead of “Ms” or whatever she prefers, but that’s in the realm of calling “Robert” “Bob” against his wishes. Forcing language via the threat of legal punishment isn’t the way to win hearts and minds, and is more likely to breed hidden resentment than acceptance. I know the social justice types don’t much care about this, but they’ve demonstrated little interest in a free society where such creates a risk that someone might be permitted to be other than fully “enlightened.” It reminds me of the Mencken observation about Puritanism, which is the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy, and modern social justice and political correctness is in essence the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be thinking incorrectly.
Reading a bit further into the statute, we find some highfalutin language regarding gender discrimination in something as innocuous as restaurant uniform requirements that an employer might establish. The statute recognizes that federal law doesn’t go overboard in this regard, treating things like mandates that men wear neckties as not being unduly burdensome. This new ruleset, on the other hand, presumes that any gender-based mandate is de facto discriminatory. Thus, a restaurant that required women to wear skirts would be presumed in violation of the new rules.
But wait, there’s more! Even requiring that male CUSTOMERS wear neckties is now discriminatory. This is political correctness run amok (as if it hadn’t already gone off the deep end). PC is about control rather than etiquette. It is about forcing people to think in a manner determined by those in charge. Sometimes, that manner may very well be the best or most defensible way to think, and hold up to the most rigorous analysis, but sometimes it’s not. In all cases, it should stand on its merits rather than be propped up by threat, and should not involve debarring others from thinking differently.
Among the people harmed by this sort of stuff are, unfortunately, the people who PC is intended to protect. In establishing such rigid and intrusive protections for an aggrieved or vulnerable class, the do-gooders often end up breeding resentment against that class, where just leaving things alone to evolve organically would probably accomplish the desired goals without backlash. Protections already exist for individuals, especially with regard to actual violence and intimidation. Do we really need to smash every purported bigot with the sledgehammer of government to drive a particular point home?
People are getting sick and tired of the ever-increasing granularity of political-correctness mandates. The social justice types who are the driving force behind them may not care, but they risk backlash every time they press a new one on us. As the resentment over PC spreads and simmers ever more hotly, society becomes at ever greater risk of suffering a major breakdown. People will tolerate being pushed quite a bit, but even the most tolerant have breaking points, and the folks who are cheering for the transformation of the nation into a De Blasio New York clone are sowing the seeds of major discontent. At some point, enough will say “enough is enough,” and bad things will happen.
Loading ...
Active Comment Threads
Most Commented Posts
Universal Background Checks – A Back Door to Universal Registration
COVID Mask Follies
When Everything Is Illegal…
An Anti-Vax Inflection Point?
“Not In My Name”
The Great Social Media Crackup
War Comes Through The Overton Window
The First Rule of Italian Driving
Most Active Commenters