Russian security forces raided gay clubs and bars across Moscow Friday night, less than 48 hours after the country’s top court banned what it called the “global LGBTQ+ movement” as an extremist organization.
Police searched venues across the Russian capital, including a nightclub, a male sauna, and a bar that hosted LGBTQ+ parties, under the pretext of a drug raid, local media reported.
Eyewitnesses told journalists that clubgoers’ documents were checked and photographed by the security services. They also said that managers had been able to warn patrons before police arrived.
That bill doesn’t make it illegal for transgender people to have a job in government or government adjacent. It merely prohibits them from requiring (with the force of law) other people to acknowledge their sexual identity.
No doubt it makes it difficult for some transgender people – namely those who are unable to function if people don’t acknowledge them – to hold some jobs, though, but it doesn’t forbid it as you imply.
This is essentially a pro freedom of speech legislation. To compare this with the Russians raiding gay bars and making “gay propaganda” illegal is preposterous.
If I read the bill wrong, please correct me.
It’s not though. It doesn’t just protect employers to call anyone whatever pronoun they want, it mandates that the preferred pronoun for trans people (and others) are not used.
It doesn’t just protect bigotry, it requires it.
My reading of the bill is that it specifically forbids any mandates towards pronoun use. This may enable bigotry, but does not require it.
But perhaps you can point to the sentence that requires bigotry since I missed it.
“An employee or a contractor may not provide to an employer his or her preferred personal title or pronouns if such preferred personal title or pronouns do not correspond to his or her sex.”
You’re right that it doesn’t require bigotry, but this section says that if a transgender person is misgendered, they cannot even request to be referred to by their preferred pronouns. I understand not being forced to refer to any person by any specific name or pronoun, but not being able to share your preferences is the opposite of freedom of speech.
Yes, seems like you were right and I was wrong. Thank you for correcting me.
That’s indeed a rather shitty clause which goes beyond protecting free speech.
This is essentially a post from a dumbass that never amounted to anything.
Translation: I don’t like what he says but I have no actual arguments so I’ll just ad hominem. That’ll show him.
Thank you for, in your own peculiar way, confirming my conclusions though.
Or, I have lots of actual arguments but recognize that I’m not your dad or your professor, and that I actually just think you’re stupid and not worth the time it would take to explain it to you.
I recognize this form of argumentation from middle school. As you are presumably an adult instead of a child, perhaps you should try to improve your argumentation skills quite a lot before continuing these “actual arguments” you claim to have.
Or you could just pack it in. Stop posting bullshit takes on the internet and stick to your fucking mop.
You’re right, fuck free speech!