NYC Businesses Acknowledge 31 Gender Pronouns


Is it already posted on this forum? If not, I guess CAFers don’t consider this as something significant. Kinda weird for a place that’s purportedly orthodox. :shrug:

On Tuesday, the New York City Commission of Rights released a list of 31 different gender identities that all businesses must recognize or else they risk paying a financial penalty between $125,000 and $250,000.


Basically you can mix and match anything you want, and you can’t be questioned

This means individuals have the right to:
*]Work and live free from discrimination and harassment due to their gender identity/expression.
*]Use the bathroom or locker room most consistent with their gender identity and/or expression without being required to show “proof” of gender.
*]Be addressed with their preferred pronouns and name without being required to show “proof” of gender.
*]Follow dress codes and grooming standards consistent with their gender identity/expression.



I believe a similar article was posted last week…it was as ridiculous as this one…


Rather seems to me that you can outlaw unfair discrimination (the rights or wrongs of this particular issue are by-the-by)…but you can’t change underlying, subconscious opinions which even among friends of mine who have a lot more sympathy for the bizarre spectacle we see here (no less prevalent in the UK I’m afraid!), is to view such people as a little ‘weird’. In the sense of perfectly nice and decent people who obviously deserve respect and fairness but who are deliberately pitching themselves so far outside the mainstream (for whatever reason), that one does start to question at what point mainstream society has an obligation to cater for them.

The point is in a workplace you need to be dressed appropriately (and I guess smartly if one is interacting with members of the public). I can’t imagine a great many patent attorneys turning up to the courthouse dressed in their weekend Goth attire, for instance.

The NYC bylaw is all very well but we also live in the real world. Employers might not discriminate, by law, but the public generally does.


I should visit NYC. The opportunities for real life trolling are apparently endless there.

“I’m gender fluid. It changes ever 3 minutes and 41 seconds. Hope you have a good watch.”


I am assuming that part of the new gender identification in NYC is agreement with this mandate for traditional men and women.

Will they now have a restroom for men and women who think this is asinine? I gender identify with men who think this is asinine, and I don’t want to use the restroom with people who do not gender identify with me.


And as observed in the other post, the idea of a $250,000 fine for using the “wrong” fake pronoun is beyond outrageous - it is surely unconstitutional in the face of the 8th Amendment (prohibition from imposing “excessive fines, cruel and unusual punishment.”) One can engage in massive fraud, tax cheating, and whatnot, and incur fines smaller than this. Another example of how progressives’ fondness for laws regulating every aspect of behavior becomes its own form of lawlessness.


We should just get rid of all the gender monikers and call everyone it. That would take care of the lawsuits.


We are getting closer to the brave new world. I reject it.


I think a lot a these “issues” would stop being issues, if English had general neutral pronouns and we used them by default. It would be a common sense solution that should make everyone happy, but sadly, it seems like no one likes to be happy anymore.


I don’t think so. Why should we change a 2000 year old language for a passing fad?


Pedantry alert :nerd:

2000 years? 1300-ish if we’re talking Old English: modern English, then a healthy 600 or so years (mostly depending on when one dates the start of the Great Vowel Shift)

Either way, point is taken. But I feel obliged (because why not? :smiley: ) to point out if only for interests sake (surely people other than me are interested, right?) that Old English had grammatical genders - like modern French, German, etc, in addition to natural gender (‘she’ and ‘he’ referring to women and men).

Modern English only retains natural genders. If our language still had grammatical genders - i.e. a gender for every single noun - maybe we’d be less irate about the idiocy of this passing and particularly narcissistic fad. But if nothing else the cursory grammar history above shows that languages change a great deal (just in the last 50 years never mind 600 or 1400 ) so maybe while I’m not in favour of this Great Gender Shift by statute, in the grand scheme of things it doesn’t matter. What matters is that it’s not a natural evolution, it’s that it’s by force of law.

It’s idiotic. Politicians might just as well legislate to change the definition of words like marria… …oh… :eek:


I think even a large number of otherwise ‘progressive’ people (particularly sensible judges) would balk at this overreach. It will I imagine be litigated soon enough and this insane ordinance tossed into the recycling where it belongs.


2000 years?
Try 200,000 years!

Heterosexist language has been embedded in human culture for eons.


This is not pedantry EleanorArr. This is evolutionary biology/psychology.

As a species, we reproduce (avoid extinction) by sexual-selection and opposite-gender mating. And it’s going to take a LOT longer than 2000 years for the LGBTQIXYZ crowd to leverage this bizarre political correctness into anything permanent.

Meanwhile, let’s spare a thought for all those feminists who must be mourning the loss of their gender identity politics. I mean…how do you fight for “wimmins” rights when the concept of being a woman (as distinct from a man) is under such a concerted linguistic attack?

And where to from here for scientific taxonomy? Surely the empirical scientific method is being eroded by those who want to call a spade a shovel or call an asteroid a planet or call a bat a bird.
If something as fundamental as the definition of ‘male’ can mean female and/or something - anything - in between, purely by subjective, self-determination, how can science classify anything? What datum shall there be?

Lastly, what about the law? How can we legislate anything gender-based insofar as human behavior is concerned when the subjects of that legislation get to decide for themselves when and if they are allowed to walk into a room full of naked teenage girls/boys?


It violates the first amendment as well. For example, if I want to use tyrant as an adjective for de Blasio, that is protected speech. I do not see how they can fine anyone for speech



That is interesting information. I did not know that about Old English.


Natural genders sounds fine. Man / woman. Boy / girl. Male / Female.

closed #18

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit