WakeBored
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2018
- Messages
- 1,345
- Reaction score
- 313
Did you ever answer whether you thought intentionally misgendering someone was a form of harassment?
It's a loaded question, because "harassment" is a legal concept under the federal anti-discrimination statutes. I happen to litigate those types of cases, among other things, including harassment cases brought by transgendered persons. In the employment context, the general rule is that, to rise to the level of "harassment" for purposes of the anti-discrimination statutes, the treatment at issue must be sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the working conditions. Courts generally conclude that one instance of intentional misgendering is not "severe," but repeated instances of intentional misgendering can be "pervasive" enough to rise to the level of harassment. Exactly where the line is drawn between "pervasive" and "not pervasive" is difficult to say in the abstract, but I think it is safe to say the line is somewhere between "once" and "every day."
I agree with that rule. I think we ought to call people what they want to be called and, when refusing to do so is based on a protected characteristic, that refusal can lead to harassment if sufficiently pervasive. Incidentally, I would arrive at the same conclusion outside of the transgender context, such as a cisgender gay or effeminate male who people call a "she" or a cisgender lesbian or masculine woman who people call a "he." Same diff.