0

https://www1.nyc.gov/site/cchr/law/legal-guidances-gender-identity-expression.page

Examples of Violations

Intentional or repeated refusal to use an individual’s preferred name, pronoun or title. For example, repeatedly calling a transgender woman “him” or “Mr.” after she has made clear which pronouns and title she uses.

Refusal to use an individual’s preferred name, pronoun, or title because they do not conform to gender stereotypes. For example, calling a woman “Mr.” because her appearance is aligned with traditional gender-based stereotypes of masculinity.

Conditioning an individual’s use of their preferred name on obtaining a court-ordered name change or providing identification in that name. For example, a covered entity may not refuse to call a transgender woman her preferred name, Jane, because her identification says that her first name is John. 11

Requiring an individual to provide information about their medical history or proof of having undergone particular medical procedures in order to use their preferred name, pronoun, or title.

To me the issue is being intentional about misnaming right?

closed as primarily opinion-based by Michael Seifert, IllusiveBrian, David Siegel, Nij, Dale M Jan 22 at 3:44

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 2
    Well, the question of whether it's "too harsh" is a matter of opinion, and as you may know, opinion-based questions are off topic at Stack Exchange. The question of whether the law is about "being intentional" seems clear - "intentional" is the very first word in it. So I'm unclear what it is you're really asking, or what kind of answer you expect. – Nate Eldredge Jan 15 at 14:58
1

"Too harsh" is a value judgement. How harsh is harsh enough? But it seems to me that a challenge to this provision on free speech grounds might in some cases have merit, if it is enforced in such cases. I haven't heard of such a challenge being mounted, however.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.