I wouldn’t post to Disqus, so put it up here.

Disqus has an offensive privacy policy, broadcasting your email address or whatever name you used to sign-in for an earlier email which may be your real name or contain part of your real name, even if you maintain a really-strict policy of never using your real-name for an online-account.  And they’ve got a series of tricks to try to trick or coerce would-be commenters to unmask themselves on their stupid comment-boards, and I genuinely hope they do-find this and read-it–!

This comment was composed by me, but not posted, in response to an article in the LGBTQ bulletin that New York just ratified a new bill that prohibits stores from treating readable, non-passing transgender people “less-well” than other customers.

Another reader commented that he feared that the legislation would not have been enforced, although he wished that it would have been.

Here is what would have been my response–:

The uninitiated, reading-this, might view the wording, “to treat,” the given-class person “less-well than,” those outside the given-class, as insignificantly-different or vague, or something that could easily-happen without a store-person’s intending to-have done.

While I agree that the bill’s language might use some improvement, what they are talking-about, I know only too-well–!:

A cashier conspicuously dotes-on everybody ahead of me in the line, until when the person they’re serving is me, and suddenly they jackknife into being brusque, rude, and sullen.

The beaming smile snaps into a pair of pursed lips or even a scowl.

What had been warm (or even gushy) chattiness now becomes a refusal even to acknowledge when I say something even pertaining directly to the transaction-itself.

The clerk will start processing the next person before they are done with me, even-though my transaction is not slower than the others.

They may do whatever else they can, to invite interruptions by other staff.

They may answer a phone, without excusing themselves.

If I’m trying to tell them something pertinent, they may interrupt me with gross impertinences

that could wait till they had answered my question / acknowledged my statement,

after first letting me finish speaking my short statement or question.

They are going out of their way to make it unmistakable that they are doing all of these things completely for-spite. It’s pure Theatre–.

Even if you think this bill’s wording is “vague,” or “laughable,” what it refers-to is a very-deliberate and malicious practice that is well-established in stores.

Whether they are reading me as non-passingly expressing transgenderism or whether I am on a list of people to be harassed for some other reason, I could not directly say.

I do have knowledge of such lists, from other sources–; although I also know how broaching this topic triggers people who want to dismiss such knowledge as so-called, “PCT.”

(It’s not good to find-out the hard-way how-many CT’s actually were never P).

Although straightforward and reliable information are rarely in the same place, it’s been getting better, although probably not as fast as the problem-itself is getting worse.

Although people other than transgenders are affected by this problem (crisis), transgenders are definitely heavily affected by this, which is what makes this branch reference within this thread still relevant.

The reason I have chosen this particular video for this thread, is the degree to-which the maker of the video did background-research on how organized harassment increasingly appears to have originated, and why this would explain better than earlier explanation-attempts, why this phenomenon were so likely to be among the specific forms of harassment that transgender people would have to face.

One also is invited to Google, President Obama’s Operation Chokepoint.

I’ve been subjected to that, too.

Although Operation Chokepoint is mainly applied to Banks, the same tactics are often also used in stores.

If you order something from a store that they have to produce, they may keep telling you that your item has not been completed yet, making you wait an indecently long time for it, and tell you to wait for them to call you, not to call them.

When you finally do call them, they’ll tell you that they were waiting for you to call them, as-if they did not know how to press-buttons on their own telephone.

They may hand you one of their botched-builds, telling you that you can keep-it for-free, because it wasn’t up to their standards, or didn’t-count as merchandise.  (And they will insist, even if you protest, which is important as a clue for later).

On subsequent trips back, wasting gas, snack-food, and time, they’ll show you more botched-builds, that were worse than the first one, and keep-saying, “Yeah, we know we messed this up.  We’ll do it over.”  One trip, you’ll come-in, possibly showing the strain of the continual travel, in some way, and they’ll say, “This is the last build we’re giving you,” as if you were the one who had protested.  They will simply re-proffer the two they tried to give the last two times, not just similar, but with the same telltale nicks on them in exactly the same places that confirm irrefutably that they are exactly the same pieces, and not-even fresh-attempts, however-botched.  They held these same-pieces that they-themselves declined to hand-over the last two times, and now they’re giving you this ultimatum that after waiting another long-time, that you have to accept what they told you before that they didn’t even want you to take, and you don’t, because it isn’t made-right, and you’ve already paid for it.  After you finally badger them into backing-off or finally doing what they already-said, or agreeing-to make-it-over, when you come back the next time, they will try to get you to give-back the first so-called botched edition of the good, that they pushed you to take, before, or at-least they’ll argue about it.  To underscore the fact that they were lying to you before when they insisted over your own then-protests that you simply must take it from them, permanently-free.  This kind of blatant Self-Contradiction has a well-known name, and that name is Gaslighting.  It is a very-direct signal, that whatever-relationship one had-sought with whatever person or business-entity was entirely-counterfeit from the very-beginning–; and that nothing-you say to them, will ever be honored by-them, either–.  It’s effectively the institutionalization of Disenfranchisement, whether the other entity is a business-entity like this one–; or just some narcissist you’ve had the misfortune to have had as either an adult-sibling or parent, a romantic interest, or even some cases of close so-called “friends–.”

Returning, to the thing that went-on with me and this store–; people don’t come-up with stuff like-this just to harass or antagonize.  If they’re the only ones that don’t-want ya-there, they’ll tell ya to yer face–; or at least more-directly or less-creatively than this.  They’re a business–; they’re not in the drama-writing “field–!:”  They’ll only get even however creative they can be, when there’s extra money to be made, and a merchant would rather flatter an undeserving customer than harangue an okay one, if there’s money to be made in doing that–; and, they have their reputation to defend, which means that it really doesn’t pay to spur rumors of their being antagonistic–;

So, really, I’ve long been-aware that probably every-one of these wretched tactics comes straight-out of some major consultant’s Playbook–.
How many people could tell a similar story about someone who had harassed them perniciously and deliberately, even to the point where they tried to harm themselves or developed physical diseases brought-on by stress-exhaustion from how bad the emotional distress was, whether it was demoralization, terror, or something else that-bad–? This is not a joke, when it happens! That was why an earlier bill was drafted, to make a legal tort of someone’s doing this. Anyone-else remember the bill against, “Unlawful infliction of emotional distress?”

In that case, there already had been, some legislation on the books that did cover this, although when the people who drafted the new bill did-so, they presumably were unaware of it, or they wouldn’t have drafted a new bill.

Opponents of this nascent other bill then had-a field-day tearing-it-apart because of its invitingly-vague or mawkish-sounding language, and after a number of defense-lawyer precedents had re-parsed its unofficial re-interpretation, it came-out having less force, than if a plaintiff would have filed no motion at-all, so I can see where Lex Moran Solero were getting his impression that this bill is at risk not to get “enforced.” And I agree also with him that it needs to be.  Clearly–!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s