I am not a scientist, nor am I an attorney.  I have been around the law, as a police officer for over thirty years.  I have seen lawyers and judges play interesting games with facts situations where they arrive at different conclusions for what at first blush, appears to be the same situation. For instance:

You are in Mexico on a day trip and a person offers to sell you Cuban Cigars. You know that Cuban Cigars are under embargo and you cannot possess them in the United States.  You buy them anyway.  You then take elaborate steps to hide the contraband cigars in your vehicle and then attempt to cross the border.  You declare you have nothing to declare and the Customs Inspector doesn’t believe you.  He finds your contraband cigars and recognizes that they are, in fact, not Cuban but knock of Dominicans.  The Dominicans are legal.

In the second scenario you get a great price on a kilo of cocaine, $14,500.  You make arrangements to purchase the cocaine and when you meet your local dope dealer he shows you a rectangular plastic wrapped block that he purports to be cocaine.  The size, shape and weight all indicates to you it is the real deal. You agree to the purchase and moments later you find yourself surrounded by people.  You are the only one that doesn’t possess a badge.  To add insult to injury the “cocaine” was a kilo quantity of sugar.

What happens now? In the first scenario you attempted to purchase and smuggle Cuban Cigars.  You had the “want too” but never had the opportunity. Because you were mistaken in your initial appraisal of the cigars it is impossible to smuggle something that may enter the country freely.

In the second instance you intended to buy cocaine, everything about the deal said you were engaged in a cocaine deal. If you didn’t believe that what the officer was selling was cocaine then you would have walked away from the transaction.  The fact that you agreed to the purchase.

Both scenarios deal with intent. In both instances the intent was manifest to violate the law. Only problem being is that there was no law to violate given the facts present, in the first scenario.

This is a long way around to defeating a New York City ordinance that mandates how people shall speak and imposes an obligation on employers to enforce it.  New York has come up with a whole new list of pronouns that must be used.

Dr. Paul McHugh (Johns Hopkins) and Dr. Robert George (Princeton) maintain that there are only two sexes, two genders. Genetics tells us people either have XX chromosomes (Female), XY chromosomes (male) or XYY chromosomes (male).  Any feelings, mannerisms, beliefs or life styles that run contrary to the chromosomes are a manifestation of a mental disease or defect. While surgery can lop off an offending member or create a divot where before none existed the resulting freak still maintains the sexual identity dictated by chromosomes. So we end up with pronoun descriptors that do not occur in reality, only in the fevered imaging of a small class of people who are “crazier than shit house rats.” Another feature of the New York ordinance is there is no objective measure, and the affected individual can change his/her/its gender designation in mid-sentence.  The New York mandate, subjected to common sense, would be the same as if the city decreed everybody must speak Klingon.

“Hey, you stupid asshole in the dress, your balls are dangling below the hemline.” Is that Gender neutral?