First of all, the SDLRLA doth protest too much - when you have "La Raza" in your name, you're being racist, period, regardless if you're not directly associated with the official "National Council of La Raza". Anytime you have a racially segregated association, just replace the race they're using with the word "white", and see if it sounds good to you. If the "San Diego White Lawyers Association" smacks of racism to you, then "San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association" should as well.
Secondly, how can you call it bigotry, when he makes the same claim about Muslims who might disagree with him on policy positions? If anything, he's rightfully calling out the impartiality of people who might treat him poorly because they disagree with his policy positions. Furthermore, he even qualifies it with "it's possible", not "it's always true".
It's quite an irrational reading to assert that he's conflating racist Mexicans who create special organizations to serve people only of their preferred race, and people who are of Mexican heritage but decry such identity politics. Now, he may not have made his point eloquently, or even in complete sentences, but I think you're falling into the trap of taking him literally, not seriously, rather than seriously and not literally.
I promise you if every black, muslim, LGBTQ, and woman wore a confederate flag shirt, and a #MAGA hat, they would be treated as fast friends by the "good ol' boys".
Here's the thing Trump figured out that the MSM didn't - we need to be *Americans* first. You hold a republic together by having a common identity, sharing a language, a belief in free speech, self-defense, and economic interests. It's great to have ancillary cultural and ethnic bonds, but if they supersede the bonds of nationalism, all you get is internal antagonism.
If you don't like people challenging your hypocrisy, your bigotry, and your open racism, then stop pretending like everyone who disagrees with you is the problem.
I think you're mistaking anomalies for trends. The order of magnitude difference in hate crimes against whites versus hate crimes against others is astounding.
Of course, you'll excuse violence against cis whites, by taking away agency from the black victimizers, and asserting that their actions are driven by systemic racism that takes away their ability to choose between right and wrong.
It is this poisonous disavowal of personal responsibility that brought Trump into office.
" Strongly advocate positions on judicial, economic and social issues to political leaders and state and local bar associations that impact the Latino community."
Trump: "He is a member of a club or society, very strongly pro-Mexican, which is all fine. But I say he's got bias. I want to build a wall. I'm going to build a wall."
He didn't mention La Raza specifically, but he accurately described it.
I haven't seen a full transcript of his June 3, 2016 interview with WSJ, but they paraphrase "Mexican" and attribute it to him. If you've got a better cite that has his exact quote, I'd love to read it.
You can stop violent, criminal illegal immigrants through border enforcement.
Sadly, you can't stop violent, criminal legal immigrants, or citizens through border enforcement. It would be wonderful if we could just deport violent and criminal people, but that opens up a whole nother can of worms:)
Fear and distrust aimed specifically at *illegal* immigrants does not mean fear and distrust of *legal* immigrants. You can welcome foreigners that come through the front door, while fearing and distrusting those that break into your house through a window.
You wouldn't know it from the SJWs, but you can walk a gay lesbian wearing a hijab through the whitest white town and the worst they might experience is a short chat with local law enforcement (yes, it's harassment, and it's wrong, but we're talking police looking at anomalies here), whereas if you took a straight white male, dressed in a #MAGA hat, and walked them through the blackest black neighborhood in Chiraq, they're almost guaranteed to be physically assaulted by civilians. Hell, this might even be true on most liberal college campuses.
Despite all of the claims of victimhood, the left wing has become more violent, intolerant, and bigoted over the years - the only socially acceptable racism anymore is anti-white racism.
Now, one day, perhaps people can safely come out of the closet and admit their conservative views - but for now, much like gays during the dark days of oppression and threat of physical violence, it just isn't safe to be open.
Wanting to enforce immigration laws is not xenophobia.
Accurately pointing out violent, criminal illegal immigrants is not xenophobia.
Detesting sharia law is not xenophobia.
Wanting people to be treated by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin is not racism.
All lives matter is not racism.
Criticizing a judge who belongs to La Raza is not racism.
Treating women with the same vulgarity that we treat men with isn't sexism, or misogyny.
Holding a woman to a high standard of classified document handling isn't sexism, or misogyny.
Disagreeing with current abortion laws isn't sexism, or misogyny.
Disagreeing with coddling college students in "safe spaces" isn't bigotry.
I own *all* of that. You can continue your own personal bigotry against those who disagree with you by labeling them "extreme", but it might help if you actually looked past the MSM sound bites, and understand that Trump is a crass reaction to the smothering politically correct left wing that has gone to ridiculous extremes over the past 20 years.
Not only the the Ds manipulate their own primaries to make room for the Queen, they also engaged in a "pied piper" strategy to put Trump at the front of the pack in the R primary. Instead of playing the game fair, they thought they were smart enough to manipulate it, and caused a series of unintended consequences that bit their junk off.
My D friends who were so eager to get me to vote for Trump in the primaries (I didn't, fwiw), talking down his negatives, and emphasizing their horror at the idea of say, Ted Cruz, are crying their eyes out now.
At this point, now that they've got a warrant for searching the Wiener laptop, we can expect possible changes to Comey's July opinion, depending on the evidence surfaced. At the very least, I think Huma gets thrown under the bus for mishandling classified materials, but if she goes down swinging, as Clinton's right hand lady, she's probably got dirt on Hillary for days. Heck, even if she tries to take a bullet for Hillary, and takes all the blame, their relationship is so close it's hard to believe there wouldn't be blowback.
The popcorn is popping, and we've all got front row seats. My black swan prediction - they find that Huma forwarded classified materials to ISIS, or the muslim brotherood, or some other terrorist organization.
Comey didn't think there's enough evidence to take it to court.
FTFY.
I'm more inclined to accept Comey's judgement than what strangers post to the internet.
Then I assume you believe his decision to re-open the investigation after a trove of huma/clinton emails were found on wiener's computer, and would support the granting of a search warrant with that scope for the seized laptop?
The funny part about Comey's first statement, is that he laid out the evidence for violation of (f) - literally he used the term "extremely careless". That's all that's required to bring prosecution. The fact that he deferred, and explicitly avoided asking hard questions, or looking at certain thing (note all of the secret immunity deals for the major players), was likely a large factor in the decision not to prosecute.
Now, having a tranche of classified material on an unclassified system, uncovered by any immunity deals, he's got no choice but to go forward.
Let's do a little bit of English Language 101 here.
Negligence, "failure to take proper care in doing something"
Carelessness, "failure to give sufficient attention to avoiding harm or errors; negligence."
Neither of those speak to intent. Intent is a *positive* act, failure to give proper care and attention is a *negative* one. You may lose your car keys, but you never *intend* to lose your car keys.
Now, that being said, *yes*, you have to prove extreme carelessness/gross negligence. This is the job of the prosecutor at trial.
At the very least, whether or not you think there is a valid defense of Clinton's actions, the matter should be adjudicated at trial, with a vigorous prosecution, a hearty defense, and a jury of her peers. Skipping the trial and presumptively declaring her innocent because she's politically connected is a miscarriage of justice.
this thread has gone from "It's clear that Hillary is guilty of breaking multiple laws"...
How about this - it's clear that there is sufficient evidence to adjudicate, at trial, with vigorous prosecution and defense, whether or not Hillary is guilty of breaking the law. Perhaps we can all agree on that.
He knows the should-have-been-classified e-mails were on or sent through the server; isn't that direct evidence of "actual violations" rather than just "potential" ones?
Even when you have the murder weapon, the video tape, the taped confession, and 100 witnesses, you still go to trial. This is why newspapers always talk about "alleged murderers", even when they've got video tape showing the murder.
Seems as though the fact that classified information went through a non-classified server wasn't actually the question under investigation.
But that *is* against the law:)
My best guess, after diving into the latest coverage, is that the Wiener underage sexting case showed prima facie evidence of mishandling of classified materials, and that Comey was threatened by leaks of that evidence from the team doing that investigation, and decided to get ahead of it.
At the very least, it establishes culpability and intent for Huma on several charges (such as lying about knowing there was a private email server when she had a private email account on it, or mishandling of classified information in a extremely careless way by putting it on a computer shared with someone sexting with an underage girl), but at the furthest end, if there is some smoking gun email saying "Huma, this is hillary, please forward this classified material to your personal account so you can print it out for me", it could destroy Hillarys "no intent" defense as well.
I think the only question now is how soon does Huma get thrown under the bus. Considering Hillary's very, very, very close relationship with her (insert your favorite conspiracy theory about how close), it is likely that all of Hillary's advisors are demanding Huma's head, and Hillary is the only one standing in the way. Will Hillary abandon her most loyal servant in this desperate hour? Or will Hillary decide to go down in defeat in the honorable defense of her loyal servant?
Evidence that intent is not required for section (f)?
Sure, let's read it together:
"(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—"
Now, I'm going to assume you accept that 110 classified emails on an unclassified system is indeed *not* a proper place of custody.
Moving from there, you have two possible violations - one through "gross negligence permits", and the other "having knowledge" and "fails to make prompt report".
Neither of those requires intent. You could, because you're an extremely negligent person, leave classified documents sitting in your unlocked car while you rush to starbucks for cappucino. You didn't *intend* for the classified information to be at risk, you simply didn't exercise enough due diligence. You may not have actually been the person who placed classified documents in an unlocked car, but if you fail to make a prompt report, you are guilty of a violation.
"From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent."
Whether or not that evidence meets the bar of conviction under the statute in question is up to a trial and a jury.
Saying there shouldn't be a trial is saying "the evidence doesn't matter when you're politically protected". If anyone unpolitically connected person had 110 classified emails discovered on an inappropriate, non-classified system, they'd at the very *least* go to trial, and likely be convicted.
Well, that's a job for the prosecution to do in a court of law. It's the job of her defense team to thwart the prosecution, and the job of the jury to decide the facts of law in the case after hearing both sides of the argument.
Certainly, it's reasonable to ask that this be adjudicated, rather than swept aside with political pressure to avoid the legal process.
Or do you assert that people shouldn't be subject to a court of law when they have enough political influence to avoid it?
That's why we indict people and put them in front of a jury - to decide if they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Or are you just going to do away with any decision process for guilt and innocence, and declare people innocent if they're properly politically connected?:)
Note that section (f)(1) uses the term "gross negligence"
If section (f) required intent, they would have used the word "intent". Reading through the statute, it's obvious that (f) is meant to catch the non-intentional, non-knowing, non-willful extreme carelessness.
Misogyny. What an interesting concept. If men need to avoid swearing because women are around, is that misogyny because it implies women can't handle the rough and tumble of foul language? Either you believe women are equal and capable, and you treat them the same as you would anyone else, or you believe that women are fragile and must be protected, and you censor yourself to avoid offending their delicate ears.
As for suicides, you've got to be careful there - it could be that the suicide has nothing to do with anyone's pressure, but their own personal mental illness (T in particular is a mental illness, not a sexual orientation). And it's also demeaning to assert that people cannot be full and conscious participants in society without your encouragement.
But let's do a counter-factual - what if every man in STEM started identifying as a woman today? Would that be the effective end of misogyny? Would we need to encourage women anymore, since 100% of all IT jobs in the world were women?
Well, obviously there are also average differences between men and women besides upper-body strength - including factors that lead to success in computer science.
Men aren't just women with more muscles, and women aren't just men with less muscles.
As for attracting "as many good people as possible", I'll assert the proper way of doing that is to be gender-blind, so that you don't waste resources trying to drive people away from their own free choices, and making them "good people" for a job when their inclination is not in that direction.
If anything, we should be targeting socially inept and awkward folks (aspergers, autism), who might not make it through typical education paths because of their lack of social skills, but whose natural proclivities are highly productive when dealing with computing. https://www.iidc.indiana.edu/p...
Slashdot Mirror
First of all, the SDLRLA doth protest too much - when you have "La Raza" in your name, you're being racist, period, regardless if you're not directly associated with the official "National Council of La Raza". Anytime you have a racially segregated association, just replace the race they're using with the word "white", and see if it sounds good to you. If the "San Diego White Lawyers Association" smacks of racism to you, then "San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association" should as well.
Secondly, how can you call it bigotry, when he makes the same claim about Muslims who might disagree with him on policy positions? If anything, he's rightfully calling out the impartiality of people who might treat him poorly because they disagree with his policy positions. Furthermore, he even qualifies it with "it's possible", not "it's always true".
It's quite an irrational reading to assert that he's conflating racist Mexicans who create special organizations to serve people only of their preferred race, and people who are of Mexican heritage but decry such identity politics. Now, he may not have made his point eloquently, or even in complete sentences, but I think you're falling into the trap of taking him literally, not seriously, rather than seriously and not literally.
I promise you if every black, muslim, LGBTQ, and woman wore a confederate flag shirt, and a #MAGA hat, they would be treated as fast friends by the "good ol' boys".
Here's the thing Trump figured out that the MSM didn't - we need to be *Americans* first. You hold a republic together by having a common identity, sharing a language, a belief in free speech, self-defense, and economic interests. It's great to have ancillary cultural and ethnic bonds, but if they supersede the bonds of nationalism, all you get is internal antagonism.
If you don't like people challenging your hypocrisy, your bigotry, and your open racism, then stop pretending like everyone who disagrees with you is the problem.
I think you're mistaking anomalies for trends. The order of magnitude difference in hate crimes against whites versus hate crimes against others is astounding.
http://whitegirlbleedalot.com/...
Of course, you'll excuse violence against cis whites, by taking away agency from the black victimizers, and asserting that their actions are driven by systemic racism that takes away their ability to choose between right and wrong.
It is this poisonous disavowal of personal responsibility that brought Trump into office.
http://sdlrla.com/about/missio...
" Strongly advocate positions on judicial, economic and social issues to political leaders and state and local bar associations that impact the Latino community."
Their words, not mine.
Trump: "He is a member of a club or society, very strongly pro-Mexican, which is all fine. But I say he's got bias. I want to build a wall. I'm going to build a wall."
He didn't mention La Raza specifically, but he accurately described it.
I haven't seen a full transcript of his June 3, 2016 interview with WSJ, but they paraphrase "Mexican" and attribute it to him. If you've got a better cite that has his exact quote, I'd love to read it.
You can stop violent, criminal illegal immigrants through border enforcement.
Sadly, you can't stop violent, criminal legal immigrants, or citizens through border enforcement. It would be wonderful if we could just deport violent and criminal people, but that opens up a whole nother can of worms :)
Fear and distrust aimed specifically at *illegal* immigrants does not mean fear and distrust of *legal* immigrants. You can welcome foreigners that come through the front door, while fearing and distrusting those that break into your house through a window.
Mod parent up.
You wouldn't know it from the SJWs, but you can walk a gay lesbian wearing a hijab through the whitest white town and the worst they might experience is a short chat with local law enforcement (yes, it's harassment, and it's wrong, but we're talking police looking at anomalies here), whereas if you took a straight white male, dressed in a #MAGA hat, and walked them through the blackest black neighborhood in Chiraq, they're almost guaranteed to be physically assaulted by civilians. Hell, this might even be true on most liberal college campuses.
Despite all of the claims of victimhood, the left wing has become more violent, intolerant, and bigoted over the years - the only socially acceptable racism anymore is anti-white racism.
Now, one day, perhaps people can safely come out of the closet and admit their conservative views - but for now, much like gays during the dark days of oppression and threat of physical violence, it just isn't safe to be open.
Sort of like "correcting" things for the variable of "evoting machines"?
Make no doubt, I *firmly* agree with you - it's just that the sword cuts not just both ways, but *all* ways :)
Wanting to enforce immigration laws is not xenophobia.
Accurately pointing out violent, criminal illegal immigrants is not xenophobia.
Detesting sharia law is not xenophobia.
Wanting people to be treated by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin is not racism.
All lives matter is not racism.
Criticizing a judge who belongs to La Raza is not racism.
Treating women with the same vulgarity that we treat men with isn't sexism, or misogyny.
Holding a woman to a high standard of classified document handling isn't sexism, or misogyny.
Disagreeing with current abortion laws isn't sexism, or misogyny.
Disagreeing with coddling college students in "safe spaces" isn't bigotry.
I own *all* of that. You can continue your own personal bigotry against those who disagree with you by labeling them "extreme", but it might help if you actually looked past the MSM sound bites, and understand that Trump is a crass reaction to the smothering politically correct left wing that has gone to ridiculous extremes over the past 20 years.
Once you give people freedom of religion, you give them permission to believe out and out lies. That's a feature, not a bug.
At the end of the day, what people believe isn't your responsibility, nor is it the responsibility of Facebook.
Mod parent up.
Not only the the Ds manipulate their own primaries to make room for the Queen, they also engaged in a "pied piper" strategy to put Trump at the front of the pack in the R primary. Instead of playing the game fair, they thought they were smart enough to manipulate it, and caused a series of unintended consequences that bit their junk off.
My D friends who were so eager to get me to vote for Trump in the primaries (I didn't, fwiw), talking down his negatives, and emphasizing their horror at the idea of say, Ted Cruz, are crying their eyes out now.
Excellent, we are sympatico :)
Now, I'm not saying I believe Scott Adams' interpretation of events, but it seems plausible: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1...
At this point, now that they've got a warrant for searching the Wiener laptop, we can expect possible changes to Comey's July opinion, depending on the evidence surfaced. At the very least, I think Huma gets thrown under the bus for mishandling classified materials, but if she goes down swinging, as Clinton's right hand lady, she's probably got dirt on Hillary for days. Heck, even if she tries to take a bullet for Hillary, and takes all the blame, their relationship is so close it's hard to believe there wouldn't be blowback.
The popcorn is popping, and we've all got front row seats. My black swan prediction - they find that Huma forwarded classified materials to ISIS, or the muslim brotherood, or some other terrorist organization.
FTFY.
Then I assume you believe his decision to re-open the investigation after a trove of huma/clinton emails were found on wiener's computer, and would support the granting of a search warrant with that scope for the seized laptop?
The funny part about Comey's first statement, is that he laid out the evidence for violation of (f) - literally he used the term "extremely careless". That's all that's required to bring prosecution. The fact that he deferred, and explicitly avoided asking hard questions, or looking at certain thing (note all of the secret immunity deals for the major players), was likely a large factor in the decision not to prosecute.
Now, having a tranche of classified material on an unclassified system, uncovered by any immunity deals, he's got no choice but to go forward.
Let's do a little bit of English Language 101 here.
Negligence, "failure to take proper care in doing something"
Carelessness, "failure to give sufficient attention to avoiding harm or errors; negligence."
Neither of those speak to intent. Intent is a *positive* act, failure to give proper care and attention is a *negative* one. You may lose your car keys, but you never *intend* to lose your car keys.
Now, that being said, *yes*, you have to prove extreme carelessness/gross negligence. This is the job of the prosecutor at trial.
At the very least, whether or not you think there is a valid defense of Clinton's actions, the matter should be adjudicated at trial, with a vigorous prosecution, a hearty defense, and a jury of her peers. Skipping the trial and presumptively declaring her innocent because she's politically connected is a miscarriage of justice.
How about this - it's clear that there is sufficient evidence to adjudicate, at trial, with vigorous prosecution and defense, whether or not Hillary is guilty of breaking the law. Perhaps we can all agree on that.
Even when you have the murder weapon, the video tape, the taped confession, and 100 witnesses, you still go to trial. This is why newspapers always talk about "alleged murderers", even when they've got video tape showing the murder.
But that *is* against the law :)
My best guess, after diving into the latest coverage, is that the Wiener underage sexting case showed prima facie evidence of mishandling of classified materials, and that Comey was threatened by leaks of that evidence from the team doing that investigation, and decided to get ahead of it.
At the very least, it establishes culpability and intent for Huma on several charges (such as lying about knowing there was a private email server when she had a private email account on it, or mishandling of classified information in a extremely careless way by putting it on a computer shared with someone sexting with an underage girl), but at the furthest end, if there is some smoking gun email saying "Huma, this is hillary, please forward this classified material to your personal account so you can print it out for me", it could destroy Hillarys "no intent" defense as well.
I think the only question now is how soon does Huma get thrown under the bus. Considering Hillary's very, very, very close relationship with her (insert your favorite conspiracy theory about how close), it is likely that all of Hillary's advisors are demanding Huma's head, and Hillary is the only one standing in the way. Will Hillary abandon her most loyal servant in this desperate hour? Or will Hillary decide to go down in defeat in the honorable defense of her loyal servant?
Hopefully we'll know before November 9th :)
So, you can't be convicted if you're politically powerful enough to avoid trial...which leads to the politically powerful being always innocent.
Do you really support a get-out-of-jail-because-we-never-put-you-on-trial card for the rich, powerful, politically connected 1% of 1%ers?
Evidence that intent is not required for section (f)?
Sure, let's read it together:
"(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—"
Now, I'm going to assume you accept that 110 classified emails on an unclassified system is indeed *not* a proper place of custody.
Moving from there, you have two possible violations - one through "gross negligence permits", and the other "having knowledge" and "fails to make prompt report".
Neither of those requires intent. You could, because you're an extremely negligent person, leave classified documents sitting in your unlocked car while you rush to starbucks for cappucino. You didn't *intend* for the classified information to be at risk, you simply didn't exercise enough due diligence. You may not have actually been the person who placed classified documents in an unlocked car, but if you fail to make a prompt report, you are guilty of a violation.
110 classified emails on an unclassified system. Literally stated by the head of the FBI: https://www.fbi.gov/news/press...
That's evidence, period. Whether or not that rises to a violation of 18 U.S. Code 793 (f) should be up to a jury.
There's plenty of evidence - Comey laid it all out pretty clearly a few months ago.
https://www.fbi.gov/news/press...
"From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent."
Whether or not that evidence meets the bar of conviction under the statute in question is up to a trial and a jury.
Saying there shouldn't be a trial is saying "the evidence doesn't matter when you're politically protected". If anyone unpolitically connected person had 110 classified emails discovered on an inappropriate, non-classified system, they'd at the very *least* go to trial, and likely be convicted.
Well, that's a job for the prosecution to do in a court of law. It's the job of her defense team to thwart the prosecution, and the job of the jury to decide the facts of law in the case after hearing both sides of the argument.
Certainly, it's reasonable to ask that this be adjudicated, rather than swept aside with political pressure to avoid the legal process.
Or do you assert that people shouldn't be subject to a court of law when they have enough political influence to avoid it?
That's why we indict people and put them in front of a jury - to decide if they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Or are you just going to do away with any decision process for guilt and innocence, and declare people innocent if they're properly politically connected? :)
That's absolutely incorrect. Read the statute again: https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
Note that section (a) uses the word "intent".
Note that section (b) uses the word "intent".
Note that section ( c ) uses the word "knowing".
Note that section (d) uses the word "willfully"
Note that section (e) uses the word "willfully"
Note that section (f)(1) uses the term "gross negligence"
If section (f) required intent, they would have used the word "intent". Reading through the statute, it's obvious that (f) is meant to catch the non-intentional, non-knowing, non-willful extreme carelessness.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
Note, intent is not required for a violation of section (f), merely "extreme carelessness" aka "gross negligence".
Misogyny. What an interesting concept. If men need to avoid swearing because women are around, is that misogyny because it implies women can't handle the rough and tumble of foul language? Either you believe women are equal and capable, and you treat them the same as you would anyone else, or you believe that women are fragile and must be protected, and you censor yourself to avoid offending their delicate ears.
As for suicides, you've got to be careful there - it could be that the suicide has nothing to do with anyone's pressure, but their own personal mental illness (T in particular is a mental illness, not a sexual orientation). And it's also demeaning to assert that people cannot be full and conscious participants in society without your encouragement.
But let's do a counter-factual - what if every man in STEM started identifying as a woman today? Would that be the effective end of misogyny? Would we need to encourage women anymore, since 100% of all IT jobs in the world were women?
Well, obviously there are also average differences between men and women besides upper-body strength - including factors that lead to success in computer science.
Men aren't just women with more muscles, and women aren't just men with less muscles.
As for attracting "as many good people as possible", I'll assert the proper way of doing that is to be gender-blind, so that you don't waste resources trying to drive people away from their own free choices, and making them "good people" for a job when their inclination is not in that direction.
If anything, we should be targeting socially inept and awkward folks (aspergers, autism), who might not make it through typical education paths because of their lack of social skills, but whose natural proclivities are highly productive when dealing with computing. https://www.iidc.indiana.edu/p...