BC_chick

I doubt anything will come of any of it, but I do find it funny to see Trump supporters throwing out the childish insults after they were so convinced election fraud is a real threat.

So Jill Stein got the recount going for Wisonsin: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38112752

He conflated transgender pronouns with 'Illustrious Argus' so yes, I had to answer in kind. Again, it was him who insisted on being called Illustrious Argus, not me. Why would I call him Mr. Argus. And yes, it is absolutely a human right to be accepted for gender non-conformity. It's not up to YOU to decide.

What if we worked together and you said you want to be called Illustrious Argus and I kept calling you Mr. Dinosaur instead? Would you stop being so damn over sensitive about it?

I think Michael Hardner expressed the differences perfectly. I couldn't have said it better myself, especially the first two points. There is a big difference between accidentally referring to someone by the incorrect pronoun and deliberately refusing to do so. The posters defending professor Peterson seem to deliberately conflate the two instances when it's a false equivalent. Equally important, free speech is not without limits where you can refer to your students and colleagues whatever you wish. If I ask a colleague to go by Ms. and someone continues to call me Mrs. because 'feminism has run amok creating new titles' it would not be acceptable in the work place. It's not about me being oversensitive, it's about some jerk imposing his regressive views on me by refusing to acknowledge that I do not wish to be recognized by my marital status. ETA - at home he can call me whatever he wants, but in the workplace, he has an obligation to address me as I wish and keep his personal views to himself.

You should read the entire letter in that link, it's very well stated. It talks about freedom of speech and how he university stands strongly behind it. It goes on to discuss the fact that even freedom of speech has limitations. I hope you take the time to read it. And I honestly do see your concern, but I know you're a reasonable person so think of it like this: I would say that most people, no matter their views on the issue, would feel that people who have transitioned should have the respect to be called what they wish. Do you agree that there is an element of discrimination if a colleague or professor continues to use a different pronoun for a fully transitioned transgender person? If you can agree that it's discriminatory (essentially it is belittling and no different than calling someone a racial slur within a professional environment), you can understand why it's inappropriate for US as a society to decide when a person has earned their pronoun. If you reject the notion all together that it's discriminatory to continue calling a MTF person a he, then you are the reason why we need such legislation in the first place. It's not proper conduct in a professional or academic environment given that it's essentially a slur. In private, sure, but not in the workplace. There is a difference between actionable and criminal (i.e. Hate speech). This issue falls in the former category.

That part that conflicts with the Ontario Human Rights Code. Here is an excerpt from U to T's response to him: The law of Ontario, specifically the Ontario Human Rights Code, protects against discrimination based on gender expression and gender identity. Depending on the context, if personal pronouns are being used, the refusal by a teacher or colleague to use the personal pronoun that is an expression of the person’s gender identity can constitute discrimination. In many situations it is not necessary to use personal pronouns at all, but where it is, the personal pronoun that is chosen as the person’s gender identity-related and gender expression-related identifier should be used. http://thevarsity.ca/2016/10/24/u-of-t-letter-asks-jordan-peterson-to-respect-pronouns-stop-making-statements/

He doesn't deny but he does: CO: You have said that you don't believe that there is enough evidence that non-binary gender identities even exist? JP: No. I didn't say that actually. If I'm going to be accused of saying things I have to be accused of exactly what I said. There's not enough evidence to make the case that gender identity and biological sexuality are independently varying constructs. In fact, all the evidence suggests that they're not independently varying constructs.

Google it.

Good on you. That's a positive step. As you can see by Tim G and Argus' post, there would still be pushback for even that.

What difference does it make? You said let them make up a new pronoun and not use 'they'. Are you on board with xe or not?

Actually, denying the existence of non-binary gender expression is much more indicative of close-mindedness, wouldn't you say?

There are other. Xe for example. Shockingly, lots of detractors for that too. Some people just don't want to accept gender non-conformity.

Everyone just HAS to fit with either he or she, there just isn't any other option. 'I'm so confused' - Vinney, Welcome Back Kotter.

The other professor is non-binary (so neither gender) and doesn't want either he or she. Prefers they.

An op-ed? I've read other op-ed's blame her ovaries, it doesn't make it true. It's one person's opinion. There was a whole lot of reasons, including an archaic voting system and... oh how should I put it... some people actually liking Donald Trump! Gasp. The discussion here is about U of T professor (in Canada) rejecting Bill C-16 and non-binary gender expression. Nothing to do with Hillary Clinton. As you can see many of the people who supported her (TimG, Wilber, Squid) disagree with the notion of people choosing their own pronouns. Stop it please, the US politics board is just above this one.

Democrats lost because Hillary Clinton is not a strong candidate.

The professor in the article knows exactly what the other professor wishes to be called yet continues to refer to the other professor as he. Do you agree that's inappropriate?

Language is not static as I've said. Our pronouns can change and are starting to. You're just on the wrong side of history in accepting it because you see transgenderism as a mental illness.

I'm not the one to choose and neither are you.

Religion and sexual orientation are also protected. Identifiable isn't always visible.

Huh? Please show where marriage equality proponents were told to sit on the back of the bus! The thing is each marginalized group has a different societal obstacle to overcome. Gender pronouns are that for trans people.

C-16 is a lot more complex than just pronouns. It simply adds gender expression to the human rights code because trans people were not specifically stated as an identifiable group. According to the Ontario Human Rights Commisssion, not referring to someone by the pronoun they wish may be considered harassment. That is not the same thing as criminal. It's essentially case by case review of the motives of the individuals who refuse to use the pronouns as desired by non binary individuals. If it's systematic and prejudicially-motivated, then it's actionable. If society maligned you and trivialized your being by not calling you sir when you wanted, then maybe the similarities could be taken in kind. Hope that clarifies the issue.

Dream on.