Jump to content

Are we going to admit Universities are producing thin-skinned people?


Boges

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Wilber said:

Show us a law that requires women to be addressed as Ms.

So you're making the point that because Ms. was accepted without legislation, it somehow negates the necessity of needing legislation even though every other social movement I named, such as civil rights, gay rights.... and even women's rights DID need to be legislated?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, BC_chick said:

You trivializing the matter only demonstrates MH's point.  They trivialized Ms. and now it's 'logical'.  They trivialized civil rights and gay rights but now they're 'logical' too.

No one mainstream trivialized civil rights, and again, both gay and civil rights involved great masses of people, not a fraction of a fraction of a percent who have the fortune to (very) recently become the object of progressives' OCD.

 

Edited by Argus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Argus said:

No one mainstream trivialized civil rights, and again, both gay and civil rights involved great masses of people, not a fraction of a fraction of a percent who have the fortune to (very) recently become the object of progressives' OCD.

 

So we should only respect people who make up an Argus-approved percentage of society?

Edited by BC_chick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, BC_chick said:

So you're making the point that because Ms. was accepted without legislation, it somehow negates the necessity of needing legislation even though every other social movement I named, such as civil rights, gay rights.... and even women's rights DID need to be legislated?

 

That's exactly the point I am making. If someone says they want to be addressed as such and such, as long as it doesn't convey some kind of superiority over others, I am happy to oblige no matter how stupid it sounds. The idea that how we should address each other needs to be legislated is ridiculous. If that is the case, I insist on being addressed as mister or sir and I want it enshrined in law. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, BC_chick said:

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. 

Well, I guarantee that someone who insisted on being called sir would be maligned and/or mocked. It is not an issue because most people are modest enough to understand that they need to stick with commonly used forms of address. It is only an issue because some arrogant snowflakes insist that they should be entitled to special "pronouns" and get miffed when others choose not to enable their narcissism. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, BC_chick said:

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. 

It definitely clarifies that it's NOT a legitimate issue at all, and that people are getting upset about something that they made up out of whole cloth. 

If a person can decide what they want to be or be referred as, they clearly are NOT an identifiable group. That's what this whole thing is about -- rational people want to just use the dictionary definition based on what they are able to identify. Irrational people want the right to make up new words and pretend that they are being harassed if others don't want to play that game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Argus said:

Are we going to admit that universities infantalise students and turn them into weepy, whiny, entitled people who need safe zones to keep away from opinions which they disagree with. I don't see how the conversation has veered from that of the title of this thread.

 

No - not what is the debate HERE.  What is the debate that is being shut down ?  The answer I got was that there is no debate, because it it shut down before it starts.  But there must have been something that WAS going to be debated.  I want to know what it's about is all.  People seem to go crazy for this issue.  I had in the 1970s a teacher, and a client in that order who were very upset by "Ms." and did not agree with a new word being made up.  It sounds like the same thing to me

 

 

Pronouns are controversial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

No - not what is the debate HERE.  What is the debate that is being shut down ?  The answer I got was that there is no debate, because it it shut down before it starts.  But there must have been something that WAS going to be debated.  I want to know what it's about is all.  People seem to go crazy for this issue.  I had in the 1970s a teacher, and a client in that order who were very upset by "Ms." and did not agree with a new word being made up.  It sounds like the same thing to me

 

 

Pronouns are controversial.

From what I gather from a previous article a Professor has stated his reluctance to use those pronouns chosen by people for themselves during the course of his work.  I seem to remember there being in the region of 21.  The debate was supposed to be about the issue but, according to the only article I read, it was actually about telling him how bad a person he is and providing counselling for anyone who might have been upset by him.

Others might have seen it differently, of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please show where black people wanted to be addressed by a special pronoun.  

Comparing the two trivializes the actual struggle that black people had to go through to get voting rights...   the right to use the bus...  the right to a job...

None of these rights are being denied..  In fact, these rights are protected under current legislation.  They are fighting to be called a special pronoun.  It is a completely made up struggle.  That's why people are trivializing it...  because it's a trivial issue.  What isn't trivial is making up laws that demand people use made up pronouns or get dragged before a human rights tribunal...

"I gave the person a job...   I pay them the same as everyone else...  but I'm being brought before a Human Rights Tribunal because I addressed the person as her"!  :wacko:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, The_Squid said:

Please show where black people wanted to be addressed by a special pronoun.  

 

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, BC_chick said:

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. 

Then pick one then tell us what it is so we can put this nonsense behind us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Bryan said:

It definitely clarifies that it's NOT a legitimate issue at all, and that people are getting upset about something that they made up out of whole cloth. 

If a person can decide what they want to be or be referred as, they clearly are NOT an identifiable group. That's what this whole thing is about -- rational people want to just use the dictionary definition based on what they are able to identify. Irrational people want the right to make up new words and pretend that they are being harassed if others don't want to play that game.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, BC_chick said:

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

Well until they come up with one they should quit bitching. The rest of us aren't psychic and aren't about to remember 20 of the bloody things, then have to ask which one to use so as not to be branded as insensitive by a bunch of nitwits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TimG said:

Well, I guarantee that someone who insisted on being called sir would be maligned and/or mocked. It is not an issue because most people are modest enough to understand that they need to stick with commonly used forms of address. It is only an issue because some arrogant snowflakes insist that they should be entitled to special "pronouns" and get miffed when others choose not to enable their narcissism. 

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread right here is why Democrats lost the election. Liberals are in a moral panic about pronoun usage, while the real economic issues of working class people are ignored. 

Oh, and my preferred pronoun is "His Majesty". I'm gonna report every post that doesn't refer to me with that pronoun. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Popular Now

  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,764
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    robretpeter42
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...