Gender titles, getting crazy

[Army Guy]

I really thought this is just a fad, that all of it would blow over....now a ruling by supreme court adds confusion to all of it. Apparently the word women is confusing...and now any women is to be referred to as person with a virgina...i only assuming that MAN is also confusing and should be referred to as person with a penis...this is where it gets really confusing what do we call a person transition to a man , or vice versa...

What was wrong with man and women, it has worked forever...or male and female...

FIRST READING: Supreme Court decision says the word 'woman' is confusing, 'unfortunate' (msn.com)

[Zeitgeist]

A rational government would legislate all of this nonsense away. Our courts and governments have caved into gender ideologues.  They’re redefining words in order to legitimize a false reality that has no scientific basis. This will continue as long as people remain afraid to speak out. Our population is running scared from potential cancellation.  Sadly there are few people who can afford to take the risk to speak out publicly.  Those who do have been made examples of: Jordan Peterson, Monique Le Grange, Amy Hamm, etc..

Rational thought and freedom of speech are under attack in Canada.

Edited March 13 by Zeitgeist

[CdnFox]

52 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

i only assuming that MAN is also confusing and should be referred to as person with a penis

Excuse me!?!!?!?  I personally identify as "A Schlong Entity".   Don't you be misgendering my body parts!  (Schlong Entity is also the name of my Garage Band.)

[Michael Hardner]

Well, the 'elites' are fully bought in and while the OP is right that it's confusing, the courts are working through it.  The courts, though, can't legislate common use so if you want to come up with new terms and see if they stick... or use the old terms in the way they have been then that's the best way to counteract this.

Not all social change is picked up in the marketplace of ideas.  Ms. got picked up.  Busing died.  Universal benefits died.  Some movements change and get more practical.  Language is democratic, so go ahead and do you.

The people pulling their hair out are, I don't know, maybe new to widespread social change.  It's difficult but it doesn't generally go 100% back.

[CdnFox]

14 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Well, the 'elites' are fully bought in and while the OP is right that it's confusing, the courts are working through it.  The courts, though, can't legislate common use so if you want to come up with new terms and see if they stick... or use the old terms in the way they have been then that's the best way to counteract this.

Not all social change is picked up in the marketplace of ideas.  Ms. got picked up.  Busing died.  Universal benefits died.  Some movements change and get more practical.  Language is democratic, so go ahead and do you.

The people pulling their hair out are, I don't know, maybe new to widespread social change.  It's difficult but it doesn't generally go 100% back.

I think the difference is the idea of 'compelled speech'.

Sure - language and terms change all the time, it tends to be generational every 10-20 years or so.  Nobody referrs to people as 'honkys' any more    British youth are not bemoaning the fact  they don't know how to ask to borrow a cigarette now that 'f ag' (which is apparently not allowed on this site ) has been co-opted. If my grandad back in the day told granny he was going to go pick up a ho she'd have assumed he was going to the hardware store

But those are generally naturally occurring evolution that just happen over time.

In this case there's a real legal push to demand people speak in a certain way. In the past they might say you CAN'T use certain words - but now they're saying you MUST use certain words and that's a problem and that's why it's concerning to see the courts getting involved in this kind of water-muddying

[Michael Hardner]

22 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

1. I think the difference is the idea of 'compelled speech'.

2. Sure - language and terms change all the time, it tends to be generational every 10-20 years or so.  Nobody referrs to people as 'honkys' any more    British youth are not bemoaning the fact  they don't know how to ask to borrow a cigarette now that 'f ag' (which is apparently not allowed on this site ) has been co-opted. If my grandad back in the day told granny he was going to go pick up a ho she'd have assumed he was going to the hardware store

3. But those are generally naturally occurring evolution that just happen over time.

4. In this case there's a real legal push to demand people speak in a certain way.

5. In the past they might say you CAN'T use certain words - but now they're saying you MUST use certain words and that's a problem and that's why it's concerning to see the courts getting involved in this kind of water-muddying

1. Compelled Speech was the reason I supported Jordan Peterson at the outset, but that turned out to be a red herring.  His concerns about compelled speech may have been well founded but it did not come to pass.
2. Yes.
3. Generally yes but not always.  Certain social changes pushed words like "Ms." into common use.  Influencers on speech include individuals, culture, institutions all of whom can crystalize any aspect of the zeitgeist into a common use word.
4. I don't know if I agree that there's a "push".  For sure, words are being redefined and that's problematic, and you can run afoul of certain aspects of the law, like harassment, but more often you'll be persecuted in the public sphere.  And, no, it's not always fair.  
5. I watch such things pretty closely and I haven't seen 'compelled speech' yet but post an example if you have one.  I'm interested, as I am 100% against compelled speech.

[Perspektiv]

3 hours ago, Army Guy said:

now any women is to be referred to as person with a virgina

You can't help but laugh at this type of stuff. Canada is already the laughingstock of the globe.

These policies seemingly are devised by indecisive teenage girls, who use the word "like" in between all words.

Ever see these people make their mind up about something?

In dating when a woman uses "its complicated", it typically meant to me she was still emotionally attached to her past. It was as a result, complicated to her.

Its complicated to me, tells me you don't have a clue what you're talking about. 

Its simple to me. Gender is simple for most of the world. 

Woman. Man. All simple words.

We are changing our language to accommodate 1% of the population, but dismissing the other 99%.

How is "person with a vagina" more inclusive?

While am a proud Canadian, people like this make me question my alliance to my country.

[Michael Hardner]

11 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

  Canada is already the laughingstock of the globe.

Sorry but this doesn't pass the test.  A good number of countries support trans rights.  As for pronouns, you can recognize that their use is changing in unfamiliar ways but it seems a minimum was to acknowledge rights.

We all know how you feel but if you want to decry people for being real, you really need to be really real yourself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_transgender_people

I do enjoy the discussion but hyperbolic and hysterical rhetoric doesn't hold water with me.

[eyeball]

18 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

You can't help but laugh at this type of stuff. Canada is already the laughingstock of the globe.

Just wait until the SCC says the French language has to be gender neutral.  Where would they even begin?

[Perspektiv]

15 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

A good number of countries support trans rights.  

This isn't about trans rights.

15 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

As for pronouns, you can recognize that their use is changing in unfamiliar ways

Nonsensical ways would be more accurate. 

Neopronouns are seen as a joke even as some within the community. Yet, laughing at these, could still be viewed as transphobic.

Its a joke. 

15 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

We all know how you feel

Who cares about how I feel about it. The extreme right is getting a voice, because of how many others are feeling about it, and of similarly divisive issues.

My voice is irrelevant. When it comes down to elections, theirs will be deafening.

15 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

you really need to be really real yourself.

What does that even mean?

You're either genuine or you're not.

15 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

but hyperbolic and hysterical rhetoric doesn't hold

The irony. My post is measured. Imposing into law, that can't eventually misgender someone who identifies as Ne/nem/nems/nemself, is the epitome of taking rights and then completely making a mockery of things.

Letting a male, compete with biological women at the highest level, literally obliterating records no other women could even touch.

This isn't respecting human rights and dignity.

As a black male, I understand some people will not like me based on skin color. 

I will hear racist comments that I don't like.

I am educated and articulate, having some mock me as "being white". 

Your logic, is me being entitled to call the police for the racist comments. 

Reality, is the world over doesn't give two f***s about how I feel inside. 

There are not enough laws, where you can force others to.

Do you, don't expect others to play along.

[Perspektiv]

12 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Where would they even begin?

That would be comical, and worth seeing Larousse dictionaries now being garbage.

[Michael Hardner]

18 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

1. This isn't about trans rights.

2. Its a joke.  Who cares about how I feel about it.

3. What does that even mean?  You're either genuine or you're not.

4. Your logic, is me being entitled to call the police for the racist comments. 

 

1. I'm trying to get my head around something here.  I posted something recently about conservatives supporting trans rights and I got a lot of "of course they do" back.  But when it comes down to it I don't see much support for rights when they're applied.  But even here, no rights with regards to pronouns were asserted, I think.  It was just a comment on usage.  I suspect that all of the countries in this list are grappling with the same list of applications.
2. You keep saying so, but who else is echoing your sentiments ?
3. It means you tend to make extreme claims: "everybody's laughing" and "it's a joke".  Ok.  Well... ok.  But WHO ?  If you don't have anything else it makes me think these are actually just your impressions, not coming from elsewhere. 
4. Completely incorrect.  I didn't assert this anywhere.  Stay focused on what I'm actually writing.

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

I do enjoy the discussion but hyperbolic and hysterical rhetoric doesn't hold water with me.

If you can't hold your water, maybe you need a pair of Depends.

[CdnFox]

[Perspektiv]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

supporting trans rights

I support your right to be trans. What I don't support, is your rights impeding my freedom of speech.

Your rights don't trump parental rights. 

You don't have the right to demand for critical thinking to be removed. 

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

But even here, no rights with regards to pronouns were asserted, I think. 

Pronouns aren't a right, nor should they be.

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

You keep saying so, but who else is echoing your sentiments ?

Heck even trans influencers, have broken their silence on it.

You have sunk low as a society, when Rob Schneider sounds like a voice of reason.

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

you tend to make extreme claims

Just because you can't read between lines, doesn't mean what am saying is extreme. 

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Completely incorrect.

Based on your logic its spot on, in my opinion. 

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

...

Well I stand by my claims and questions.  But I'm interested in giving you the benefit of the doubt.

How about you provide an example and we'll look at what's being said, what rights are involved etc.

[Perspektiv]

34 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Well I stand by my claims and questions. 

You're more than welcome to. It won't make pronouns a right.

[Michael Hardner]

19 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

You're more than welcome to. It won't make pronouns a right.

How are they a right though?  I can misgender you all I want.  There's no right to be free from insults.

If it's extreme, then it can factor into harassment but that is a different example.

The ruling didn't say anything about pronoun rights.

I'm asking you this in good faith, don't be scared off...

Edited March 13 by Michael Hardner

[CdnFox]

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

How are they a right though?  I can misgender you all I want.  There's no right to be free from insults.

There absolutely is.    Misgendering is now considered to be a human rights offence in Canada.

https://www.them.us/story/canadian-court-rules-misgendering-human-rights-violation

And it's now spread outside of the workplace as well.
If you knowingly misgender someone, you've committed a human rights offence.

And misgendering includes not calling a man a woman if thats what the woman wants.

[Michael Hardner]

25 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

There absolutely is.    Misgendering is now considered to be a human rights offence in Canada.

 

https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2021/2021bchrt137/2021bchrt137.html

It doesn't say that in the ruling.  

[Perspektiv]

52 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I can misgender you all I want.  There's no right to be free from insults.

And thats how it should remain.

On that subject, there are only two genders.

[CdnFox]

15 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2021/2021bchrt137/2021bchrt137.html

It doesn't say that in the ruling.  

It does - it specifically references section 13 of the act. And the judge notes:

Trans employees are entitled to recognition of, and respect for, their gender identity and expression. This begins with using their names and pronouns correctly. This is not an ‘accommodation’, it is a basic obligation that every person holds towards people in their employment: BC Human Rights Tribunal v. Schrenk, 2017 SCC 62 [Schrenk].

 

you are OBLIGED to refer to the person as they wish to be referred to. And not just if you're the employer but anyone in that workplace. It is a human rights violation not to.

Just now, Perspektiv said:

And thats how it should remain.

On that subject, there are only two genders.

Unfortunately it is not that way. It is a human rights violation to misgender someone.

[Michael Hardner]

13 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

And thats how it should remain.

On that subject, there are only two genders.

So we agree then.  Thoughtcrime isn't a thing.

14 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

It is a human rights violation to misgender someone.

It's a workplace harassment issue.  You have no right to not be insulted outside the workplace.  Let's save time, and just respond with a cite not your interpretation.

[Perspektiv]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

So we agree then.  Thoughtcrime isn't a thing

When you try to punish people for having free thought, you are making free thought something highly undesirable. 

Many are pushing for laws to further punish.

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

It's a workplace harassment issue.  You have no right to not be insulted outside the workplace.  Let's save time, and just respond with a cite not your interpretation.

Why - you'll just blow it off like you did with this one which was perfectly valid. I said it's a human rights crime- you've just agreed it's a human rights crime, within a workplace for sure.  So i was 100 percent right.  but rather than admit the simple truth you demand i prove it MOAR. 

Why are you such a dishonest pr*ck all the time?

There's tonnes of cases both with other crimes and even with customers of stores or denying service to people.

Here -from the ontario civil rights act:

What does the Ontario Human Rights Code say about gender issues?

Ontario added explicit protection for gender identity and gender expression to the Code in 2012. The Code prohibits discrimination and harassment against trans people in employment, services (including education, policing, health care, restaurants, shopping malls, etc.), housing, contracts and membership in vocational associations. The Code does not specify the use of any particular pronoun or other terminology.

ANd

The law recognizes that everyone has the right to self-identify their gender and that “misgendering” is a form of discrimination.

https://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/questions-and-answers-about-gender-identity-and-pronouns

Absolutely NOT confined to the workplace at all, if you go into a shopping mall and are misgendered while shopping - you're good to go for a HRT case.  Basically ANYTHING they have control over.

most of the other human rights acts contain similar language.

 

That enough for you you uneducated bloviated walrus or do i need to provide even more proof that there ARE rights to not being misgendered under the human rights code WHICH WAS MY ORIGINAL CLAIM.