Gender titles, getting crazy

[Army Guy]

How does this fit into the LGBTQ community ? I mean they started this whole infinite gender theory do they have a say, does the government have any control, it's clearly not based in science or or any medical teachings..., they just make it as they go.....which begs the question why does everyone feel the need to agree....

Is their going to be a whole new list of genders classifications coming from the supreme courts,or is this just adding to all the confusion...I can just imigine how confusing this gets at the schools. 

[eyeball]

5 hours ago, CdnFox said:

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

LMAO! Yeah okay, whatever you say there Karen.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

LMAO! Yeah okay, whatever you say there Karen.

you think it isn't? LOL -  yeah, ok, whatever you say there cletus  

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

you think it isn't? LOL

Let's find out. Try getting me arrested and charged for calling you a whiny little girl.

[Perspektiv]

5 hours ago, Army Guy said:

I can just imigine how confusing this gets at the schools. 

Thats the whole point. 

The murkier you make things, the harder it becomes to push back on it.

I was recently in Hong Kong, where secession is punishable by up to life in prison.

No specifics.

Harder to enforce at will, if you are incredibly specific. Too many loopholes. You can arbitrarily punish, by keeping things vague.

It also creates fear, by design.

If you haven't read any books about Mao Zedong, you should. 

In his revolution, they used tactics such as shaming any opposition. Forcing many daring to to wear dunce hats, publicly with their crime outlined on it. In a shaming society, this is devastating. 

Of course, their measures went beyond the simple humiliation, but the bulk of their control was fear based.

Those who followed, were rewarded and those who did not, were thoroughly punished. 

That's archaic. We now have cameras. Social media which can make the shame spread like wild fire.

Most people don't want conflict, so it's easier to join than to push back.

Also easier to inject part of your ideology under the guise of education into children.

Want to strip away one's sense of identity, you start at the language. You also start very young.

Woman no longer is a valid word, and no scientific explanation is provided. Just fear based rhetoric, that gets murkier by the minute.

Gender, is no longer binary. This is even murkier. Move outside the bounds that are being placed, and you're transphobic. Lawmakers are trying to make this hate speech, even though it doesn't legally pass the sniff test.

If you genuinely think governments care about people, vs seeing the control they can impose on their population by using this group to impose restrictions on freedoms under safety and protections then this is something they will continue to do until more of the population pushes back.

 

 

[Michael Hardner]

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

Let's find out. Try getting me arrested and charged for calling you a whiny little girl.

You will always have the right to misgender, to insult, to belittle people... To call someone the n word, the f word etc.

It's a different thing to harass someone, to deny them service and discriminate against them, to deny them the right to work in a safe work environment.

I'm very confused with all these people who say they're in favor of trans rights. Also get hysterical when those rights are applied the same way all the others are.

It may be in fact that they are, as you say, whiny little girls..

 😜

[Perspektiv]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

You will always have the right to misgender, to insult, to belittle people

There are devastating consequences socially for doing the first one.

The right is there, but you're ignoring those fighting hard to remove it. 

Public humiliation, doxxing and other consequences are too high a price to pay, for accidentally misgendering someone so people avoid it, out of fear of reprisals.

100% actual crimes, like harassment should be punished, but let's not try changing the criminal code to protect people's feelings.

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

and discriminate against them

If a man in a dress (meaning no surgery, no hormones, simply identifies as female) wants to shower in the same shower at a gym where my wife's daughter works out at, I would not be okay with this. To such people, this is discriminatory. 

To me, you have a clearly grown male, showering in the same spaces as underage girls.

Anyone okay with this, I would question how much does safety truly matter to them, as you're making the trans woman a target and potentially endangering girls in the same breath. Its bad policy, while meaning well.

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

I'm very confused with all these people who say they're in favor of trans rights.

You have the right to exist. Violence against you, is a hate crime.

You shouldn't be discriminated against, in finding work.

There are basic human rights that should apply to everyone.

What you've misconstrued, is that people are against such rights, vs being against the ideology behind these movements.

This very thing being pushed to kids.

We can all coexist together.

I deal with the public, and can assure you that pronouns aren't even top 50 in most people's minds. In my regular life, I couldn't care less about pronouns. 

Being divisive actually makes these people targets.

I used to be part of an LGBT group. They used to be open doors to all. Now they are about you abiding to the ideologies, or get out. I must call myself cis to be inclusive, and fully accept the entire package to be deemed an ally.

Thats like me demanding you tell me you love chicken and watermelon, to prove to me you're not racist. Demanding you put a t-shirt pin with "Am with blacks" to prove you don't support slavery.

Sounds ridiculous, because it is.

The world doesn't owe you a thing.

If I can understand this as a black male, I fail to understand how others don't. 

[Michael Hardner]

33 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

1. There are devastating consequences socially for doing the first one.

2. The right is there, but you're ignoring those fighting hard to remove it. 

3. What you've misconstrued, is that people are against such rights, vs being against the ideology behind these movements.

 

4. I fail to understand how others don't. 

1. 8 would say n word and f word use is likely worse. Even the BC HRC ruling admitted misgendering as something that can happen innocently.

2. I am open to the idea that there could be a legal campaign that is specifically working to Disallow insults in a general context.  I would stand by you in opposing that.

3. You have a point.  But for me to respond I have to explain some new thoughts on this.  I think "ideology" as it's classically user refers to a system, rules or values that can be broken down, analyzed and especially weighed out in an objective context.  I think that this use is more akin to "mentality".  And yes I am trying to separate what people find distasteful about the social justice mentality with what "rights" mean.

4. The social justice movement calls that "lived experience" and puts more value on it than objective analysis.

 

[Zeitgeist]

“Lived experience” is the term used to justify all sorts of behaviour that used to be considered bad or unhealthy. It’s the term used to justify hormone blockers for kids, MAID for the mentally ill, hard drug use, and all forms of alternative sexual lifestyles, including pedophilia.

After all, Jeffrey Dahmer was just being himself.  Who are you to judge?

Edited March 14 by Zeitgeist

[CdnFox]

9 hours ago, eyeball said:

Let's find out. Try getting me arrested and charged for calling you a whiny little girl.

Sure - send me your name and address and where you work. 

[Perspektiv]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

The social justice movement calls that "lived experience"

I have lived through racism. It doesn't entitle me to reparations.

Many in my community feels that it does. I see one's lived experience being used to gain socially, is no different than a woman pulling the V card to get a man she doesn't like who has broken up with her, in legal hot water. Has nothing to do with equality or rights, but rather someone playing the victim card to advance whatever they see fit. 

Its lazy. 

I can't stand people using the plight of others in this way.

[CdnFox]

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

You will always have the right to misgender, to insult, to belittle people... To call someone the n word, the f word etc.

It's a different thing to harass someone, to deny them service and discriminate against them, to deny them the right to work in a safe work environment.

I'm very confused with all these people who say they're in favor of trans rights. Also get hysterical when those rights are applied the same way all the others are.

It may be in fact that they are, as you say, whiny little girls..

 😜

Maybe you're just a dishonest person. That seems much more likely.

You do not have the "right" to insult or belittle people.  Show me where that right exists - what law or constitutional provision provides that right? Lets see your cite.

 

How about this case: NO workplace involved -

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/vancouver-activist-morgane-oger-wins-landmark-transgender-rights-decision/article_ed4252cc-3cbc-56e8-af4a-1500ad3a20f6.html

The guy just put up flyers referring to the person as a 'biological male' and lost a human rights tribunal ruling. No workplace, no nothing.

 

So - there you go.

And this, mike, is why people say you're  a dishonest person.

[Michael Hardner]

6 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

 

The guy just put up flyers referring to the person as a 'biological male' and lost a human rights tribunal ruling. No workplace, no nothing.

 

So - there you go.

 

There I go how?  

It's a different case, but not misgendering either... I don't know whether I agree with the ruling, I'd have to see the poster.

Now, you support transgender rights.  What do you think?

The right to insult is contained within the right to free expression, no?

Edited March 14 by Michael Hardner

[CdnFox]

6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

There I go how? 

Ahhh more dishonestly from you mike.  "I honestly can't remember our conversation to this point or that i claimed it was only a workplace or services issue".   Right.

Quote

It's a different case, but not misgendering either..

It is 100 percent misgendering.  That's the entire point. That's why he lost.  She says she's a woman, he says he's a man.

So if you decide you're a woman and  i go put up flyers around saying 'Mike is a biological male not a woman as he claims his gender is and is pretending to be a woman for political reasons"  i have in fact misgendered you and can be tried at the human rights tribunal and fined insane amounts of money which if i don't pay btw i will be found to be in contempt of court and jailed.

Mike:  "SHOW ME A CASE!!!"

here's a case.

Mike: "ER - SHOW ME ANOTHER CASE"

here's another case.

Mike "STILL NOT GOOD ENOUGH TILL I REVIEW THE CASE AND SEE IF I AGREE WITH THE TRIBUNAL".

Sigh.

 

[Michael Hardner]

6 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

 That's why he lost.  She says she's a woman, he says he's a man.

Maybe.  The fact that you're being strident and not telling me how you would interpret the law, seems dishonest though, honestly. You're against dishonesty, that much is clear.  So spill it.

I don't know how I feel about this. I haven't read the ruling in full, or seeing the poster that the guy was putting up.

Do you want to tell me how you feel?

Who knows. We might agree. At least it seems like an edge case.

Of course, If your objective is just to be all caps this afternoon, I suppose there's not much I can do to move this conversation forward.

Edited March 14 by Michael Hardner

[CdnFox]

27 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Maybe.  The fact that you're being strident and not telling me how you would interpret the law, seems dishonest though, honestly. You're against dishonesty, that much is clear.  So spill it.

Why would I tell you how -I- interpret the law? Here's cases where the tribunals and judges have interpreted the law.  Claiming that somehow a  judge or tribunal verdict may be invalid based on my interpretation of the law is insane.  The lawful authorities say it's a violation - they are crystal clear saying people DO NOT have the right to misgender someone in ANY circumstances.  That is our highest authority - my opinion is not relevant, this has already been decided.  We do not have any right at all even a little bit to misgender people and in fact it's a human rights violation to do so.

The rulings all use the same logic and language - you have absolutely no right under freedom of speech or any other defense to misgender someone knowingly.  If someone says they're a girl, and you say they're a boy, you have committed a human rights violation. And you could face a human rights tribunal or a court - and if you yelled it at them or were found to have committed any other offense then it becomes a hate crime and your punishment for the other 'crime' shoots up.

 

Further i notice you haven't provided that cite i asked for showing you "always have the right" to be insulting as you suggest.

And again Mike - it's the dishonesty of people like you on the left which drive people to become more radicalized on the right. 

This was simple - "Oh - yeah well i guess it looks like misgendering people IS actually a human rights violation in canada".   Instead you dance around that and dishonestly claim it isn't and refuse to back up your claims with a cite.

You're that kind of person Mike.  Demand cites and give none while ignoring the evidence.

[Michael Hardner]

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Why would I tell you how -I- interpret the law?  

I don't know, because I asked?

I don't have an opinion on this, then.  And it seems like you don't either.

Added: yes I did explain why insults are ok.  Read the post.

Edited March 14 by Michael Hardner

[Zeitgeist]

While it may not be nice to misgender and most people probably wouldn’t do it to someone’s face, making it illegal to misgender is wrong because there are reasonable grounds for not calling someone their adopted gender: believing that one is always one’s biological gender (not unreasonable), accidentally misgendering (easy to do if someone looks like another gender, especially the biological one), and religious grounds (my faith believes that you are your natural God-given gender (not unreasonable for religious people).

I call someone their chosen pronouns and names, but it should remain a choice, as I may have legitimate reasons for doing otherwise.  Also, I would no doubt face ridicule and alienation from the community for “misgendering” someone, as Canadian society is ground zero for woke mind virus. Already I know I would be fired for misgendering due to organization policies.  It also appears that I would have to go before the Human Rights Inquisition — I mean Tribunal, to justify having a brain in a supposedly free country.

Edited March 14 by Zeitgeist

[CdnFox]

14 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I don't know, because I asked?

Why would you ask? The subject at hand is "do you have a legal right to misgender someone".  A number of judges and tribunals have said in plain english you do not. There's no room for 'opinion' - the lawful authorities have ruled on that question.

If you want to have a discussion about whether we SHOULD have the legal right to misgender people then we can discuss that but it is COMPLETELY a different subject.

18 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I don't have an opinion on this, then.  And it seems like you don't either.

Again with the lies. I have been 100 percent clear on my stance - we do not have the legal right according to the judges- here's the judges. So when you claim' i've been unclear or don't have a position that is a lie.

That's a verifiable fact.

You have stated your opinion - your opinion is that we DO have that right.  But you have refused repeatedly to provide any evidence of that, or show which constitutional or legal  instrument grants us that right.  For a person who CLAIMS that it's important to provide a source when you make a positive claim you sure avoid doing so.

So it's not that you don't have an opinion Mike - its that i've demonstrated that your statement was wrong and now you're trying to turn it into some sort of 'opinon' based discussion to avoid having to cope with that simple fact instead of being a man about it and saying "oh - well i guess we don't have that right'.

 

[Zeitgeist]

I think it’s hard for Mike to believe that our country has declined to this point.  Don the rose coloured glasses.

[CdnFox]

34 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

I think it’s hard for Mike to believe that our country has declined to this point.  Don the rose coloured glasses.

Its' hard for most of us i think but in the face of overwhelming evidence ya gotta man up

The simple fact is you absolutely do not have the right to misgender someone and unfortunately people DO have a  lot of 'right' not to be offended in a lot of instances.  Compelled speech is now a thing, people can demand you say a thing when talking to them.

And that trend has been going up, not down and while i would guess that PP may very well get rid of some of the more gross examples of that such as the new laws the libs are proposing he's not going to spend the huge amount of time and political capital needed to get rid of it entirely.

[Michael Hardner]

40 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

I think it’s hard for Mike to believe that our country has declined to this point.  Don the rose coloured glasses.

You're flipping past what I actually said.  I suppose it's easier that way.

[CdnFox]

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

You're flipping past what I actually said.  I suppose it's easier that way.

No. Mike, nobody is flipping past what you said.
 

It's that what you said was wrong but you can't be a man and admit it - it's that you try to pretend you said something else when what you say turns out to be false.

BTW - where's that cite? Weren't you just going on a day ago about how people should be forced to give relevant cites and here you are refusing my very legit request for which legal instrument guarantees our right to insult people and misgender them that you claim exists?

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, CdnFox said:

.

BTW - where's that cite?  

Spoonfeeding you because I am nice.

"Fundamental Freedoms

 

The charter guarantees everyone the freedom of conscience and religion; thought, belief, opinion, and expression, including freedom of the press and other means of communication; peaceful assembly; and association."

https://www.cga.ct.gov/PS98/rpt\olr\htm/98-R-0143.htm#:~:text=The Canadian Charter or Rights,by jury in certain cases.

 

If you want to explain your thinking on the ruling let me know.  I am up 1-0 on you for responding to requests.

Now turn off caps lock and go outside and pet a cat.  

[CdnFox]

7 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Spoonfeeding you because I am nice.

So now when YOU give a cite it's "spoonfeeding" and being nice despite your constant demands of others  

Quote

 

"Fundamental Freedoms

 

The charter guarantees everyone the freedom of conscience and religion; thought, belief, opinion, and expression, including freedom of the press and other means of communication; peaceful assembly; and association."

 

Show me where it says you have the right to offend other people. Show me where it says you can misgender them.

It doesn't. Anywhere.

And in the cases i already cited to you the judges explain why the charter does not apply to misgendering.  I've already supplied that. So you already know that your statement above is not applicable.

So where's the cite mike?  Again - show me where it says you have the right to misgender people.

 

Quote

Now turn off caps lock and go outside and pet a cat.  

And where have i been using caps lock?  Nothing in the last three posts, don't recall any before that.

Gee mike - its as if you realized you were a lying sack and are trying to make it sound like I'm the unreasonable one to deflect from your own stupidity.

Hey mike - if you have to lie to make your point - you don't have a point.  And you don't have a point.

I think we're done here, this conversation is for adults and you're just not up to it.  You do not have the right to misgender anyone. Sorry for your ignorance.

 

Edited March 14 by CdnFox