Canada, pronouns, and compelled speech, yes, again

[Koldo]

A quick Googling suggests there are in fact gender neutral pronouns in Portuguese; they're just relatively new:

https://nonbinary.wiki/wiki/Gender_neutral_language_in_Portuguese

There are 10 or more proposed gender neutral pronouns, but none of them has actually gained traction yet. You just won't see them being used outside of social media. It is just people coming up with random words, but others just about never really using them.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

In fairness isn’t most polite interaction compelled speech anyway?

I think there is a big difference in polite speech being socially pushed, and polite speech being enforced by law.

 

[SomeRandom]

I don't know if you'll believe this but I as a teenager did exactly what you're saying shouldn't be done and got fired after 2 months. I attempted the impossible working retail sales and being honest as little George Washington. At the time I thought lying was a sin, so I wouldn't lie. This did not work. I was as pleasant as I knew how, but being so fickle about lying was a huge obstacle when it came to dealing with customers or anyone such as management. Weeks before I was fired somebody at work egg'd my car, and I never found out who. My manager mentioned I might be getting belief training, but the sound of these words were so alarming so me. She must have misunderstood the look on my face, because I got no training and was soon let go. Belief training sounded very evil to me, because I believed hard and believed in believing the truth. I did, and I believed it was absolutely the most important thing ever. What I heard was not belief training but something else. It never happened though as I was let go. I wasn't surprised to be let go since my sales were zero.

If nothing else I commend you on your ethical values. Our society doesn’t really reward such stringency, if that makes sense? At least not in my opinion.
Also I don’t blame you for your reticence lol. Belief training sounds suspiciously like brainwashing. Perhaps could have been phrased far better lol
Also someone egged your car? Damn!

I'm not who I was, but belief is a very big deal depending on who you talk to. People really think that they have the absolute truth about the world and that everyone else is living in a lie or dream. This is true. As you walk around and meet people, this is what many think.

I agree with your assessment. Belief can be something deep and intrinsic to a person’s worldview and identity.

I’m of the opinion that a person should absolutely have the right to believe and say whatever they please.
But as much of a meme it has become “we live in a society.”
I think it’s best if we keep in mind that we all have to be a bit flexible at times. Even when we don’t want to be. We will find co workers we hate, some we love, some who will backstab us and some who are just nice folks. We have to find a way to coexist and even work together.
We will be asked by our employers to do something that may conflict with our values at times. Sometimes that’s enough to get someone to quit. That’s fine.
It depends. But for those who stay, they just have to suck it up imo.
That’s just the reality we live in

 

[SomeRandom]

I think there is a big difference in polite speech being socially pushed, and polite speech being enforced by law.

All employers have speech that is technically enforced by law. It falls under various laws governing business/workplace behaviour. At least where I live. I mean my boss can’t just randomly verbally abuse me without facing legal consequences. Indeed many are only exceedingly polite for fear of being on the receiving end of a lawsuit

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I think I wasn't clear enough: I am satisfied with your previous answer. Harm being the dividing line is perfectly alright to me, as far as calling something a line goes on this context, even though it is not the line I would use myself.

I would add that there has to be the intent to do harm and that there must be social recognition for a word to be used in a certain way before someone is legally allowed to demand it. In other words, it wouldn't suffice for a person to claim that the proper pronoun to refer to them is XYZ, but rather XYZ would have to be the way that they are widely referred as before they can legally demand others to use it.

I wouldn't necessarily disagree with this, only with the caveat that "wide use" may not be the best determining factor. It's a thorny, complicated issue, to be sure, but I trust it won't be the end of free speech as we know it as some people have suggested.

 

[Kooky]

The part about 'Your Highness' was part of a larger context. Anyone can feel entitled to be to referred by a given pronoun, do you or do you not agree that people should be treated as they want to be treated? Or do you rather agree that it is not entirely up to the individual to determine how others will treat them?

Of course it's not up to the individual how others will treat them - therein lies the entire problem of organized society, and the primary need for basic human rights in the first place!

Personally, I consider it part of that human rights package to treat people by the gender identity they choose to live in, rather than restricting that treatment to a preferred cis-hetero-normative class of the privileged. This includes adressing them by the honorifics afforded to the gender they choose to live as, or negotiating another way to treat them by the same respect we afford people with visibly cisnormative identities.

Do you agree, or would you rather continue cooking up elaborate scenarios to justify pronouncing it impossible to treat trans, genderqueer and nonbinary people like we do cis people?

 

[Koldo]

Do you agree, or would you rather continue cooking up elaborate scenarios to justify pronouncing it impossible to treat trans, genderqueer and nonbinary people like we do cis people?

This is both a strawman and a loaded question.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is both a strawman and a loaded question.

No, the question is fair. Throughout this thread, you've consistently compared treating trans people with basic respect to invented, unreasonable scenarios. The implication is that you see treating trans people with respect as unnecessary and unreasonable.

I mean, that's the difference between using a person's proper pronouns and calling them "Your Highness." The fact that you keep telling us that you don't see the difference tells us about how little importance you place on treating trans people with respect.

... or is there something else that we should take from your posts?

 

[Koldo]

No, the question is fair. Throughout this thread, you've consistently compared treating trans people with basic respect to invented, unreasonable scenarios. The implication is that you see treating trans people with respect as unnecessary and unreasonable.

What part of "My suggestion would, if anything, only have a negative impact on people that insisted to be treated with a random word of their choice as their pronoun. On the other hand, a trans man would be treated as 'he' and a trans woman as 'she'." didn't you understand?

I mean, that's the difference between using a person's proper pronouns and calling them "Your Highness." The fact that you keep telling us that you don't see the difference tells us about how little importance you place on treating trans people with respect.

... or is there something else that we should take from your posts?

The crux of my posts was: regarding a pronoun as the proper one for someone shouldn't depend strictly on individual choice, particularly if we are talking about legal implications. No one is entitled to choose the pronoun they want to be referred as, per se. If you are a trans man, for example, you must be referred by the pronoun used to, respectfully, refer to trans man. Ditto for everyone else.

As someone that breathes laws for a living I have particular concern as to how they are written and interpreted to prevent abuses of any kind. If that's of no interest to you, you might not see it as much of a big deal as it is to me.