Canada, pronouns, and compelled speech, yes, again

[ImmortalFlame]

Can one have protected classes of people and still call it equal?

Not "people". "Classes". Everyone belongs to certain protected classes, including your gender, age, ethnicity, etc.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I've brought this up before. Several years ago in Canada Jordan Peterson argued quite publicly against proposals in Canada that would compel Canadians to use the preferred pronouns of gender fluid(?) people. Sometimes I agree with JP, sometimes I don't. So let's not conflate the message with the messenger

I've heard from some more progressive Canadians (and non-Canadians), that JP was being an alarmist, that of course nothing like compelled speech was going to happen.

The following article appears to me to be an example of JP being prophetic. Indeed, it would appear that NOT using someone's preferred pronouns can be illegal in Canada. ARGH !!!!

Tribunal Declares it a Human Rights Offense to Not Use 'Preferred Pronouns' - Women Are Human

Sorry - what's the issue here?

(I mean with the actual case, not your spin)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The line is easy to draw, it has already been drawn. Are you a class protected by the Canadian Bill of rights? If yes, people must respect that identity and offer you the same dignity than any other groups. Can I force people to call me "Your Highness"? No, "pretend monarchs" aren't a protected class of people in the Bill of Rights. Transgender people and non-binary people are. We have collectively decided that these people are our equal and deserve respect and dignity like everybody else, thus harassing, slandering or appealing to hatred against them is illegal.

Charter of Rights and Freedoms, not Bill of Rights.

(Canada had a Bill of Rights, but it was superseded by the Charter)

Canadian Bill of Rights | The Canadian Encyclopedia

 

[Revoltingest]

I've brought this up before. Several years ago in Canada Jordan Peterson argued quite publicly against proposals in Canada that would compel Canadians to use the preferred pronouns of gender fluid(?) people. Sometimes I agree with JP, sometimes I don't. So let's not conflate the message with the messenger

I've heard from some more progressive Canadians (and non-Canadians), that JP was being an alarmist, that of course nothing like compelled speech was going to happen.

The following article appears to me to be an example of JP being prophetic. Indeed, it would appear that NOT using someone's preferred pronouns can be illegal in Canada. ARGH !!!!

Tribunal Declares it a Human Rights Offense to Not Use 'Preferred Pronouns' - Women Are Human

There's already compelled speech in employment &
licensed professions. This is hardly a pimple on an
elephant's butt in comparison.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

This is NOT about politeness. I'm all for politeness.

This is about being forced to use arbitrary words on pain of breaking the law.

All words are objectively arbitrary but have the potential for intense subjective meaning.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is NOT about politeness. I'm all for politeness.

Apparently not.

This is about being forced to use arbitrary words on pain of breaking the law.

So you're okay with us referring to you however we want?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Not "people". "Classes". Everyone belongs to certain protected classes, including your gender, age, ethnicity, etc.

I'm not so sure of that sometimes.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Question... Then isn't the article referring to them as "Ms Nelson" wrong?

Yes. The OP's link is from an anti-trans site.

A less agenda-laden article about the same thing: B.C. server who was fired after asking staff to use they/them pronouns awarded $30K

 

[Koldo]

That's a fundamentally stupid question. I don't draw any line. I am not in control of the law and never will.

I personally like where the line has been drawn. It seems reasonable, but then again, there might be groups to whom protection should be extended.

Obviously I wasn't asking about how you enact and enforce the law. I was asking at which point you consider someone should not be legally entitled to the pronoun they want.

Well one had something to do with gender, a protected class, and a inherent characteristic of your identity while the other is an honorific which doesn't have anything to do with it. If you have a special pronoun that has something to do with your gender go away and demand it to be used, but if it has nothing to do with your gender identity, then don't expect it to be respected. Honorifics are another cup of tea.

So as long as I claim that a certain word is the pronoun proper to my gender I must be free to demand and enforce it legally. Is that correct?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So as long as I claim that a certain word is the pronoun proper to my gender I must be free to demand and enforce it legally. Is that correct?

How on Earth did you come to that conclusion?

 

[Koldo]

How on Earth did you come to that conclusion?

I take it you read the last couple of posts, right?

Here is the key part that might be missing:

I have said:
"Assume I am a non-binary person that doesn't find it proper to refer to me as he, she or they. What I want you to call me is Shehey. Are you fine with it being illegal to call me he, she or they?"

To which @epronovost replied:
"In the context of your employment or in official documents, yes."

 

[epronovost]

So as long as I claim that a certain word is the pronoun proper to my gender I must be free to demand and enforce it legally. Is that correct?

In the context of your employment and official documents and in broad terms, yes. That's basically the law. If a cisgender person can be referred to by the pronoun that describe them accurately, so can non-binary people.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I take it you read the last couple of posts, right?

Yes. That's why I asked.

Here is the key part that might be missing:

I have said:
"Assume I am a non-binary person that doesn't find it proper to refer to me as he, she or they. What I want you to call me is Shehey. Are you fine with it being illegal to call me he, she or they?"

To which @epronovost replied:
"In the context of your employment or in official documents, yes."

Still doesn't clear anything up for me.

 

[Koldo]

Yes. That's why I asked.


Still doesn't clear anything up for me.

I am not sure how you didn't understand my conclusion then.

Let me try this way:
Do you agree that I can create a word out of thin air and claim that it is the proper pronoun to my gender?

 

[Koldo]

In the context of your employment and official documents and in broad terms, yes. That's basically the law. If a cisgender person can be referred to by the pronoun that describe them accurately, so can non-binary people.

But as a cisgender I don't get to create the pronoun I want. Or do I?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am not sure how you didn't understand my conclusion then.

Because here's the chain we've gone through:

- the Tribunal ruled that harassing a genderfluid person - including misgendering them - is illegal discrimination (at least in Canada).

- the OP took this to mean that this "compels speech" on the part of employers and that employers are required to use their employee's correct pronouns.

- you (apparently) took this to mean that people could refer to their gender with any made-up term they like and others would be required to use it.

- you then went further and (apparently) took this to mean that people could pick any term - gender-related or not - like "Your Highness" and others would be required to use it.

Justifying that first leap of the OP's is her problem, but I'm asking you to justify why you made those two leaps that you did. Your post didn't address this.

Let me try this way:
Do you agree that I can create a word out of thin air and claim that it is the proper pronoun to my gender?

You can do whatever you want. The case is about how others treat you.

Are you trying to say that "creating a word out of thin air" is analogous to a genderfluid person going by the pronoun "they"?

(BTW: did you know that in English, the singular "they" is older than the singular "you"?)

 

[epronovost]

But as a cisgender I don't get to create the pronoun I want. Or do I?

Well it already exist. You don't need to create yours because our language was built by cisgender people and for their needs. There are well established conventions for the use of pronouns for cisgender people. There are few options for people who don't fit into that mold; until a convention arises for a non-binary pronoun, one will have to be created. Yes, it's a bit chaotic, but such is life. New developments in language and society require some time for it to shift. In English, ''they'' is often use and very popular, but there is no common agreement in the English grammar that ''they'' should be used for non-binary people hence the other formulations. Note that in other languages like french, where every word is either gendered feminine or masculine, it's even more complicated.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But as a cisgender I don't get to create the pronoun I want. Or do I?

What pronoun do you want?

 

[Stevicus]

Just out of curiosity, how does it work with languages where "gender" is also a function of vocabulary and grammar? Some languages have each word designated as "masculine," "feminine," or "neuter." The English language doesn't really have that concept, other than with pronouns.

 

[icehorse]

I can't call people *****es, ********, *****, or wankers without repercussions but you don't hear me complaining about how my speech is unfairly constrained.
I can think of plenty of other words as well, to utter them in formal company and in business and public in general is going to come with consequences.
Being free doesn't mean free to do whatever free of consequences.

what you CANNOT say is very different than what you MUST say, correct?