Canada, pronouns, and compelled speech, yes, again

[epronovost]

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

Well you can refuse to talk to anybody who isn't cisgender or talk about non cisgender people within hearshot of them, but that might be complicated if not impossible (and also a form of harassment) within a workplace.

 

[icehorse]

Apparently not.

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

Strawman much?

 

[icehorse]

1 - 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.

2 - 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.

3 - 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.

(I took the liberty of numbering your questions)

1 - That's how I read the article. The employer was in trouble for not using the employee's preferred pronouns.

2 - That's also how I read the article. If these are not made up terms, then where are they codified?

3 - Same question as above?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Strawman much?

You got me. It was clear from the outset that it's not cis people you're suggesting be disrespected.

 

[icehorse]

You got me. It was clear from the outset that it's not cis people you're suggesting be disrespected.

strawman again - you're on a roll!

this is NOT about politeness or disrespect. It's about compelled speech.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I'm not so sure of that sometimes.

Based on what?

I assure you, your concerns are unfounded.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

strawman again - you're on a roll!

this is NOT about politeness or disrespect. It's about compelled speech.

What compelled speech?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

(I took the liberty of numbering your questions)

1 - That's how I read the article.

Really? Even the TERF blog you linked to described how the problem was a range of harassment including misgendering the employee.

The employer was in trouble for not using the employee's preferred pronouns.

No, the employer was in trouble for harassing the employee.

2 - That's also how I read the article. If these are not made up terms, then where are they codified?

Are you joking? The word "they" is "codified" the same place "he" and "she" are: the dictionary.

3 - Same question as above?

Then same question for you as for @Koldo .

 

[Kooky]

So do you guys believe that RF's forum rules regarding personal insults and attacks are oppressive and hostile to free debate?

They do place a rather significant penalty on that kind of behavior after all, and I hear I'm only free if I can literally call everybody whatever I feel like, even it it's a serious insult.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

strawman again - you're on a roll!

this is NOT about politeness or disrespect. It's about compelled speech.

What speech do you think was compelled?

The problem was with the speech the employer did make.

 

[Kooky]

So @icehorse, how do you feel about the way our speech on this forum is being compelled and restricted from free debate and the unfettered exchange of ideas? Do you find it overly oppressive that we cannot insult one another without suffering consequences and having our speech suppressed?

 

[icehorse]

So @icehorse, how do you feel about the way our speech on this forum is being compelled and restricted from free debate and the unfettered exchange of ideas? Do you find it overly oppressive that we cannot insult one another without suffering consequences and having our speech suppressed?

Wow, you're gonna have to connect a few dots there..

 

[icehorse]

What speech do you think was compelled?

The problem was with the speech the employer did make.

Here's an excerpt from the article:

The tribunal ruled that Mr Gobelle’s “use of female pronouns and gendered nicknames demeaned [Nelson] and undermined their dignity at work” and showed “indifference to Jessie Nelson’s lived experience.” The tribunal concluded that the behavior “and open hostility to changing his behaviour” constituted discrimination. Continue reading Tribunal Declares it a Human Rights Offense to Not Use ‘Preferred Pronouns’ | Women Are Human. Read more at: Tribunal Declares it a Human Rights Offense to Not Use 'Preferred Pronouns' - Women Are Human

So what legal approach to addressing "Ms" Nelson was left?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Here's an excerpt from the article:



So what legal approach to addressing "Ms" Nelson was left?

Referring to them by name rather than by demeaning nicknames would have been one approach.

 

[icehorse]

Referring to them by name rather than by demeaning nicknames would have been one approach.

In this thread I'm attempting to discuss the use of pronouns. And the use of pronouns was included in the tribunal's judgment.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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

Nope. Formal, civil, decent conversation has unwritten rules as well. Repeatedly and intentionally calling someone by the wrong name, wrong gender, or wrong whatever is harassment and easily goes into abuse. When it comes to government forms, medical records, or school records it simply isn't the place of the agent to decide who and what someone else is. In many instances it could be contradicting legal documents already established.
We have similar laws by default here, but when it comes to trangender people those who have a problem with it start crying "poor me" and having a self thrown pity party that they can't discriminate anymore. Such as, it doesn't matter you views on interracial marriage you simply cannot refer to the wife as her maiden name in various situations because you don't believe the marriage is valid, no more than a county clerk can check the "single" box for a married homosexual couple.
Jordan Peterson really did make an arse of himself, as he himself went unpunished for his attempted martyrdom amd how the bill still has failed to lead to his predictions.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In this thread I'm attempting to discuss the use of pronouns. And the use of pronouns was included in the tribunal's judgment.

The misgendering of the employee was included in the tribunal's ruling. Misgendering is not compelled speech.

But if you disagree, feel free to point me to the part of the tribunal's ruling where the employer's failure to use the pronoun "they" (as opposed to the employer's use of the pronoun "she") was identified as an issue.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

It is, but the ruling you're clutching your pearls over was about an employer saying things that they weren't allowed to say - and their effect on the employee - not about the employer's failure to say what was required to be said.

 

[icehorse]

Nope. Formal, civil, decent conversation has unwritten rules as well. Repeatedly and intentionally calling someone by the wrong name, wrong gender, or wrong whatever is harassment and easily goes into abuse. When it comes to government forms, medical records, or school records it simply isn't the place of the agent to decide who and what someone else is. In many instances it could be contradicting legal documents already established.
We have similar laws by default here, but when it comes to trangender people those who have a problem with it start crying "poor me" and having a self thrown pity party that they can't discriminate anymore. Such as, it doesn't matter you views on interracial marriage you simply cannot refer to the wife as her maiden name in various situations because you don't believe the marriage is valid, no more than a county clerk can check the "single" box for a married homosexual couple.
Jordan Peterson really did make an arse of himself, as he himself went unpunished for his attempted martyrdom amd how the bill still has failed to lead to his predictions.

Please, please, please. Do not conflate this with matters of civility or politeness. This is quite distinct from those.

 

[icehorse]

It is, but the ruling you're clutching your pearls over was about an employer saying things that they weren't allowed to say - and their effect on the employee - not about the employer's failure to say what was required to be said.

I'll ask again, which pronouns were legal for the employer to use?