Canada, pronouns, and compelled speech, yes, again

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ok, bolding the sentence wasn't enough, let me isolate it for you:

That's all you have?

The tribunal suggested that an employer could make this policy. They're not requiring it. There's no compelled speech here.

So the compelled speech would be that others are compelled to address the offended team member using the personal pronoun of the offended member's choice.

... if the employer chose to make this their policy, which they're not compelled to do.

... so it would be "compelled speech" in the same sense that when I worked in retail, I was "compelled" to say hello to customers when they walked into my area.

 

[icehorse]

Then you are being deliberately obtuse and hyperbolic in your reading of it.

Please stop exaggerating what is a simple case of an employer being an abusive jerk into a moral drama about freedom of speech. This fear-mongering about pronouns is a nonsense and you know it.

A legal tribunal wrote that sentence, this is not casual conversation. Legal rulings must be carefully written, lest they be challenged.

You're wrong about my motivations here, wanna take another stab? You're at infinity - 1, how long could it take?

 

[icehorse]

The tribunal suggested that an employer could make this policy.

Now you're referring to a different sentence

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Now you're referring to a different sentence

Fun fact: a colon doesn't create a new sentence. Here's the whole sentence:

The restaurant can draft its own language, but it could be something like: ‘Pronouns – All team members have the right to be addressed by their own personal pronouns.’

 

[Koldo]

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.

Ah, so you were talking about my very first post, ok.
I didn't take it to mean that people could refer to their gender with any made-up term they like and others would be required to use it, nor that people could pick any term - gender-related or not - like "Your Highness" and others would be required to use it. I merely asked where people are drawing the line on where it is proper, if it included those cases as well. Isn't the entire point about treating others as they want to be treated?

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"?)

No, I am merely asking to what extent we should treat others in they way they want to be treated as far as using their preferred pronoun goes.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

A legal tribunal wrote that sentence, this is not casual conversation. Legal rulings must be carefully written, lest they be challenged.

Nothing about that statement implies anything that you think it does. Read it again.

You're wrong about my motivations here, wanna take another stab? You're at infinity - 1, how long could it take?

You are very obviously fear-mongering about a nearly impossibly trivial issue, and deliberately misrepresenting the facts.

Seriously, you need to calm down and re-read the statement.

 

[icehorse]

Nope. That sentence doesn't say that. Read it again.

Suppose the restaurant codified the language "suggested" by the tribunal. Would the tribunal not then be forced to later defend the right of any offended employee whose preferred pronoun was not used?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Heh... I don't remember saying it was defensible.

And as I touched on earlier, the singular "they" is older than the singular "you."


I think the singular "they" is fine when talking in generalities (e.g. "whoever closes up should make sure the door is locked behind them"), or about an unknown person, or about someone who hasn't indicated their pronouns.

If someone says that the prefer "he" or "she" and I insist on using "them," then sure - that would be rude.

Is that what @icehorse 's complaint is? I didn't get that impression. She keeps going on about "compelled speech" (even though she - so far, at least - can't point to any actual examples of it).

We basically agree on everything, though I myself will always argue we need a different word than a singular they so the meaning is clear. But that's because I prefer speech that is clear and concise as much as possible.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Suppose the restaurant codified the language "suggested" by the tribunal. Would the tribunal not then be forced to later defend the right of any offended employee whose preferred pronoun was not used?

Lets say I have a restaurant amd you work for me. Am I being compelled that I can't put "Horse Face" on your name tag and have to call you Icehorse (or whatever your name is)? Is it being compelled that I should refer to you as sir rather than miss?

 

[icehorse]

Lets say I have a restaurant amd you work for me. Am I being compelled that I can't put "Horse Face" on your name tag and have to call you Icehorse (or whatever your name is)? Is it being compelled that I should refer to you as sir rather than miss?

I self-identify as "The Dude", and I'll sue you if you fail to refer to me as such

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Suppose the restaurant codified the language "suggested" by the tribunal. Would the tribunal not then be forced to later defend the right of any offended employee whose preferred pronoun was not used?

Sure, just as they would be called upon to support the rights of employees to be called by their actual names rather than an offensive nickname, or any name they would prefer to go by if the alternative was personally insulting to the employee.

This is not compelled speech.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I self-identify as "The Dude", and I'll sue you if you fail to refer to me as such

Horse Face it is.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I'm at a loss, don't know what to make of it. It is indeed a case of the government compelling him to recognize her transgender status in his speech, so the government is indeed telling him what to think or to lie about what he thinks. Its not a situation in which everyone can be a winner unless they all say "Sorry" and let it go, but that may not be possible. Somebody has to lose.

Who told him what to think?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Well I see Canada now slipping down the freedom index.

Really? Why particular one of the 76 indexes used is this going to negatively impact?
For reference, Canada scored a perfect 10 for gender, and I'm not thinking this will harm that.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I understand that using the wrong pronoun can be utterly unsettling, to say the least. But here are my questions to you both: Where do you draw the line? Must others use a pronoun I have created myself out of thin air, for instance? Must others call me 'Your Highness' if I find it the only appropiate pronoun to refer to me? By 'must' I most certainly mean as in 'compelled by law'.

Umm. No. The law is the line.

 

[Koldo]

Umm. No. The law is the line.

Do you mean you agree with whatever becomes the law? If not, there is probably a misunderstanding here. I am not asking what the law is. I am asking what people think the law should be.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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.

Arbitrary words?
Most people get to choose what we call them, though.
I've worked with plenty of folks and currently manage people's who have preferred names different to their legal names. Is that any more arbitrary?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

No, I am merely asking to what extent we should treat others in they way they want to be treated as far as using their preferred pronoun goes.

Before people were really worried about matching a person's genitals and DNA to pronouns, if someone were to constantly refer to a colleague as the opposite pronoun knowing it bothered them, it would have been harrassment and they could be fired.

So to that extent.

 

[Koldo]

Before people were really worried about matching a person's genitals and DNA to pronouns, if someone were to constantly refer to a colleague as the opposite pronoun knowingit bothered them, it would have been harrassment and they could be fired.

So to that extent.

The case in the OP is not about using the opposite pronoun though. Do you disagree with enforcing the usage of the singular 'they'?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

The case in the OP is not about using the opposite pronoun though. Do you disagree with enforcing the usage of the singular 'they'?

Not in the workplace and for the reason I stated. From the article:

"Manager Brian Gobelle “persistently referred” to the employee with “she/her pronouns and with gendered nicknames like ‘sweetheart’, ‘honey'” – and owing to the pink hair dye job – “‘pinky’.”

If I were to use this same language with a male in the workplace despite being told it was upsetting them, it'd be harrassment. Is that compelling my speech?