Canada, pronouns, and compelled speech, yes, again

[ImmortalFlame]

Which really is important, but I am more interested more in the situation in the restaurant. Its not fair to force people to agree about this. I hate being called 'Sir'. Everywhere I go I am called 'Sir'. It means "Old man" to me. I don't like it, but I understand. I understand that its not about me.

But, let's say that - for whatever reason - being called "sir" was actually something that came with a lot more baggage to you. Let's say that being called "sir" is actually something that you find demeaning, or belittling. And let's say you make people aware of this. But the same people keep calling you "sir", no matter how much you tell them not to. What's more, they do it in a pointed fashion, intentionally doing it because it is upsetting to you.

When you make it clear that you prefer a particular mode of address, and another person is clear that they understand you prefer a certain mode of address, for them to disregard that and instead continue to use a mode of address that they know upsets you is abuse.

That's really all there is to it.

What Canada is doing is trying to push the 3rd wave ideal that sexuality is not real and is only a social construct.

Wait... What??

Huh?

Firstly, I don't think I've heard "sexuality isn't real" being pushed anywhere.

Secondly, what the hell does that have to do with pronouns?

Well they could be wrong. It sounds like some in government want to remake the way people think about relationships through forcing the use of new personal pronouns. They want to change everyone through laws.

This is just conspiracy theory nonsense. It's two steps shy of the JQ.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Why is this one, specific instance so troubling compared to the myriad of others?

Its just the thread we happen to be discussing.

I don't allow (in legal precedent) for the government to say that my rights come from it. If parties in my country were allowed to define our speech they could (and would) make it illegal to talk against their own party. We already have had several politicians try this. Doctor President Trump looked for loopholes to make it illegal or wildly expensive to criticize himself. Can't happen in Canada? Yes, it can. I remember hearing about some of their politicians, and they are playing with fire letting the government recognize the right to personal pronouns.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Sexuality is a social construct though. Do you think heterosexuality and homosexuality just appeared out of thin air? Both are adaptations of humanity. And both are probably not entirely realistic in all honesty. I can’t remember the specific study, though I’ll try my best to find it. The study basically says most humans are innately a “3” on the Kinsey scale. Which is essentially just bicurious. Granted I acknowledge the Kinsey scale probably isn’t the best scale out there. If you get me?
In all honesty that always made sense to me. We are an ape subspecies and sexual encounters even in nature aren’t all about procreation. Often merely just about familial bonding or other reasons. Apes are not 100% either or so it makes sense (at least to me) that we wouldn’t be either. Given that we are literally related to them. If you accept the Theory of Evolution of course.
We are constantly updating our knowledge about sexuality and arguably (to some) merely catching up. The Navajo Indians famously had like 5 genders. How old are they again? My culture has recognised at least 3 genders for like 6,000 years. If anything the West or “Third wave” is just catching up now.

That is interesting and useful information that is not taught in schools, here as far as I'm aware. News to me.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Once again, would you agree with whatever happened to be the law? If not, then why are you pointing to the line drawn by the law?

Once again, because you suggested this was the thin edge of an undefined wedge. It's not.
There are specific rules in place to protect trans and non-binary people.
Yet you use an example of wanting to be called 'Your Highness'. It's a case of being 'not even wrong'. If you want to start arguing the merits of the law, why did you make an argument that completely ignores and flies in the face of the law?

But if you wish to explain your issue with the legal protections in place for trans and non-binary people in Canada, go for it. I'll provide my response.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

"The restaurant was additionally ordered to, within three months’ time, add “a statement to its employee policies that affirms every employee’s right to be addressed with their own personal pronouns.” The tribunal elaborated:

--the article​

The restaurant was told by the government in this ruling that its employees must use the personal pronoun even if they hate the personal pronoun or don't think its appropriate. You can argue its beneficial thought control, however thought control is what it is. They are not allowed to say "I don't agree with the way you want to be addressed."

Still not seeing where they're being told what to think.
They're being told how to act in a work environment. Have you never been told how to act in a work environment? How to dress? When to show up, when you're allowed to take breaks, when you can leave?

 

[Koldo]

Once again, because you suggested this was the thin edge of an undefined wedge. It's not.
There are specific rules in place to protect trans and non-binary people.
Yet you use an example of wanting to be called 'Your Highness'. It's a case of being 'not even wrong'. If you want to start arguing the merits of the law, why did you make an argument that completely ignores and flies in the face of the law?

But if you wish to explain your issue with the legal protections in place for trans and non-binary people in Canada, go for it. I'll provide my response.

I don't care about the law. I am not a canadian, it has no relevance to me. What I am interested into is where people draw their lines on what should be the law, on how far they would support making it illegal to treat people in a distinct way than what they want to be treated.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I don't care about the law. I am not a canadian, it has no relevance to me. What I am interested into is where people draw their lines on what should be the law, on how far they would support making it illegal to treat people in a distinct way than what they want to be treated.

So your point is that allowing this marks a path to you demanding to be called 'Your Highness'?
Perhaps just using this post as your opening gambit would have been clearer.

In any case, I have no issues with the concept that repeatedly using non-preferred pronouns for a person in a malicious way is considered provocation, and treated as harrassment.

 

[SomeRandom]

That is interesting and useful information that is not taught in schools, here as far as I'm aware. News to me.

Wow really?
I remember learning that in health and my SOSE class

 

[Alienistic]

I just stay quiet at work around people I don’t know. Even if I am wearing my LGBTQ+S+AE (Straight and All Ethnicities) allies shirt- I don’t feel like being fined, imprisoned, called a racist bigot, domestic terrorist, etc for simply saying hello, smiling at, or opening the door (let alone any improper pronouns) for the wrong sensitive or easily offended person.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Still not seeing where they're being told what to think.
They're being told how to act in a work environment. Have you never been told how to act in a work environment? How to dress? When to show up, when you're allowed to take breaks, when you can leave?

I've also been told to sign documents that I didn't want to sign in order to keep my job. After I had the job and was working in it the bosses came and told everyone we were going to sign an agreement. A lot of people walked. That's what this is. It is requiring a contract in which you affirm that person's personal pronoun, so it is compelled speech and thought. The ruling requires that you agree they should be called something, and if you don't agree then either pretend you do or leave. Its not simple job compliance.

 

[Koldo]

So your point is that allowing this marks a path to you demanding to be called 'Your Highness'?
Perhaps just using this post as your opening gambit would have been clearer.

In any case, I have no issues with the concept that repeatedly using non-preferred pronouns for a person in a malicious way is considered provocation, and treated as harrassment.

No. That's not it. I am merely asking you how far you go with the rationale that we should make it illegal to refuse to use someone's preferred pronoun. If that includes allowing people to create pronoun for themselves or to only accept being referred as 'Your Highness', for example.

The central point here is: To what point should people be legally entitled to be treated in the way they want to be treated?

Of course we do agree that harassment is never alright. But at what point can a request to be treated in a certain way be outright refused for being downright silly, for example, thus not entailing harassment to refuse to comply with it?

Here in Brazil we speak portuguese. Since there is no gender neutral pronoun in portuguese, people would need to create one for themselves. Should I have to, legally, make use of whatever they happen to create for themselves? If Bob wants me to use Hazer as the pronoun and Mary wants me to use Prea, would I need to comply with their request?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

No. That's not it. I am merely asking you how far you go with the rationale that we should make it illegal to refuse to use someone's preferred pronoun. If that includes allowing people to create pronoun for themselves or to only accept being referred as 'Your Highness', for example.

The central point here is: To what point should people be legally entitled to be treated in the way they want to be treated?

Of course we do agree that harassment is never alright. But at what point can a request to be treated in a certain way be outright refused for being downright silly, for example, thus not entailing harassment to refuse to comply with it?

Here in Brazil we speak portuguese. Since there is no gender neutral pronoun in portuguese, people would need to create one for themselves. Should I have to, legally, make use of whatever they happen to create for themselves? If Bob wants me to use Hazer as the pronoun and Mary wants me to use Prea, would I need to comply with their request?

Having gender neutral pronouns resolves this issue, to my mind. We don't have them in English. We can use something like 'they' as an approximation, but it's grammatically incorrect, which concerns some people (and is used as a shield by others).

The case in the OP wasn't about someone choosing a pronoun though. It was about the opposite pronoun...along with various other disparaging nicknames...being repeatedly used. Bullying, basically.

I could care less about the nuance of each individual insult. The overall intent was what lead to a wrongful dismissal being found, and I fully support that.

I call my workers by their chosen names. Sometimes I struggle to pronounce them, or accidentally use a full version when they prefer a shortened version, etc. If one of my staff transitioned, I might make some honest mistakes. That's not where I see this protective law being relevant. This is about deliberate behaviour around a person's identification and the ongoing misrepresentation of that. I have no issue with trans and non-binary people having protection from that.

If I called my female staff 'honey', I would see that as inappropriate, never mind that 30 years ago it was probably common and reflex for some. If I repeatedly did it after they asked me not to, it becomes more sinister. No great difference here.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I've also been told to sign documents that I didn't want to sign in order to keep my job. After I had the job and was working in it the bosses came and told everyone we were going to sign an agreement. A lot of people walked. That's what this is. It is requiring a contract in which you affirm that person's personal pronoun, so it is compelled speech and thought. The ruling requires that you agree they should be called something, and if you don't agree then either pretend you do or leave. Its not simple job compliance.

Can I call my female staff 'honey' in your opinion?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Can I call my female staff 'honey' in your opinion?

No, I don't think so. I think not.

 

[Koldo]

Having gender neutral pronouns resolves this issue, to my mind. We don't have them in English. We can use something like 'they' as an approximation, but it's grammatically incorrect, which concerns some people (and is used as a shield by others).

But what if the person in question doesn't want to be called by a gender neutral pronoun?

The case in the OP wasn't about someone choosing a pronoun though. It was about the opposite pronoun...along with various other disparaging nicknames...being repeatedly used. Bullying, basically.

I could care less about the nuance of each individual insult. The overall intent was what lead to a wrongful dismissal being found, and I fully support that.

I call my workers by their chosen names. Sometimes I struggle to pronounce them, or accidentally use a full version when they prefer a shortened version, etc. If one of my staff transitioned, I might make some honest mistakes. That's not where I see this protective law being relevant. This is about deliberate behaviour around a person's identification and the ongoing misrepresentation of that. I have no issue with trans and non-binary people having protection from that.

If I called my female staff 'honey', I would see that as inappropriate, never mind that 30 years ago it was probably common and reflex for some. If I repeatedly did it after they asked me not to, it becomes more sinister. No great difference here.

I was speaking about a larger context. Consider the following post that I was originally quoting:

How is this any more an instance of "compelled speech" than fining an employer for repeatedly and insistently calling an employee, say, "idiot" or "little kid"? I don't know about you, but I think insults are largely dependent on the listener's preferences, so if an employer goes out of their way to refuse to be respectful toward an employee's personal boundaries when those don't harm anyone else and then fires said employee, I think that could be reasonable grounds for fining the employer.

I would support the same penalty against any employer who frequently referred to a male employee as "she" or a female one as "he." This isn't exclusive to trans and non-binary people, and it shouldn't be viewed as such.

What I find worrisome is that, by following this rationale, the listener gets to be legally entitled to choose how they want to be treated. It is not just a matter of being respectful in a way that would be socially recognized as respectful.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

No, I don't think so. I think not.

Me either. Why?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

But what if the person in question doesn't want to be called by a gender neutral pronoun?

I'd try and accommodate, personally. But legally? Bad luck.

I was speaking about a larger context. Consider the following post that I was originally quoting:



What I find worrisome is that, by following this rationale, the listener gets to be legally entitled to choose how they want to be treated. It is not just a matter of being respectful in a way that would be socially recognized as respectful.

I get what you mean, but that's why I think in this case it's important to consider the legislation and this case. Looking at it from a 'slippery slope' point of view suggests that everything is protected, and people can just make crap up and then force other people to submit to that. But that's not even close to an accurate representation of this case, or how the legislation works.

There are already lots of rules (at least here) protecting workers rights. How they are addressed, and particularly deliberately harrassing behaviour falls within this. I don't much care if that behaviour is gender based or not, but certainly gender based behaviour is covered...and should be.

As for the 'socially recognised' part...well, that's kinda the point. At various times it's been socially acceptable to harrass black people, immigrants, women, homosexuals, etc. Now it's not.

I get that this seems more contentious to some now, but some appear to be clutching their pearls needlessly, imho.

To be clear, I don't mean you. Anyone trying to discuss the issue isn't a problem to my mind.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"The restaurant was additionally ordered to, within three months’ time, add “a statement to its employee policies that affirms every employee’s right to be addressed with their own personal pronouns.” The tribunal elaborated:

--the article​

The restaurant was told by the government in this ruling that its employees must use the personal pronoun even if they hate the personal pronoun or don't think its appropriate. You can argue its beneficial thought control, however thought control is what it is. They are not allowed to say "I don't agree with the way you want to be addressed."

Something I find interesting in all this:

I don't see people complaining about the vast majority of "compelled speech."

For instance, federal and most provincial employees have to take an oath of office. Don't want to swear loyalty to the Queen? Then you don't get the job. On issues like that, we get crickets from the "compelled speech" crowd, but when the "compelled speech" is about being respectful to an LGBTQ person, that's when we start to hear the complaints.

This suggests to me that it's the idea of respect for LGBTQ people and not the "compelled speech" that's really the issue here.

However, I'm open to having my mind changed. If anyone wants to point me to other threads they've created complaining about "compelled speech" that don't have anything to do with treating trans or enby people with respect, please feel free to post them and show me I'm wrong.

 

[Kooky]

I don't care about the law. I am not a canadian, it has no relevance to me. What I am interested into is where people draw their lines on what should be the law, on how far they would support making it illegal to treat people in a distinct way than what they want to be treated.

How about drawing the line at people who are currently suffering injustice, discrimination, or even outright persecution all over the world due to their sexual orientation, gender identity, and desire to live their life as they please without doing harm to anybody?

Does that sound like a sensible line to you?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Me either. Why?

It makes you, knowingly or not, come across as condescending and offensive, because these terms are belittling jabs. It implies you have an intimate relationship with someone that you don't. It is also imposing control over their personal lives through your work relationship, and they will probably feel it.

That is a culture change from the way things used to work. Not calling people things that they don't like is an improvement.