I for one think this is a terrible idea, considering how silly most of those "pronouns" can get. (Xer, Xee etc.) And now you can get in trouble if you don't want to call them their imaginary names. And considering how angry the whole LGBT feminist movement can get, makes some people that speak their mind very easy targets. (See the professor)
So what is Dakka's other Canadians thought on this?
The idea that gender roles exist as tools of the patriarchy feels ass-backwards to me. In a feminist theory context, surely it ought to be the other way around, that the gender roles are what created patriarchy in the first place?
No this again... We can't have trans equality because men are going to dress as women to sneak in to bathrooms. Utter nonsense. I don't see any issue with the law. Also, people should be addressed how they would like to be. All words are imaginary and it's just polite to respect someone's wishes, if they want to be called Mr, Mrs, Miss, Ms, E, Jee, Xe, Professor Sir or lord high commander. I'm much happier respecting the wishes of someone who insists on being called Xe than some of the prats I work with (although indirectly) who insist on being referred to by their title and the one that won't even acknowledge you if you don't use his Sir.
Steve steveson wrote: No this again... We can't have trans equality because men are going to dress as women to sneak in to bathrooms. Utter nonsense. I don't see any issue with the law. Also, people should be addressed how they would like to be. All words are imaginary and it's just polite to respect someone's wishes, if they want to be called Mr, Mrs, Miss, Ms, E, Jee, Xe, Professor Sir or lord high commander. I'm much happier respecting the wishes of someone who insists on being called Xe than some of the prats I work with (although indirectly) who insist on being referred to by their title and the one that won't even acknowledge you if you don't use his Sir.
The predators have been waiting (outside loos) for just such an opportunity. The mystical sigils preventing a breach are to be removed.
I for one think this is a terrible idea, considering how silly most of those "pronouns" can get. (Xer, Xee etc.) And now you can get in trouble if you don't want to call them their imaginary names. And considering how angry the whole LGBT feminist movement can get, makes some people that speak their mind very easy targets. (See the professor)
So what is Dakka's other Canadians thought on this?
The rally that ended in the letter was held by UoT, they take gender studies as a U.S Marines would take an enemy beach. It's just their post-graduate culture.
Let's see what the fuss is all about.
https://openparliament.ca/bills/42-1/C-16/ wrote:
This enactment amends the Canadian Human Rights Act to add gender identity and gender expression to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination.
The enactment also amends the Criminal Code to extend the protection against hate propaganda set out in that Act to any section of the public that is distinguished by gender identity or expression and to clearly set out that evidence that an offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on gender identity or expression constitutes an aggravating circumstance that a court must take into consideration when it imposes a sentence.
I don't see a foundamental problem. Gender identity, regardless of what it is, is a core component of an individual's personnality, and as such, should be protected from hatred. If the only scare scenario that you can summon is the one where everyone and their mother being brought to the judge because they misused pronouns one too many time, then no, you haven't provided a valid reason to prevent the law. Minute concerns such as this do not weight much in the face of Human Rights.
Steve steveson wrote: No this again... We can't have trans equality because men are going to dress as women to sneak in to bathrooms. Utter nonsense. I don't see any issue with the law. Also, people should be addressed how they would like to be. All words are imaginary and it's just polite to respect someone's wishes, if they want to be called Mr, Mrs, Miss, Ms, E, Jee, Xe, Professor Sir or lord high commander. I'm much happier respecting the wishes of someone who insists on being called Xe than some of the prats I work with (although indirectly) who insist on being referred to by their title and the one that won't even acknowledge you if you don't use his Sir.
TL;DR: "I don't understand how gender identity works or what transgender people really experience, but let me tell you all about the men who are going to do awful things."
I for one think this is a terrible idea, considering how silly most of those "pronouns" can get. (Xer, Xee etc.) And now you can get in trouble if you don't want to call them their imaginary names. And considering how angry the whole LGBT feminist movement can get, makes some people that speak their mind very easy targets. (See the professor)
OH GOD WTF NOOOOO THE WORLD IS ENDING I CANT BE DISRESPECTFUL AND TELL PEOPLE I DON"T APPROVE OF THEIR PRONOUN CHOICES WHAT WILL WE DOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There's been an element of the left doing the screaming for quite a while. It's this really weird situation where exteme-left feminists ally with the extreme right-wing religious fanatics because they both hate transgender people. Thankfully the extreme-left element is very small and doesn't have much power. In fact, most of the attention they get comes from people writing "WTF IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE" articles, take away the need for clickbait and they'd go back to having single-digit readers.
I think I get where the author of the article is coming from, but at the same time I think it might be a bit of an overreaction. Altering the language used doesn't fundamentally change the essence of protections laws or criminal charges. Assault is assault whether the assaulter is male or female, and I think it's a flaw to presume that women never harass men in the way the author seems to conclude. Functionally laws that go both ways male to female, female to male, male to male etc etc would be the most pragmatic. EDIT: I guess what I'm saying is laws should take a transgendered nature when dealing with things that can effect basically anyone. Anyone can be harassed, assaulted, abused, raped (hypothetically we all wish...) so I see no reason why laws shouldn't reflect this.
I mean, it's not like human beings are dumb as gak and incapable of putting 2 and 2 together just because of the words-
Bill C-16 isn't even a change in the law. Sex and sexual orientation were already covered under the law, and sex and gender aren't given much differentiation under Canadian law AFAIK. Further, most Canadian provinces already have that in their provincial laws, and those that don't have implicit protection I mention above.
As for pronoun use, for it to be actionable under discriminatory/hate crime legislature it has to be pretty extreme. Not using someone's preferred pronoun won't be considered extreme. You know that woman that wants to be referred to as Ms. rather than miss? It's that level of silliness. You could call a woman "mister" all you want and there's little legal recourse for her under the law, transgender folk will have basically identical non-recourse.
The article in question is dumb. Arguably washroom architecture is far more enabling to sexual predators than any accommodations being made to transgender people.
All that said, I'm not in favor of bill C-16. It's a waste of the government's time, given these protections were already in place, if merely implicit rather than explicit. It's also smoke and mirrors for their plan to privatize a bunch of crown properties. Yes, it's a distraction from them selling government property to their cronies, which is the issue Canadians SHOULD be outraged over.
As for pronoun use, for it to be actionable under discriminatory/hate crime legislature it has to be pretty extreme. Not using someone's preferred pronoun won't be considered extreme.
Can you give some examples of "pretty extreme" pronoun use?
As for pronoun use, for it to be actionable under discriminatory/hate crime legislature it has to be pretty extreme. Not using someone's preferred pronoun won't be considered extreme.
Can you give some examples of "pretty extreme" pronoun use?
I'm sure you can use Google yourself. There are trans-specific pejorative pronouns (i.e. slurs), just as for any other discern-able group.
The problem the law is going to run into is that the words 'he' and 'she' predate the concept of gender identity. For all intents and purposes, they refer to both gender identity and biological sex, which is almost always the same thing. It makes it difficult to argue that simple 'misgendering' is a hate crime.
Additionally, even in Ontario, which has had trans protection in place for a while now, provincial ID still uses 'sex' to identify people rather than gender identity. It certainly makes it seem that the government considers biology more important than gender identity.
I'm sure you can use Google yourself. There are trans-specific pejorative pronouns (i.e. slurs), just as for any other discern-able group..
I'm aware of the pejoratives, but at what point does it enter into the "pretty extreme" category and become actionable. Seems vague. I'm not asking you to type the pejoratives as some sort of trap to say something someone may find offensive, I'm genuinely curious. From reading the article below, I find that Canada might have much tougher free speech laws than America, which is where my disconnect is possibly occurring.
Also, here's a article in defense of the bill where the defender states that refusal to use the pronouns may become actionable. "In the future", sure, but it's there, and apparently already a practice in the Ontario Human Rights commission? (Bolded)
Bill C-16 – No, its Not about Criminalizing Pronoun Misuse
by Brenda Cossman
From the sounds of it, Bill C-16 – an Act to Amend the Canadian Human Rights Code and the Criminal Code is all about speech – or rather, its curtailment.
Psychology Professor Jordan Peterson has made headlines the last two weeks, claiming that the Bill before the federal House of Commons is an unprecedented attack on free speech. He has claimed that the new law will criminalize the failure to use individual’s preferred pronouns. In a rally at the University of Toronto last week, he went so far as to say that the bill is the most serious infringement of freedom of speech ever in Canada.
The thing is – he is wrong.
Bill C-16 does three things.
First – It adds the words “gender identity or expression” to the Canadian Human Rights Code. This will prevent the federal government and businesses within federal jurisdiction – like banks – from discriminating on the basis of gender identity and gender expression.
The federal government is late to this game – most of the provinces and territories already include gender identity and gender expression in their provincial Human Rights Codes.
In 2002 the Northwest Territories were the first government in the Canada to explicitly prohibit discrimination against trans people by including gender identity in their Human Rights Code. In 2012, Manitoba added gender identity to their human rights legislation. In that same year, Ontario and Nova Scotia added both gender identity and gender expression to their human rights laws. Prince Edward Island as well as Newfoundland and Labrador followed suit in 2013. In 2014 Saskatchewan made provisions for gender identity, and in 2015 Alberta joined the club, adding both gender identity and expression to their Human Rights Code.
The other five provinces and territories—British Columbia, Québec, New Brunswick, Nunavut Territory, and the Yukon—have implicit protection, having interpreted their Human Rights Codes as including gender variance under existing prohibited grounds.
Bill –C-16 is just the federal government catching up on long overdue human rights protections for individuals within its fairly limited jurisdiction.
Non-discrimination on the basis of gender identity and expression may very well be interpreted by the courts in the future to include the right to be identified by a person’s self identified pronoun. The Ontario Human Rights Commission, for example, in their Policy on Preventing Discrimination Because of Gender Identity and Expression states that gender harassment should include “ Refusing to refer to a person by their self-identified name and proper personal pronoun”. In other words, pronoun misuse may become actionable, though the Human Rights Tribunals and courts. And the remedies? Monetary damages, non-financial remedies (for example, ceasing the discriminatory practice or reinstatement to job) and public interest remedies (for example, changing hiring practices or developing non-discriminatory policies and procedures). Jail time is not one of them.
The second thing that the Bill does is add the words “gender identity or expression” to two sections of the Criminal Code. So surely this must be what Peterson is getting at? Criminalizing something? Well, lets take a closer look.
It will add the words “gender identity and expression” to section 318(4) of the Code, which defines an identifiable group for the purposes of “advocating genocide” and “the public incitement hatred” It joins colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation or mental or physical disability.
Finally, Bill C-16 also adds “gender identity and expression” to section 718.2(a)(i) of the Criminal Code dealing with sentencing for hate crimes. The provision provides that evidence that an offence is motivated by bias, prejudice or hate can be taken into account by courts in sentencing. The list already includes race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation or any other similar factor.
So what does this mean for pronoun misuse? Well, refusing to use a person’s self identified pronoun is not going to be considered advocating genocide – unless the refusal to use the pronouns was accompanied by actually advocating genocide against trans and gender non-binary folks.
Similarly, it’s hard to see the refusal to use the appropriate pronoun –without something else – rising to the threshold of hate speech. Hate speech laws in Canada have only been used- and only can be used – against extreme forms of speech – explicitly and extreme forms of homophobic, anti-Semitic or racist speech. Moreover, prosecution needs the approval of the Attorney General.
It is entirely appropriate for gender identity and expression to be added to the list of identifiable groups. Hate speech directed at trans and gender non binary individuals should be treated the same as hate speech on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation. But, being treated equally means that the speech will have to be extreme and the Attorney General will have to approve the prosecution. These are not run of the mill prosecutions against professors who refuse proper pronoun usage. Offensive, sure. But criminal? Not unless it was accompanied by some other really nasty speech that promoted hatred towards trans and gender non-binary folks.
To return to the claim that Bill C-16 is the most serious infringement on free speech in Canada? Well, Professor Peterson is simply showing his ignorance around the history of free speech in Canada. There have been many endless limitations on free speech in Canada – many with which I disagree. Obscenity and indecency laws for example have long limited a broad range of literary, artistic and political expression in Canada – indeed far more so than our hate speech laws.
Personally, I am not a big fan of hate speech laws. I worry that prosecutions under hate speech laws end up bringing more rather than less attention to the offending speech, and more often than not, turns the offensive speaker into a martyr. I would rather see words fought with words. But, I also understand the arguments in favour – as the Supreme Court of Canada has said, it “send[s] out a strong message of condemnation….the community as a whole is reminded of the importance of diversity and multiculturalism in Canada, the value of equality and the worth and dignity of each human person being particularly emphasized.”
As long as we have hate speech laws, then it is a legal no-brainer that trans and non-gender binary individuals should be afforded the same protection as all other Canadians.
And that’s what Bill C-16 is about. Equality for trans and non-gender binary Canadians. It’s pretty simple. And right. And decent.
The bulk of the article is about how C-16 can't be used in that manner. The Ontario Human Rights Commission (one province of Canada) suggests that not using someone's chosen name or self-assigned gender pronoun 'could' constitute Harassment. That's not the same as Hate Crime.
The bar on harassment is much lower. Harassment involves how a (target) person 'feels', while hate crime covers public incitement of hate and sponsoring genocide.
A lot of this will have to actually go through the courts before we actually get proper legal rulings on how it will all shake out. Harassment is a very easy charge to throw out because all a person has to do is 'feel harassed'. If a trans person has had their name legally changed, then people addressing them with their previous name are refusing to acknowledge a legal change of name, which is a legal no-no regardless (anyone who has undergone a legal name change could cry harassment in that situation).
The use of "he' or "she" in an improper fashion gets a bit murkier, given they refer to both gender ID and sex simultaneously. Bottom line, it's relatively pointless to not accommodate a trans person in a minimal fashion, even if you disagree with the notion of gender identity as separate from sex. C-16 changed nothing in this regard, as harassment law is separate from discrimination and hate crime law.
Anytime someone puts down "The Patriarchy" as an actual thing I stop listening.
Blaming your issues in singular entity as if it exists as something to be toppled is insane. Why? because problems exist as a web of complex social issues that inter lap and strengthen. My proffessor once said that all problems are related to one another, with some problems causing others, so you cannot stop problems without knowing the source of it. You can only lesson it"
To the people concerned with bathrooms, there's a pretty easy fix. Most bathrooms already contain stalls. Just use them, instead of pissing in the floor drain. That way, nobody can see you tinkle, and nobody can care what physical equipment you come with.
Same deal with change rooms. Most change rooms have stalls, or washrooms therein with stalls, so go use it. If you're worried that the big bad transperson is going to rape you in a public changeroom... I expect the real issue is internal.
Using proper pronouns would require an awareness of a person that is impossible in the real world. If I see someone that looks like a "she", I refer to that person as her. If that person requests that I call them something else, so long as it isn't M'lady, or Master, or Hey Goodlookin' then I wouldn't have a problem with it. I don't make a habit of inspecting facial features and comparing them to genital features, and I doubt that anyone else is either.
So no, I don't have a problem. I personally don't understand the whole gender segregation thing in the first place. If people were less weirded out by nudity, the whole thing would lose it's sexual overtones. There's a difference between nudity and sexuality. Anyhow, I approve of protections for all persons to be treated fairly and respectfully.
John Prins wrote: The bulk of the article is about how C-16 can't be used in that manner.
Ya, thats why the parts about "in the future" stuck out to me, as it contradicts what the author says the Bill can't do.
John Prins wrote: The Ontario Human Rights Commission (one province of Canada) suggests that not using someone's chosen name or self-assigned gender pronoun 'could' constitute Harassment. That's not the same as Hate Crime.
The bar on harassment is much lower. Harassment involves how a (target) person 'feels', while hate crime covers public incitement of hate and sponsoring genocide.
But why then does the Human Rights Commission feel the need to weigh in on that type of harrassment, unless they beleive it is in fact hate based? And what if someone feels that the harrassment is in fact a public incitement? Such as a business owner or a celebrity of some note is accused of that sort of harrassment.
John Prins wrote: A lot of this will have to actually go through the courts before we actually get proper legal rulings on how it will all shake out.
Which is why critics of the Bill are apprehensive about the implications of this bill.
John Prins wrote: Harassment is a very easy charge to throw out because all a person has to do is 'feel harassed'. If a trans person has had their name legally changed, then people addressing them with their previous name are refusing to acknowledge a legal change of name, which is a legal no-no regardless (anyone who has undergone a legal name change could cry harassment in that situation).
If my computer at work, which is a database of customer info, doesn't reflect their change of name and I use that in e-mails and correspondence, is that harassment? Or does it require ill will, and how does one prove it one way or the other? Are there protections against simple mistakes or clerical errors? Or am I subject to what someone "feels" happened?
John Prins wrote: The use of "he' or "she" in an improper fashion gets a bit murkier, given they refer to both gender ID and sex simultaneously.
Which is why critics of the Bill are apprehensive about the implications of this bill.
John Prins wrote: Bottom line, it's relatively pointless to not accommodate a trans person in a minimal fashion, even if you disagree with the notion of gender identity as separate from sex. C-16 changed nothing in this regard, as harassment law is separate from discrimination and hate crime law.
I can agree to that to some extent, but the main beef people have are the same things you mention, that I put in bold.
Steve steveson wrote: No this again... We can't have trans equality because men are going to dress as women to sneak in to bathrooms. Utter nonsense. I don't see any issue with the law. Also, people should be addressed how they would like to be. All words are imaginary and it's just polite to respect someone's wishes, if they want to be called Mr, Mrs, Miss, Ms, E, Jee, Xe, Professor Sir or lord high commander. I'm much happier respecting the wishes of someone who insists on being called Xe than some of the prats I work with (although indirectly) who insist on being referred to by their title and the one that won't even acknowledge you if you don't use his Sir.
But this time it's the left doing the screaming.
Popcorn?
I'd argue that the author seems more right wing to me. She claims to be progressive but I would argue that most of the ideas she presents as examples of feminism are of mainstream and could easily be accepted within anything but the most extreme right won't conservatives.
If my computer at work, which is a database of customer info, doesn't reflect their change of name and I use that in e-mails and correspondence, is that harassment? Or does it require ill will, and how does one prove it one way or the other? Are there protections against simple mistakes or clerical errors? Or am I subject to what someone "feels" happened?
No. Under Canadian law, you can't press charges of harassment UNTIL the target has informed the 'offender' that the target feels harassed. If they fail to STOP at that point, then it's harassment. You don't have to be a mind reader to tell if someone has been harassed by you, they have to explicitly inform you that they feel harassed by your behavior.
So if you 'misgender' someone, they are required to correct you as to their preferred personal pronoun, they can't go straight to harassment charges. The law can't even force you to use their preferred personal pronoun, though it can force you from using the one they don't like.
The entire bathroom-gender debate is moronic in the extreme. The whole thing is predicated on the idea that it's 'normal' to be completely okay taking your clothes off in front of someone of the same gender and completely against taking your clothes off in front of someone of the opposite gender. I put it to you that if you're worried about people sneaking into the wrong bathroom to peek it says much, much more about the general level privacy within the bathroom than it does about anything to do with any gender.
Start building individual bathrooms or bathrooms with fully-enclosed stalls instead of the normal half-a**ed partitions and we can knock the gender signs off the front and move on with our lives. And trans people get to just go to the godd*** bathroom like everyone else instead of getting into an argument about it.
I for one think this is a terrible idea, considering how silly most of those "pronouns" can get. (Xer, Xee etc.) And now you can get in trouble if you don't want to call them their imaginary names. And considering how angry the whole LGBT feminist movement can get, makes some people that speak their mind very easy targets. (See the professor)
So what is Dakka's other Canadians thought on this?
Not Canadian, but as an American, I consider this a waste of Canadian taxpayer money.
But another country, another system. Apparently, many Canadians are okay with this, since they continue to elect politicians who cook up this nonsense.
greatbigtree wrote: To the people concerned with bathrooms, there's a pretty easy fix. Most bathrooms already contain stalls. Just use them, instead of pissing in the floor drain. That way, nobody can see you tinkle, and nobody can care what physical equipment you come with.
Same deal with change rooms. Most change rooms have stalls, or washrooms therein with stalls, so go use it. If you're worried that the big bad transperson is going to rape you in a public changeroom... I expect the real issue is internal.
Using proper pronouns would require an awareness of a person that is impossible in the real world. If I see someone that looks like a "she", I refer to that person as her. If that person requests that I call them something else, so long as it isn't M'lady, or Master, or Hey Goodlookin' then I wouldn't have a problem with it. I don't make a habit of inspecting facial features and comparing them to genital features, and I doubt that anyone else is either.
So no, I don't have a problem. I personally don't understand the whole gender segregation thing in the first place. If people were less weirded out by nudity, the whole thing would lose it's sexual overtones. There's a difference between nudity and sexuality. Anyhow, I approve of protections for all persons to be treated fairly and respectfully.
Your argument ignores the concerns of actual women, especially teenage girls who are already dealing with issues concerning self image.
As a Libertarian, the concept of the government making such a law is abhorrent. Just leave people alone and apply the existing laws against assault and harassment.
Frazzled wrote: Your argument ignores the concerns of actual women, especially teenage girls who are already dealing with issues concerning self image.
Exactly, self image is a problem for women. This is why trans women (who are "actual women") should be allowed to use the appropriate bathrooms/locker rooms/etc for women and not have their self image destroyed by being forced to pretend to be a man.
Frazzled wrote: Your argument ignores the concerns of actual women, especially teenage girls who are already dealing with issues concerning self image.
Exactly, self image is a problem for women. This is why trans women (who are "actual women") should be allowed to use the appropriate bathrooms/locker rooms/etc for women and not have their self image destroyed by being forced to pretend to be a man.
Which ignores the concerns of women who outnumber your group by anywhere from 99 to 1,000 times depending on the study?
If you don't address their concerns you get...Trump.
As Canada is in an economic recession and their exchange rate is now 1.35 I'd suggest they have far more important things to worry about.
It's only a concern if you believe that people who want to use the bathroom are going to be doing things that aren't going to the bathroom in the bathroom.
I'm still confused why a law saying treat people the way they want to be treated, is apparenty a bad thing. Like all those health and safety laws, they shouldn't really be needed but there's too many idiots who think joy riding a forklift truck is a good idea.
Something about treating others the way you want to be treated.
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: It's only a concern if you believe that people who want to use the bathroom are going to be doing things that aren't going to the bathroom in the bathroom.
You're not female so have no grounds to make that statement.
I'm still confused why a law saying treat people the way they want to be treated, is apparenty a bad thing. Like all those health and safety laws, they shouldn't really be needed but there's too many idiots who think joy riding a forklift truck is a good idea.
Something about treating others the way you want to be treated.
Because it says the government can do harm to you if you do not do what it says.
From where I come from, the last time the government mandated laws about bathrooms it required an entire movement to get it changed, and that was after the worst war in its history. You've now let government so completely into your life that it literally controls everything. Even the Soviets didn't use government control to control bathrooms.
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: It's only a concern if you believe that people who want to use the bathroom are going to be doing things that aren't going to the bathroom in the bathroom.
You're not female so have no grounds to make that statement.
I'm still confused why a law saying treat people the way they want to be treated, is apparenty a bad thing. Like all those health and safety laws, they shouldn't really be needed but there's too many idiots who think joy riding a forklift truck is a good idea.
Something about treating others the way you want to be treated.
Because it says the government can do harm to you if you do not do what it says.
From where I come from, the last time the government mandated laws about bathrooms it required an entire movement to get it changed, and that was after the worst war in its history.
You've now let government so completely into your life that it literally controls everything. Even the Soviets didn't use government control to control bathrooms.
You aren't either Fraz, but you can make your earlier statement?
So your telling me a government shouldn't make it's citizens play nice with each other, with repercussions, if they can't.
As far as I can tell the Soviets would have probably cared if you were dissenting in a bathroom, not doing your business in the bathroom you feel is appropriate.
You aren't either Fraz, but you can make your earlier statement?
Yes I have a daughter and very familiar with her little SJW troupe, and we've discussed junk like this a lot (I may have to warn UT, if she's protesting - don't approach her if her hair is red or blue that day. Blue or green is clear, but red-she'll tear your face right off). I might even relive my youth and join a few on the weekend with her.
So your telling me a government shouldn't make it's citizens play nice with each other, with repercussions, if they can't.
Its not the government's place to tell people what to do in every facet of their lives. As noted, where I come from, government has been used to oppress people. In your country as well, after all some of mine were driven out of there by your government.
As far as I can tell the Soviets would have probably cared if you were dissenting in a bathroom, not doing your business in the bathroom you feel is appropriate.
When even the Soviets wouldn't do it, maybe the Canadians shouldn't either.
You aren't either Fraz, but you can make your earlier statement?
Yes I have a daughter and very familiar with her little SJW troupe, and we've discussed junk like this a lot (I may have to warn UT, if she's protesting - don't approach her if her hair is red or blue that day. Blue or green is clear, but red-she'll tear your face right off). I might even relive my youth and join a few on the weekend with her.
So your telling me a government shouldn't make it's citizens play nice with each other, with repercussions, if they can't.
Its not the government's place to tell people what to do in every facet of their lives. As noted, where I come from, government has been used to oppress people. In your country as well, after all some of mine were driven out of there by your government.
As far as I can tell the Soviets would have probably cared if you were dissenting in a bathroom, not doing your business in the bathroom you feel is appropriate.
When even the Soviets wouldn't do it, maybe the Canadians shouldn't either.
I too can pull the female relation card "when she's winding up to kick you in the goolies, now's the time to stop questioning everything she says" with a younger sister.
As far as was explained above, this is a "I'd like to be refered to as X, could you stop referring to me as Y" kind of law, seems less intrusive and more on the side of I assume existing Canadian harrasment laws. There's government rulings that are scary "see the snoopers charter in the UK" and government rulings that don't really need to exist but people can't apparently use common sense and not "lynch Blacks, refer to someone using their correct pronoun once you know about it, joy ride a fork lift truck". This for me falls into the latter and not the former.
So, would this bill allow men in Canada to use women's bathrooms or not?
I think it should, because just like making something "white-only" is discriminating against black people, making something "women-only" would be similarly discriminating against men now that gender-based discrimination has been equated with racial discrimination.
That is kinda scary, to be honest.
Apart from that little consideration, I don't think this bill is as bad as many make it out to be.
You're not female so have no grounds to make that statement.
I'd make his statement too, for what it's worth.
Frazzled wrote: To be clear I am not making it out as absurdly bad, just arguing as people tend to overlook da wimminz on these issues.
And that's all well and good but this is not the way to do it. If you really care about the 'wimminz' there are countless issues both bigger and more real that can be adressed without kicking transpeople in their private parts.
You're not female so have no grounds to make that statement.
I'd make his statement too, for what it's worth.
Frazzled wrote: To be clear I am not making it out as absurdly bad, just arguing as people tend to overlook da wimminz on these issues.
And that's all well and good but this is not the way to do it. If you really care about the 'wimminz' there are countless issues both bigger and more real that can be adressed without kicking transpeople in their private parts.
How is kicking trans "in their private parts?"
If there is no law, then there is no law against them doing what they want to do either.
If there is no law then I can continue to treat everyone equally and continue to refer to them as "worthless bags of mostly water."
Frazzled wrote: How is kicking trans "in their private parts?"
The bathroom issue. In Sweden you can use what bathroom you like and the amount of issues this has created is exactly zero.
The bill that was the actual original topic also is already law here, and has also helped a lot more than it has harmed.
In Canada you can as well, same for the US (I don't know about Louisiana as that is a separate country). You don't need a law telling people what to do.
All that said, I'm not in favor of bill C-16. It's a waste of the government's time, given these protections were already in place, if merely implicit rather than explicit. It's also smoke and mirrors for their plan to privatize a bunch of crown properties. Yes, it's a distraction from them selling government property to their cronies, which is the issue Canadians SHOULD be outraged over.
This is the real issue. The Canadian Liberal Party is not "left" wing, not really. They have the same "private good, public bad" mantra the Cons have, they just leave the social and religious nonsense out when it comes to crafting their policy.
The fact that a few very rich friends of the Libs are going to become even richer as the government sells off our public assets is the real fething issue.
Not this totally fabricated moral outrage about what fething gender pronoun someone, somewhere may want you to use.
I for one think this is a terrible idea, considering how silly most of those "pronouns" can get. (Xer, Xee etc.) And now you can get in trouble if you don't want to call them their imaginary names. And considering how angry the whole LGBT feminist movement can get, makes some people that speak their mind very easy targets. (See the professor)
So what is Dakka's other Canadians thought on this?
Not Canadian, but as an American, I consider this a waste of Canadian taxpayer money.
But another country, another system. Apparently, many Canadians are okay with this, since they continue to elect politicians who cook up this nonsense.
Given that we've just barely ousted Governor Bathroom Bill, I don't think we've got a whole lot of room to throw stones about 'wastes of taxpayer money'...
Frazzled wrote: You don't need a law telling people what to do.
Considering you have laws telling people they are not allowed to discriminate based on race, or that they are not allowed to murder one another, it would appear that you do.
Frazzled wrote: You don't need a law telling people what to do.
Considering you have laws telling people they are not allowed to discriminate based on race, or that they are not allowed to murder one another, it would appear that you do.
You can literally use that argument for anything the government wants to do. Evidently absolutism is something you look forward to.
Frazzled wrote: How is kicking trans "in their private parts?"
Because self-appointed bathroom police often make trouble for anyone they think isn't the appropriate gender (based on their superficial impressions, of course). So trans people who don't look absolutely 100% like their intended gender risk getting harassed and having their identity denied. With a law granting them explicit permission to be there the bathroom police can still object, but can at least be answered with "STFU, you're wrong" and have no power to force anyone to leave.
Frazzled wrote: How is kicking trans "in their private parts?"
Because self-appointed bathroom police often make trouble for anyone they think isn't the appropriate gender (based on their superficial impressions, of course). So trans people who don't look absolutely 100% like their intended gender risk getting harassed and having their identity denied. With a law granting them explicit permission to be there the bathroom police can still object, but can at least be answered with "STFU, you're wrong" and have no power to force anyone to leave.
They can already say STFU. Its easy. I just did it.
Anyone with no sense of smell, a strong stomach, or the courage to use the same bathroom as I do is more than welcome to risk their life/sanity. I really do not care who or what they are, but they are assuming all risk to their mental well being.
Frazzled wrote: How is kicking trans "in their private parts?"
Because self-appointed bathroom police often make trouble for anyone they think isn't the appropriate gender (based on their superficial impressions, of course). So trans people who don't look absolutely 100% like their intended gender risk getting harassed and having their identity denied. With a law granting them explicit permission to be there the bathroom police can still object, but can at least be answered with "STFU, you're wrong" and have no power to force anyone to leave.
They can already say STFU. Its easy. I just did it.
Then the rentacop forces or shame them out, rat them to their employer and get them fired. This exact scenario happened yesterday to a lady in my Union, and then another time about 6 years ago back in Alberta.
C-16 may be a sham, but the effect remains that it publicize an aspect of the Law that many ignore, and as such it does accomplish a certain positive role.
oldravenman3025 wrote: Not Canadian, but as an American, I consider this a waste of Canadian taxpayer money.
But another country, another system. Apparently, many Canadians are okay with this, since they continue to elect politicians who cook up this nonsense.
Maybe read the law. There was a nice summary above. This amends a couple of pieces of law to extend existing protections to also include gender identity. The cost you are so worried about is some liquid paper and a black pen.
oldravenman3025 wrote: Not Canadian, but as an American, I consider this a waste of Canadian taxpayer money.
But another country, another system. Apparently, many Canadians are okay with this, since they continue to elect politicians who cook up this nonsense.
Maybe read the law. There was a nice summary above. This amends a couple of pieces of law to extend existing protections to also include gender identity. The cost you are so worried about is some liquid paper and a black pen.
The real cost is the time wasted in the House of Commons that could have been spent on other bills. The House only has so much time to deal with stuff, and bills can and do die out because there isn't enough time in the year to debate them fully.
John Prins wrote: The real cost is the time wasted in the House of Commons that could have been spent on other bills. The House only has so much time to deal with stuff, and bills can and do die out because there isn't enough time in the year to debate them fully.
Could you clarify just which important bills with sufficient support to pass died out because time was spent on this one?
John Prins wrote: The real cost is the time wasted in the House of Commons that could have been spent on other bills. The House only has so much time to deal with stuff, and bills can and do die out because there isn't enough time in the year to debate them fully.
Could you clarify just which important bills with sufficient support to pass died out because time was spent on this one?
The session's not over yet. it ends Dec 16. For a full list of bills in front of the House of Commons https://openparliament.ca/bills/
And yes, there are a lot of time wasting bills in there. S-208 (a bill introduced in the senate) for "National Seal Products Day" is my favorite. There are 5 currently "dormant" bills put forth by the standing government. and 22 currently under debate, never mind all the MANY private member's bills, some of which actually look worthwhile but few private members bills ever pass; they get very little debate. Bill C-277 would introduce a framework to guarantee all Canadians access to high quality palliative care. How much real debate will that get? C-223 died on the floor, and it was about establishing a Canadian Organ Donor Registry. Fortunately it's been moved to the standing committee on health, so there's still hope for it.
John Prins wrote: The law can't even force you to use their preferred personal pronoun, though it can force you from using the one they don't like.
First, let me state this isn't a hill I really wish to die on, but I find interesting. However, if the law can exclude the use of all but the preferred, it essentially is forcing you to use the preferred- at least if you wish to interact with them (or if you have to interact). There's a subtle difference between the government saying 'you can't call someone something hateful' and 'you MUST say the right words'. Compelling vocal assent by law just doesn't sit right with me.
That said, I'd happily call anyone by whatever they want. I'd just take exception to the government trying to compel me to do so.
Also correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't calling a guy a girl (don't be a girl, it's just a snake!) effectively fall under this?
Again, this whole gender pronoun issue is smokescreen to distract us from the fact the the Trudeau government is selling off parts of our future to have some cash to flash today. It's stupid and shortsighted.
I for one think this is a terrible idea, considering how silly most of those "pronouns" can get. (Xer, Xee etc.) And now you can get in trouble if you don't want to call them their imaginary names. And considering how angry the whole LGBT feminist movement can get, makes some people that speak their mind very easy targets. (See the professor)
So what is Dakka's other Canadians thought on this?
sounds kind of stupid
So, If I say my pronoun is "god Emperor" Anthony, could I have someone arrested for not using it?
And yes, there are a lot of time wasting bills in there. S-208 (a bill introduced in the senate) for "National Seal Products Day" is my favorite. There are 5 currently "dormant" bills put forth by the standing government. and 22 currently under debate, never mind all the MANY private member's bills, some of which actually look worthwhile but few private members bills ever pass; they get very little debate. Bill C-277 would introduce a framework to guarantee all Canadians access to high quality palliative care. How much real debate will that get? C-223 died on the floor, and it was about establishing a Canadian Organ Donor Registry. Fortunately it's been moved to the standing committee on health, so there's still hope for it.
That doesn't answer my question. I asked about bills which had enough support to pass but failed because time ran out, not failed bills in general. Since parliament is still in session that's a pretty clear sign that these bills died because they weren't supported, not because there wasn't any time to vote on them.
So, If I say my pronoun is "god Emperor" Anthony, could I have someone arrested for not using it?
Fortunately in most of the civilized world the police and courts have the ability to tell the difference between a sincere belief and a parody done for the sake of mocking a law.
And yes, there are a lot of time wasting bills in there. S-208 (a bill introduced in the senate) for "National Seal Products Day" is my favorite. There are 5 currently "dormant" bills put forth by the standing government. and 22 currently under debate, never mind all the MANY private member's bills, some of which actually look worthwhile but few private members bills ever pass; they get very little debate. Bill C-277 would introduce a framework to guarantee all Canadians access to high quality palliative care. How much real debate will that get? C-223 died on the floor, and it was about establishing a Canadian Organ Donor Registry. Fortunately it's been moved to the standing committee on health, so there's still hope for it.
That doesn't answer my question. I asked about bills which had enough support to pass but failed because time ran out, not failed bills in general. Since parliament is still in session that's a pretty clear sign that these bills died because they weren't supported, not because there wasn't any time to vote on them.
So, If I say my pronoun is "god Emperor" Anthony, could I have someone arrested for not using it?
Fortunately in most of the civilized world the police and courts have the ability to tell the difference between a sincere belief and a parody done for the sake of mocking a law.
It's still ridiculous, it's adding punitive action to violating someones feelings. I get it, if someone wants to be called Xer, fine whatever, but if someone refuses to call them that, Canadians are willing to toss out a fine or heaven forbid jail time?
Whats next, not calling a Doctor a Doctor will get you fined? This all seems to be getting out of control.
Supertony51 wrote: It's still ridiculous, it's adding punitive action to violating someones feelings.
Yes, that's the point of laws against hate speech. You can disagree with the concept of those laws as a general rule, but in the Canadian context the only question with this particular law is whether or not denying a person's gender identity is sufficiently bad to be considered hate speech or discrimination.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Supertony51 wrote: Whats next, not calling a Doctor a Doctor will get you fined? This all seems to be getting out of control.
Are doctors a vulnerable minority that are regularly subject to poor treatment based on their identity as a doctor? This is what I mean about the courts and police being able to tell the difference between a legitimate offense and someone making up parodies as a protest against the law.
Supertony51 wrote: It's still ridiculous, it's adding punitive action to violating someones feelings.
Yes, that's the point of laws against hate speech. You can disagree with the concept of those laws as a general rule, but in the Canadian context the only question with this particular law is whether or not denying a person's gender identity is sufficiently bad to be considered hate speech or discrimination.
That's a bit of a slippery slope isn't it? Isn't it possible for the definition of "hate" speech to continue to evolve to include more and more things? As far as im concerned the only thing that should be considered "hate speech" is language that solicits of encourages violence against another demographic for the sake of suppression of that demographic. Outside of that, I think labeling anything a group doesn't "like" as hate speech is really murky waters
feeder wrote: Can you imagine a reason to deliberately use (for example) "Mr" when addressing a transwoman that doesn't involve a hateful motivation?
calling her "mr potato head" because she pi$$ed you off?
Is Mr Potato Head a usual insult where you live? If someone called me Mr Potato Head I'd probably laugh.
That's not really what I was getting at though. I can't imagine a legit reason to refuse to use someone's preferred gender pronoun that doesn't have hateful motivations.
Which, for some reason, strikes me as a funnier thing to call someone anyway, if you're slinging insults and have gotten to the point where you're both calling each other Toy Story characters.
feeder wrote: Can you imagine a reason to deliberately use (for example) "Mr" when addressing a transwoman that doesn't involve a hateful motivation?
calling her "mr potato head" because she pi$$ed you off?
Is Mr Potato Head a usual insult where you live? If someone called me Mr Potato Head I'd probably laugh.
That's not really what I was getting at though. I can't imagine a legit reason to refuse to use someone's preferred gender pronoun that doesn't have hateful motivations.
when I get that pi$$ed, reason and logic go way out the window, and for the record, I LOATHE MR POTATO head, so yeah if you get me to that point you prolly kicked my puppy.
About the only legit reason is in a situation where pronouns themselves are inappropriate, for example, referring to a senator as sir or ma'am when "senator" is the appropriate title, not something like mr. or mrs....or calling someone Doctor as opposed to Miss.
feeder wrote: Can you imagine a reason to deliberately use (for example) "Mr" when addressing a transwoman that doesn't involve a hateful motivation?
Maybe they are doing a gakky job of looking the part?
And when they correct you? Do you continue to use "Mr" as they still don't "look the part"?
Me personally, I'd use their proffered pronoun because I try to be considerate of others. This is of course working under the assumption that they gently corrected me and asked nicely.
If someone were to correct me in a aggressive or derogatory manner, I'd probably tell them to feth off
feeder wrote: Can you imagine a reason to deliberately use (for example) "Mr" when addressing a transwoman that doesn't involve a hateful motivation?
The thing about insults is they're often crafted to strike at vulnerabilities, even if one doesn't actually hate what they're targeting. It's exactly the same intent as calling someone a 'virgin' (or neckbeard, loser, mom's basement dweller) as an attempt to attack their identity as a 'real' man. Simply put, it's saying to the target 'you're not a real X'.
Er... in regards to my not being a woman, so I can't speak regarding people that are self conscious / concerned about other people in the room:
My eldest son is 7, shy, and for reasons I don't understand, self conscious about his body. When we go to his swimming lessons, he was uncomfortable with the "open concept" change room, that sometimes had older boys / men / young girls [like, 2 or 3 years old with their Dad sort of thing] around, so when he expressed his discomfort, I suggested that if he was more comfortable changing in the stall, he could, and he does. My youngest son, 5, could just as happily walk around naked introducing himself to perfect strangers. For real, I have lost count of the number of times the words, "Put some pants on before you answer the door." have come out of my mouth.
Really, I don't understand why we can't just have unisex bathrooms with more stalls in them. That way anyone and everyone can use a stall, that they can lock to keep out the boogey-persons. Again, the prudishness of our [North American / European] ancestors has been the root of most image / gender / sexuality / identity issues from what I can see. After an adjustment period, I'd have to believe we'd all just normalize the proximity of other PEOPLE nearby while we excrete waste. While women as a general rule might be considered more vulnerable to predators, I'm much more concerned with the vulnerability of children to predators, and I'd have no problem with the idea of them using a unisex washroom.
As things become normalized, the fear and anxiety around them disappear. Women getting the vote is normal now. Women in the workplace is normal. Racial desegregation is normal. People with "not straight" sexual preferences are moving towards normal. People with a gender identity that doesn't match their original equipment is starting to be normalized, and that's good. Legal protection, to ensure that people can't be harmed by donkey-caves that feel they have the right to tell other people that they're lesser because they are different, is a good thing. None of us are free until all of us are free, that sort of thing.
Anyhow, it appears to me that this bill solidifies protections for people vulnerable to discrimination, and I'm all for it. I don't consider myself a "vulnerable" person, but the people in my life more precious than the rest of existence are, and I want them protected. I have no idea what the future holds for my boys. They may have desires / a predisposition towards being "not a straight male", and I can't stand the idea that they may be considered lesser in their futures if they aren't. I want them to live in a world that will accept them no matter what.
feeder wrote: Again, this whole gender pronoun issue is smokescreen to distract us from the fact the the Trudeau government is selling off parts of our future to have some cash to flash today. It's stupid and shortsighted.
Personally I just don't like "xe" It's a weird word. X is so rarely used in English, and usually in words where you sound the X out aloud ("excessive" "extract" "exit" etc)
feeder wrote: Again, this whole gender pronoun issue is smokescreen to distract us from the fact the the Trudeau government is selling off parts of our future to have some cash to flash today. It's stupid and shortsighted.
Personally I just don't like "xe" It's a weird word. X is so rarely used in English, and usually in words where you sound the X out aloud ("excessive" "extract" "exit" etc).
Exactly. I'm more a fan of "per", myself. Best crook way to inflate your quote count.
John Prins wrote: The law can't even force you to use their preferred personal pronoun, though it can force you from using the one they don't like.
First, let me state this isn't a hill I really wish to die on, but I find interesting. However, if the law can exclude the use of all but the preferred, it essentially is forcing you to use the preferred- at least if you wish to interact with them (or if you have to interact). There's a subtle difference between the government saying 'you can't call someone something hateful' and 'you MUST say the right words'. Compelling vocal assent by law just doesn't sit right with me.
That said, I'd happily call anyone by whatever they want. I'd just take exception to the government trying to compel me to do so.
Also correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't calling a guy a girl (don't be a girl, it's just a snake!) effectively fall under this?
I literally call everyone I interact with "guy" workwise unless I know them. Our bank has a plethora of people with names that are not easy to reveal gender, so its best to be neutral.
feeder wrote: Again, this whole gender pronoun issue is smokescreen to distract us from the fact the the Trudeau government is selling off parts of our future to have some cash to flash today. It's stupid and shortsighted.
Personally I just don't like "xe" It's a weird word. X is so rarely used in English, and usually in words where you sound the X out aloud ("excessive" "extract" "exit" etc)
feeder wrote: Again, this whole gender pronoun issue is smokescreen to distract us from the fact the the Trudeau government is selling off parts of our future to have some cash to flash today. It's stupid and shortsighted.
Personally I just don't like "xe" It's a weird word. X is so rarely used in English, and usually in words where you sound the X out aloud ("excessive" "extract" "exit" etc)
I literally call everyone I interact with "guy" workwise unless I know them. Our bank has a plethora of people with names that are not easy to reveal gender, so its best to be neutral.
You will find that not everyone agrees with that it's neutral. Can you imagine being pulled up for harassment because you said 'I'll let the guys know' or 'The guys are going for a drink after work' one too many times at work?
My stance is that the person who designates themselves as not of of the 'guys' is the one doing the excluding. Far more so than the one who says 'guys' and means everyone.
Pouncey wrote: I believe people have a right to choose their own name and pronouns are a natural extension of that.
But historically, everyone else didn't risk going to jail if they didn't use it.
I read the article in the OP.
It lost me when the author started saying "I" which is something professional news articles don't do.
However, I did note that what the bill did was, in essence, add transgendered people to the list of protected categories in the hate speech laws.
The people in the article who were chastised - not jailed, simply verbally reprimanded - did not simply fail to use the proper pronoun. There was a professor who complained to his class about transgendered people, and someone who denied a transgendered person access to the proper changeroom. Neither was threatened with prison.
If you're not planning on spewing hate speech about transgendered people, you're safe. Messing up on pronouns isn't going to do it.
In essence, you're making a mountain out of a molehill.
"Chastised" is an interesting word when its the government doing the chastising.
If you're not planning on spewing hate speech about transgendered people, you're safe{/quote]
Well in the US we have the First Amendment which protects us in this area. But your argument is essentially saying we'll quit beating you if you do what we say.
Frazzled wrote: "Chastised" is an interesting word when its the government doing the chastising.
Maybe you should read the article more closely.
Well in the US we have the First Amendment which protects us in this area. But your argument is essentially saying we'll quit beating you if you do what we say.
In Canada, we are very, very glad we are not America.
In fact, "acting like Americans" is a rather negative thing to say up here.
Pouncey wrote: In Canada, we are very, very glad we are not America.
In fact, "acting like Americans" is a rather negative thing to say up here.
Mighty talk from a bunch of Maple Syrup lovers. Besides, what's with the beef? Canada and America have always been on good terms, and in fact, are pretty damn similar on most issues. Michigan is basically South Canada as much as Toronto is New Michigan.
Pouncey wrote: In Canada, we are very, very glad we are not America.
In fact, "acting like Americans" is a rather negative thing to say up here.
Mighty talk from a bunch of Maple Syrup lovers. Besides, what's with the beef? Canada and America have always been on good terms, and in fact, are pretty damn similar on most issues. Michigan is basically South Canada as much as Toronto is New Michigan.
We're on good terms, yes, and no one wants to change that.
In fact, "acting like Americans" is a rather negative thing to say up here.
Thats ok. I'm a Texan. That would be negative to me too.
That's gonna need some explanation.
Well in the beginning there was Darkness and Void, and then Dog created Texas. Years later, out of an abundance of generosity, Texas would allow the other states to join it in the United States of America. And thus, the greatness of queso was spread to the hinterlands of the Dakotas, Tennessee, Michigan, and NY City.
In fact, "acting like Americans" is a rather negative thing to say up here.
Thats ok. I'm a Texan. That would be negative to me too.
That's gonna need some explanation.
Well in the beginning there was Darkness and Void, and then Dog created Texas. Years later, out of an abundance of generosity, Texas would allow the other states to join it in the United States of America. And thus, the greatness of queso was spread to the hinterlands of the Dakotas, Tennessee, Michigan, and NY City.
I think your education system failed you extraordinarily badly.
Your insult aside ("if I knew I had friends like that, I would have carried a gun") I predate education. Its not my fault you're not educated on the Biblical tale of how Jebus brought queso to the Heathen.
Frazzled wrote: Your insult aside ("if I knew I had friends like that, I would have carried a gun") I predate education. Its not my fault you're not educated on the Biblical tale of how Jebus brought queso to the Heathen.
I'm starting to think you might not be serious, but it's difficult to tell.
Frazzled wrote: Your insult aside ("if I knew I had friends like that, I would have carried a gun") I predate education. Its not my fault you're not educated on the Biblical tale of how Jebus brought queso to the Heathen.
I'm starting to think you might not be serious, but it's difficult to tell.
Being a Texan is serious business. After all, Dog created Texas to train the Faithful.
Now to the topic, so if I don't use whatever pronoun you demand, can I or can I not be fined or face some sort of imprisonment under this rule? What if I just ignore the whole thing and call you "dude?"
Frazzled wrote: Your insult aside ("if I knew I had friends like that, I would have carried a gun") I predate education. Its not my fault you're not educated on the Biblical tale of how Jebus brought queso to the Heathen.
I'm starting to think you might not be serious, but it's difficult to tell.
Frazzled is very rarely coherent.
Frazzled we've talked about the alcohol, please stop.
Frazzled wrote: Your insult aside ("if I knew I had friends like that, I would have carried a gun") I predate education. Its not my fault you're not educated on the Biblical tale of how Jebus brought queso to the Heathen.
I'm starting to think you might not be serious, but it's difficult to tell.
Frazzled is very rarely coherent.
Frazzled we've talked about the alcohol, please stop.
S'okay, I've been awake since.
:: checks computer ::
Saturday. So my own cognitive skills aren't functioning very well.
Frazzled we've talked about the alcohol, please stop.
Hey babies love bars what can I say. So I didn't win my division this week, but I did win the stage named: "coffee time II." I find that reassuringly appropriate.
Again to the topic, can I be fined or imprisoned if I refuse to use whatever pronoun is demanded?
Frazzled wrote: Actually I do have to occasionally go to Canada, and I would be disturbed if I can't call everyone Canuck.
Easy... If they give you lip about being called Canuck, clearly they identify as more feminine, so you'd call them Crosby
In all seriousness, I think Canada is doing a generally good thing. I am not sure how everything can, or will be enforced, but having a written law that one can refer to in discrimination cases is better than saying "well, this law over here implies coverage"
Pouncey wrote: In Canada, we are very, very glad we are not America.
In fact, "acting like Americans" is a rather negative thing to say up here.
Mighty talk from a bunch of Maple Syrup lovers. Besides, what's with the beef? Canada and America have always been on good terms, and in fact, are pretty damn similar on most issues. Michigan is basically South Canada as much as Toronto is New Michigan.
We're on good terms, yes, and no one wants to change that.
We just really don't want to be you.
That's okay, we don't really want to be overly nice hockey nuts drinking overhyped Tim Horton's. Least America is known for more than hockey, maple syrup, and a Dunkin Donuts rip off.
jreilly89 wrote: That's okay, we don't really want to be overly nice hockey nuts drinking overhyped Tim Horton's. Least America is known for more than hockey, maple syrup, and a Dunkin Donuts rip off.
Canada's also well-known for being a very tolerant and freedom-loving country.
Frazzled wrote: Actually I do have to occasionally go to Canada, and I would be disturbed if I can't call everyone Canuck.
Have you considered simply getting over your discomfort and just calling people what they want to be called without making a big deal out of it?
Of course not: 1. I have no short term memory. 2. How can I say "Hey Canuck, don't forget your Took!" in an overly exaggerated Southern drawl if I can't say Canuck? They love it, and I would hate to disappoint them.
In all seriousness, I think Canada is doing a generally good thing. I am not sure how everything can, or will be enforced, but having a written law that one can refer to in discrimination cases is better than saying "well, this law over here implies coverage"
I have no problems if they want to add them as a protected class, actually. My question really is about this pronoun thing, and freedom of speech.
And hey don't mess with Tim Horton's. I love their maple glazed donuts.
Frazzled wrote: Actually I do have to occasionally go to Canada, and I would be disturbed if I can't call everyone Canuck.
Have you considered simply getting over your discomfort and just calling people what they want to be called without making a big deal out of it?
Of course not:
1. I have no short term memory.
2. How can I say "Hey Canuck, don't forget your Took!" in an overly exaggerated Southern drawl if I can't say Canuck? They love it, and I would hate to disappoint them.
To be clear, we like watching Americans make fools of themselves. It amuses us.
jreilly89 wrote: That's okay, we don't really want to be overly nice hockey nuts drinking overhyped Tim Horton's. Least America is known for more than hockey, maple syrup, and a Dunkin Donuts rip off.
Canada's also well-known for being a very tolerant and freedom-loving country.
And polite.
You sure? Cuz stuff like this:
To be clear, we like watching Americans make fools of themselves. It amuses us.
Ain't really proving it. Americans are the ones known for randomly insulting other countries.
jreilly89 wrote: That's okay, we don't really want to be overly nice hockey nuts drinking overhyped Tim Horton's. Least America is known for more than hockey, maple syrup, and a Dunkin Donuts rip off.
Canada's also well-known for being a very tolerant and freedom-loving country.
And polite.
You sure? Cuz stuff like this:
To be clear, we like watching Americans make fools of themselves. It amuses us.
Ain't really proving it. Americans are the ones known for randomly insulting other countries.
Eh, it's like teasing your big dumb cousin at the Xmas dinner. It's done with love.
Again, this trivial non-issue (adding transpersons to the list of protected classes) is really a smokescreen to distract us from the actual, terrible things the Trudeau government is doing. Like continuing the selling of public assets to private hands.
Again, this trivial non-issue (adding transpersons to the list of protected classes) is really a smokescreen to distract us from the actual, terrible things the Trudeau government is doing. Like continuing the selling of public assets to private hands.
There's a good argument to be made for your point.
To be clear, we like watching Americans make fools of themselves. It amuses us.
Ain't really proving it. Americans are the ones known for randomly insulting other countries.
I mean that Rick Mercer had a popular comedy show a decade or two ago called Talking to Americans.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
feeder wrote: Eh, it's like teasing your big dumb cousin at the Xmas dinner. It's done with love.
Again, this trivial non-issue (adding transpersons to the list of protected classes) is really a smokescreen to distract us from the actual, terrible things the Trudeau government is doing. Like continuing the selling of public assets to private hands.
Smokescreen?
The House of Commons passed a bill, from my understanding. Then people freaked out about it.
Passing legislation isn't a smokescreen, it's what our government does.
Also, I thought the big thing on the news was Trudeau doing fundraisers where he lets diplomats from other countries talk to him for a while. Cash-for-Access or something like that.
Been watching CinemaSins on YouTube for a while though. Maybe that's a new thing.
Frazzled wrote: Actually I do have to occasionally go to Canada, and I would be disturbed if I can't call everyone Canuck.
Have you considered simply getting over your discomfort and just calling people what they want to be called without making a big deal out of it?
Of course not:
1. I have no short term memory.
2. How can I say "Hey Canuck, don't forget your Took!" in an overly exaggerated Southern drawl if I can't say Canuck? They love it, and I would hate to disappoint them.
To be clear, we like watching Americans make fools of themselves. It amuses us.
You must be one of the eastern urbanites that my friends in the western Provinces like to talk crap about.
And from my personal experience, many folks from the western/rural regions of Canada are (on average) no different than the average American. It's the ones from the big cities (and leftist bastions of Trudeau worship) like Toronto, Windsor, Ottawa, and Montreal that tend to have that smug, self-righteous attitude toward their neighbors to the south. There are exceptions. But they are few and far between.
Frazzled wrote: "Chastised" is an interesting word when its the government doing the chastising.
Maybe you should read the article more closely.
Well in the US we have the First Amendment which protects us in this area. But your argument is essentially saying we'll quit beating you if you do what we say.
In Canada, we are very, very glad we are not America.
In fact, "acting like Americans" is a rather negative thing to say up here.
That feeling is quite mutual, our racists could learn alot from canada on how to oppress folks, you guys are top notch.
Frazzled wrote: "Chastised" is an interesting word when its the government doing the chastising.
Maybe you should read the article more closely.
Well in the US we have the First Amendment which protects us in this area. But your argument is essentially saying we'll quit beating you if you do what we say.
In Canada, we are very, very glad we are not America.
In fact, "acting like Americans" is a rather negative thing to say up here.
That feeling is quite mutual, our racists could learn alot from canada on how to oppress folks, you guys are top notch.
This is true. There are swathes of Canada that are as pig-ignorant as any stereotypical southern racist redneck trope.
Frazzled wrote: "Chastised" is an interesting word when its the government doing the chastising.
Maybe you should read the article more closely.
Well in the US we have the First Amendment which protects us in this area. But your argument is essentially saying we'll quit beating you if you do what we say.
In Canada, we are very, very glad we are not America.
In fact, "acting like Americans" is a rather negative thing to say up here.
That feeling is quite mutual, our racists could learn alot from canada on how to oppress folks, you guys are top notch.
This is true. There are swathes of Canada that are as pig-ignorant as any stereotypical southern racist redneck trope.
feeder wrote: This is true. There are swathes of Canada that are as pig-ignorant as any stereotypical southern racist redneck trope.
I don't think any country is entirely free of bigots.
No, you're right, but the current race for the Con leadership is showing there are an awful lot more gakky racists in Canada, too. More than I thought.
Frazzled wrote: Actually I do have to occasionally go to Canada, and I would be disturbed if I can't call everyone Canuck.
Have you considered simply getting over your discomfort and just calling people what they want to be called without making a big deal out of it?
Of course not:
1. I have no short term memory.
2. How can I say "Hey Canuck, don't forget your Took!" in an overly exaggerated Southern drawl if I can't say Canuck? They love it, and I would hate to disappoint them.
To be clear, we like watching Americans make fools of themselves. It amuses us.
You must be one of the eastern urbanites that my friends in the western Provinces like to talk crap about.
And from my personal experience, many folks from the western/rural regions of Canada are (on average) no different than the average American. It's the ones from the big cities (and leftist bastions of Trudeau worship) like Toronto, Windsor, Ottawa, and Montreal that tend to have that smug, self-righteous attitude toward their neighbors to the south. There are exceptions. But they are few and far between.
Add Vancouver and you've covered about 70% of Canada's population.
As a rule, it is very much part of a Canadian's cultural and political identity that he is not an American.
Frazzled wrote: Actually I do have to occasionally go to Canada, and I would be disturbed if I can't call everyone Canuck.
Have you considered simply getting over your discomfort and just calling people what they want to be called without making a big deal out of it?
Of course not:
1. I have no short term memory.
2. How can I say "Hey Canuck, don't forget your Took!" in an overly exaggerated Southern drawl if I can't say Canuck? They love it, and I would hate to disappoint them.
To be clear, we like watching Americans make fools of themselves. It amuses us.
You must be one of the eastern urbanites that my friends in the western Provinces like to talk crap about.
And from my personal experience, many folks from the western/rural regions of Canada are (on average) no different than the average American. It's the ones from the big cities (and leftist bastions of Trudeau worship) like Toronto, Windsor, Ottawa, and Montreal that tend to have that smug, self-righteous attitude toward their neighbors to the south. There are exceptions. But they are few and far between.
Add Vancouver and you've covered about 70% of Canada's population.
As a rule, it is very much part of a Canadian's cultural and political identity that he is not an American.
And, in Canada, Trudeau is not left. He's centre-right.
feeder wrote: This is true. There are swathes of Canada that are as pig-ignorant as any stereotypical southern racist redneck trope.
I don't think any country is entirely free of bigots.
No, you're right, but the current race for the Con leadership is showing there are an awful lot more gakky racists in Canada, too. More than I thought.
feeder wrote: This is true. There are swathes of Canada that are as pig-ignorant as any stereotypical southern racist redneck trope.
I don't think any country is entirely free of bigots.
No, you're right, but the current race for the Con leadership is showing there are an awful lot more gakky racists in Canada, too. More than I thought.
I think Trump's election emboldened them.
There has always been a very strident anti-native racism found in WASP Canada. Any French-Canadian doing the mandatory early 20s trip out West will realize that a non-negligible portion of Canada's Anglo population just fething hate us. I lived in Alberta for about 4 years, and the most common slur I heard was to call someone a jew. I have never met a single jewish person while in Alberta.
There is a lot of racism in Canadian culture. Pouncey's view that we are an open-minded, peace-loving country doesn't really reflect anything except a form of self-delusion.
feeder wrote: This is true. There are swathes of Canada that are as pig-ignorant as any stereotypical southern racist redneck trope.
I don't think any country is entirely free of bigots.
No, you're right, but the current race for the Con leadership is showing there are an awful lot more gakky racists in Canada, too. More than I thought.
I think Trump's election emboldened them.
There has always been a very strident anti-native racism found in WASP Canada. Any French-Canadian doing the mandatory early 20s trip out West will realize that a non-negligible portion of Canada's Anglo population just fething hate us. I lived in Alberta for about 4 years, and the most common slur I heard was to call someone a jew. I have never met a single jewish person while in Alberta.
There is a lot of racism in Canadian culture. Pouncey's view that we are an open-minded, peace-loving country doesn't really reflect anything except a form of self-delusion.
Believe me, I am well aware that many of my fellow Canadians are quite racist against First Nations people. I made a thread on the Overwatch forums suggesting that the inevitable Canadian hero be a First Nations person, as there was a lot of unexplored culture and history there that the developers could make use of. I am a fan of Gaijin Goombah on YouTube, so I knew that Blizzard was capable of treating the subject with respect and subtlety. After explaining to the baffled Americans what "First Nations" means and enduring the usual stereotypes of hockey, maple syrup and lumberjacks, one of my fellow Canadians saw fit to chime in. He was quite racist toward the First Nations.
It's also worth noting that I'm not delusional, I simply don't get out much and the few people I am around are not racists. I may not have a good grasp on Canadian culture though, as I spend most of my time online around Americans in online video games, so the topic of the First Nations people doesn't come up much..
Hearing about the genocide going on in Canada was shocking. I couldn't believe that that kind of thing was happening here. As in, I literally didn't believe it at first and thought the first person informing me of it was exaggerating extraordinarily. Then the news started doing stories on it.
I lived in Quebec for over 25 years. Currently I live just outside of Ottawa in a quiet suburb. And like I said, I don't socialize much in real life. So I didn't know. But I see now. Yes. Canada does in fact have plenty of racists. You have made that abundantly clear.
I for one think this is a terrible idea, considering how silly most of those "pronouns" can get. (Xer, Xee etc.) And now you can get in trouble if you don't want to call them their imaginary names. And considering how angry the whole LGBT feminist movement can get, makes some people that speak their mind very easy targets. (See the professor)
So what is Dakka's other Canadians thought on this?
Okay so, I'm not a Zhe, Xe, nor do I know the extent of these terms.
I am however a "Mx" (I believe pronounced "Mix", though day to day I don't ask for it). And I'd like to explain how that's not silly or imaginary, and how it is helpful to me that it's recognised.
Situation A: I am midway through transition, my voice or face doesn't entirely match my identity, and on paper my name is Miss, or Mr Buttery. So I call my banking company, and answer the security questions. Then I get more questions, and then I get a very apologetic woman who explains that I do not sound like a Mr or Miss, and perhaps I should visit the bank in person?
I explain to this person, who has no idea who I am, that I am transgender, a personal part of my existence, so I can get access to help with my banking. I spend the day feeling very uncomfortable and sad.
Repeat ad infinitum whenever I need to do anything minor but formal.
Situation B: My bank has my file as Mx Buttery, they have a little visual indicator with a flick of a finger, that shows I am not a Mr or Miss, I am a something and I don't have to explain that to someone I don't know. I get one set of security questions, and my PIN reset so I can continue with my afternoon.
So I don't assume protection of pronouns or terms is purely to vex folk into having to say them. In many cases they can simply be a way of helping folk to cope.
I for one think this is a terrible idea, considering how silly most of those "pronouns" can get. (Xer, Xee etc.) And now you can get in trouble if you don't want to call them their imaginary names. And considering how angry the whole LGBT feminist movement can get, makes some people that speak their mind very easy targets. (See the professor)
So what is Dakka's other Canadians thought on this?
Okay so, I'm not a Zhe, Xe, nor do I know the extent of these terms.
I am however a "Mx" (I believe pronounced "Mix", though day to day I don't ask for it). And I'd like to explain how that's not silly or imaginary, and how it is helpful to me that it's recognised.
Situation A: I am midway through transition, my voice or face doesn't entirely match my identity, and on paper my name is Miss, or Mr Buttery. So I call my banking company, and answer the security questions. Then I get more questions, and then I get a very apologetic woman who explains that I do not sound like a Mr or Miss, and perhaps I should visit the bank in person?
I explain to this person, who has no idea who I am, that I am transgender, a personal part of my existence, so I can get access to help with my banking. I spend the day feeling very uncomfortable and sad.
Repeat ad infinitum whenever I need to do anything minor but formal.
Situation B: My bank has my file as Mx Buttery, they have a little visual indicator with a flick of a finger, that shows I am not a Mr or Miss, I am a something and I don't have to explain that to someone I don't know. I get one set of security questions, and my PIN reset so I can continue with my afternoon.
So I don't assume protection of pronouns or terms is purely to vex folk into having to say them. In many cases they can simply be a way of helping folk to cope.
Sounds incredibly sensible and practical. I like it.
I'll admit, I was puzzling over how to even pronounce them, but now that you've explained it, it's quite obvious that what's actually going to happen with those pronouns is that they'll be used on documents to help with situations like yours purely as an indicator that things are not ordinary, and when conversing with other individuals you just use the standard pronoun of the appropriate gender. Am I correct in my interpretation?
Frazzled wrote: "Chastised" is an interesting word when its the government doing the chastising.
Maybe you should read the article more closely.
Well in the US we have the First Amendment which protects us in this area. But your argument is essentially saying we'll quit beating you if you do what we say.
In Canada, we are very, very glad we are not America.
In fact, "acting like Americans" is a rather negative thing to say up here.
That feeling is quite mutual, our racists could learn alot from canada on how to oppress folks, you guys are top notch.
This is true. There are swathes of Canada that are as pig-ignorant as any stereotypical southern racist redneck trope.
I served with a Metis for about 4 years.
From what I know about the US your situation with natives is just as bad.
Frazzled wrote: "Chastised" is an interesting word when its the government doing the chastising.
Maybe you should read the article more closely.
Well in the US we have the First Amendment which protects us in this area. But your argument is essentially saying we'll quit beating you if you do what we say.
In Canada, we are very, very glad we are not America.
In fact, "acting like Americans" is a rather negative thing to say up here.
That feeling is quite mutual, our racists could learn alot from canada on how to oppress folks, you guys are top notch.
This is true. There are swathes of Canada that are as pig-ignorant as any stereotypical southern racist redneck trope.
I served with a Metis for about 4 years.
From what I know about the US your situation with natives is just as bad.
Absolutely, but I was pointing out that you don't get to sit and "US is so awful" when you do the same or even worse and then claim you are innocent, that is the very definition of a hypocrite. as for the pipeline, that has not been resolved yet.
Pouncey wrote: I'll admit, I was puzzling over how to even pronounce them, but now that you've explained it, it's quite obvious that what's actually going to happen with those pronouns is that they'll be used on documents to help with situations like yours purely as an indicator that things are not ordinary, and when conversing with other individuals you just use the standard pronoun of the appropriate gender. Am I correct in my interpretation?
Yes and no. For the majority of adults I know, and those I've spoken to, this is the case. Mx and such have been in circulation for decades, and most banks now recognise these titles and terms.
I can't speak for the current HS/college generation. I try not to stare at that too much because it gives me a headache. There seems to have indeed been a large jump of freedom to express oneself, and expectation that good things and acceptance will follow. Those with a few more years under the belt and a grasp of how slow certain progression can be, tend to eye that scene very warily.
On a day to day basis, pronouns, titles and such can seem like very small, almost insignificant factors in the life of someone making a large change.
But the reason that they can affect even rational, reserved trans folk is what is called "minority stress". This is where an individual is perpetually in a state of mild stress due to being aware their existence fits outside of the understanding and tolerance of others. Being constantly unsure about safety, affection, what is going to happen next, etc.
It leaves you fatigued, vulnerable to distress from ordinarily minor things, because the person exists in a constant state of alert without even knowing it.
To put that in human terms, I may well know that my bank does not mean to cause me harm if they get my name wrong. Big old automated banking system doesn't mean to cause anyone any issues.
But my body, after months of experiences, concerns and minority stress, decides that this typed-up letter wants me to feel like gak (and maybe even cry), because they wrote to me using out of date information.
Least America is known for more than hockey, maple syrup, and a Dunkin Donuts rip off.
