Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 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?

 thekingofkings wrote:

 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.

Also, there's Mrs. Potato Head.

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?

Maybe they are doing a gakky job of looking the part?

 Supertony51 wrote:

 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"?

 feeder wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

 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.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Supertony51 wrote:

 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'.

 Supertony51 wrote:

sounds kind of stupid

So, If I say my pronoun is "god Emperor" Anthony, could I have someone arrested for not using it?

No, because you would be arrested first, as it is illegal to hold a nobility title and a Canadian citizenship at once.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Supertony51 wrote:

sounds kind of stupid

So, If I say my pronoun is "god Emperor" Anthony, could I have someone arrested for not using it?

No, because you would be arrested first, as it is illegal to hold a nobility title and a Canadian citizenship at once.

Really?

Even though im not Canadian?

 Peregrine wrote:

That doesn't answer my question.

Your question was neither reasonable nor realistic. This is an off topic forum, not a hardcore political forum.

John Prins wrote:
Your question was neither reasonable nor realistic. This is an off topic forum, not a hardcore political forum.

Then why did you bring up the subject in the first place?

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)

Come on Canada. Singular they!

 LordofHats wrote:

 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.

 Kojiro wrote:

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Supertony51 wrote:

 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"?

Then you just use the more appropriate title "dickbag."

 LordofHats wrote:

 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)

Come on Canada. Singular they!

But having "Xe" be an accepted word is a godsend for scrabble players.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 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)

Come on Canada. Singular they!

But having "Xe" be an accepted word is a godsend for scrabble players.

Good point, one may be against the idea of transpersons, but one can't be against the idea of their grandma getting a better score in scrabble.

Think of the grandmas!

 Frazzled wrote:

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.

I believe people have a right to choose their own name and pronouns are a natural extension of that.

 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.

 Frazzled wrote:

 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.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 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.

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.

 Frazzled wrote:

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.

 Pouncey wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

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.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

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.