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.
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?
Once again, we march to war, for Victory or Death!
Never wake yourself at night, unless you are spying on your enemy or looking for a place to relieve yourself. - The Poetic Edda
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?
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
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.
insaniak wrote: Sometimes, Exterminatus is the only option.
And sometimes, it's just a case of too much scotch combined with too many buttons...
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.
[...] for conflict is the great teacher, and pain, the perfect educator.
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/03 22:35:09
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
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-
*looks at 2016 Election Results*
Then again...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/03 23:39:56
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?
"Sometimes the only victory possible is to keep your opponent from winning." - The Emperor, from The Outcast Dead.
"Tell your gods we are coming for them, and that their realms will burn as ours did." -Thostos Bladestorm
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/04 15:44:37
"Sometimes the only victory possible is to keep your opponent from winning." - The Emperor, from The Outcast Dead.
"Tell your gods we are coming for them, and that their realms will burn as ours did." -Thostos Bladestorm
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/04 19:27:59
"Sometimes the only victory possible is to keep your opponent from winning." - The Emperor, from The Outcast Dead.
"Tell your gods we are coming for them, and that their realms will burn as ours did." -Thostos Bladestorm
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.
insaniak wrote: Sometimes, Exterminatus is the only option.
And sometimes, it's just a case of too much scotch combined with too many buttons...
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.
"Sometimes the only victory possible is to keep your opponent from winning." - The Emperor, from The Outcast Dead.
"Tell your gods we are coming for them, and that their realms will burn as ours did." -Thostos Bladestorm
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/05 12:27:45
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.
5000pts 
6000pts 
3000pts
