Canada, pronouns, and compelled speech, yes, again

[Koldo]

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

Does that sound like a sensible line to you?

That is not a line.
I can't know what, on practice, you would support going by that alone.

 

[Kooky]

That is not a line.
I can't know what, on practice, you would support going by that alone.

You could, if you paid attention to who is currently being discriminated based on their gender identity in most countries around the world.

Hint: It's not cis hetero people or Jordan Peterson.

 

[SomeRandom]

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

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

Forgive my ignorance but isn’t using the term “honey” considered belittling literally because of a change in culture?

Considering that the term “honey” or “sweetheart” used to be routinely used in everyday working scenarios and indeed in everyday life. It took at least one, maybe one and a half waves of feminism to eradicate the word from the everyday lexicon. Including the workplace.

So really what’s the difference? Culture changes all the time. Words change all the time. Language changes all the time. In and out of the workplace. What was acceptable speech and even behaviours of my parents generation are practically outlawed for mine.
The way I see it you either adapt or die. That’s how it’s always been.

 

[Koldo]

You could, if you paid attention to who is currently being discriminated based on their gender identity in most countries around the world.

Hint: It's not cis hetero people or Jordan Peterson.

I still don't know what you would support in practice. You ought to be more specific. For instance, if a LGBTQIA+ person asked to be called ' Your Highness', would you support such to be enforced legally? I don't know.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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

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

You can work in my workplace anytime then.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Its just the thread we happen to be discussing.

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

I really fail to see the connection between the two. Could you please explain to me how recognizing the right of people to personal pronouns, and acknowledging that deliberate misuse of pronouns is abusive, is in any way "playing with fire" when it concerns freedom of political speech?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I still don't know what you would support in practice. You ought to be more specific. For instance, if a LGBTQIA+ person asked to be called ' Your Highness', would you support such to be enforced legally? I don't know.

There is generally a good understanding of what pronouns are genuinely held by people, in much the same way that freedom of religion doesn't mean that you can simply make up a religion and expect to be entitled to all the same rights and protections as established religions. Not everything that everyone SAYS is a personal pronoun would necessarily acquire the protection of the law in the same way. It would really not be any different to any other laws which touch on modes of address, such as using an abusive nickname, or even refusing to use someone's preferred name with the knowledge that not doing so was harmful to them. Both personal history and evidence would be taken into account should a breach of the law be alleged. Trying to apply broad, sweeping standards to laws like this is nearly impossible, but fortunately things like this are not really legally dealt with in a sweeping fashion, but on an individual, case-by-case basis.

 

[Koldo]

There is generally a good understanding of what pronouns are genuinely held by people, in much the same way that freedom of religion doesn't mean that you can simply make up a religion and expect to be entitled to all the same rights and protections as established religions. Not everything that everyone SAYS is a personal pronoun would necessarily acquire the protection of the law in the same way. It would really not be any different to any other laws which touch on modes of address, such as using an abusive nickname, or even refusing to use someone's preferred name with the knowledge that not doing so was harmful to them. Both personal history and evidence would be taken into account should a breach of the law be alleged. Trying to apply broad, sweeping standards to laws like this is nearly impossible, but fortunately things like this are not really legally dealt with in a sweeping fashion, but on an individual, case-by-case basis.

And therefore unevenly and unfairly. There is nothing fortunate about this.
The law should always be made as clear as possible.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

And therefore unevenly and unfairly. There is nothing fortunate about this.
The law should always be made as clear as possible.

In what way could it be uneven or unfair?

"Case by case basis" does not mean a different standard is being applied in different cases. It means each case is assessed individually to see if it meets a particular standard.

 

[Koldo]

There is generally a good understanding of what pronouns are genuinely held by people, in much the same way that freedom of religion doesn't mean that you can simply make up a religion and expect to be entitled to all the same rights and protections as established religions.

I ended up not replying to this part.
No, there isn't a good understanding of what pronouns are genuinely held by people, not anymore. How many people have you met that insisted to be called 'they'?

 

[Koldo]

In what way could it be uneven or unfair?

"Case by case basis" does not mean a different standard is being applied in different cases. It means each case is assessed individually to see if it meets a particular standard.

A case by case basis means each judge will interpret and apply the law differently.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

A case by case basis means each judge will interpret and apply the law differently.

No, it does not. It means each case is assessed to see if it individually meets the standard. It's no different to how we literally assess anything else that comes befor the court. Abuse, murder, theft. These things all have complexities and nuances that means that we need to assess them all on a case by case basis. If your argument applies to any law regarding pronouns, it also applies to every law regarding everything else.

At the core of laws regarding pronouns is a simple standard: it is wrong to harm people. Whether or not a specific instance of using or not using those pronouns counts as an instance of harm will always be brought before the courts for investigation to determine, just as every possible instance of wrongful death would be brought before a court to determine if it constitutes murder or manslaughter, etc..

 

[Koldo]

No, it does not. It means each case is assessed to see if it individually meets the standard. It's no different to how we literally assess anything else that comes befor the court. Abuse, murder, theft.These things all have complexities and nuances that means that we need to assess them all on a case by case basis. If your argument applies to any law regarding pronouns, it also applies to every law regarding everything else.

At the core of laws regarding pronouns is a simple standard: it is wrong to harm people. Whether or not a specific instance of using or not using those pronouns counts as an instance of harm will always be brought before the courts for investigation to determine, just as every possible instance of wrongful death would be brought before a court to determine if it constitutes murder or manslaughter, etc..

Great, so you are actually bring forth an actual line now: whether it produces harm. So even if Joe uses the pronoun that Katie doesn't want, as long as it doesn't cause harm Joe is not breaking the law. Is that where you want the line to be drawn?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Great, so you are actually bring forth an actual line now: whether it produces harm. So even if Joe uses the pronoun that Katie doesn't want, as long as it doesn't cause harm Joe is not breaking the law. Is that where you want the line to be drawn?

You're acting like this is an easy thing to pin down and define. To say whether something does or does not cause harm in an individual case required a lot more information, just as determining whether or not something is murder or manslaughter requires more than just "Peter killed Steve".

 

[Koldo]

You're acting like this is an easy thing to pin down and define. To say whether something does or does not cause harm in an individual case required a lot more information, just as determining whether or not something is murder or manslaughter requires more than just "Peter killed Steve".

I am not saying it is easy to prove the harm happened, but at least it is an actual line, and not a vague guideline. And that's what I have been asking from people, where they are drawing their lines.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I am not saying it is easy to prove the harm happened, but at least it is an actual line, and not a vague guideline. And that's what I have been asking from people, where they are drawing their lines.

At the point where it causes harm.

Again, if you want specifics, I can't really give them, because determining actual harm is a complicated process. But in that sense it is no more or less vague than any other law regarding almost anything.

 

[Koldo]

At the point where it causes harm.

Again, if you want specifics, I can't really give them, because determining actual harm is a complicated process. But in that sense it is no more or less vague than any other law regarding almost anything.

I think I wasn't clear enough: I am satisfied with your previous answer. Harm being the dividing line is perfectly alright to me, as far as calling something a line goes on this context, even though it is not the line I would use myself.

I would add that there has to be the intent to do harm and that there must be social recognition for a word to be used in a certain way before someone is legally allowed to demand it. In other words, it wouldn't suffice for a person to claim that the proper pronoun to refer to them is XYZ, but rather XYZ would have to be the way that they are widely referred as before they can legally demand others to use it.

 

[Kooky]

I am not saying it is easy to prove the harm happened, but at least it is an actual line, and not a vague guideline. And that's what I have been asking from people, where they are drawing their lines.

Could we demonstrate that Hitler ever caused any provable harm with any of his speeches or political activity prior to becoming chancellor of Germany? As far as I can tell we probably can't.

Any line that includes Hitler's political activity is probably not a workable one.

 

[Kooky]

n other words, it wouldn't suffice for a person to claim that the proper pronoun to refer to them is XYZ, but rather XYZ would have to be the way that they are widely referred as before they can legally demand others to use it.

How on Earth would you prove that beyond reasonable doubt in court?

 

[Koldo]

Could we demonstrate that Hitler ever caused any provable harm with any of his speeches or political activity prior to becoming chancellor of Germany? As far as I can tell we probably can't.

Any line that includes Hitler's political activity is probably not a workable one.

I know next to nothing about Hitler's political activity before he became the Fuhrer. I can't comment on that.