Canada, pronouns, and compelled speech, yes, again

[Kooky]

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

Would you draw the line at physical or mental harm, and if so, how distressed would a person need to be in order to qualify for being mentally harmed?

 

[Koldo]

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

Generally you wouldn't have to, because it would be common knowledge. If you really had to though, you would only need to refer to multiple cases where the mainstream media used those pronouns in the way you want to demand them to be used. That would suffice.

 

[Kooky]

Generally you wouldn't have to, because it would be common knowledge.

Yes you would, because we are talking about laws, which inevitably result in court cases.

If you really had to though, you would only need to refer to multiple cases where the mainstream media used those pronouns in the way you want to demand them to be used. That would suffice.

That's an even less workable standard.
You might as well leave it all to the whims of the judge, in which case - how is your model the superior one here?

 

[Koldo]

Would you draw the line at physical or mental harm, and if so, how distressed would a person need to be in order to qualify for being mentally harmed?

"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."

The person would have to be as distressed as to qualify for moral damage compensation.

 

[Kooky]

"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."

The person would have to be as distressed as to qualify for moral damage compensation.

Are there any objective or measurable standards for when "moral damage" has occurred, or do we again rely on a judge's whim?

 

[Koldo]

Yes you would, because we are talking about laws, which inevitably result in court cases.

How often do you think people ask someone to prove that the pronoun 'he' is widely used to refer to men? Never? Why is that? Because it is common knowledge.

That's an even less workable standard.
You might as well leave it all to the whims of the judge, in which case - how is your model the superior one here?

How is it less workable exactly?

 

[Kooky]

How often do you think people ask someone to prove that the pronoun 'he' is widely used to refer to men? Never? Why is that?

Because we live in a society that privileges hetero and cisgender identities as valid, normative and normal, whereas all differing identities are considered abnormal, aberrant, and intrinsically invalid unless proven otherwise.

So all you're argueing here is that we work even harder to legally enshrine hetero-cis normativity, so that we shall never need to adress transgender people the way we do cisgender people: A cis man is a real man, and a trans man is out of luck.

Do you think excluding transgender people and non-cis/heteronormative identities in this way is how equality and justice are being served? Is it proper to refuse to acknowledge a trans person's lived gender? Do we only live in true freedom when we denigrate one group of people as subhuman?

 

[Koldo]

Are there any objective or measurable standards for when "moral damage" has occurred, or do we again rely on a judge's whim?

Generally speaking, here in Brazil we often rely on jurisprudence. As flawed as it may be, there really is no better method for now. Psychological evaluations can also be helpful, particularly if the damage was severe enough.

 

[Koldo]

Because we live in a society that privileges hetero and cisgender identities as valid, normative and normal, whereas all differing identities are considered abnormal, aberrant, and intrinsically invalid unless proven otherwise.

So all you're argueing here is that we work even harder to legally enshrine hetero-cis normativity, so that we shall never need to adress transgender people the way we do cisgender people: A cis man is a real man, and a trans man is out of luck.

Do you think excluding transgender people and non-cis/heteronormative identities in this way is how equality and justice are being served? Is it proper to refuse to acknowledge a trans person's lived gender? Do we only live in true freedom when we denigrate one group of people as subhuman?

Strawman much?
My suggestion would, if anything, only have a negative impact on people that insisted to be treated with a random word of their choice as their pronoun. On the other hand, a trans man would be treated as 'he' and a trans woman as 'she'.

 

[Brickjectivity]

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.

I think I grasp your meaning. I have no problem banning the use of a personal pronoun in the workplace. I have no problem banning the use of 'She' or 'He' in the workplace if that is offending anyone. I object to making people say something they don't think. If you legally change your name to 'Make America Great Again' then I may choose not to say it and will sue if the boss tries to force me to.

 

[Kooky]

Strawman much?
My suggestion would, if anything, only have a negative impact on people that insisted to be treated with a random word of their choice as their pronoun.

So you weren't actually talking about the subject of this thread in the first place, but a fantasy setting of your own creation. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Koldo]

So you weren't actually talking about the subject of this thread in the first place, but a fantasy setting of your own creation. Thanks for clearing that up.

Please read back to what I originally quoted when I first started posting on this topic. That should clear everything up.

 

[Kooky]

Please read back to what I originally quoted when I first started posting on this topic. That should clear everything up.

I did, I just misunderstood your point. I originally thought you were talking about LGBTQ people and speech regulations, but it seems you were actually creating ludicrous fantasy scenarios to make some kind of philosophical point disconnected from the topic at hand.

 

[Koldo]

I did, I just misunderstood your point. I originally thought you were talking about LGBTQ people and speech regulations, but it seems you were actually creating ludicrous fantasy scenarios to make some kind of philosophical point disconnected from the topic at hand.

Then you haven't read the rest of the topic, particularly post #52 or the part where I mentioned the lack of gender neutral pronouns in portuguese, right?

 

[SomeRandom]

I think I grasp your meaning. I have no problem banning the use of a personal pronoun in the workplace. I have no problem banning the use of 'She' or 'He' in the workplace if that is offending anyone. I object to making people say something they don't think. If you legally change your name to 'Make America Great Again' then I may choose not to say it and will sue if the boss tries to force me to.

Well I can respect that stance. But is calling a person by their preferred pronoun really forcing someone to say something they don’t believe?
I mean when I worked retail I lied to people all the time. When I was having a bad day maintained a happy demeanour or when I pretended to care about whatever mundane thing a customer told me. I didn’t really believe what I was saying but I was polite. It wasn’t compelled speech to refer to a customer as sir, ma’am or anything they politely asked me to refer to them as. A mixture of training and being raised to be polite is really all it took for me to say things I didn’t believe. And it didn’t hurt me at all.

And I kind of question whether or not this is even a legitimate concern. How many people on average lie to maintain their jobs? False compliments or pretending to care about some mundane thing? Does every person who maintains a cordial relationship with their manager or coworkers believe every single solitary thing they say to them? I mean I remember using “white lies” to spare other people’s feelings. Not just for civility’s sake but at work you have to be professional, right?
In order to maintain peace people often say things they don’t “really believe.” Is that really worthy of a lawsuit?
And I mean if someone asks you not to harass them and you do it anyway. Well I have very little sympathy for the jerk who does that. Manners cost nothing
This guy from the OP could have very easily just avoided pronouns altogether. Called his employee exclusively by their name. That’s not compelling him to say something he doesn’t believe. Unless he believes said employee is using a fake name lol
Hell he could have even used the “they” pronoun to refer to this person just by using the English language
(Oh X has gone to lunch, you say? When will THEY be back?)
Which goes to show that he just wanted to harass this person.
He went out of his way to be a jerk. That’s not free speech, or trying to protect his ability to have it under the law, that’s harassment. Plain and simple

 

[Kooky]

Then you haven't read the rest of the topic, particularly post #52 or the part where I mentioned the lack of gender neutral pronouns in portuguese, right?

Did the lack of gender neutral pronouns in Portuguese lead you to the assumption that transgender people like to be called "Your Highness", or is it in some other way relevant to the absurd fictional scenarios you've been debating for several pages now?

 

[Kooky]

Manners cost nothing

One would think so, but apparently to certain people here on RF as well as the world outside, showing even a modicum of politeness and not insulting people to their face places an undue burden of them and is felt as the most brutal form of oppression.

 

[Brickjectivity]

And I mean if someone asks you not to harass them and you do it anyway. Well I have very little sympathy for the jerk who does that. Manners cost nothing
This guy from the OP could have very easily just avoided pronouns altogether. Called his employee exclusively by their name. That’s not compelling him to say something he doesn’t believe. Unless he believes said employee is using a fake name lol
Hell he could have even used the “they” pronoun to refer to this person just by using the English language
(Oh X has gone to lunch, you say? When will THEY be back?)
Which goes to show that he just wanted to harass this person.
He went out of his way to be a jerk. That’s not free speech, or trying to protect his ability to have it under the law, that’s harassment. Plain and simple

I agree with you on this. The boss is at fault.

Well I can respect that stance. But is calling a person by their preferred pronoun really forcing someone to say something they don’t believe?
I mean when I worked retail I lied to people all the time. When I was having a bad day maintained a happy demeanour or when I pretended to care about whatever mundane thing a customer told me. I didn’t really believe what I was saying but I was polite. It wasn’t compelled speech to refer to a customer as sir, ma’am or anything they politely asked me to refer to them as. A mixture of training and being raised to be polite is really all it took for me to say things I didn’t believe. And it didn’t hurt me at all.

And I kind of question whether or not this is even a legitimate concern. How many people on average lie to maintain their jobs? False compliments or pretending to care about some mundane thing? Does every person who maintains a cordial relationship with their manager or coworkers believe every single solitary thing they say to them? I mean I remember using “white lies” to spare other people’s feelings. Not just for civility’s sake but at work you have to be professional, right?

I understand.

I don't know if you'll believe this but I as a teenager did exactly what you're saying shouldn't be done and got fired after 2 months. I attempted the impossible working retail sales and being honest as little George Washington. At the time I thought lying was a sin, so I wouldn't lie. This did not work. I was as pleasant as I knew how, but being so fickle about lying was a huge obstacle when it came to dealing with customers or anyone such as management. Weeks before I was fired somebody at work egg'd my car, and I never found out who. My manager mentioned I might be getting belief training, but the sound of these words were so alarming so me. She must have misunderstood the look on my face, because I got no training and was soon let go. Belief training sounded very evil to me, because I believed hard and believed in believing the truth. I did, and I believed it was absolutely the most important thing ever. What I heard was not belief training but something else. It never happened though as I was let go. I wasn't surprised to be let go since my sales were zero.

In order to maintain peace people often say things they don’t “really believe.” Is that really worthy of a lawsuit?

It depends. I'm not who I was, but belief is a very big deal depending on who you talk to. People really think that they have the absolute truth about the world and that everyone else is living in a lie or dream. This is true. As you walk around and meet people, this is what many think.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Then you haven't read the rest of the topic, particularly post #52 or the part where I mentioned the lack of gender neutral pronouns in portuguese, right?

A quick Googling suggests there are in fact gender neutral pronouns in Portuguese; they're just relatively new:

https://nonbinary.wiki/wiki/Gender_neutral_language_in_Portuguese

 

[Koldo]

Did the lack of gender neutral pronouns in Portuguese lead you to the assumption that transgender people like to be called "Your Highness", or is it in some other way relevant to the absurd fictional scenarios you've been debating for several pages now?

The part about 'Your Highness' was part of a larger context. Anyone can feel entitled to be to referred by a given pronoun, do you or do you not agree that people should be treated as they want to be treated? Or do you rather agree that it is not entirely up to the individual to determine how others will treat them?