Canada, pronouns, and compelled speech, yes, again

[Kooky]

Human Rights indeed seem to be a horrible source of oppression for those who feel it is a burden to treat their fellow humans as people.

 

[Kooky]

I understand that using the wrong pronoun can be utterly unsettling, to say the least. But here are my questions to you both: Where do you draw the line? Must others use a pronoun I have created myself out of thin air, for instance? Must others call me 'Your Highness' if I find it the only appropiate pronoun to refer to me? By 'must' I most certainly mean as in 'compelled by law'.

Where do you draw the line at theft or murder? Those are, after all, merely social constructs describing ill-defined human behavior, and are frequently used in figures of speech - they could mean literally anything!

Would the government of Canada lock me up if my girlfriend told them I stole her heart?
Would the US put me on the chair if I put on a performance that killed it?

Should we even have laws when words can mean different things in different contexts?

 

[epronovost]

I read it and I'm confused. Is the person M to F or F to M transgender?


I ask because "Manager Brian Gobelle “persistently referred” to the employee with “she/her pronouns and with gendered nicknames like ‘sweetheart’, ‘honey'” – and owing to the pink hair dye job – “‘pinky’.”

If M to F I would think she/her would be acceptable while "sweetheart, honey and pinky would not be.

If F to M then none would be acceptable.

The person in question is legally a woman and isn't transgender. They are gender fluid, a category that could be described as "neither male nor female and both at the same time". The favored pronoun of that person was "they" and didn't appreciate the "feminine nicknames" which, in my opinion, would have been totally inacceptable even toward a cisgender woman.

 

[We Never Know]

The person in question is legally a woman and isn't transgender. They are gender fluid, a category that could be described as "neither male nor female and both at the same time". The favored pronoun of that person was "they" and didn't appreciate the "feminine nicknames" which, in my opinion, would have been totally inacceptable even toward a cisgender woman.

Ok. Thank you.

 

[We Never Know]

The person in question is legally a woman and isn't transgender. They are gender fluid, a category that could be described as "neither male nor female and both at the same time". The favored pronoun of that person was "they" and didn't appreciate the "feminine nicknames" which, in my opinion, would have been totally inacceptable even toward a cisgender woman.

Question... Then isn't the article referring to them as "Ms Nelson" wrong?

 

[icehorse]

The line is easy to draw, it has already been drawn. Are you a class protected by the Canadian Bill of rights? If yes, people must respect that identity and offer you the same dignity than any other groups. Can I force people to call me "Your Highness"? No, "pretend monarchs" aren't a protected class of people in the Bill of Rights. Transgender people and non-binary people are. We have collectively decided that these people are our equal and deserve respect and dignity like everybody else, thus harassing, slandering or appealing to hatred against them is illegal.

strawman much?

 

[epronovost]

Question... Then isn't the article referring to them as "Ms Nelson" wrong?

Indeed. It refers to them as Ms Nelson. I don't know specifically why or if, in that context, it's their favored pronoun.

 

[epronovost]

strawman much?

It was literaly the example presented by @Koldo in their message; so it cannot be a strawman.

 

[We Never Know]

Indeed. It refers to them as Ms Nelson. I don't know specifically why or if, in that context, it's their favored pronoun.

In my opinion Ms is just as feminine as she/her.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I can't call people *****es, ********, *****, or wankers without repercussions but you don't hear me complaining about how my speech is unfairly constrained.
I can think of plenty of other words as well, to utter them in formal company and in business and public in general is going to come with consequences.
Being free doesn't mean free to do whatever free of consequences.

 

[Koldo]

The line is easy to draw, it has already been drawn. Are you a class protected by the Canadian Bill of rights? If yes, people must respect that identity and offer you the same dignity than any other groups. Can I force people to call me "Your Highness"? No, "pretend monarchs" aren't a protected class of people in the Bill of Rights. Transgender people and non-binary people are. We have collectively decided that these people are our equal and deserve respect and dignity like everybody else, thus harassing, slandering or appealing to hatred against them is illegal.

1) Do you mean that if a class was no longer protected by the Canadian Bill of Rights that you would no longer support it being illegal to use the pronouns they don't want? Why does your stance on who should be protected hinge on that document?

2) Assume I am a non-binary person that doesn't find it proper to refer to me as he, she or they. What I want you to call me is Shehey. Are you fine with it being illegal to call me he, she or they?

 

[Stevicus]

I can't call people *****es, ********, *****, or wankers without repercussions but you don't hear me complaining about how my speech is unfairly constrained.
I can think of plenty of other words as well, to utter them in formal company and in business and public in general is going to come with consequences.
Being free doesn't mean free to do whatever free of consequences.

I call people "asterisks" all the time, but then someone came back and said "Double dumb asterisk on you!"

 

[We Never Know]

I can't call people *****es, ********, *****, or wankers without repercussions but you don't hear me complaining about how my speech is unfairly constrained.
I can think of plenty of other words as well, to utter them in formal company and in business and public in general is going to come with consequences.
Being free doesn't mean free to do whatever free of consequences.

Isn't Ms just as feminine as she/he? Why accept one and not the other.
If not then they should sue the writer for referring to them as Ms.

 

[Koldo]

Where do you draw the line at theft or murder? Those are, after all, merely social constructs describing ill-defined human behavior, and are frequently used in figures of speech - they could mean literally anything!

Would the government of Canada lock me up if my girlfriend told them I stole her heart?
Would the US put me on the chair if I put on a performance that killed it?

Should we even have laws when words can mean different things in different contexts?

I am afraid comparing my examples to figures of speech doesn't accomplish much.

 

[We Never Know]

I call people "asterisks" all the time, but then someone came back and said "Double dumb asterisk on you!"

I have found that "hey you" gets the attention of many and its always politically correct.

 

[epronovost]

1) Do you mean that if a class was no longer protected by the Canadian Bill of Rights that you would no longer support it being illegal to use the pronouns they don't want? Why does your stance on who should be protected hinge on that document?

Well, first, your question concerned the law, not my personal feelings or that of any individual. My personal feelings or that of other individuals are irrelevant to questions of legality. The law protects people or not and the law itself is based on policies, humanist values and compromises between the actors of society. Sexual identity is a protected class, no matter your or my feelings about it. That's just a fact. The limits of legal decisions are the law themselves. You asked a "where does it stop" question about the law. Your point had nothing to do with the personal opinion of X individual about a specific case. The personal opinions of some random person have no weight on court decisions.

2) Assume I am a non-binary person that doesn't find it proper to refer to me as he, she or they. What I want you to call me is Shehey. Are you fine with it being illegal to call me he, she or they?

In the context of your employment or in official documents, yes. People do not have the right to insult you just because they think you are wrong for being you and want to be referred with a pronoun appropriate to your gender/sexual identity. It make sense to me to include gender/sexual identity into special protected class with race/ethnic group, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, religion (or lack off), pregnancy status. These are either innate quality that cannot be changed and in the case of marital status, pregnancy and religion are either fundamentally linked to one's social identity or an obstacle to gender equality.

 

[Koldo]

Well, first, your question concerned the law, not my personal feelings or that of any individual. My personal feelings or that of other individuals are irrelevant to questions of legality. The law protects people or not and the law itself is based on policies, humanist values and compromises between the actors of society. Sexual identity is a protected class, no matter your or my feelings about it. That's just a fact. The limits of legal decisions are the law themselves. You asked a "where does it stop" question about the law. Your point had nothing to do with the personal opinion of X individual about a specific case. The personal opinions of some random person have no weight on court decisions.

There is a misunderstanding here.
I have asked: Where do you draw the line?

The canadian law, by itself, is utterly irrelevant to me. I was really asking you where you personally draw the line.

In the context of your employment or in official documents, yes. People do not have the right to insult you just because they think you are wrong for being you and want to be referred with a pronoun appropriate to your gender/sexual identity. It make sense to me to include gender/sexual identity into special protected class with race/ethnic group, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, religion (or lack off), pregnancy status. These are either innate quality that cannot be changed and in the case of marital status, pregnancy and religion are either fundamentally linked to one's social identity or an obstacle to gender equality.

How exactly does this work?
Do I have to create a new word from scratch to use as a pronoun?
You have said that 'Shehey' is fine, but 'Your Highness' is not. Is it because I have completely made up the first one out of thin air?

 

[Twilight Hue]

The line is easy to draw, it has already been drawn. Are you a class protected by the Canadian Bill of rights? If yes, people must respect that identity and offer you the same dignity than any other groups. Can I force people to call me "Your Highness"? No, "pretend monarchs" aren't a protected class of people in the Bill of Rights. Transgender people and non-binary people are. We have collectively decided that these people are our equal and deserve respect and dignity like everybody else, thus harassing, slandering or appealing to hatred against them is illegal.

Can one have protected classes of people and still call it equal?

 

[epronovost]

Can one have protected classes of people and still call it equal?

Well, protected class makes equality possible between said protected class. Without such a thing there is no equality before the law. Note that there are protected class in the US too like race/ethnic group, gender, sexual orientation, etc. That's why discrimination based on race or religion for example is illegal. A protected class is a reason for which it's illegal for an organization to discriminate. So yes, protected class is the very fabric of equality.

 

[epronovost]

There is a misunderstanding here.
I have asked: Where do you draw the line?

That's a fundamentally stupid question. I don't draw any line. I am not in control of the law and never will.

I personally like where the line has been drawn. It seems reasonable, but then again, there might be groups to whom protection should be extended.

How exactly does this work?
Do I have to create a new word from scratch to use as a pronoun?
You have said that 'Shehey' is fine, but 'Your Highness' is not. Is it because I have completely made up the first one out of thin air?

Well one had something to do with gender, a protected class, and a inherent characteristic of your identity while the other is an honorific which doesn't have anything to do with it. If you have a special pronoun that has something to do with your gender go away and demand it to be used, but if it has nothing to do with your gender identity, then don't expect it to be respected. Honorifics are another cup of tea.