Canada, pronouns, and compelled speech, yes, again

[Shadow Wolf]

Please, please, please. Do not conflate this with matters of civility or politeness. This is quite distinct from those.

I went further than that, even demonstrating how America has similar laws but there is no pearl clutching going on over it.

 

[epronovost]

I'll ask again, which pronouns were legal for the employer to use?

The one that wasn't an insult to the person you adressed. You can't insult people.

 

[icehorse]

The one that wasn't an insult to the person you adressed. You can't insult people.

Ok, so we CAN all make up whatever pronouns we want to?

 

[icehorse]

@9-10ths_Penguin and @Shadow Wolf

"clutching at pearls"

classy!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'll ask again, which pronouns were legal for the employer to use?

Is an employer required to use pronouns to refer to an employee at all?

Jessie Nelson has a name. The employer could have just referred to them as "Jessie."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Please, please, please. Do not conflate this with matters of civility or politeness. This is quite distinct from those.

Nonsense. That's the substance of the case.

Jessie Nelson was harassed at work. You're defending the harrasers. That's really all this is.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

@9-10ths_Penguin and @Shadow Wolf

"clutching at pearls"

classy!

That what it seems to me with a big deal being made out of something that has basically always been, something that is really nothing.

 

[Rival]

A little bit of politeness goes a long way.

Even if you despise everything about the person.

- British proverb, probably.

 

[icehorse]

Nonsense. That's the substance of the case.

Jessie Nelson was harassed at work. You're defending the harrasers. That's really all this is.

Are you saying that - despite the mention of pronouns in the ruling - pronoun use had nothing to do with the ruling?

Or are you saying that not using the preferred pronoun is harassment?

Or... ?

 

[epronovost]

Ok, so we CAN all make up whatever pronouns we want to?

Well there are no pronoun officially recognized to address non-binary people. They is the most popular in the English language and might soon become the most in usage, but until that convention is firmly established, yes other ''competitors'' might be employed, some of which might be neologism priorly unknown. It's a simple question of formality.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Are you saying that - despite the mention of pronouns in the ruling - pronoun use had nothing to do with the ruling?

Or are you saying that not using the preferred pronoun is harassment?

Or... ?

No.

I'm not surprised that you misread my post, though, considering how thoroughly you misread the article in your OP.

Edit: have you already forgotten that the thing you were complaining about was "compelled" speech? Tell me what speech you think was compelled.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That what it seems to me with a big deal being made out of something that has basically always been, something that is really nothing.

Seems to me that @icehorse wants it both ways:

- if we want to go with her pretense that this is just about what she sees as proper grammar, then pearl-clutching is ths right way to describe what she's doing.

- if this is a significant issue, then it's really because of the harassment she's defending.

It's @icehorse 's choice whether she wants to come across as pedantic or bigoted.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Seems to me that @icehorse wants it both ways:

- if we want to go with her pretense that this is just about what she sees as proper grammar, then pearl-clutching is ths right way to describe what she's doing.

- if this is a significant issue, then it's really because of the harassment she's defending.

It's @icehorse 's choice whether she wants to come across as pedantic or bigoted.

I don't see this at all being defensible from aa pedantic perspective because it has been made into accepted grammar, and as English has no proper singular gender nuetral terms. I dislike a singular they, but if it's what someone expresses as a desired reference then it is grammatically correct.
Where it would be an issue of it being pedantic and bigoted is this recent thing I've noticed is using they for everyone, regardless of identified and expressed gender. That's basically what the OP complaint is, and it's rude.

 

[icehorse]

From the tribunal's report:

The restaurant can draft its own language, but it could be something like: ‘Pronouns – All team members have the right to be addressed by their own personal pronouns.’ I also encourage, but do not order, the restaurant to update its policies to use nonbinary, gender neutral language throughout. This would mean, for example, replacing references to men or women with ‘people’ and replacing his/his/she/hers with they/them. Continue reading Tribunal Declares it a Human Rights Offense to Not Use ‘Preferred Pronouns’ | Women Are Human. Read more at: Tribunal Declares it a Human Rights Offense to Not Use 'Preferred Pronouns' - Women Are Human

I've bolded a sentence that strikes me as dangerous. The logical conclusion is that a person can declare their own arbitrary pronoun and compel others to use it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

From the tribunal's report:



I've bolded a sentence that strikes me as dangerous. The logical conclusion is that a person can declare their own arbitrary pronoun and compel others to use it.

Let me bold a few of my own:

The restaurant can draft its own language, but it could be something like: ‘Pronouns – All team members have the right to be addressed by their own personal pronouns.’ I also encourage, but do not order, the restaurant to update its policies to use nonbinary, gender neutral language throughout. This would mean, for example, replacing references to men or women with ‘people’ and replacing his/his/she/hers with they/them.

Oh no! Non-binding suggestions! Dangerous indeed. Won't somebody think of the children?!

BTW: still waiting to hear what you think is the actual compelled speech in this case.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The logical conclusion is that a person can declare their own arbitrary pronoun and compel others to use it.

You think this is a logical conclusion?

Step through that logic, please.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't see this at all being defensible from aa pedantic perspective because it has been made into accepted grammar, and as English has no proper singular gender nuetral terms.

Heh... I don't remember saying it was defensible.

And as I touched on earlier, the singular "they" is older than the singular "you."

I dislike a singular they, but if it's what someone expresses as a desired reference then it is grammatically correct.
Where it would be an issue of it being pedantic and bigoted is this recent thing I've noticed is using they for everyone, regardless of identified and expressed gender.

I think the singular "they" is fine when talking in generalities (e.g. "whoever closes up should make sure the door is locked behind them"), or about an unknown person, or about someone who hasn't indicated their pronouns.

If someone says that the prefer "he" or "she" and I insist on using "them," then sure - that would be rude.

That's basically what the OP complaint is, and it's rude.

Is that what @icehorse 's complaint is? I didn't get that impression. She keeps going on about "compelled speech" (even though she - so far, at least - can't point to any actual examples of it).

 

[icehorse]

BTW: still waiting to hear what you think is the actual compelled speech in this case.

Ok, bolding the sentence wasn't enough, let me isolate it for you:

All team members have the right to be addressed by their own personal pronouns.

So the compelled speech would be that others are compelled to address the offended team member using the personal pronoun of the offended member's choice.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

From the tribunal's report:



I've bolded a sentence that strikes me as dangerous. The logical conclusion is that a person can declare their own arbitrary pronoun and compel others to use it.

Then you are being deliberately obtuse and hyperbolic in your reading of it.

Please stop exaggerating what is a simple case of an employer being an abusive jerk into a moral drama about freedom of speech. This fear-mongering about pronouns is a nonsense and you know it.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Ok, bolding the sentence wasn't enough, let me isolate it for you:

So the compelled speech would be that others are compelled to address the offended team member using the personal pronoun of the offended member's choice.

Nope. That sentence doesn't say that. Read it again.