Is the Spanish language offensive to trans people?

[rainbow]

The lisp is Castillian.

The fact that you even know this is disturbing...

[Scot Dutchy]

They dont lisp in Mexico. The story goes that the original conquistadors spoke a non lisp Spanish but after reaching South America Philip II came on the throne in Spain. He had a natural lisp but because no one in the court would not criticise him everyone learnt to lisp but the South and Central American countries did not.
Spaniards are mocked in Mexico because of their lisp as Mexicans consider it a speech impediment.

[Scot Dutchy]

Same problem:

Pädagoge - Male
Pädagogin - Female.

Alternatives would be PädagogIn, Pädagog_in, Pädagog*in, Pädagoge/in, Pädagogex.

.

In Dutch it was the same only the difference 'es' is added; leraar and lerares. The vowel rule also plays a role. This form is considered not PC and the female form has been dropped. So the male form has become neutral.

[Animavore]

Yes, if you were ignorant you would think 'Glenn' was a man's name.

You what?

Out of the 43 famous Glenns listed here, 42 of them are male.

Struggling to understand your point.

Lol. They spell their names the girl's way.

[pErvinalia]

Well it's clearly not solely the girl's way if so may males are named that.

[Forty Two]

Something that really irritates me is the current trend for referring to actresses as actors, as seen in lefty broadsheet papers and the like.

The purpose of language is to convey information, but if you saw a reference to "the actor Glenn Close", you may think she was a he, so it's just confusing the matter for no good reason at all.

Using the word "actor" for females is old hat. The trend today is that even knowing that Glenn Close is what traditionally has been known as "a woman" does not tell us anything at all about whether she is female or male, or an actor or an actress. Maybe Glenn Close "identifies" as male, or as both male and female, or as fluctuating between male and female periodically. We don't know, and to some extent she/he/they/ther/zer/zhir/hir/hem/it doesn't "know."

The next trend is that even identifying her as "human" is going to be deemed offensive because there are people called "otherkin" who identify as nonhuman genders or identities.

Postmodernism has taken a turn to the surreal.

[Forty Two]

Yes, if you were ignorant you would think 'Glenn' was a man's name.

Actually, if you were a transphobe and a misogynist, you would think there was such a thing as "a man's name."

[Forty Two]

Same problem:

Pädagoge - Male
Pädagogin - Female.

Alternatives would be PädagogIn, Pädagog_in, Pädagog*in, Pädagoge/in, Pädagogex.

.

In Dutch it was the same only the difference 'es' is added; leraar and lerares. The vowel rule also plays a role. This form is considered not PC and the female form has been dropped. So the male form has become neutral.

Neutral is bigenderphobic.

[pErvinalia]

Something that really irritates me is the current trend for referring to actresses as actors, as seen in lefty broadsheet papers and the like.

The purpose of language is to convey information, but if you saw a reference to "the actor Glenn Close", you may think she was a he, so it's just confusing the matter for no good reason at all.

Using the word "actor" for females is old hat. The trend today is that even knowing that Glenn Close is what traditionally has been known as "a woman" does not tell us anything at all about whether she is female or male, or an actor or an actress. Maybe Glenn Close "identifies" as male, or as both male and female, or as fluctuating between male and female periodically. We don't know, and to some extent she/he/they/ther/zer/zhir/hir/hem/it doesn't "know."

The next trend is that even identifying her as "human" is going to be deemed offensive because there are people called "otherkin" who identify as nonhuman genders or identities.

Postmodernism has taken a turn to the surreal.

The question is: why do you people care whether Glenn Close's name or professional label tells us anything about the sex/gender/whatever of her (<- it's my understanding she's still a she at this moment)? (I actually know the real answer).

[Forty Two]

For the same people atheists care about religions. The people who hold to the given ideologies at issue are forcing the "identity politics" on us, to the point of (somewhat successfully) embedding into law the obligation for us to refer to people by self-identified "genders" of various kinds, under real penalty of law. Like the the religious, if they keep their views in the private sphere, in the marketplace of ideas, they are free to do what they want. However, when they use or attempt to use the machinery of government to compel action on the part of others who do not share their beliefs, then it is a big problem.

Dr. Jordan Peterson of the University of Toronto has explained it similarly. With the trans and identity politics folks, they see no problem with forcing people to say certain words. They want the law to REQUIRE that we refer to Glenn Close as "he" if that's what she wants, or to change or references to her periodically if she identifies as gender fluid or bigendered, or to use any of 70+ other words to describe her, if that's what she wants. Such compulsion is compelled speech and compelled implicit acceptance of the principles underlying the leftist identity politics ideology.

It's important that we not bow to compulsion to speak the language of an ideology we don't subscribe to, or any ideology under compulsion.

Paikin: Are you prepared to suffer the consequences that society may deem you need to suffer because of your views?
Peterson: Yes, I'm prepared to do that....I think that the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal is probably obligated by their own tangled web to bring me in front of it. If they fine me, I won't pay it. If they put me in jail, I'll go on a hunger strike. I'm not doing this, and that's that. I'm not using the words that other people require me to use, especially if they're made up by radical left-wing ideologues.

Suddenly, it's "fundamental" and an apparent no-brainer that anyone who refuses to bow to the ideologically-driven linguistics of the left can be hauled before the Human Rights Commission.

....the gender-rights activists consider it hate speech and even outright violence if anyone so much as dares to question the biological premises of gender expression and gender identity. This became very clear when Nicholas Matte, Ph.D. Candidate in the Sexual Diversity Studies program at the University of Toronto, accused Dr. Peterson of "abusing" students by refusing to use their preferred gender pronoun:

Matte:...I don't agree with why Dr. Peterson has been asked to stop abusing students on campus...
Peterson: To stop doing what?
Matte: Abusing students and other members of our learning community who do deserve respect and do deserve to be able to work and learn and contribute to society in a place where if they are physically assaulted....
Paikin (to Matte): You've accused him of abusing students by not using the pronouns that they want to be addressed by?
Matte: That is how I see it, absolutely.
Paikin: That is tantamount to abuse, in your view?
Matte: Absolutely. Many, many global documents, many organisations...
Peterson: How about violence, is it tantamount to violence?
Matte: Yes, absolutely.
Peterson: How about hate speech, is it tantamount to hate speech?
Matte: Yes, of course it's hate speech to tell someone that you won't refer to them in a way that recognizes their humanity and dignity.

There we have it. Get ready for this, because it is about to become law: anyone who refuses to verbally affirm the claims of gender-rights ideology will be accused of hate speech and even violence.

Paikin: Kyle, are we being transphobic here by having this debate?
Kirkup: I do worry about setting up a false equivalency in this conversation, and really even making the premise that trans lives are up for debate. They're not up for debate. Human rights aren't up for debate...

https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/jo ... s-movement

LOL - having a debate over the propriety of fining and jailing people for failing to use pronouns is "transphobic" because it's not up for debate (because using pronouns is "fundamental" to human rights.

Why should we care? Because that law in Canada which they were discussing is coming to a legislature/parliament and administrative agency/ministry near you.....

See also - http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/ar ... FKtx7IrLIU

[Forty Two]

Why should we care about this? Dr. Peterson put the arguments quite well here - http://www.torontosun.com/2016/11/03/wh ... dnt-either I recommend you read that article, and rather than hand wave it or dismiss it with generalities -- address his points and explain why he's wrong.

[JimC]

You are making it seem like it will apply to everybody in Canada, whereas it is simply an issue confined to a university. And yes, even in that narrow context, I agree that there should be no compulsion to use certain words, although I have no issue with transgender people making a polite request for forms of address they are comfortable with...

[Brian Peacock]

Oh the scandal! Oh the controversy! If referring to trans people in gender neutral terms, or with terms that they're comfortable with, is political correctness gone mad, then there should be no problems in referring to men as 'ladies' or 'bitches' .

So what do you girls think about that?

[pErvinalia]

For the same people atheists care about religions. The people who hold to the given ideologies at issue are forcing the "identity politics" on us, to the point of (somewhat successfully) embedding into law the obligation for us to refer to people by self-identified "genders" of various kinds, under real penalty of law.

Then why didn't you say that? Your post was solely you ranting about the fact that you technically can't tell any more if someone is a man or woman or something else from their name or professional title alone. On what you posted alone, I say: who gives a shit? It's the same as people complaining because they can't see people's faces behind burqas because it makes them feel uncomfortable.

There we have it. Get ready for this, because it is about to become law: anyone who refuses to verbally affirm the claims of gender-rights ideology will be accused of hate speech and even violence.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/jo ... s-movement

You forgot to quote the lawyer who explained what the law was really targeted at.

See also - http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/ar ... FKtx7IrLIU

Peterson is an angry conspiracy nut. He's Seth. He thinks the left is a social Marxism plot to overthrow the standing world order.

[Hermit]

Oh the scandal! Oh the controversy! If referring to trans people in gender neutral terms, or with terms that they're comfortable with, is political correctness gone mad, then there should be no problems in referring to men as 'ladies' or 'bitches' .

Perhaps gender neutral terms are problematic in themselves as far as Forty Two is concerned. I have not read along attentively enough to tell one way or another, but even after a cursory look I can see that if he has a problem with their use, it is a peripheral issue to him. The central objection he expresses is that the use of them will be embedded in law and failure to comply will result in whatever penalties those laws stipulate. If "the left" gets its way - and he fears that it will - then such laws will inevitably be formulated and ratified.

If I got the drift of Forty Two's argument wrong he will undoubtedly correct me. Assuming that I got it more or less right, I will add that I agree with him in so far as such laws should not be passed. If nothing else, they are counter-productive. It's better to use the many avenues to change attitudes and behaviour instead. They have succeeded, albeit very slowly and at this stage incompletely, to change them in a range of other issues, the perception and treatment of women being the most obvious.

Yes, I know; the women's lot has been improved by many laws being introduced, abolished or amended, but I don't think any of them legislated on the matter of how they were to be addressed.