Is the Spanish language offensive to trans people?

[pErvinalia]

The way such a law would work (and how they appear to work in practice) is that it would stop employers and the state discriminating against trans/intersex/etc people. On an individual level you could call anyone anything, within the bounds of the existing set of laws. But organisations couldn't discriminate against you by either putting obstacles in your way in getting documents in your preferred (while legal) titles, or just be outright bigoted and doing what amounts to workplace harassment.

[JimC]

Prevention of active discrimination is fair enough, in terms of documentation as you say. But fines for not using ze or xe in speech would be pushing it, IMO...

[Hermit]

But fines for not using ze or xe in speech would be pushing it, IMO...

It would indeed. It would also be counterproductive. I think I mention that once or twice before.

Still waiting for 42 to convince me that it is on the cards as far as government legislation is concerned. He did mention the amendments to the Canadian Bill 160, claiming as he did so that not using pronouns as requested will become a hate crime or something like that, but so far he has not pointed at the wording in the Canadian Criminal Code or its Human Rights Act or in the amendments to them that will make it so. All we have so far is a truckload of words by someone who says it is there. I will not spend eleven hours checking if he does what 42 has so far failed to do.

[JimC]

The funny thing is, I have read some great SF (by Jo Clayton) where she posits an alien race with 3 sexes, one of them neuter, who are (very legitimately) referred through the book as "xe"...

[NineBerry]

I remember reading about a case some years ago, where an employee was fired for continuously referring to a male (non-trans) co-worker as "she". The case went before a court and the court said this was a valid reason for firing an employee because the behaviour was workplace-harassment.

[Forty Two]

I remember reading about a case some years ago, where an employee was fired for continuously referring to a male (non-trans) co-worker as "she". The case went before a court and the court said this was a valid reason for firing an employee because the behaviour was workplace-harassment.

Well, what's the jurisdiction for that case. Here in the US, that would be a "valid reason" for firing most employees, because most employees here are "at will" and unless the employer fired the person for an illegal reason, the person could be terminated for any reason or no reason. An employer could, for example, fire the person for speaking out of turn, or being a dick.

[Forty Two]

But fines for not using ze or xe in speech would be pushing it, IMO...

It would indeed. It would also be counterproductive. I think I mention that once or twice before.

Still waiting for 42 to convince me that it is on the cards as far as government legislation is concerned. He did mention the amendments to the Canadian Bill 160, claiming as he did so that not using pronouns as requested will become a hate crime or something like that, but so far he has not pointed at the wording in the Canadian Criminal Code or its Human Rights Act or in the amendments to them that will make it so. All we have so far is a truckload of words by someone who says it is there. I will not spend eleven hours checking if he does what 42 has so far failed to do.

I did provide a summation here - http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 0#p1691488 and here is an additional explanation http://tvo.org/video/programs/the-agend ... -of-speech The basic gist is that the law prohibits discrimination and harassment and failure to use a pronoun on demand will be considered harassment and hate speech.

Do you think if Dr. Peterson refuses to use the gender identity language a student demands that he's NOT harassing or discriminating against that student? Or, do you think C-16 would still allow him to refuse to use non-binary gender pronouns?

Now, certainly, there are lawyers who are proponents of the legislation arguing that the law doesn't mean what Peterson says it means. But, note - the lawyer that's been cited or referred to above said that the law does not make misuse of pronouns "hate speech." The lawyer did not dispute that a professor refusing to use a person's preferred pronoun would be discrimination or harassment.

I get that the law does not explicitly state "you must use pronouns x, y and z" or this or that will happen. That's not how harassment and discrimination laws work, though. The devil is in the enforcement, and what Peterson explains is how the university of Toronto is viewing pronoun use in the context of harassment and discrimination law.

[Hermit]

I did provide a summation here - http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 0#p1691488 and here is an additional explanation http://tvo.org/video/programs/the-agend ... -of-speech The basic gist is that the law prohibits discrimination and harassment and failure to use a pronoun on demand will be considered harassment and hate speech.

Where are the words in the Canadian Criminal Code or its Human Rights Act or in the amendments which would allow the conclusion that the amendments mean that from now on "failure to use a pronoun on demand will be considered harassment and hate speech". Your comments in your previous post, "failure to use gender expression pronouns is arguably considered "hate speech" and "tantamount to violence" by the advocates of that legislation." and " In other words, pronoun misuse may become actionable, though the Human Rights Tribunals and courts." fail to do so. As for the Ontario Human Rights Commission, I note that when it says in its policy paper that "Gender-based harassment can involve: ... Refusing to refer to a person by their self-identified name and proper personal pronoun" it is, like your assertions, an interpretation of what the laws, as amended, mean, not what they say. I also note that the relevant chapter does not mention "hate speech" at all.

Turning to the discussion you linked to now, I only listened to the first part of it. When Peterson was specifically asked about the legislation (4:48), he too started holding forth on an interpretation of it. So we get to hear that the demands to use gender-neutral pronouns involve the use of force and fear because there is legislative power behind them. Is there? That's the very thing to be established, and no matter who does the interpreting, it can't be done without referring to the laws' actual wording. Peterson never even tried during the next five minutes. Maybe he did somewhere during the following three quarters of an hour, but I'll leave it to you to direct me to the relevant spot. When the moderator turned to another panellist, who began by saying that there is no such thing as biological sex and that he was not going to unpack that claim to save time (11:26), I realised that this discussion was only getting worse and gave up on it.

Now, I realise that the application of all laws necessarily involve interpretation, but any interpretation must be based an the actual wording of those laws and considerations of case history. I put it to you that any reasonably competent lawyer will successfully argue that as the laws and precedents stand the failure to use requested personal pronouns on their own will never suffice to win a conviction on the grounds of discrimination, harassment, let alone hate speech. There is simply nothing in the wording of the laws that suggest such a possibility, nor can a precedent be synthesised from previous court cases. It's up to you to convince me otherwise. Chapter and verse, please. Pretend you're a lawyer and make your case.

[JimC]

I remember reading about a case some years ago, where an employee was fired for continuously referring to a male (non-trans) co-worker as "she". The case went before a court and the court said this was a valid reason for firing an employee because the behaviour was workplace-harassment.

Well, what's the jurisdiction for that case. Here in the US, that would be a "valid reason" for firing most employees, because most employees here are "at will" and unless the employer fired the person for an illegal reason, the person could be terminated for any reason or no reason. An employer could, for example, fire the person for speaking out of turn, or being a dick.

Well, this is the issue here, isn't it? It's just the University's internal rules about how its employees should behave, not a law applying to the population as a whole...

[Forty Two]

I did provide a summation here - http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 0#p1691488 and here is an additional explanation http://tvo.org/video/programs/the-agend ... -of-speech The basic gist is that the law prohibits discrimination and harassment and failure to use a pronoun on demand will be considered harassment and hate speech.

Where are the words in the Canadian Criminal Code or its Human Rights Act or in the amendments which would allow the conclusion that the amendments mean that from now on "failure to use a pronoun on demand will be considered harassment and hate speech".

Where are the words in the law to say that telling a woman to suck cocks in the workplace during lunch hour is considered sexual harassment? These things are never explicitly set forth in the law. As Prof. Peterson has explained, this is how these kinds of laws are being interpreted.

Your comments in your previous post, "failure to use gender expression pronouns is arguably considered "hate speech" and "tantamount to violence" by the advocates of that legislation." and " In other words, pronoun misuse may become actionable, though the Human Rights Tribunals and courts." fail to do so.

It fails to show where the exact language you're looking for is explicitly contained in statutes, yes. However, the law only defines harassment as a course of verbal or physical conduct which renders a workplace or school a hostile or offensive environment. It doesn't say that self-abuse in a cubicle or math class can be considered harassment.

As for the Ontario Human Rights Commission, I note that when it says in its policy paper that "Gender-based harassment can involve: ... Refusing to refer to a person by their self-identified name and proper personal pronoun" it is, like your assertions, an interpretation of what the laws, as amended, mean, not what they say. I also note that the relevant chapter does not mention "hate speech" at all.

Employers, colleges, and courts follow the recommendations of the Ontario Human Rights Commission (at least in Ontario, which is where Dr. Peterson works).

Don't you think that refusing to use a trans person's personal pronoun after they've told you explicitly what to refer to them as is sexual harassment? Yes? No? Come on now - can you answer that question?

Turning to the discussion you linked to now, I only listened to the first part of it. When Peterson was specifically asked about the legislation (4:48), he too started holding forth on an interpretation of it.

Sure, and I believe his interpretation is right. Don't you? Or do you think the law should and will be interpreted to allow employers and professors to refer to zer and zhim as he and him?

So we get to hear that the demands to use gender-neutral pronouns involve the use of force and fear because there is legislative power behind them. Is there? That's the very thing to be established, and no matter who does the interpreting, it can't be done without referring to the laws' actual wording. Peterson never even tried during the next five minutes. Maybe he did somewhere during the following three quarters of an hour, but I'll leave it to you to direct me to the relevant spot. When the moderator turned to another panellist, who began by saying that there is no such thing as biological sex and that he was not going to unpack that claim to save time (11:26), I realised that this discussion was only getting worse and gave up on it.

Well sure - that other panelist was a professor of gender studies at the University of Toronto, and espousing the current prevailing thought among gender identity ideologues.

Now, I realise that the application of all laws necessarily involve interpretation, but any interpretation must be based an the actual wording of those laws and considerations of case history. I put it to you that any reasonably competent lawyer will successfully argue that as the laws and precedents stand the failure to use requested personal pronouns on their own will never suffice to win a conviction on the grounds of discrimination, harassment, let alone hate speech. There is simply nothing in the wording of the laws that suggest such a possibility, nor can a precedent be synthesised from previous court cases. It's up to you to convince me otherwise. Chapter and verse, please. Pretend you're a lawyer and make your case.

What do you mean "on their own?" Sure - if you see a guy and call him "he" that wouldn't be harassment. But, it's no longer "on its own" if the "guy" tells the professor that "I'm a she" and even though I look like a young Clint Eastood in the Good, The Bad and the Ugly, you have to refer to me as "zher" and "zhe" and acknowledge that he's gender fluid and sometimes wants to be called voo and vee -- then the professor says "um...no, your momma called you "he" so that's what I'm going to call you..." -- would THAT be harassment now?

If not, then why are none of the lawyers saying exactly that? The lawyers saying "oh, Dr. Peterson - you and your conspiracy theories.... silly goose" - they are not saying "here is exactly why it's not harassment for you to refuse, after being asked, to use pronouns and gender identity language requested of your students in class or at school...." And, that is why the proponents being interviewed in support of this legislation are saying that it is necessary to protect the gender identities of students and employees from being ignored or misgendered -- they say "my gender identity is not up for debate" and they support this law as a means of protecting them. If it's not going to protect them from being misgendered, then why do they support the legislation?

[Forty Two]

I remember reading about a case some years ago, where an employee was fired for continuously referring to a male (non-trans) co-worker as "she". The case went before a court and the court said this was a valid reason for firing an employee because the behaviour was workplace-harassment.

Well, what's the jurisdiction for that case. Here in the US, that would be a "valid reason" for firing most employees, because most employees here are "at will" and unless the employer fired the person for an illegal reason, the person could be terminated for any reason or no reason. An employer could, for example, fire the person for speaking out of turn, or being a dick.

Well, this is the issue here, isn't it? It's just the University's internal rules about how its employees should behave, not a law applying to the population as a whole...

When it's a State or Provincial entity, like the University of Toronto or the University of Texas, then they are held to a different standard than a private employer. They can't violate fundamental rights, whether in the US or in Canada. Joe's Liquor Store or Frank's Pizzeria can tell you you can't say "boo" in the workplace, or that you must root for the Toronto Argonauts football team - but, a State or Provincial University can't do that. Here, they're basically trying to set this up that professors can't question gender identity, or must accept any student's demand for a gender identity, no matter how new or bizarre it may seem to be.

That's the concern. Now, is it possible Dr. Peterson is wrong and he will be perfectly able to ignore student requests for him to call them Zoo or zer or derp or zhe or heshe or androgyne or whatever. I think, were I a bettin' man, that none of the lawyers poo-pooing Peterson's interpretation of the law would sign a legal opinion letter stating that the law does not require professors to honor the requested gender identity of the student. Call me crazy, but I can't imagine any of them committing to that. That's why you haven't heard any of those lawyers SAY that.

[Strontium Dog]

I remember reading about a case some years ago, where an employee was fired for continuously referring to a male (non-trans) co-worker as "she". The case went before a court and the court said this was a valid reason for firing an employee because the behaviour was workplace-harassment.

Sounds like a situation on a less progressive rationalist forum, where one of the moderators persistently referred to another member as "it".

Of course, in that instance, the authorities closed ranks to protect the offender.

[NineBerry]

They shouldn't have. Referring to a person as "it" is clearly harassment.

[Svartalf]

42 is it

[JimC]

42 is it

(I'm sure you meant it in the sense of "it and a bit", which in my boyhood slang was a compliment...)

(or maybe we're having a game of hide and seek; we all hide, and 6 X 7 has to find us...)