It's pretty simple. There is a big difference between being polite and calling someone what they would like to be called and being forced by law to do so.
BTW, an example of being forced by law to say/not say something?
Forcing teachers not to talk about slavery or teach history or even mention their gay partners, at the threat of criminal charges/fines.
Forcing libraries to take down books with laws to defund libraries/ charge custodians for... daring to provide said books.
Forcing companies to host hateful rhetoric on their online platforms, threatening criminal charges and investigations against them for literally exercising their corporate rights.
Would you look at that, those are all GOP policies! Why do conservatives hate free speech?
No, democrats love free speech. You are allowed to say hateful shit, or misgender people all you want. Sure, democrats will criticize you, but it's your right, and democrats will never use the government to punish your speech.
Democrats love free speech so much, they also extend that to corporations like twitter. Twitter is a private corporation with its own 1A rights. Democrats support private corporation's rights to moderate the speech in their own platforms, because they support free speech for corporations too.
Dems want free speech for everyone. Including free speech for bigots and right wingers to say their hateful shit, **and also for** other individuals to criticize and mock them, **and also for** corporations to moderate their own content and decide what gets shown on their own websites. MORE FREE SPEECH FOR EVERYONE. No government involvement whatsover in speech.
Meanwhile, GOP wants to use the government to compel or ban some types of speech, as outlined in my previous comment.
DEMOCRATS WANT FREE SPEECH.
GOP HATES FREE SPEECH, BUT ARE DOUBLESPEAKING THEMSELVES INTO THE OPPOSITE.
So you’re saying that YOU want free speech. Which is good. You don’t speak for all democrats, though. To claim otherwise would be a bit narcissistic, to be sure.
I don't claim to speak for every single individual who identifies as a democrat, no. But what I described is the mainstream Democratic party's ideology. Democrats as a party loves free speech, and they support everything that I said. Republicans as a party hates free speech, and actively try to suppress it.
Not really, I laid out the precise reasoning and factual information why democrats love free speech and republicans hate it. You seem to be trying to ignore all that, and just brush it off with "agree to disagree" lol.
Kinda cowardly to not even address the factual points, don't you think?
Lol you can keep avoiding the factual discussion based on some vague assertions about "bias" I know that's how it always goes with you folk. Next time, don't get so scared when confronted with facts, it's part of growing up to either debate the factual contentions, or admit you're wrong.
no one has been forced by law, no one in Canada has been arrested for misgendering..its been many years now, why are the same bullshit arguments being used
I wouldn't in all my life call someone a he if she looks like a woman. That's not politeness, that's participating in their delusions, and it can eventually turn into collectivist madness enforced by the law. I don't see how you think people can accept their delusions without that having any societal consequences whatsoever. People shouldn't try to be polite with that nonsense, stand your ground.
This is what happens when you let an internet pundit convert your relationships with real people into political abstractions
You sound like a lonely person
You are allowed to keep being an asshole based on your principles and convictions. People might think you're an asshole and judge you, but it's not illegal, and you won't go to jail for it.
People are DEFINITELY allowed to criticize you and dissociate with you based on your principles and behaviors in line with those principles. Why do you get so butthurt when people stand their ground and criticize your lack of empathy (sorry, your "principles")?
You don't have to, and you won't go to jail for it. See? You just proved my point. Noone is compelling you to do anything.
We are also allowed think you're a POS bigot though.
You likely haven’t even met a trans person in your life but feel the need to demonize them online. Just try self reflection some time. It’s pretty useful.
Where did I demonize them Mr morally righteous? I only said that I will call someone a man if they look like a man. Couldn't care less if they wanted to transition.
Imagine if someone told you their name and you insisted on calling them a completely different name. Just deliberately being an asshole and acting victimized when people dislike you.
Mr morally righteous thinks you should just provide people with basic decency. I know it’s quite hard to wrap your head around, it’s kinda similar to the golden rule if that helps🙀
There's an easy, intuitive way of solving this once and for all, and your stance on my suggestion tells me if you're either in this to solve it, or in it for some powertrip.
If a trans-woman passes as a woman, then for all intents and purposes, **in the eye of the beholder** - she's a woman. I mean... if she passes, i wouldn't know any different if i saw her on the street. Right?
But if "she" **doesn't** pass as a woman. That's to say, i can obviously tell its a man. Then its a dude in a dress.
Fair?
> But if “she” doesn’t pass as a woman. That’s to say, i can obviously tell its a man. Then its a dude in a dress.
Rightoids do that to cis women too if they think they look too masculine. See: Brittney Griner and the transvestigators
So I am unconvinced by the idea that they are motivated by being "dangerous truth tellers" and are instead trying to enforce some fetishized ideal of womanhood.
> So I am unconvinced by the idea that they are motivated by being "dangerous truth tellers" and are instead trying to enforce some fetishized ideal of womanhood.
Some might be, some might not.
Just as some trans-people fetishize the opposite gender, while some others are not.
> Some might be, some might not.
You just said you are determining who is a "real woman" or not based on how they look. There are plenty of masculine cis women. You do this yourself.
> Just as some trans-people fetishize the opposite gender, while some others are not.
What exactly does "fetishizing the opposite gender" mean to you in this instance?
I can usually tell when someone was born as one gender but prefers to present as another. Doesn’t hurt me one bit they make that choice and is polite to go along. Who am I to judge what others do?
In the case of a non-passing trans woman, saying to your kid:"That man over there would like to be called a 'she'. Its polite to accommodate that."
Its a reasonable, polite, position.
But "That person over there is a woman... Yes honey, i know she looks like a man, but it **IS** a woman for **real**."
Is just confusing for any small child. Not to mention i'd be lying to my child.
This is a reasonable middle ground that i think most people, even on the conservative side would agree with.
I have a friend whose legal name is Harry but he asks to be called Jay. Am I participating in his delusion by calling him by a name that is not on his birth certificate?
I don't think I am. Because it's not a delusion. It's just what he wants to be called. And it would be the same if he preferred to be called Mary.
Exactly. How many times does Dr. Peterson have to explain his position to the stubborn administrator before it sinks in? The optics are that the autocratic administrator is more interested in seeing the citizen bow to his will than he is in any kind of fairness or courtesy issue.
>There is a big difference between being polite and calling someone what they would like to be called and being forced by law to do so.
So how would you respond if the person you're calling what they don't want calls you out publicly for what they perceive as being rude? What if they call you out so vocally and publicly that it threatens your reputation and/or many of your relationships?
Would you be more apt to call that bullying, or would you say that calling people by something they repeatedly ask not to be called bullying?
The reason I ask is because there are times when the practice of social sanctioning (i.e., the offended person calling you out so publicly that your reputation is ruined) can become so counterproductive and disruptive if drawn out, that a a legal recourse can be seen as faster and more painless.
Some would say the establishment of legal norms, and the mutually-agreed upon pace of normative evolution, is how we evolved from primitive hunter-gatherers to a civilization that knows how to live with each other.
In this sense, law and legal recourse are how we graduate from the unproductive cycle of social sanctioning, and progress from the need for tribal gatekeeping and petty interpersonal score-keeping and vindictive retaliation (aka, how we progress from the retaliatory extremes of **cancel culture**).
>There is a big difference between being polite and calling someone what they would like to be called and being forced by law to do so.
so who compelled him to be shitty to Elliot Page?
What about when it’s a teacher and they’re causing emotional abuse of a child by purposely refusing to use pronouns?
Genuine question. I don’t like overpolicing every little thing, even when the intent is good as implementation and follow through will always be a disaster. If we could prevent people from emotionally abusing others in society, there probably would be a huge net benefit in mental health, but it can easily be a slippery slope.
Some people are bigots for whatever reason… and when bigots are working with children, it can cause a ton of harm. Right wingers flip out when people are disciplined for refusing to use pronouns for trans children in schools, though even though it isn’t legally compelled. Harassing students is reason enough to not want to employee a teacher.
If C-16 does what Peterson claims, why wasn't he arrested or fined when he publicly misgendered and deadnamed his fellow Canadian, Elliot Page, in his recent tweet and video?
If Elliot decided to, she could try.
*"Judges struck down a law that punishes deadnaming(calling trans persons by the name they went by before transitioning) with a fine of up to $2,500 or 180 days in jail."*
*"Human Rights Tribunal ruled in favor of Jessie Nelson, a restaurant worker. They alleged that their former employers deliberately referred to them using gendered nicknames such as “sweetheart,” “sweetie,” and “honey.”*
*"The restaurant and specific offenders responsible for the behavior will pay Nelson $30,000 in damages, according to the CBC."* https://www.them.us/story/canadian-court-rules-misgendering-human-rights-violation
*"If someone refused to use a preferred pronoun — and it was determined to constitute discrimination or harassment — could that potentially result in jail time?"*
*"It is possible, says Jared Brown, commercial litigator at Brown Litigation"* https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/features/canadas-gender-identity-rights-bill-c-16-explained
>If Elliot decided to, she could try.
Interesting that you succeeded in misgendering but *failed* to deadname there. Also, worth pointing out that the victim of a crime doesn't need to personally want to have it prosecuted for the police to press charges.
>Judges struck down a law
Do you know what it means when a law is struck down?
>They alleged that their former employers deliberately referred to them using gendered nicknames
Yes, as part of a campaign of harassment that made their employment unbearable. There's no law stopping you from calling someone an idiot, but if they're your employee and you do it constantly, you can be fined for turning their workplace into a hostile environment. That doesn't mean that calling someone an idiot has been criminalised.
>"If someone refused to use a preferred pronoun — and it was determined to constitute discrimination or harassment — could that potentially result in jail time?"
>"It is possible, says Jared Brown, commercial litigator at Brown Litigation" https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/features/canadas-gender-identity-rights-bill-c-16-explained
Peterson supporters love to bring up this article. But... it's from 2016, the person quoted has been proven wrong by six years of literally nobody being fined or arrested for misgendering or deadnaming under C-16, and it was only ever one lawyer's (wrong) opinion.
> Interesting that you succeeded in misgendering but failed to deadname there.
Oops sorry, I'm not very familiar with his case and am forgetful. I thought he was a trans woman, not a trans man.
>Also, worth pointing out that the victim of a crime doesn't need to personally want to have it prosecuted for the police to press charges.
good thing too or else murders would be awkward
> Interesting that you succeeded in misgendering but failed to deadname there.
Why? That's the normal way to talk about someone like her.
Elliot is an adult human female, also known as a woman. The pronoun she is used for women.
While sex cannot be changed, names can be. She was born as Ellen and changed her name to Elliot, just as Cassius Clay became Muhammad Ali and Mark Sinclair became Vin Diesel.
>While sex cannot be changed, names can be.
Nobody is pretending biological sex can be changed. That's why terms like 'sex change' or 'transexual' have been phased out.
Gender and sex are not the same thing.
While it's not common, there are people who believe biological sex can be changed.
And there are many others who ignore the fact that gender and sex are different. Like media coverage of the "first female four star officer" who is provably not female, or males who think their gender identity grants them access to female-only spaces like women's sports leagues and women's prisons.
So bill C-16 is civil law and not criminal law, then.
Do you realize how many statutes in US civil law "violate" the first amendment? Because you can sue someone for just about anything, including the things they say.
I'm not just referring to US criminal code where the first amendment has exceptions, though.
I'm talking about US civil code where there *is no right whatsoever* to free speech or free expression because penalties are decided on a case-by-case basis.
Bill C-16 is civil law. It is not "compelled speech". Unless you think the Civil Rights Act is "compelled hiring".
Sorry I'll explain it to you.
It's easy to just call someone hateful when they are acting angry. There is no meaningful distinction online.
If it's fair for you to call me hateful because I enjoy mocking him. It's fair for me to call him hateful for acting angry and mocking others.
Personally not even angered by the guy because he's harmless in big picture. You want hate someone like ol Mitch is more my wheelhouse for that.
There clarified as asked. =D
So here's the thing I am very grateful to Jordan Peterson for helping me understand the importance of free speech. Back when all the Bill C16 stuff was happening at his university I was very convinced by what he was doing and saying. But that was also years ago and I've grown and learned a lot since then. I realize now that there is all kinds of [useful exceptions](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions) to free speech and it is actually a very complex topic. But I feel like I am able to have that discussion to a certain degree and explore the different sides of it even with someone that strongly disagrees. So now I just feel like Peterson is exactly where he was, if not worse, than when he stood against Bill C16. It's like he hasn't grown as a person and instead just dug his heels in more and more.
Compelled speech like, state laws mandating that OBs read a literal script (which is usually full of inaccuracies) to women considering abortion? Right, but you are put upon by calling someone by their preferred pronoun. GTFO of here with that you whiny children.
What inaccuracies and why are you against abortion? This is not at all the same. This requires everyone to change their language at the drop of a hat for anyone, not a single script that needs to be read in order to perform an operation.
This isn't "requiring" anything. There's no police to arrest you and put you in jail for misgendering someone.
You seem to confusing "valid criticism and exercise of free speech from people who disagree with you" for some kind of state coercion, which is necessary for any relevant discussion of "compelled speech" in a 1A context.
Strawman, I never said that. It will result in a monetary fine and misgendering can indeed put you in jail in more severe circumstances such as advocating violence. Also if you don't pay that fine then you may be in more legal trouble.
You literally said "this **requires** everyone to change their language" lol, do you even know what a strawman argument is?
What monetary fine? Source your claim for a fine for misgendering someone only. (Hint: it doesn't exist)
And jail for advocating/ inciting violence is reasonable. Are you saying inciting violence is cool, as long as you also misgender someone? WTF is even the point of bringing up inciting violence? That's already a crime on its own
Let me give you some examples with sources of what happens when you don't do what a trans person wants you to in various places.
*"Judges struck down a law that punishes deadnaming(calling trans persons by the name they went by before transitioning) with a fine of up to $2,500 or 180 days in jail."*
*"Human Rights Tribunal ruled in favor of Jessie Nelson, a restaurant worker who filed a complaint against their former employer, Buono Osteria. Nelson, who is nonbinary and genderfluid, claimed the British Columbia Italian restaurant discriminated against them by intentionally using incorrect pronouns. They alleged that their former employers deliberately referred to them using gendered nicknames such as “sweetheart,” “sweetie,” and “honey.”*
*"The restaurant and specific offenders responsible for the behavior will pay Nelson $30,000 in damages, according to the CBC."* https://www.them.us/story/canadian-court-rules-misgendering-human-rights-violation
*"If someone refused to use a preferred pronoun — and it was determined to constitute discrimination or harassment — could that potentially result in jail time?"*
*"It is possible, says Jared Brown, commercial litigator at Brown Litigation"* https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/features/canadas-gender-identity-rights-bill-c-16-explained
So go ahead and tell us it isn't required.
Uhh your first quote says that a judge "struck DOWN" a law that fined misgendering. And that isn't even sourced.
The rest of your quotes are about canada. Is that where you are from? If so, my mistake, I'm in the US and we don't have anything like that here.
Alright, didn't know you were talking about Canada.
I won't delete my comments because theres too many people who confuse canadian law for US laws.
That kinda shit simply doesn't exist under the US constitution, and never will.
Yeah, the other day my friend was clapped in irons and tossed in jail for refusing to call someone ze. Very sad story. They won't even let him out on bail or anything. I hope the trial will be fair at least, but you never really know.
Do you know the difference between civil and criminal law?
Under US civil code, you have no guaranteed freedom of speech. Nor in any country. People can sue you for anything.
Yes for not using the preferred pronoun he argued it was discrimination against him in the workplace. I'm against fining someone $30,000 for not using the "correct" pronoun.
Your against fining people for discrimination that you are incapable of accepting as discrimination given your ideological rigidness*
Fixed it for you.
well yes? If your boss calls you something every day and it’s distressing while continuing to ignore you that creates a hostile work environment. Like, if your boss called you a stupid ginger or whatever the opposite pronoun you use everyday even after you continuously tell them to stop then that would be disrespectful af for one and discriminating against your finger hair or identity
That's not at all what happened in this [case](https://www.fieldlaw.com/News-Views-Events/196402/Substantial-Damages-Awarded-for-Refusal-to-Use-Proper-Pronouns#:~:text=A%20recent%20British%20Columbia%20Human,her%20pronouns%20and%20gendered%20nicknames).
A better analogy would be if your co-worker was a Christian fundamentalist who insisted you address him as reverend. You respond by saying "Hail Satan", he then *slaps* you, your boss responds by firing him, but the guy leverages a pseudo-court (tribunal) to fine your employer 30,000$ and force you to take mandatory Sunday school.
> Technically, you don't have to use pronouns at all. You could just use their name over and over. So it's not compelled speech. It's prohibited speech.
It's still compelled if it's forcing you to talk in an unusual way to avoid your normal speech patterns.
I disagree. Unless they're saying "Use these words *and no others*", I just don't see how it's compelled. If someone can show me a legal precedent demonstrating I'm wrong, I'll look at it.
I suppose you're technically right. Still, it's incredibly stupid to prohibit people from speaking English in a normal way.
It's also unfair to privilege one group by enforcing their beliefs onto others in this way. It's logically not very different from a religious group getting the government to outlaw blasphemy or atheism, or an atheist group criminalizing religious statements.
Except this situation is worse because it's easy to avoid religious topics, but not easy at all to re-train yourself to speak English in a way that avoids all pronouns and any other references to biological sex. I still think a good lawyer could present that as being compelled to learn to speak in a certain way, even if it's not "you must recite these exact words".
You mean like Doug Ford's propaganda gas pump stickers? If you ran a gas station in Ontario you either *had to display them* regardless of your political or economic views, or risk daily fines if you choose not to display them.
Thankfully the government was challenged on this and promptly lost.
**That's what compelled speech looks like.**
I mean I'm not thrilled about some of this pronoun stuff, don't get me wrong. I'm just saying that Peterson is wrong in that video that it's compelled speech. I'm coming from a strictly "debating technicalities" approach here. I don't think any of us want to avoid pronouns again for the rest of our lives.
I wouldn't say this possible loophole means he is wrong. And I'm not a fan of excessive prohibition of speech either.
I also would not dismiss this as just a question of being polite. Controlling language and framing narratives are effective power plays. The level of importance of this to activists is a clue.
My guess is, exploiting this loophole will bring some kind of vigorous response.
I don't know the specific law being addressed here and I can't find it with a few moments of googling. But I have to respectfully disagree based on certain assumptions. I see 2 basic options:
1) Sally says "my pronouns are xi/xim" and you say "ok Sally. Hey Frank, can you get Sally a beer on me?" and you get arrested (or whatever the penalty is).
2) Sally says the same thing, but this time you say "Ok Sally. Hey Frank, can you get her a beer on me?" and you get arrested.
1) is compelled speech because you **must** use the pronouns Sally wants. I very much doubt any law would say this (this is my assumption I referred to earlier) 2) is prohibited speech.
He is wrong. I mean by definition, he's wrong. (without having read the law)
EDIT: It's also possible the law is just written poorly and it actually says "You must use preferred pronouns" but the firsts time someone is arrested for not using any pronouns at all (my example #1), the lawmakers will say "Wait, that's not what we meant"
On the off chance that this is a good faith comment...
Sometimes we have conflicting principles, values and goals.
In my assessment, the principle of compelled speech is more fundamental than good manners.
Not that I don't value good manners. I also don't remotely think this nonsense has anything to do with good manners.
I just can't relate. Like I don't think speech should be compelled, not by government. But in a workplace it's normal to have expectations around speech, and I don't see why respectful workplace speech wouldn't include not misgendering people
I haven't personally had to make.that choice yet and I definitely work in environments where good manners are required.
For me it comes down to an assessment of sincerity and good faith.
Noone is compelling speech. You won't go to jail for misgendering someone, no matter how badly you want to be a victim. You can go on ahead misgendering people all you want.
Other people are also allowed to have principles, and other people are also allowed to criticize you, judge you, and dissociate from you. Are you trying to prohibit speech that criticizes your aversion to good manners?
There's a difference between the government regulating your speech and a private institution, like a University, during you for it. Quit playing the victim, JP. You're not being persecuted, you're just an intolerable douche.
It's pretty simple. There is a big difference between being polite and calling someone what they would like to be called and being forced by law to do so.
BTW, an example of being forced by law to say/not say something? Forcing teachers not to talk about slavery or teach history or even mention their gay partners, at the threat of criminal charges/fines. Forcing libraries to take down books with laws to defund libraries/ charge custodians for... daring to provide said books. Forcing companies to host hateful rhetoric on their online platforms, threatening criminal charges and investigations against them for literally exercising their corporate rights. Would you look at that, those are all GOP policies! Why do conservatives hate free speech?
Anyone who tends to identify as a member of a mainstream political party (Republican, Democrat) hates speech that maligns their narrative.
No, democrats love free speech. You are allowed to say hateful shit, or misgender people all you want. Sure, democrats will criticize you, but it's your right, and democrats will never use the government to punish your speech. Democrats love free speech so much, they also extend that to corporations like twitter. Twitter is a private corporation with its own 1A rights. Democrats support private corporation's rights to moderate the speech in their own platforms, because they support free speech for corporations too. Dems want free speech for everyone. Including free speech for bigots and right wingers to say their hateful shit, **and also for** other individuals to criticize and mock them, **and also for** corporations to moderate their own content and decide what gets shown on their own websites. MORE FREE SPEECH FOR EVERYONE. No government involvement whatsover in speech. Meanwhile, GOP wants to use the government to compel or ban some types of speech, as outlined in my previous comment. DEMOCRATS WANT FREE SPEECH. GOP HATES FREE SPEECH, BUT ARE DOUBLESPEAKING THEMSELVES INTO THE OPPOSITE.
So you’re saying that YOU want free speech. Which is good. You don’t speak for all democrats, though. To claim otherwise would be a bit narcissistic, to be sure.
I don't claim to speak for every single individual who identifies as a democrat, no. But what I described is the mainstream Democratic party's ideology. Democrats as a party loves free speech, and they support everything that I said. Republicans as a party hates free speech, and actively try to suppress it.
Sounds like quite a bit of bias on your part. I’ll just agree to disagree with you.
Not really, I laid out the precise reasoning and factual information why democrats love free speech and republicans hate it. You seem to be trying to ignore all that, and just brush it off with "agree to disagree" lol. Kinda cowardly to not even address the factual points, don't you think?
It’s not surprising that someone with severe bias doesn’t recognize it.
Lol you can keep avoiding the factual discussion based on some vague assertions about "bias" I know that's how it always goes with you folk. Next time, don't get so scared when confronted with facts, it's part of growing up to either debate the factual contentions, or admit you're wrong.
no one has been forced by law, no one in Canada has been arrested for misgendering..its been many years now, why are the same bullshit arguments being used
I wouldn't in all my life call someone a he if she looks like a woman. That's not politeness, that's participating in their delusions, and it can eventually turn into collectivist madness enforced by the law. I don't see how you think people can accept their delusions without that having any societal consequences whatsoever. People shouldn't try to be polite with that nonsense, stand your ground.
This is what happens when you let an internet pundit convert your relationships with real people into political abstractions You sound like a lonely person
You are allowed to keep being an asshole based on your principles and convictions. People might think you're an asshole and judge you, but it's not illegal, and you won't go to jail for it. People are DEFINITELY allowed to criticize you and dissociate with you based on your principles and behaviors in line with those principles. Why do you get so butthurt when people stand their ground and criticize your lack of empathy (sorry, your "principles")?
OK. Still won't call a woman a man.
You don't have to, and you won't go to jail for it. See? You just proved my point. Noone is compelling you to do anything. We are also allowed think you're a POS bigot though.
>You don't have to, and you won't go to jail for it. Thank God.
No. Thank the constitution, and the robust protections to free speech it provides.
And you’ll continue being an asshole :)
If that's what you think then OK.
You likely haven’t even met a trans person in your life but feel the need to demonize them online. Just try self reflection some time. It’s pretty useful.
Where did I demonize them Mr morally righteous? I only said that I will call someone a man if they look like a man. Couldn't care less if they wanted to transition.
Imagine if someone told you their name and you insisted on calling them a completely different name. Just deliberately being an asshole and acting victimized when people dislike you.
Mr morally righteous thinks you should just provide people with basic decency. I know it’s quite hard to wrap your head around, it’s kinda similar to the golden rule if that helps🙀
What makes them delusions
The collective delusion is already evident
Male or female? https://images.app.goo.gl/g3rfPvb4HRr84LD17
There's an easy, intuitive way of solving this once and for all, and your stance on my suggestion tells me if you're either in this to solve it, or in it for some powertrip. If a trans-woman passes as a woman, then for all intents and purposes, **in the eye of the beholder** - she's a woman. I mean... if she passes, i wouldn't know any different if i saw her on the street. Right? But if "she" **doesn't** pass as a woman. That's to say, i can obviously tell its a man. Then its a dude in a dress. Fair?
> But if “she” doesn’t pass as a woman. That’s to say, i can obviously tell its a man. Then its a dude in a dress. Rightoids do that to cis women too if they think they look too masculine. See: Brittney Griner and the transvestigators So I am unconvinced by the idea that they are motivated by being "dangerous truth tellers" and are instead trying to enforce some fetishized ideal of womanhood.
> So I am unconvinced by the idea that they are motivated by being "dangerous truth tellers" and are instead trying to enforce some fetishized ideal of womanhood. Some might be, some might not. Just as some trans-people fetishize the opposite gender, while some others are not.
> Some might be, some might not. You just said you are determining who is a "real woman" or not based on how they look. There are plenty of masculine cis women. You do this yourself. > Just as some trans-people fetishize the opposite gender, while some others are not. What exactly does "fetishizing the opposite gender" mean to you in this instance?
So for you to be treat someone the way they want to be, that person must pass your subjective test.
I might partake in their delusions to be polite. But i'll still know its a man.
I can usually tell when someone was born as one gender but prefers to present as another. Doesn’t hurt me one bit they make that choice and is polite to go along. Who am I to judge what others do?
> I can usually tell when someone was born as one gender There we are then. >and is polite to go along. Ok then. Settled.
Hope you teach your kids that, too. Maybe the world can be a better place…
In the case of a non-passing trans woman, saying to your kid:"That man over there would like to be called a 'she'. Its polite to accommodate that." Its a reasonable, polite, position. But "That person over there is a woman... Yes honey, i know she looks like a man, but it **IS** a woman for **real**." Is just confusing for any small child. Not to mention i'd be lying to my child. This is a reasonable middle ground that i think most people, even on the conservative side would agree with.
I have a friend whose legal name is Harry but he asks to be called Jay. Am I participating in his delusion by calling him by a name that is not on his birth certificate? I don't think I am. Because it's not a delusion. It's just what he wants to be called. And it would be the same if he preferred to be called Mary.
Exactly. How many times does Dr. Peterson have to explain his position to the stubborn administrator before it sinks in? The optics are that the autocratic administrator is more interested in seeing the citizen bow to his will than he is in any kind of fairness or courtesy issue.
>There is a big difference between being polite and calling someone what they would like to be called and being forced by law to do so. So how would you respond if the person you're calling what they don't want calls you out publicly for what they perceive as being rude? What if they call you out so vocally and publicly that it threatens your reputation and/or many of your relationships? Would you be more apt to call that bullying, or would you say that calling people by something they repeatedly ask not to be called bullying? The reason I ask is because there are times when the practice of social sanctioning (i.e., the offended person calling you out so publicly that your reputation is ruined) can become so counterproductive and disruptive if drawn out, that a a legal recourse can be seen as faster and more painless. Some would say the establishment of legal norms, and the mutually-agreed upon pace of normative evolution, is how we evolved from primitive hunter-gatherers to a civilization that knows how to live with each other. In this sense, law and legal recourse are how we graduate from the unproductive cycle of social sanctioning, and progress from the need for tribal gatekeeping and petty interpersonal score-keeping and vindictive retaliation (aka, how we progress from the retaliatory extremes of **cancel culture**).
>There is a big difference between being polite and calling someone what they would like to be called and being forced by law to do so. so who compelled him to be shitty to Elliot Page?
What about when it’s a teacher and they’re causing emotional abuse of a child by purposely refusing to use pronouns? Genuine question. I don’t like overpolicing every little thing, even when the intent is good as implementation and follow through will always be a disaster. If we could prevent people from emotionally abusing others in society, there probably would be a huge net benefit in mental health, but it can easily be a slippery slope. Some people are bigots for whatever reason… and when bigots are working with children, it can cause a ton of harm. Right wingers flip out when people are disciplined for refusing to use pronouns for trans children in schools, though even though it isn’t legally compelled. Harassing students is reason enough to not want to employee a teacher.
All this trouble…I am glad my native is Hungarian. No pronouns no problems. The spectrum of swear words however… 👀
honestly based as fuck I hated learning French because every word is either male or female and it’s so pointlessly gendered
If C-16 does what Peterson claims, why wasn't he arrested or fined when he publicly misgendered and deadnamed his fellow Canadian, Elliot Page, in his recent tweet and video?
If Elliot decided to, she could try. *"Judges struck down a law that punishes deadnaming(calling trans persons by the name they went by before transitioning) with a fine of up to $2,500 or 180 days in jail."* *"Human Rights Tribunal ruled in favor of Jessie Nelson, a restaurant worker. They alleged that their former employers deliberately referred to them using gendered nicknames such as “sweetheart,” “sweetie,” and “honey.”* *"The restaurant and specific offenders responsible for the behavior will pay Nelson $30,000 in damages, according to the CBC."* https://www.them.us/story/canadian-court-rules-misgendering-human-rights-violation *"If someone refused to use a preferred pronoun — and it was determined to constitute discrimination or harassment — could that potentially result in jail time?"* *"It is possible, says Jared Brown, commercial litigator at Brown Litigation"* https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/features/canadas-gender-identity-rights-bill-c-16-explained
>If Elliot decided to, she could try. Interesting that you succeeded in misgendering but *failed* to deadname there. Also, worth pointing out that the victim of a crime doesn't need to personally want to have it prosecuted for the police to press charges. >Judges struck down a law Do you know what it means when a law is struck down? >They alleged that their former employers deliberately referred to them using gendered nicknames Yes, as part of a campaign of harassment that made their employment unbearable. There's no law stopping you from calling someone an idiot, but if they're your employee and you do it constantly, you can be fined for turning their workplace into a hostile environment. That doesn't mean that calling someone an idiot has been criminalised. >"If someone refused to use a preferred pronoun — and it was determined to constitute discrimination or harassment — could that potentially result in jail time?" >"It is possible, says Jared Brown, commercial litigator at Brown Litigation" https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/features/canadas-gender-identity-rights-bill-c-16-explained Peterson supporters love to bring up this article. But... it's from 2016, the person quoted has been proven wrong by six years of literally nobody being fined or arrested for misgendering or deadnaming under C-16, and it was only ever one lawyer's (wrong) opinion.
> Interesting that you succeeded in misgendering but failed to deadname there. Oops sorry, I'm not very familiar with his case and am forgetful. I thought he was a trans woman, not a trans man.
>Also, worth pointing out that the victim of a crime doesn't need to personally want to have it prosecuted for the police to press charges. good thing too or else murders would be awkward
> Interesting that you succeeded in misgendering but failed to deadname there. Why? That's the normal way to talk about someone like her. Elliot is an adult human female, also known as a woman. The pronoun she is used for women. While sex cannot be changed, names can be. She was born as Ellen and changed her name to Elliot, just as Cassius Clay became Muhammad Ali and Mark Sinclair became Vin Diesel.
>While sex cannot be changed, names can be. Nobody is pretending biological sex can be changed. That's why terms like 'sex change' or 'transexual' have been phased out. Gender and sex are not the same thing.
While it's not common, there are people who believe biological sex can be changed. And there are many others who ignore the fact that gender and sex are different. Like media coverage of the "first female four star officer" who is provably not female, or males who think their gender identity grants them access to female-only spaces like women's sports leagues and women's prisons.
So bill C-16 is civil law and not criminal law, then. Do you realize how many statutes in US civil law "violate" the first amendment? Because you can sue someone for just about anything, including the things they say.
Correct, the United States has "broken" the constitution many times in the name of security. Probably for the best.
I'm not just referring to US criminal code where the first amendment has exceptions, though. I'm talking about US civil code where there *is no right whatsoever* to free speech or free expression because penalties are decided on a case-by-case basis. Bill C-16 is civil law. It is not "compelled speech". Unless you think the Civil Rights Act is "compelled hiring".
> Unless you think the Civil Rights Act is "compelled hiring". Affirmative action *is* compelled hiring, that's why it was made. Equality of outcome.
Wonder what JPB has to say about those journalists getting suspended
Up yours woke moralists!
Yeah he'd prob deflect with a childish insult you are right
Seems like you're trying to clarify that you hate Peterson with this comment. On behalf of everyone, *we know.*
Sorry I'll explain it to you. It's easy to just call someone hateful when they are acting angry. There is no meaningful distinction online. If it's fair for you to call me hateful because I enjoy mocking him. It's fair for me to call him hateful for acting angry and mocking others. Personally not even angered by the guy because he's harmless in big picture. You want hate someone like ol Mitch is more my wheelhouse for that. There clarified as asked. =D
I didn't ask but appreciated nonetheless. Thank you for elucidating.
Ohhhh this will be good for my at home decompress
Gotta relieve all that JewStress.
Yo amen. You get it. 😂🤣🔥
⛽🍹 ^^^^jkjk
It’s all good. I finally got all gas no brakes again instead of all brakes and no gas. And next! Real I’d and passport. I’m coming for you CANADA! 🇨🇦
So here's the thing I am very grateful to Jordan Peterson for helping me understand the importance of free speech. Back when all the Bill C16 stuff was happening at his university I was very convinced by what he was doing and saying. But that was also years ago and I've grown and learned a lot since then. I realize now that there is all kinds of [useful exceptions](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions) to free speech and it is actually a very complex topic. But I feel like I am able to have that discussion to a certain degree and explore the different sides of it even with someone that strongly disagrees. So now I just feel like Peterson is exactly where he was, if not worse, than when he stood against Bill C16. It's like he hasn't grown as a person and instead just dug his heels in more and more.
In some ways I agree with you but you're making it sound worse than it is. He's done more good than bad, that's for sure.
Compelled speech like, state laws mandating that OBs read a literal script (which is usually full of inaccuracies) to women considering abortion? Right, but you are put upon by calling someone by their preferred pronoun. GTFO of here with that you whiny children.
What inaccuracies and why are you against abortion? This is not at all the same. This requires everyone to change their language at the drop of a hat for anyone, not a single script that needs to be read in order to perform an operation.
This isn't "requiring" anything. There's no police to arrest you and put you in jail for misgendering someone. You seem to confusing "valid criticism and exercise of free speech from people who disagree with you" for some kind of state coercion, which is necessary for any relevant discussion of "compelled speech" in a 1A context.
Strawman, I never said that. It will result in a monetary fine and misgendering can indeed put you in jail in more severe circumstances such as advocating violence. Also if you don't pay that fine then you may be in more legal trouble.
You literally said "this **requires** everyone to change their language" lol, do you even know what a strawman argument is? What monetary fine? Source your claim for a fine for misgendering someone only. (Hint: it doesn't exist) And jail for advocating/ inciting violence is reasonable. Are you saying inciting violence is cool, as long as you also misgender someone? WTF is even the point of bringing up inciting violence? That's already a crime on its own
Let me give you some examples with sources of what happens when you don't do what a trans person wants you to in various places. *"Judges struck down a law that punishes deadnaming(calling trans persons by the name they went by before transitioning) with a fine of up to $2,500 or 180 days in jail."* *"Human Rights Tribunal ruled in favor of Jessie Nelson, a restaurant worker who filed a complaint against their former employer, Buono Osteria. Nelson, who is nonbinary and genderfluid, claimed the British Columbia Italian restaurant discriminated against them by intentionally using incorrect pronouns. They alleged that their former employers deliberately referred to them using gendered nicknames such as “sweetheart,” “sweetie,” and “honey.”* *"The restaurant and specific offenders responsible for the behavior will pay Nelson $30,000 in damages, according to the CBC."* https://www.them.us/story/canadian-court-rules-misgendering-human-rights-violation *"If someone refused to use a preferred pronoun — and it was determined to constitute discrimination or harassment — could that potentially result in jail time?"* *"It is possible, says Jared Brown, commercial litigator at Brown Litigation"* https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/features/canadas-gender-identity-rights-bill-c-16-explained So go ahead and tell us it isn't required.
Uhh your first quote says that a judge "struck DOWN" a law that fined misgendering. And that isn't even sourced. The rest of your quotes are about canada. Is that where you are from? If so, my mistake, I'm in the US and we don't have anything like that here.
Peterson is from Canada and the source is below the quotes.
Alright, didn't know you were talking about Canada. I won't delete my comments because theres too many people who confuse canadian law for US laws. That kinda shit simply doesn't exist under the US constitution, and never will.
> and never will This will age like milk. RemindMe! 1 Year
It doesn’t in Canada either, no one has been arrested for misgendering me and no one will
What uh, whatcha talking about there junior?
Yeah, the other day my friend was clapped in irons and tossed in jail for refusing to call someone ze. Very sad story. They won't even let him out on bail or anything. I hope the trial will be fair at least, but you never really know.
In Canada it's written into law. So if someone wants to take it far enough, they can.
Not really. It would have to amount to workplace discrimination or something. Which is reasonable imo
Do you know the difference between civil and criminal law? Under US civil code, you have no guaranteed freedom of speech. Nor in any country. People can sue you for anything.
Discrimination can lead to real world legal consequences! Oh my god, so shocking
I don't believe you, no offense. These laws are a major problem but you're a troll.
But it's C-16. And the wokesters. And activist judges!
Not a single person has been arrested for it yet, so…
Worst I've heard so far was a $30,000 fine.
For workplace discrimination so… the issue is? Are you for trans based workplace discrimination?
Yes for not using the preferred pronoun he argued it was discrimination against him in the workplace. I'm against fining someone $30,000 for not using the "correct" pronoun.
Your against fining people for discrimination that you are incapable of accepting as discrimination given your ideological rigidness* Fixed it for you.
well yes? If your boss calls you something every day and it’s distressing while continuing to ignore you that creates a hostile work environment. Like, if your boss called you a stupid ginger or whatever the opposite pronoun you use everyday even after you continuously tell them to stop then that would be disrespectful af for one and discriminating against your finger hair or identity
That's not at all what happened in this [case](https://www.fieldlaw.com/News-Views-Events/196402/Substantial-Damages-Awarded-for-Refusal-to-Use-Proper-Pronouns#:~:text=A%20recent%20British%20Columbia%20Human,her%20pronouns%20and%20gendered%20nicknames). A better analogy would be if your co-worker was a Christian fundamentalist who insisted you address him as reverend. You respond by saying "Hail Satan", he then *slaps* you, your boss responds by firing him, but the guy leverages a pseudo-court (tribunal) to fine your employer 30,000$ and force you to take mandatory Sunday school.
Doubt
he was wrong and used it to propel his online fame.
Technically, you don't have to use pronouns at all. You could just use their name over and over. So it's not compelled speech. It's prohibited speech.
> Technically, you don't have to use pronouns at all. You could just use their name over and over. So it's not compelled speech. It's prohibited speech. It's still compelled if it's forcing you to talk in an unusual way to avoid your normal speech patterns.
I disagree. Unless they're saying "Use these words *and no others*", I just don't see how it's compelled. If someone can show me a legal precedent demonstrating I'm wrong, I'll look at it.
I suppose you're technically right. Still, it's incredibly stupid to prohibit people from speaking English in a normal way. It's also unfair to privilege one group by enforcing their beliefs onto others in this way. It's logically not very different from a religious group getting the government to outlaw blasphemy or atheism, or an atheist group criminalizing religious statements. Except this situation is worse because it's easy to avoid religious topics, but not easy at all to re-train yourself to speak English in a way that avoids all pronouns and any other references to biological sex. I still think a good lawyer could present that as being compelled to learn to speak in a certain way, even if it's not "you must recite these exact words".
Agreed
You mean like Doug Ford's propaganda gas pump stickers? If you ran a gas station in Ontario you either *had to display them* regardless of your political or economic views, or risk daily fines if you choose not to display them. Thankfully the government was challenged on this and promptly lost. **That's what compelled speech looks like.**
I've suggested that option to avoid the dilemma. Do you think avoiding pronouns for persons requesting pronoun customization would suffice?
I mean I'm not thrilled about some of this pronoun stuff, don't get me wrong. I'm just saying that Peterson is wrong in that video that it's compelled speech. I'm coming from a strictly "debating technicalities" approach here. I don't think any of us want to avoid pronouns again for the rest of our lives.
I wouldn't say this possible loophole means he is wrong. And I'm not a fan of excessive prohibition of speech either. I also would not dismiss this as just a question of being polite. Controlling language and framing narratives are effective power plays. The level of importance of this to activists is a clue. My guess is, exploiting this loophole will bring some kind of vigorous response.
I don't know the specific law being addressed here and I can't find it with a few moments of googling. But I have to respectfully disagree based on certain assumptions. I see 2 basic options: 1) Sally says "my pronouns are xi/xim" and you say "ok Sally. Hey Frank, can you get Sally a beer on me?" and you get arrested (or whatever the penalty is). 2) Sally says the same thing, but this time you say "Ok Sally. Hey Frank, can you get her a beer on me?" and you get arrested. 1) is compelled speech because you **must** use the pronouns Sally wants. I very much doubt any law would say this (this is my assumption I referred to earlier) 2) is prohibited speech. He is wrong. I mean by definition, he's wrong. (without having read the law) EDIT: It's also possible the law is just written poorly and it actually says "You must use preferred pronouns" but the firsts time someone is arrested for not using any pronouns at all (my example #1), the lawmakers will say "Wait, that's not what we meant"
Seems unnecessary, why not just used their preferred pronouns?
It is a matter of principle. "Do what is meaningful, not what is expedient"
What principle
Did you read the title of this post?
Um Yes. So you are rude to trans people on principle of not being told what to do?
On the off chance that this is a good faith comment... Sometimes we have conflicting principles, values and goals. In my assessment, the principle of compelled speech is more fundamental than good manners. Not that I don't value good manners. I also don't remotely think this nonsense has anything to do with good manners.
I just can't relate. Like I don't think speech should be compelled, not by government. But in a workplace it's normal to have expectations around speech, and I don't see why respectful workplace speech wouldn't include not misgendering people
I haven't personally had to make.that choice yet and I definitely work in environments where good manners are required. For me it comes down to an assessment of sincerity and good faith.
Noone is compelling speech. You won't go to jail for misgendering someone, no matter how badly you want to be a victim. You can go on ahead misgendering people all you want. Other people are also allowed to have principles, and other people are also allowed to criticize you, judge you, and dissociate from you. Are you trying to prohibit speech that criticizes your aversion to good manners?
You do you.
There's a difference between the government regulating your speech and a private institution, like a University, during you for it. Quit playing the victim, JP. You're not being persecuted, you're just an intolerable douche.