Is the Spanish language offensive to trans people?

[NineBerry]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/7952261.stm

[Hermit]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/7952261.stm

Yes, as the article illustrates, the transition is by no means complete. It has progressed, though. Eventually, as the generation with fossilised mindsets dies out and is replaced by a new one with a new mindset (which will also fossilise with age) insurance companies and other organisations and institutions - even Debrett's - will eventually fall into line. They'll have no choice.

[Forty Two]

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...

Everyone can request whatever they want. The only public policy issue is whether a law should require it, especially under pain of criminal fines, imprisonment and convictions for "hate speech." It's not hate speech to refuse to use newly coined words and it's not hate speech to deny that there are multiple "genders" or otherwise oppose or deny some or all of the identity politics ideology.

[Forty Two]

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?

It's not illegal to do that.

There is nothing wrong with referring to trans people in gender neutral or other terms. The issue is criminal penalties, fines, and convictions for "hate speech."

[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.

Then why didn't you say that?

I did. You asked me why I should care, and I answered you.

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.

No, that was not what my posts were solely about.

On what you posted alone, I say: who gives a shit?

I explained why some people give a shit. I find Dr. Peterson's explanations quite convincing.

It's the same as people complaining because they can't see people's faces behind burqas because it makes them feel uncomfortable.

No, it isn't anything like that. "Discomfort" has nothing to do with it, IMO, and I never said it did.

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.

LOL - sure, he attempted to "explain" that, but if you read the law it doesn't "say" that. And, if you listen to Dr. Peterson, he's already been warned by the University of Toronto to shut up about the topic.

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.

Absolutely he is not. He's a liberal college professor, who is quite rational and reasonable. I've seen many of his lectures, which are available online, and there is nothing "conspiracy nut" about him. The identity politics progressives try to smear him, like when they run up to him and ask him whether he's a Nazi and what he thinks about the Nazis.

[Forty Two]

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.

No, they're not problematic as far as I'm concerned. A law requiring me to call someone "zer" under penalty of a hate speech conviction is a problem to me, though. Call me crazy.

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.

They are being. A similar measure was passed in New York. It's what that ilk wants. Listen to Professor Matte as he describes the view his ilk takes - failure to use the pronouns is hate speech and tantamount to "violence" in his mind. That's what they're pushing for.

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 think you did.

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.

I would disagree only insofar as to say "very slow." There has been a tremendous cultural shift over the last few years. If you had a conversation about people being multi-gendered, or changing genders periodically, or having other nonmale and nonfemale genders, or fluid genders and all this stuff 5 or so years ago, it would have gotten zero traction. Ten years ago, the notion of males being able to use the women's bathroom if they "identify" as female or as non-male in some way, people would have thought you're nuts. Not much more than 10 years ago, all this trans stuff would be considered by most people a mental illness of sorts. Change is coming fast and furious due to social media and the high-speed spread of information.

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.

If you listen to Dr. Peterson's explanations, it's more than that. What these laws do is embed the underlying ideology, and put the ideology out of bounds of discussion. Note the discussion above with Prof. Matte and Dr. Peterson. To Prof. Matte - the "gender studies" professor, the issue is not even one to be open for discussion. To not call someone by their preferred pronoun is a denial of their HUMANITY which is "not open for debate." Well, I'm sorry trans folks, but whether there are multiple genders, whether genders can change, whether they're born that way or "identify" that way, and whether certain words are really words ARE always open for discussion (in a free society).

To use a phrase commonly used by the regressive left -- "you don't get to decide..." what issues I get to discuss. "you don't get to decide..." what words are in the English language.

[Hermit]

The only public policy issue is whether a law should require it, especially under pain of criminal fines, imprisonment and convictions for "hate speech." It's not hate speech to refuse to use newly coined words and it's not hate speech to deny that there are multiple "genders" or otherwise oppose or deny some or all of the identity politics ideology.

The purpose of Bill C-16 is to "amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to add gender identity and gender expression to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination." (Link). It basically adds "gender identity or expression" to "race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered" to two locations of the Canadian Human Rights Act, those being grounds on which discriminatory actions are not permitted. In similar manner it adds the same words to two locations of the Criminal Code that deals with the consequences of such discrimination. Nowhere is there a hint that the use of particular personal pronouns will be become required by law, nor that not using those particular personal pronouns is treated by law as an act of discrimination or a hate crime. The academics you mention earlier who assert the opposite, can say what they will. The amendments say nothing in their support.

You can read the full text of the amendments here.

[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' .

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.

I agree that social or legal compulsions towards pro/prescribed terms and language can be problematic - one thinks of the Nazi's insistence on the term 'degenerate' being applied to the endeavours of certain defined personas non grata - but I feel 42 is far too quick to ramp the matter into the realm of an abuse of power which limits freedom of expression and personal liberty. Mostly people are simply highlighting that one should take note of some gender biases in language and pay some attention to the fact that some people do not fit into the tradition, mutually exclusive binary gender categories.

As ever, context is important. Referring to men, or a group of men, as 'ladies' or 'bitches' could be used in ribaldry and badinage, but it could also form a component of bullying, abuse, or other kinds of denigration. 42's point appears to be that laws which may seek to limit those kinds of denigrations foreclose on all use of particular terms and language, such that the terms and the language becomes illegal and one can and/or will be charged and prosecuted for using the 'incorrect' kind of language in a situation where determining a person's gender identity may be far from obvious. If this is 42's point then it is a silly one.

This meme has been running for a while now, and it basically reduced to the form of a discursive absurdity (predominantly from the right) with which to berate those (predominantly from the left) who are concerned with gender politics and related issues. In other ways it also reduces to an arbitrary criticism of the young by the old.

[Forty Two]

Hermit - It's more complicated than that, in terms of how it's interpreted and enforced. I'll provide more later.

[pErvinalia]

It would be a first if you did. Hermit, L'Emmeduer (spelling?) and I often provide quotes and links that prove what you've said is wrong on a variety of issues, and then you conveniently disappear for a few days and then never respond.

[Forty Two]

Here's the explanation much better than I can type it out - http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/c ... -and-has-a (please click on the videos referred to in the first paragraph), and here's a debate on it, where Dr. Jordan Peterson explains it - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDvj6DQd93o his presentation starts at about 34 minutes, give or take.

[pErvinalia]

You've got to be fucking kidding.

[Hermit]

Here's the explanation much better than I can type it out - http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/c ... -and-has-a (please click on the videos referred to in the first paragraph)

Having clicked on it I beheld a list of 19 videos totalling about 10 hours of playing time.

here's a debate on it, where Dr. Jordan Peterson explains it - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDvj6DQd93o his presentation starts at about 34 minutes, give or take.

And goes on for another hour.

A post that consists of pointing in the general direction of the equivalent of a full book shelf and a "What he said" type comment does not qualify as a reply. Try again, this time by citing chapter and verse and providing enough information to enable us to go directly to the citation.

[pErvinalia]

The article he linked to had only a single attempt at a fact, and that was both unsourced and not regarding the Canadian law. The rest was just the opinions of a crackpot conspiracy theorist.

[pErvinalia]

And the hour long video includes a lawyer making basically the same points about the amendments as you are.