Is the Spanish language offensive to trans people?

[Brian Peacock]

"The PC Police are in your heads!" The section of the debate 42 highlighted has Prof Peterson complaining about the treatment he has received from his employer. His basic (though breif) thrust in the first section is that an exclusive male/female gender divide is a natural divide, that men and women are fundamentally, biologically, and cognitively distinct, and that 'diversity training' generates prejudice, bigotry and discrimination. After that he starts complaining about people not taking that seriously. At the end of the debate he's still complaining, mostly about people not accepting that he's right.

I've put this point before: that 42 considers a person's gender to be a biological distinction wholly defined by what's between their legs. 42's point is perhaps similar to Prof Peterson's: that expressing this view is something that shouldn't necessarily be considered hateful or incendiary. While I'd agree with that, such a view is open to criticism and challenge - and should remain so. This isn't a settled matter. What Prof Peterson seems to object to is being told by his employer (and/or the state) that he is obliged to respect, or at least accommodate, someone's declare gender identity. This is what he seems to want to resist, and he blames the 'PC Police' for unduly manipulating social and political discourse, and the legal system, in order to oblige him, and everyone else, to respect, or at least accommodate, something he feels doesn't exist. For Prof Peterson, and perhaps for 42 as well, you have no basis for claiming the gender identity of a woman if you have a penis - that just ain't natural.

This seems rather simplistic to me, for in conflates a biological fact--womb or no-womb--with much broader concepts and concerns to do with femininity and masculinity which are partly innate and partly socially defined.

[Hermit]

"The PC Police are in your heads!" The section of the debate 42 highlighted has Prof Peterson complaining about the treatment he has received from his employer. His basic (though breif) thrust in the first section is that an exclusive male/female gender divide is a natural divide, that men and women are fundamentally, biologically, and cognitively distinct, and that 'diversity training' generates prejudice, bigotry and discrimination. After that he starts complaining about people not taking that seriously. At the end of the debate he's still complaining, mostly about people not accepting that he's right.

In other words, not discussing the Canadian law amendments. Thanks for wasting your time on our behalf.

[Brian Peacock]

The other debator does discuss Canadian anti-discrimination law, in some detail, but the Prof wastes his own time in that section of the debate railing against the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal as fundamentally detrimental to human rights because he's talked to lawyers about his dispute with his employer and they told him to 'shut your mouth and get on with your life.'

[L'Emmerdeur]

. . . L'Emmeduer (spelling?) . . .

It's L'Emmerdeur, but if you're ever at a loss, you could bastardize it more efficiently thus: "L'Paininthearse"--I won't mind.

[pErvinalia]

L'somethingorother....

[Forty Two]

"The PC Police are in your heads!" The section of the debate 42 highlighted has Prof Peterson complaining about the treatment he has received from his employer. His basic (though breif) thrust in the first section is that an exclusive male/female gender divide is a natural divide, that men and women are fundamentally, biologically, and cognitively distinct, and that 'diversity training' generates prejudice, bigotry and discrimination. After that he starts complaining about people not taking that seriously. At the end of the debate he's still complaining, mostly about people not accepting that he's right.

All, of course, to the effect that he may hold wild or crazy views, or be a raving lunatic. More to his point -- he's allowed to hold those views, and the idea of the transgender activists is that certain subjects are "not open to debate", etc., and constitute "hate speech" because he won't accept the other (in your view more reasonable) viewpoint regarding gender(s) and/or pronouns.

I've put this point before: that 42 considers a person's gender to be a biological distinction wholly defined by what's between their legs.

Don't tell me what I consider. Ask me what I consider. Anyway, it doesn't matter for this point whether I or anyone else considers a person's gender to be a biological distinction "wholly" defined by what's between their legs. I might believe there is no such thing as gender. Or that gender is a social construct "wholly" unrelated to a person's genitalia. What of it?

42's point is perhaps similar to Prof Peterson's: that expressing this view is something that shouldn't necessarily be considered hateful or incendiary.

Shouldn't necessarily be considered hateful or incendiary? Well, I don't care what other people consider any view, and whether I hold a view on gender is immaterial to the issue. However, I will say that yes, expressing the view that gender is wholly dependent on biology is not necessarily hateful or incendiary. More to the point ,I would go even further and say that even if it is considered hateful or incendiary, it's no business of the government or State to be punishing it.

Especially "incendiary" ideas -- "incendiary?" What's wrong with "incendiary" ideas? What's an incendiary idea? "What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want them? Now!" Is that incendiary? Maybe such an idea isn't hateful, but it seems incendiary.... but, I would suggest that BLM protesters ought not be fined or prosecuted for holding it or saying it.

While I'd agree with that, such a view is open to criticism and challenge - and should remain so. This isn't a settled matter.

There are no settled matters, in the context of free speech. I may say the world doesn't exist, and everything in it is a figment of my imagination. Even the very existence of the universe as a real thing is "not a settled matter."

What Prof Peterson seems to object to is being told by his employer (and/or the state) that he is obliged to respect, or at least accommodate, someone's declare gender identity.

Yes, but his "employer" is not a private entity. The University of Toronto is implementing government/state policy. He's not complaining about Joe's Auto Parts or Ford Motor Company implementing an internal policy.

This is what he seems to want to resist, and he blames the 'PC Police' for unduly manipulating social and political discourse, and the legal system, in order to oblige him, and everyone else, to respect, or at least accommodate, something he feels doesn't exist. For Prof Peterson, and perhaps for 42 as well, you have no basis for claiming the gender identity of a woman if you have a penis - that just ain't natural.

I've never said anything about "that just ain't natural," nor is whether genders are natural or unnatural relevant to me. Even if all of sexuality or gender expression is "unnatural" (whatever that means in this context), they have every right to express whatever gender they want. The issue is not what's natural or unnatural. The issue is whether we can be compelled by law to "respect" something, or whether we can be compelled by law use certain words (especially words that didn't exist a few years or even months ago) under penalty of criminal prosecution.

This seems rather simplistic to me, for in conflates a biological fact--womb or no-womb--with much broader concepts and concerns to do with femininity and masculinity which are partly innate and partly socially defined.

That may as may be, or not be. But, it's not the point of the objections to this kind of law. What if my view were that gender and gender expression have nothing to do with biology, genetics, and are thus not determined at birth -- they are wholly social constructs or lifestyle choices, or something else? That wouldn't change my view on the law.

[Brian Peacock]

Don't tell me what I consider. Ask me what I consider. Anyway, it doesn't matter for this point whether I or anyone else considers a person's gender to be a biological distinction "wholly" defined by what's between their legs. I might believe there is no such thing as gender. Or that gender is a social construct "wholly" unrelated to a person's genitalia. What of it?

...

What if my view were that gender and gender expression have nothing to do with biology, genetics, and are thus not determined at birth -- they are wholly social constructs or lifestyle choices, or something else? That wouldn't change my view on the law.

Come on then - out with it. What's your view of gender? Is it a function of biology? When people ask to be addressed in gender-neutral terms are they 'biology deniers', as Prof Peterson puts it?

[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)

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

My apologies - I viewed the videos he is referring to there, but the link does go to a list of videos. I'll get them narrowed down to the ones referred to. I apologize.

Here is the first one of the three -

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.

Indeed it doesn't qualify a persuasive reply, but we have relatives in from overseas, and I am pressed for time. I will expand and explain in greater detail, but it may take me a few days. Bear with me. And, I'll narrow it down. I agree that just pointing to a large amount of information is not, in fact, particularly persuasive in a forum discussion board. It's akin to me saying "here, you figure it out," but as I've been pressed for time, I am fact wasting precious minutes of work time this morning addressing this, as the rest of my house is still sleeping before we leave for the day (going to see a rocket launch at the Kennedy Space Center), it was the best I can do for the time being.

[Hermit]

We all make mistakes. I'll wait.

And no, I will not listen to someone fulminating against political correctness for two minutes and 18 seconds short of an hour, and especially not when that is just part one. Having realised that you made a mistake, why do you promptly make the same mistake again? Was your apology part of a joke with the Youtube link serving as the punchline? I am expecting an argument about how Bill 16 will make it punishable to not use prescribed pronouns. I want to see chapter and verse that support it, and I will not wade through hours of sound or text to look for verification thereof.

I have searched for transcripts of what was said, and posted the the relevant snippets instead of just linking to sound or video recordings, and if I could not find what I was looking for, I have taken the trouble to do the transcriptions myself and time-stamped each to the recording that I provided the link for as well. If you can't find the time to deliver the words that are relevant to your argument and pinpoint their locations, maybe it's better if you just shut the fuck up altogether. Not that I expect you will. L''Emmerdeur has pulled you up several times for ranting on without proper links recently. You just ignored it each time.

[Forty Two]

Don't tell me what I consider. Ask me what I consider. Anyway, it doesn't matter for this point whether I or anyone else considers a person's gender to be a biological distinction "wholly" defined by what's between their legs. I might believe there is no such thing as gender. Or that gender is a social construct "wholly" unrelated to a person's genitalia. What of it?

...

What if my view were that gender and gender expression have nothing to do with biology, genetics, and are thus not determined at birth -- they are wholly social constructs or lifestyle choices, or something else? That wouldn't change my view on the law.

Come on then - out with it. What's your view of gender?

My view on gender? In what way? Am I for it or against it? What do I think it is? As for being for or against it, I am neither. I care about gender only insofar as I'm attracted to women, and I consider myself male. What do I think gender is? I'm not exactly sure what it is.

Is it a function of biology? When people ask to be addressed in gender-neutral terms are they 'biology deniers', as Prof Peterson puts it?

Is it a function of biology? Well, yes, I suppose. Human biology is the physiology, behavior, and other qualities of humans. It seems rather evident that what people call gender is a part of human behavior and/or is a quality of being human. Is gender genetic? Are we born that way? Or do we "identify" later due to learning or conditioning? I don't know. What do you think? Nature? Nurture?

As Professor Peterson put it, he referred to another professor as a "biological sex denier." That's because the Professor, Professor Matte, denied the existence of biological sex, literally. He said there is no such thing as biological sex. He did not call people who ask to be addressed in gender neutral terms "biology deniers." He has also said that if asked by a student to refer the student with partI wicular pronouns, he might do it. It would depend on how they asked. Clearly, Prof. Peterson's issue is with compulsion and legal penalties associated with a failure or refusal to use particular pronouns (up to 70 or more at last count). http://tvo.org/video/programs/the-agend ... -of-speech and https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/sta ... 9920848896

[Forty Two]

We all make mistakes. I'll wait.

And no, I will not listen to someone fulminating against political correctness for two minutes and 18 seconds short of an hour, and especially not when that is just part one. Having realised that you made a mistake, why do you promptly make the same mistake again?

O.k., I'm not going to fight with you. I posted the video because I had previously directed you to a link wherein it was supposed to take you to three videos of Dr. Peterson. It was pointed out that the link went to many videos, and one of the things I said I would do was narrow it down. The one I just posted was the first of the three, and the most important of the three.

Was your apology part of a joke with the Youtube link serving as the punchline?

It wasn't an apology. I just agreed that me posting to videos and long explanations by Dr. Peterson was not an argument. it wasn't. I'll get to it, and try to narrow it all down for you. Be patient. It's the holidays and I'm busy with both family and work commitments.

I am expecting an argument about how Bill 16 will make it punishable to not use prescribed pronouns. I want to see chapter and verse that support it, and I will not wade through hours of sound or text to look for verification thereof.

Ah yes - well, the basic gist is in how it's interpreted. It adds the gender expression to the list of things you can't discriminate about. And, failure to use gender expression pronouns is arguably considered "hate speech" and "tantamount to violence" by the advocates of that legislation. A professor like Dr. Peterson can't refuse to use a trans person's preferred pronoun because that would be harassment or hate speech against the trans person ,and punishable discrimination under Bill-C-16. Peterson has explained this - the folks discussing the bill have tried to minimize it by saying things like "all it's about is" adding “gender identity or expression” to the Canadian Human Rights Code and that this will prevent the federal government and businesses - from discriminating on the basis of gender identity and gender expression. And, discrimination based on gender identity and expression includes a University of Toronto professor refusing to use the language of gender identity by obeying a demand to use one of 70+ (at current count) gender pronouns.

Non-discrimination on the basis of gender identity and expression includes the right to be identified by a person’s self identified pronoun. The Ontario Human Rights Commission, for example, in their Policy on Preventing Discrimination Because of Gender Identity and Expression states that gender harassment should include “ Refusing to refer to a person by their self-identified name and proper personal pronoun”. In other words, pronoun misuse may become actionable, though the Human Rights Tribunals and courts. And the remedies? Monetary damages, non-financial remedies (for example, ceasing the discriminatory practice or reinstatement to job) and public interest remedies (for example, changing hiring practices or developing non-discriminatory policies and procedures).

After University of Toronto psychology professor Jordan Peterson complained about what he called, "political correctness," having to use gender-neutral pronouns in class, and Bill C-16, students and professors alike spoke out. U of T students staged a "teach-in and rally" in order to "fight transphobia, intersexism, and nonbinary erasure in post-secondary education" and over 250 faculty members signed a letter associating Peterson's comments with "hate speech." Just last week administrators ordered Peterson to "stop making statements that could be considered discriminatory under provincial human rights legislation."

News media across Canada have covered this controversy and the gender identity debate with enthusiasm. But they've also covered in inaccurately, creating a narrative that presents white, conservative, anti-feminist men as the dissenters and young, hip, lefties as supporters.

Pushback against guidelines dictating students in public schools should choose which bathrooms and change rooms to use based on their own chosen "gender identity," rather than on sex, is similarly presented as coming only from the religious right.

http://www.nationalobserver.com/2016/10 ... considered (read that article for one argument against C-16, from a different perspective).

I have searched for transcripts of what was said, and posted the the relevant snippets instead of just linking to sound or video recordings, and if I could not find what I was looking for, I have taken the trouble to do the transcriptions myself and time-stamped each to the recording that I provided the link for as well. If you can't find the time to deliver the words that are relevant to your argument and pinpoint their locations, maybe it's better if you just shut the fuck up altogether. Not that I expect you will. L''Emmerdeur has pulled you up several times for ranting on without proper links recently. You just ignored it each time.

Oh, wow. You can't stop yourself, can you? Try not being such an insufferable, self-righteous boor. This shit about "pulled up several times" is total nonsense. Some of the folks here seem to think that once they've expressed their opinions, baseless and unsupported often, then the discussion is over. The other side has been "pulled up." It's been "explained" already, right? Well, just because L'Emmerdeur or you or someone else expresses an opinion doesn't mean the discussion is over. I provide far more source material and links than most of the crowd you're referring to, who generally just make declaratory statements and call the game over.

[pErvinalia]

It's when we provide links and quotes that DIRECTLY contradict your claims that you have been "pulled up". And you invariably disappear after it each time and never respond to the post debunking your nonsense.

[Brian Peacock]

[Prof Patterson] has also said that if asked by a student to refer the student with partI wicular pronouns, he might do it. It would depend on how they asked. Clearly, Prof. Peterson's issue is with compulsion and legal penalties associated with a failure or refusal to use particular pronouns (up to 70 or more at last count).

That's fine as a personal position, as far as it goes, but it really wash, and it does seem akin to something like, "I'm going to keep calling you that thing you don't like to be called until I've decided you've asked me properly.". If somebody wishes to be referred to by 'ze' why should accepting that depend on how they ask? If the Prof's employer has a code of conduct about how staff and students interact, why is the Prof's conformance with that dependant on what he thinks about about the manner, nature, composition, or whatever other conditions he chooses to apply, of that request? All this says is that party B must satisfy conditions determined by party A before party A will grant B's request. That's totally arbitrary - it's like saying "I'm more than happy to talk to you once you've admitted I'm right and you're wrong" - and its still unclear what damage or harm is done to A in acquiescing to B's request? By refusing to acquiesce isn't it A who is making an issue out of this, particularly if they subsequently complain about B either making the request in the first place or complaining about the terms in which the request was couched? Isn't this exactly the same kind of language and tone policing that the Prof is complaining about coming from the other direction? In fact, far from Prof Paterson's bleat that this sort of hoo-haa is a product of politically correct, isn't it the Prof who is making this battleground between competing views of what is and isn't politically correct?

If someone is transitioning or has transitioned from one gender to another referring to them by the gender of their birth, and/or maintaining that that is their true, natural, or biological gender, and refusing to address them in terms which they feel reflect their identity, is basically degrading to them. if any of us went about our business tomorrow and found that we were referred to and treated as if we were of a gender we didn't identify with we'd be similarly degraded - especially if it wen't on day after day. So, if the state is prepared to recognise a trans person's gender why and how does it limit anybody's freedom or liberty to accept that also? Who is really cause the fuss here?

Basically, I'm struggling to see what the issue is, beyond a kind of bleating from some that others shouldn't be afforded the same rights, protections, courtesies and respect they'd expect for themselves, because of... reasons.

[JimC]

However, if the Prof, or anyone else, faced legal or even workplace sanctions for failing to use a form of address he considered absurd, then I would agree with 42 that it is a step to far. One might be critical of the Prof and similar dinosaurs, to the extent of saying that it was somewhat ungracious and stubborn, and a workplace can legitimately make suggestions about forms of address, but beyond that into actual sanctions is too fucking PC for me, I'm afraid...

[Brian Peacock]

I can see that, but would you feel the same if you had to spend your adult life being referred to and treated as woman, and then, once you'd let people know that you were a man and wanted to be referred to in that way, were soundly ignored and even criticised for even making the request, and then resented and lambasted for limiting the rights and freedoms of others if the law supported your position?

My point still remains, who or what is being damaged or harmed by acquiescing to a request by someone to be referred to in gender-neutral terms - one which basically amounts to a request to be accepted for who and what you are?