Is the Spanish language offensive to trans people?

[JimC]

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?

I can agree that it would be reasonable, polite and courteous to use somebody's preferred form of address, and I would do so myself, but I draw the line at legal/workplace enforcement of it as a rigid rule. To be fair to 42, that seems to be his main point as well...

[Hermit]

I can agree that it would be reasonable, polite and courteous to use somebody's preferred form of address, and I would do so myself, but I draw the line at legal/workplace enforcement of it as a rigid rule. To be fair to 42, that seems to be his main point as well...

42 goes further than that. He argues that if "the left" has its way, government laws will make it illegal and punishable to not use somebody's preferred form of address, and that that is already happening in Canada with Bill 160. Still waiting for him to provide the necessary detail that would lend substance to his assertion.

[Forty Two]

I can agree that it would be reasonable, polite and courteous to use somebody's preferred form of address, and I would do so myself, but I draw the line at legal/workplace enforcement of it as a rigid rule. To be fair to 42, that seems to be his main point as well...

42 goes further than that. He argues that if "the left" has its way, government laws will make it illegal and punishable to not use somebody's preferred form of address, and that that is already happening in Canada with Bill 160. Still waiting for him to provide the necessary detail that would lend substance to his assertion.

I did provide the substance above, with the link explaining that the interpretation of Bill C-16 is intended to be that it's discrimination and harassment, and even hate speech, to not use someone's preferred pronoun. There are already similar laws at the provincial level in Canada and they are interpreted to require the use of pronouns. And, Dr. Jordan has already been warned by his government funded employer, University of Toronto, that he has to stop voicing his views on this, and he has to use the pronouns, or he may face action.

Also, there are other jurisdictions, like New York City, which have enacted measures to require the pronoun use.

JimC summarizes my view on it rightly.

[Forty Two]

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.

You're so full of shit...

[Forty Two]

[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.".

Right, because we all get to choose the words that come out of our mouths. There was never a law that says a man has to be called "he" either. It's custom.

If somebody wishes to be referred to by 'ze' why should accepting that depend on how they ask?

LOL - because it's a free country, and I shouldn't have to memorize 70+ pronouns that are made up and "fluid." And, it's not just "ze" - it's the fact that "ze" can be genderfluid and demand "ze" on one day and he on another and she on another. Today I'm ve, and I want to identify today as ve, so you have to comply.

The word "Ms." was invented in the 1960s as an alternative to Miss and Mrs. Great. But there is no law that says you'll be fined if you don't comply.

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?

Well, government employers are not private entities, and so their policies are tantamount to government policy. That's why their actions generally have to comply with constitutional limitations. A government funded university would generally not be able to tell students or teachers what political opinions they need to voice. Here, though, that's what Dr. Peterson is pointing out - by having a law that REQUIRES a person to use 70+ pronouns requires that the person accept that those pronouns are real words, and requires that the person accept the ideology behind their usage (which is that 70+ gender identities exist, etc.). If Dr. Peterson, or anyone else, says that these gender identities do not exist and that they do not subscribe to this identity politics ideology, they should have that right, shouldn't they? Part of what's happening is that it's becoming "hate speech" to simply not accept the gender identity concepts. "My humanity is not open for debate!" seems to be where the law is going.

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 -

So? It's no different than normal day-to-day interactions among non-trans people. No law says I have to call you sir, even if you demand it. I can call you "buddy," or "bub."

it's like saying "I'm more than happy to talk to you once you've admitted I'm right and you're wrong" -

which is everyone's right, isn't it?

and its still unclear what damage or harm is done to A in acquiescing to B's request?

The damage to liberal values is done by virtue of the compulsion and speech policing.

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?

Not that same, because Dr. Peterson is not demanding to have a law that says people must address him in a certain way. SJWs have accused him of being a Nazi.. Does he have a right to order them not to, under penalty of prosecution before the Human Rights Commission? They should have a law to tell him he must call them zer or zhe or zoo or moo -- but, he shouldn't have a law to compel them not to address him as a Nazi?

In no other context do people have a legal machine behind them to compel the words that other people have to say. There are laws against harassing or threatening people. But, there is no law requiring people to speak certain words, particularly words that are loaded with ideological baggage.

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?

Yes, and that's what he's advocating FOR - the existence of that battleground. As he points out, ideas are tested in the crucible of free speech. They have to be aired and discussed, and that's how we find the truth. We do not find the truth by legislative measure. That's precisely the point. He's not telling the SJWs they have to shut up. THEY are telling HIM he has to shut up, unless he uses their words, under penalty of law.

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.

It's also a valid opinion. Some people hold the view that there is no real transitioning from one gender to another. That's the point. It is not a legal matter. It's a viewpoint. It's an argument. I have no idea if it makes anyone feel bad or degraded, but that can't be the test of what's valid free speech under the law. After all, many religious people feel "degraded" when someone like Richard Dawkins bashes or verbally demolishes their religions. When he says Islam is the root of quite a lot of evil, for example, Muslims feel offended and degraded, and are really rather upset by it. They don't want the religion they identify as being attached by him. So what? They can argue all they want, but they can't compel Richard Dawkins to address them in a particular way or using particular words.

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.

But, there wouldn't be a cause of action before the Human Rights Commission based on the failure of someone to use a pronoun we wanted, is there? Maybe there should be?

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?

You are really asking me how does it limit someone's freedom or liberty for the state to compel someone to accept an ideological viewpoint?

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.

Afforded the "same" rights? Non trans people had the legal right to compel others to use particular pronouns before? When?

[Hermit]

I can agree that it would be reasonable, polite and courteous to use somebody's preferred form of address, and I would do so myself, but I draw the line at legal/workplace enforcement of it as a rigid rule. To be fair to 42, that seems to be his main point as well...

42 goes further than that. He argues that if "the left" has its way, government laws will make it illegal and punishable to not use somebody's preferred form of address, and that that is already happening in Canada with Bill 160. Still waiting for him to provide the necessary detail that would lend substance to his assertion.

I did provide the substance above, with the link explaining that the interpretation of Bill C-16 is intended to be that it's discrimination and harassment, and even hate speech, to not use someone's preferred pronoun.

You provided eleven hours of video consisting of a bloke having a massive whinge. It's about time you quoted the relevant wording of Bill 160, showing how not using someone's preferred pronoun will lead to legal repercussions like fines or imprisonment. Go on: where does the law a say that it "REQUIRES a person to use 70+ pronouns"? I read and quoted the relevant bits and asked you to do that. Still waiting.

[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?

I can agree that it would be reasonable, polite and courteous to use somebody's preferred form of address, and I would do so myself, but I draw the line at legal/workplace enforcement of it as a rigid rule. To be fair to 42, that seems to be his main point as well...

What we're discussing here is more than a rule but, possibly, employment codes and even laws which seemingly obliging people to refer to particular people in particular terms - codes and laws with sanctions and punishments; obligations. Prof Peterson et al frame these obligations as placing undue limitations on people's rights and freedoms to, basically, say what they want to say in the way they want to say it: to control language use in this way is, they argue, to control individual personal expression; to police language and expression in this way is to police thought (hence the Prof saying, "The PC* police are in your head!"), and; to sanction and/or punish the use of certain language and expression in this way is to create thought crimes.

I say that the Prof et al 'frame' their objection like this because, for one, it's an interpretation of an moral obligation and a criticism thereof, and two, it's a one-sided argument in as much as it wholly concerned with the rights of one party and takes no account of either the effect or consequences of language use or the rights and freedoms of those to whom certain kinds of language and descriptors may be applied to.

If we were talking about 'nigger' rather than 'ze' here there'd be little serious argument about whether limiting the use of that term was legitimate or whether it's use could, in certain contexts, be inappropriate or even illegal if/when it formed a component of abuse, discrimination, or some other form of systematic denigration. Sure, that limits the rights and freedoms of those who want to use 'nigger'--but only in certain contexts; the word itself nor its use is outlawed--but the law in relation to 'nigger' here also intends to affirm and protect the rights and freedoms of black people not to be abused, discriminated against, or to be subjected to some other form of systematic denigration.

If we applied 'nigger' to the situation the Prof was railing against in the video 42 provided his argument would go something like this: for his employer to oblige him not to call black students niggers is an undue imposition on his rights and personal freedoms, in fact its a violation of certain of his fundamental human rights that should really trump all the rights and concerns of all others, and that acquiescing to a black student's request not to be referred to as a nigger should rightly depend only on whether he considers that they'd asked him in whatever way he thought was the right way to make that request, or not.

Now I'm not saying that the Prof (or 42) are affirming a fundament right to call black people niggers, just that 'nigger' and 'ze' are directly comparable in terms of their relation to personal identity. My point is that the law can, and should imo, protect and maintain the rights and freedoms of trans people in exactly the same way that it protects and maintains the rights of black people, women, the disabled, gays and lesbians, the religious, etc.



* : 'Political correctness' isn't a thing, but a charge which implies that one actually shares or expresses incorrect political views and opinions. In this regard the charge of 'political correctness' is a claim to the self-evident correctness of opposing political views.

[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.

You're so full of shit...

Actually, it's you that is full of shit. The lawyer on the program explained how you are wrong, and also how you are wrong about the New York law. Hermit posted a link TO THE ACTUAL LAW, as opposed to you who posted the paranoid ravings of a conspiracy theorist (Peterson) in lieu of providing a single piece of evidence to back your assertion.

[JimC]

Brian Peacock wrote:

If we were talking about 'nigger' rather than 'ze' here there'd be little serious argument about whether limiting the use of that term was legitimate or whether it's use could, in certain contexts, be inappropriate or even illegal if/when it formed a component of abuse, discrimination, or some other form of systematic denigration. Sure, that limits the rights and freedoms of those who want to use 'nigger'--but only in certain contexts; the word itself nor its use is outlawed--but the law in relation to 'nigger' here also intends to affirm and protect the rights and freedoms of black people not to be abused, discriminated against, or to be subjected to some other form of systematic denigration.

If we applied 'nigger' to the situation the Prof was railing against in the video 42 provided his argument would go something like this: for his employer to oblige him not to call black students niggers is an undue imposition on his rights and personal freedoms, in fact its a violation of certain of his fundamental human rights that should really trump all the rights and concerns of all others, and that acquiescing to a black student's request not to be referred to as a nigger should rightly depend only on whether he considers that they'd asked him in whatever way he thought was the right way to make that request, or not.

Now I'm not saying that the Prof (or 42) are affirming a fundament right to call black people niggers, just that 'nigger' and 'ze' are directly comparable in terms of their relation to personal identity. My point is that the law can, and should imo, protect and maintain the rights and freedoms of trans people in exactly the same way that it protects and maintains the rights of black people, women, the disabled, gays and lesbians, the religious, etc.

I can't see that this can be used as an argument related to the issue at hand. To say that one particular word such as "nigger" (in context, not used neutrally) is hate speech, and sanctions could apply to its use, is reasonable, with some caveats (obviously it cannot be automatic sanctions, or its use in academic discussions about its use would be banned...)

That is a big jump away from requiring a particular form of address, and sanctioning those who, for whatever reason, do not use it. I would oppose that, so in that regard, I agree with 6 X 7...

Having said that, it seems to me that 3 X 14 is somewhat exaggerating the possibility of this issue being more than a storm in an academic teacup, and threatening the end of civilisation in North America, such as it is...

[NineBerry]

Are there regulations in US universities that mean students can be punished for refusing to call professors "Sir" if the professor demands that?

[JimC]

Some of my students call me sir, but most call me Mr C...

[NineBerry]

But that's Australia. I have heard that using sir is still more common and formally required in some settings in the US.

[JimC]

They're so old-fashioned, the yanks...

[Brian Peacock]

Brian Peacock wrote:

If we were talking about 'nigger' rather than 'ze' here there'd be little serious argument about whether limiting the use of that term was legitimate or whether it's use could, in certain contexts, be inappropriate or even illegal if/when it formed a component of abuse, discrimination, or some other form of systematic denigration. Sure, that limits the rights and freedoms of those who want to use 'nigger'--but only in certain contexts; the word itself nor its use is outlawed--but the law in relation to 'nigger' here also intends to affirm and protect the rights and freedoms of black people not to be abused, discriminated against, or to be subjected to some other form of systematic denigration.

If we applied 'nigger' to the situation the Prof was railing against in the video 42 provided his argument would go something like this: for his employer to oblige him not to call black students niggers is an undue imposition on his rights and personal freedoms, in fact its a violation of certain of his fundamental human rights that should really trump all the rights and concerns of all others, and that acquiescing to a black student's request not to be referred to as a nigger should rightly depend only on whether he considers that they'd asked him in whatever way he thought was the right way to make that request, or not.

Now I'm not saying that the Prof (or 42) are affirming a fundament right to call black people niggers, just that 'nigger' and 'ze' are directly comparable in terms of their relation to personal identity. My point is that the law can, and should imo, protect and maintain the rights and freedoms of trans people in exactly the same way that it protects and maintains the rights of black people, women, the disabled, gays and lesbians, the religious, etc.

I can't see that this can be used as an argument related to the issue at hand. To say that one particular word such as "nigger" (in context, not used neutrally) is hate speech, and sanctions could apply to its use, is reasonable, with some caveats (obviously it cannot be automatic sanctions, or its use in academic discussions about its use would be banned...)

That is a big jump away from requiring a particular form of address, and sanctioning those who, for whatever reason, do not use it. I would oppose that, so in that regard, I agree with 6 X 7...

Having said that, it seems to me that 3 X 14 is somewhat exaggerating the possibility of this issue being more than a storm in an academic teacup, and threatening the end of civilisation in North America, such as it is...

As I said, I raise the spectre of what's euphemistically called 'The N-word' because it is compatible with 'ze' etc in terms of personal identity. I guess my point here is that 'he' or 'she' could be used in a non-neutral way (say, pejoratively), that someone transitioning, or who has transitioned, from male to female has a right not to be referred to as a man just as a black person has a right not to be referred to as a nigger - which is to say, in those contexts where the use of those terms may cause damage or harm to the individuals concerned. This I maintain in spite of any person's failure to recognise, approve of, or accept trans people, and in spite of pretty lame pleas which seek to place arbitrary conditions on how trans people should and/or shouldn't make a request to be referred to by the personal pronouns with which they identify.

I still do not really see what is unreasonable or rights- or freedom-limiting about an employer or the state requiring employees or citizens to refer to my hypothetical trans person as a woman. Is doing so not simply reinforcing a simple baseline of personal respect that we all have every reason to expect from others regardless of whether we're trans or not - or not?

[JimC]

I would agree that a polite person should use the form of address preferred by X, but we'll have to disagree about whether states or employers should be allowed legal or workplace sanctions against individuals who fail to comply. I'd be strongly opposed to law-based state sanctions; I suppose that, if certain requirements about forms of address are part of a contract of employment, agreed to by an employee, then that could be workable.