4 ms·
Precisely? No definitely not precisely. The question at hand here is whether or not absence of pronouns constitutes misgendering, and the real crux of the issue
by rmilejczz 7y ago
Precisely? No definitely not precisely. The question at hand here is whether or not absence of pronouns constitutes misgendering, and the real crux of the issue is a lack of communication between staff and the moderator in question. I fail to see how that is meaningfully related to legislation which sought to classify intentional misgendering as a form of harassment in the work place.
- TheRealDunkirk 7y agoThe fundamental question of whether or not it was to be deemed malicious if someone were not to inquire about and use someone's preferred pronouns -- and not simply use generic pronouns or personal names -- was central to that debate. I guess it just goes to show how widely disparate opinions around this topic can be, given that you and I can't even agree as to what the argument is about!
- rmilejczz 7y agoPart of the problem is that Peterson really obfuscated the nature of the legislation. It was never about whether or not misgendering someone is malicious, it added workplace protections against discrimination. Peterson, for the sake of his own career, made it into the larger debate you describe. In fairness, it’s a debate that engages a lot of people, but the legislation in Canada was never intended to affect common parlance.
- TheRealDunkirk 7y agoVery interesting. Your comments are the first I've heard that the law only applied to workplace discrimination. This seems a pretty thorough overview: http://sds.utoronto.ca/blog/bill-c-16-no-its-not-about-criminalizing-pronoun-misuse/ http://sds.utoronto.ca/blog/bill-c-16-no-its-not-about-crimi.... Like most legal things these days, it clearly gets complicated very quickly.