6 ms·

Nailed it. If someone required me to chant "Chocolate is god" whenever I enter their home, and my refusal to do so is a punishable / jailable offense, then tha

Nailed it. If someone required me to chant "Chocolate is god" whenever I enter their home, and my refusal to do so is a punishable / jailable offense, then that is a massive breach of my own rights to control my own speech. I would probably choose to no longer spend time with those people if they felt they could compell (or more accurately, coerce) me to speak a certain way. The same applies to identity, given that immediate obvious biological traits are present that can be used to infer a person's identity, and if asked to refer to them as something different, to respect that as long as the request is as respectful as me asking someone to do me a small favor. Anything beyond that is toxic, purely from an emotional/verbal abuse lens.

justinjlynn 5y ago
> I would probably choose to no longer spend time with those people if they felt they could compell (or more accurately, coerce) me to speak a certain way. This is the solution to your problem; and, if you were continually offensive to those people, one you may be forced to enact - by their rejection of your presence. However, if you do choose to interact with them, or choose to engage in activities where you will interact with them (during your work duties, for example) - that's the social contract you're going to have to adhere to if you want to continue doing so. You wouldn't argue that you should be able to go around verbally assaulting people without consequence because that would be an infringement to your right to free speech (which has always been limited, by the way; like it or not - you can't shout fire in a crowded theatre), would you?
- docmars 5y ago
  Yup, precisely. In a nutshell, you're saying this goes both ways, and I think that's perfectly acceptable. I will caveat that I believe people who are opposed to the gender pronoun salad should also have the right to share that publicly, and in the event a person who subscribes to that way of life stumbles upon those public comments would benefit most by live-and-let-live, and simply write off or ignore those individuals if they feel upset. Unfortunately every single permutation within intersectionality, whether "normative" or not, are going to face mild disagreement or prejudice towards their own ideologies. A humble response is one that lives beyond it, rather than consuming all of one's time fighting it in the name of justice, IMHO. Seeking perfect insulation from disagreement is unachievable in society without also severely marginalizing a few groups at any given moment. That is, unless there is a clear sign that said prejudice is on track to grow rapidly in the direction of genocide or overt societal exclusion and/or the belief that reeducation is necessary. All of these are unacceptable. Though we are witnessing this being done against normative groups en masse in companies and public institutions today, unfortunately. It appears that most are reaching a breaking point and pushing back, and those who do represent many different races, creeds, and backgrounds. It's encouraging to see.
  - justinjlynn 5y ago
    > I will caveat that I believe people who are opposed to the gender pronoun salad should also have the right to share that publicly, and in the event a person who subscribes to that way of life stumbles upon those public comments would benefit most by live-and-let-live, and simply write off or ignore those individuals if they feel upset. What do you mean by this? In what circumstances do you think it's acceptable to make these comments? What qualifies as "stumbling upon"? Do you mean to include group interactions in non-dedicated forums of discussion? Personal interactions? Should neither party be permitted to raise objection? Why should either party be expected to simply leave the discussion without contributing? > That is, unless there is a clear sign that said prejudice is on track to grow rapidly in the direction of genocide or overt societal exclusion and/or the belief that reeducation is necessary. All of these are unacceptable. Who judges this and how are they chosen to do so?
    - docmars 5y ago
      > What do you mean by this? In what circumstances do you think it's acceptable to make these comments? Excellent questions, and ones that are complicated to answer in any truly objective sense. The measuring stick I would maybe use to judge an appropriate context would be the same as how we would maybe treat a particular interest or political stance. Does it feel appropriate to minimize someone else's political views to their face in a casual group setting? Probably not. Does it feel appropriate to share a political rant in one's workplace chat that may have deeply personal implications? Maybe not. But if it did happen, could the offended party forgive the person who shared? That'd be favorable. Does it feel appropriate to share the same political rant with a close friend? Sure, why not? Family? Definitely, if you're on good terms. How about on Facebook? Twitter? Sure -- a point of disagreement is a few scroll wheel clicks away from passing over it, if a cool, measured response can't be mustered. We are surrounded with opposition daily in various forms. The measure of our character is judged by how we choose to handle those moments. Sometimes walking away is a more mature response, because it acknowledges that the person is capable of thriving despite their opposition. It indicates that their ego is in their own control, not swayed by any insult that passively comes their way. In the event you have a persistent harasser, it's time to either respond in kind, or get help from someone with the power to stop such harassment, but a single passive statement of belief or opinion shared is hardly even close to classifying as harassment. > Who judges this and how are they chosen to do so? Another tricky one, and very difficult to qualify. If I had to choose, I might say the military if I've entrusted them to have intelligence data and a general pulse of potential threats within or outside a nation. Maybe that trust is misplaced? Who then would I turn to? The media? Would the media faithfully represent the issue in an unbiased manner? They've done very well to shatter that trust, as a collective institution. Who then? Citizen journalists and average people recording and sharing video footage of evidence of mistreatment, but shared en masse? Reports of in the hundreds? Thousands? That'd be a good indicator that something's amiss. Parents approaching their school boards en masse across the country to confront Critical Race Theory's damaging effects on school-aged children leading to fundamentally racist views against white people? That's a pretty good indicator something's wrong, especially if there hadn't been a past history of malicious / nefarious confrontations of the same sort, to where the recent recordings and reports of this happening are objectively novel situations within a larger period of time. Despite those reports, there still would need to be a fairly unbiased judge of the broader situation, and one (or many) who could act decisively in enough time to prevent catastrophe should a threatening scenario for any given race or group arise. It's the same sort of question as "did the Allies act soon enough against Nazi Germany's genocide?" or "did anyone act soon enough or... at all, against the Bolsheviks?" Well, people finally acted, but was it enough? Or was the potential disaster they prevented grander than what had already been committed? I couldn't confidently say there is anyone on Earth who is qualified to answer that question outside of God Himself.
vineyardmike 5y ago
> to respect that as long as the request is as respectful as me asking someone to do me a small favor. Is someone asking you to use their name a small favor or common societal expectation? Also, since when is pronoun use punishable? Who is talking about jail time? People are just asking for respect, that shouldn't be too much to ask. If everytime you see someone, you call them a rude name, and that person tells everyone you're rude, who is in the wrong?
- nate_meurer 5y ago
  Canada's C19 has the potential to criminalize misgendering: https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/features/canadas-gender-identity-rights-bill-c-16-explained https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/features/canadas-gender-identi... And note that the pronouns subject to misgendering include the "personal pronouns" such as ze/zir that are now being pushed by trans rights activists: https://www.mypronouns.org/how https://www.mypronouns.org/how
  - justinjlynn 5y ago
    The "potential"... the article you link refutes your claim: > In the Criminal Code, which does not reference pronouns, Cossman says misusing pronouns alone would not constitute a criminal act. https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/features/canadas-gender-identity-rights-bill-c-16-explained https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/features/canadas-gender-identi...
    - nate_meurer 5y ago
      If you're going to cherry-pick, at least recognize some of the other cherries: > 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, Brown says, through a process that would start with a complaint and progress to a proceeding before a human rights tribunal. Sure sounds like "potential" to me, no matter how unlikely its proponents claim that will be. And any talk of tribunals always makes my ears perk up, as it should anyone who values representative democracy.
  - 5y ago
denton-scratch 5y ago
"that is a massive breach of my own rights to control my own speech" Nope. It's a constraint on where you can go. You come into my home, then you follow my rules.
- docmars 5y ago
  Fair point -- then I suppose I won't come over to your home if I find the rules unreasonable. The ball is in your court at that point, because I have a choice that you can't take away from me outside of an unreasonable or immoral means. Would I be the "Karen" in this situation? Perhaps. The critical party is always seen as the enemy, so no loss there. At that point, it all boils down to control on either side. One side is demanding control of one's speech (in one's own home, in this example, let's be specific). On the other side, they are demanding respect for one's right to think and speak freely without being compelled by complete strangers, and in the case of Canada, by the government. Just as I am free not to participate in a religion and all of its chants and sayings, I am also free not to participate in the demands of a fellow human who uses personal rules and boundaries in excess to exert control over others. It's really no different than someone 50 years ago screeching "you will call me sir," -- in fact, I would argue a good portion of Leftists would absolutely flip their shit if they learned someone's father demanded their children call them "sir". "What gives?", they'd ask. In that situation, there's an authority figure using that as a way to teach his children respect in the context of an authority/subordinate relationship, yet something about it still seems silly, especially if the father was using it as a way to strong-arm his children leading to a poorer relationship later. In a nearly identical way, some (not all) in the trans community, especially in the public sphere, exert that same control by strong-arming their way into gaining respect from complete strangers they never earned it from, and without overt and obvious physical traits to denote one's gender falling into 1 of 2 major buckets by deduction. "Don't guess what I am, know what I am," and guessing wrong is minus 3 points on the relationship building scale. Nice way to start! It could have been much simpler. For those who are more forgiving of those mistakes and ask politely for others to call them a certain way -- that would make it more reasonable; and I would venture to say that the majority in this community are that way. The only other issue now is the sheer complexity of remembering 50+ genders and growing. Many people can barely remember others' names after asking 3 times, much less N number of possible genders. "Don't take yourself too seriously" never had a better moment to shine. The world would be so much different if everyone treated those genders as something faddish or silly, where one's job, reputation, standing with friends, and even criminal status aren't hinging on a few mistakes not remembering others' preferred pronouns, especially for public figures and celebrities. God forbid they mess up or setup boundaries against more angry/coercive types. The same goes for employers or anyone else refusing employment or service to members of the trans community. That also is a real shame. What good is a society not built on grace, rather than punishment, for something so frivolous as pronouns? I'm a male, and I've been called "she" by accident (and even jokingly) too many times to count. All of those people still have jobs and good standing in society because I didn't take to social media to mount a campaign against them. I'm proud of that. :) Though, it didn't take much for me to brush it off, because that's what good people do. Turning it into a harmless joke only evolved the interactions into something memorable that left both parties feeling seen and respected.

justinjlynn 5y ago

> I would probably choose to no longer spend time with those people if they felt they could compell (or more accurately, coerce) me to speak a certain way. This is the solution to your problem; and, if you were continually offensive to those people, one you may be forced to enact - by their rejection of your presence. However, if you do choose to interact with them, or choose to engage in activities where you will interact with them (during your work duties, for example) - that's the social contract you're going to have to adhere to if you want to continue doing so. You wouldn't argue that you should be able to go around verbally assaulting people without consequence because that would be an infringement to your right to free speech (which has always been limited, by the way; like it or not - you can't shout fire in a crowded theatre), would you?

docmars 5y ago
Yup, precisely. In a nutshell, you're saying this goes both ways, and I think that's perfectly acceptable. I will caveat that I believe people who are opposed to the gender pronoun salad should also have the right to share that publicly, and in the event a person who subscribes to that way of life stumbles upon those public comments would benefit most by live-and-let-live, and simply write off or ignore those individuals if they feel upset. Unfortunately every single permutation within intersectionality, whether "normative" or not, are going to face mild disagreement or prejudice towards their own ideologies. A humble response is one that lives beyond it, rather than consuming all of one's time fighting it in the name of justice, IMHO. Seeking perfect insulation from disagreement is unachievable in society without also severely marginalizing a few groups at any given moment. That is, unless there is a clear sign that said prejudice is on track to grow rapidly in the direction of genocide or overt societal exclusion and/or the belief that reeducation is necessary. All of these are unacceptable. Though we are witnessing this being done against normative groups en masse in companies and public institutions today, unfortunately. It appears that most are reaching a breaking point and pushing back, and those who do represent many different races, creeds, and backgrounds. It's encouraging to see.
- justinjlynn 5y ago
  > I will caveat that I believe people who are opposed to the gender pronoun salad should also have the right to share that publicly, and in the event a person who subscribes to that way of life stumbles upon those public comments would benefit most by live-and-let-live, and simply write off or ignore those individuals if they feel upset. What do you mean by this? In what circumstances do you think it's acceptable to make these comments? What qualifies as "stumbling upon"? Do you mean to include group interactions in non-dedicated forums of discussion? Personal interactions? Should neither party be permitted to raise objection? Why should either party be expected to simply leave the discussion without contributing? > That is, unless there is a clear sign that said prejudice is on track to grow rapidly in the direction of genocide or overt societal exclusion and/or the belief that reeducation is necessary. All of these are unacceptable. Who judges this and how are they chosen to do so?
  - docmars 5y ago
    > What do you mean by this? In what circumstances do you think it's acceptable to make these comments? Excellent questions, and ones that are complicated to answer in any truly objective sense. The measuring stick I would maybe use to judge an appropriate context would be the same as how we would maybe treat a particular interest or political stance. Does it feel appropriate to minimize someone else's political views to their face in a casual group setting? Probably not. Does it feel appropriate to share a political rant in one's workplace chat that may have deeply personal implications? Maybe not. But if it did happen, could the offended party forgive the person who shared? That'd be favorable. Does it feel appropriate to share the same political rant with a close friend? Sure, why not? Family? Definitely, if you're on good terms. How about on Facebook? Twitter? Sure -- a point of disagreement is a few scroll wheel clicks away from passing over it, if a cool, measured response can't be mustered. We are surrounded with opposition daily in various forms. The measure of our character is judged by how we choose to handle those moments. Sometimes walking away is a more mature response, because it acknowledges that the person is capable of thriving despite their opposition. It indicates that their ego is in their own control, not swayed by any insult that passively comes their way. In the event you have a persistent harasser, it's time to either respond in kind, or get help from someone with the power to stop such harassment, but a single passive statement of belief or opinion shared is hardly even close to classifying as harassment. > Who judges this and how are they chosen to do so? Another tricky one, and very difficult to qualify. If I had to choose, I might say the military if I've entrusted them to have intelligence data and a general pulse of potential threats within or outside a nation. Maybe that trust is misplaced? Who then would I turn to? The media? Would the media faithfully represent the issue in an unbiased manner? They've done very well to shatter that trust, as a collective institution. Who then? Citizen journalists and average people recording and sharing video footage of evidence of mistreatment, but shared en masse? Reports of in the hundreds? Thousands? That'd be a good indicator that something's amiss. Parents approaching their school boards en masse across the country to confront Critical Race Theory's damaging effects on school-aged children leading to fundamentally racist views against white people? That's a pretty good indicator something's wrong, especially if there hadn't been a past history of malicious / nefarious confrontations of the same sort, to where the recent recordings and reports of this happening are objectively novel situations within a larger period of time. Despite those reports, there still would need to be a fairly unbiased judge of the broader situation, and one (or many) who could act decisively in enough time to prevent catastrophe should a threatening scenario for any given race or group arise. It's the same sort of question as "did the Allies act soon enough against Nazi Germany's genocide?" or "did anyone act soon enough or... at all, against the Bolsheviks?" Well, people finally acted, but was it enough? Or was the potential disaster they prevented grander than what had already been committed? I couldn't confidently say there is anyone on Earth who is qualified to answer that question outside of God Himself.

vineyardmike 5y ago

> to respect that as long as the request is as respectful as me asking someone to do me a small favor. Is someone asking you to use their name a small favor or common societal expectation? Also, since when is pronoun use punishable? Who is talking about jail time? People are just asking for respect, that shouldn't be too much to ask. If everytime you see someone, you call them a rude name, and that person tells everyone you're rude, who is in the wrong?

nate_meurer 5y ago
Canada's C19 has the potential to criminalize misgendering: https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/features/canadas-gender-identity-rights-bill-c-16-explained https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/features/canadas-gender-identi... And note that the pronouns subject to misgendering include the "personal pronouns" such as ze/zir that are now being pushed by trans rights activists: https://www.mypronouns.org/how https://www.mypronouns.org/how
- justinjlynn 5y ago
  The "potential"... the article you link refutes your claim: > In the Criminal Code, which does not reference pronouns, Cossman says misusing pronouns alone would not constitute a criminal act. https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/features/canadas-gender-identity-rights-bill-c-16-explained https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/features/canadas-gender-identi...
  - nate_meurer 5y ago
    If you're going to cherry-pick, at least recognize some of the other cherries: > 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, Brown says, through a process that would start with a complaint and progress to a proceeding before a human rights tribunal. Sure sounds like "potential" to me, no matter how unlikely its proponents claim that will be. And any talk of tribunals always makes my ears perk up, as it should anyone who values representative democracy.
- 5y ago

denton-scratch 5y ago

"that is a massive breach of my own rights to control my own speech" Nope. It's a constraint on where you can go. You come into my home, then you follow my rules.

docmars 5y ago
Fair point -- then I suppose I won't come over to your home if I find the rules unreasonable. The ball is in your court at that point, because I have a choice that you can't take away from me outside of an unreasonable or immoral means. Would I be the "Karen" in this situation? Perhaps. The critical party is always seen as the enemy, so no loss there. At that point, it all boils down to control on either side. One side is demanding control of one's speech (in one's own home, in this example, let's be specific). On the other side, they are demanding respect for one's right to think and speak freely without being compelled by complete strangers, and in the case of Canada, by the government. Just as I am free not to participate in a religion and all of its chants and sayings, I am also free not to participate in the demands of a fellow human who uses personal rules and boundaries in excess to exert control over others. It's really no different than someone 50 years ago screeching "you will call me sir," -- in fact, I would argue a good portion of Leftists would absolutely flip their shit if they learned someone's father demanded their children call them "sir". "What gives?", they'd ask. In that situation, there's an authority figure using that as a way to teach his children respect in the context of an authority/subordinate relationship, yet something about it still seems silly, especially if the father was using it as a way to strong-arm his children leading to a poorer relationship later. In a nearly identical way, some (not all) in the trans community, especially in the public sphere, exert that same control by strong-arming their way into gaining respect from complete strangers they never earned it from, and without overt and obvious physical traits to denote one's gender falling into 1 of 2 major buckets by deduction. "Don't guess what I am, know what I am," and guessing wrong is minus 3 points on the relationship building scale. Nice way to start! It could have been much simpler. For those who are more forgiving of those mistakes and ask politely for others to call them a certain way -- that would make it more reasonable; and I would venture to say that the majority in this community are that way. The only other issue now is the sheer complexity of remembering 50+ genders and growing. Many people can barely remember others' names after asking 3 times, much less N number of possible genders. "Don't take yourself too seriously" never had a better moment to shine. The world would be so much different if everyone treated those genders as something faddish or silly, where one's job, reputation, standing with friends, and even criminal status aren't hinging on a few mistakes not remembering others' preferred pronouns, especially for public figures and celebrities. God forbid they mess up or setup boundaries against more angry/coercive types. The same goes for employers or anyone else refusing employment or service to members of the trans community. That also is a real shame. What good is a society not built on grace, rather than punishment, for something so frivolous as pronouns? I'm a male, and I've been called "she" by accident (and even jokingly) too many times to count. All of those people still have jobs and good standing in society because I didn't take to social media to mount a campaign against them. I'm proud of that. :) Though, it didn't take much for me to brush it off, because that's what good people do. Turning it into a harmless joke only evolved the interactions into something memorable that left both parties feeling seen and respected.