Jordan Peterson

[Chose]

Exactly, and so I don't go and try to convince neo-Nazis of things on their forums. If one thinks CFC is really a bunch of irredeemable morons (or a "progressive mob") whose opinions don't matter, why post here in the first place?

Well other than to troll I'm not really sure. I certainly don't think that. I think you guys are a bunch of redeemable morons

 

[Миханя]

There was recently an article in the Russian media, and they quoted Jordan B Peterson saying that you can go to jail in Canada for using a wrong pronoun. Can anyone confirm that it's true? Can you go to prison for misgendering someone? Thanks.

 

[Synobun]

Short answer: no.

Long answer: noooooooooooooooo.

 

[Ajidica]

There was recently an article in the Russian media, and they quoted Jordan B Peterson saying that you can go to jail in Canada for using a wrong pronoun. Can anyone confirm that it's true? Can you go to prison for misgendering someone? Thanks.

Short Answer: No

Long Answer: Still no.

The Canadian Senate passed Bill C-16 by a 67-11 vote. The bill adds prohibitions against discrimination on the basis of gender identity and gender expression to the Canadian Human Rights Act, amends the criminal code to extend protections against hate speech and allows judges to take into consideration when sentencing whether a crime was motivated by hatred of the victim’s gender identity or expression.

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc...ill-extending-transgender-protections-n773421

And a longer, more detailed explanation of what C-16 can be found here.

So what does this mean for pronoun misuse? Well, refusing to use a person’s self identified pronoun is not going to be considered advocating genocide – unless the refusal to use the pronouns was accompanied by actually advocating genocide against trans and gender non-binary folks.

Similarly, it’s hard to see the refusal to use the appropriate pronoun –without something else – rising to the threshold of hate speech. Hate speech laws in Canada have only been used- and only can be used – against extreme forms of speech – explicitly and extreme forms of homophobic, anti-Semitic or racist speech. Moreover, prosecution needs the approval of the Attorney General.

It is entirely appropriate for gender identity and expression to be added to the list of identifiable groups. Hate speech directed at trans and gender non binary individuals should be treated the same as hate speech on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation. But, being treated equally means that the speech will have to be extreme and the Attorney General will have to approve the prosecution. These are not run of the mill prosecutions against professors who refuse proper pronoun usage. Offensive, sure. But criminal? Not unless it was accompanied by some other really nasty speech that promoted hatred towards trans and gender non-binary folks.

To return to the claim that Bill C-16 is the most serious infringement on free speech in Canada? Well, Professor Peterson is simply showing his ignorance around the history of free speech in Canada. There have been many endless limitations on free speech in Canada – many with which I disagree. Obscenity and indecency laws for example have long limited a broad range of literary, artistic and political expression in Canada – indeed far more so than our hate speech laws.

Personally, I am not a big fan of hate speech laws. I worry that prosecutions under hate speech laws end up bringing more rather than less attention to the offending speech, and more often than not, turns the offensive speaker into a martyr. I would rather see words fought with words. But, I also understand the arguments in favour – as the Supreme Court of Canada has said, it “send out a strong message of condemnation….the community as a whole is reminded of the importance of diversity and multiculturalism in Canada, the value of equality and the worth and dignity of each human person being particularly emphasized.”

http://sds.utoronto.ca/blog/bill-c-16-no-its-not-about-criminalizing-pronoun-misuse/

 

[Kyriakos]

It should tell one something, when even a basic thinker like Peterson can latch onto an issue and say something half-sensible. Cause it means that the current atmosphere of endless trolling and poor argument allows even for such uninteresting thinkers to rise to prominence.

In general i am not in favour of trying to force change. Seems meaningless, and usually it is counter-productive. Sometimes an idea fails not because it wasn't supported enough, but due to inherent problems. Sure, one can be triggered due to whatever, but you cannot protect against all potential triggering stuff, and there is no good argument to be made that some people must be protected while others should not.

 

[Mouthwash]

Well, then certainly don't help them by mischaracterising the actual argument in the way that the Trojan Horse people prefer. When you summarize "gender is a social construct" to "gender is a lie", you're doing a disservice to everyone who wants to discuss gender as a social construct and assisting those who seek to misconstrue the debate.

Traitorfish was the first to talk about gender being a social construct. I was referring to the political movement.

Linda Sarsour, famous Sharia Law advocate

Is this intended to be ironic?

Exactly, and so I don't go and try to convince neo-Nazis of things on their forums. If one thinks CFC is really a bunch of irredeemable morons (or a "progressive mob") whose opinions don't matter, why post here in the first place?

I think you're a bunch of bright people who've been immersed in an inherently fanatical ideology.

tl;dr the "I am the lone representative of the Light of Truth in this sea of unlettered ignorance" gets old really fast, and it doesn't really matter what space you try to pull it in. It doesn't even matter if you're actually right, and your interlocutors really are idiots.

Yes, so odd that putting all that effort into picking apart TF's arguments and then seeing all of his comments liked multiple times provoked a complaint.

 

[Lexicus]

Yes, so odd that putting all that effort into picking apart TF's arguments and then seeing all of his comments liked multiple times provoked a complaint.

Life ain't fair

 

[Mouthwash]

Tell that to trans people.

 

[Lexicus]

Tell that to trans people.

Being trans is just like having a group of people on the internet disagree with you, why didn't I see it before?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Being trans is just like having a group of people on the internet disagree with you, why didn't I see it before?

Liked so I can add to the liberal dogpile.

 

[Lexicus]

Liked so I can add to the liberal dogpile.

Yet more demonstration of the mob-like nature of our inherently fanatical ideology

 

[Sommerswerd]

Liked so I can add to the liberal dogpile.

Liberal dogpile:

Spoiler :

Conservative dogpile:

Spoiler :

 

[Synobun]

What is fanatical about allowing individuals to determine their individual identity, exactly?

 

[Broken_Erika]

What is fanatical about allowing individuals to determine their individual identity, exactly?

Allowing individuals to determine their own identity is COMMUNISM!

 

[Evie]

The fanatical ideology of respecting me (and Emzie, and our few other trans users). Man, you guys are such raging fundies.

 

[inthesomeday]

Mfw I have to respect trans people

 

[Chose]

Short answer: no.

Long answer: noooooooooooooooo.

Short Answer: No

Long Answer: Still no.


https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc...ill-extending-transgender-protections-n773421

And a longer, more detailed explanation of what C-16 can be found here.

http://sds.utoronto.ca/blog/bill-c-16-no-its-not-about-criminalizing-pronoun-misuse/

Can someone help me to understand this. C-16 added prohibitions against discrimination based on gender identity. So it's illegal to discriminate based on gender identity. Misgendering, according to the Onterio Human Rights Code, "will likely be discrimination when it takes place in a social area covered by the Code". Participating in illegal activities can always land you in jail, right? At least theoretically, if you refuse to pay fines, etc.. Why does everyone think it's impossible to go to jail for this?

Is it a violation of the Code to not address people by their choice of pronoun?
The law recognizes that everyone has the right to self-identify their gender and that “misgendering” is a form of discrimination.

As one human rights tribunal said: “Gender …may be the most significant factor in a person’s identity. It is intensely personal. In many respects how we look at ourselves and define who we are starts with our gender.”[1] The Tribunal found misgendering to be discriminatory in a case involving police, in part because the police used male pronouns despite the complainant’s self-identification as a trans woman.

Refusing to refer to a trans person by their chosen name and a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity, or purposely misgendering, will likely be discrimination when it takes place in a social area covered by the Code, including employment, housing and services like education. The law is otherwise unsettled as to whether someone can insist on any one gender-neutral pronoun in particular.

Gender-neutral pronouns may not be well known. Some people may not know how to determine what pronoun to use. Others may feel uncomfortable using gender-neutral pronouns. Generally, when in doubt, ask a person how they wish to be addressed. Use “they” if you don’t know which pronoun is preferred.[2] Simply referring to the person by their chosen name is always a respectful approach.

 

[Evie]

C-16 does two things.

1)It extend the definition of prohibited ground from discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act to extend to discrimination on gender identity and gender

This may include misgendering, but is not criminal law. It's a human right act. It prevent discrimination in a variety of fields (refusing employment on the basis of a prohibited ground, refusing lodging on such a basis, etc). You can't go to jail for breaking this one (as is the case for most human right acts - human right acts are about fines and damages, not about discrimination). Heck, you won't even go to jail for obstructing the Human Right Commission in a human right investigation - while that's an offense it's punishable only by a fine of up to 50K.

2)It extend the definition of "identifiable group", which applies to two specific crimes ("public incitement of hatred" and "advocating genocide") to include gender identity and expression. That's the only place where C-16 interact with Criminal Law, and it requires something a great deal more serious (ie, hate speech) than misgendering someone.

On top of which, the Ontario Human Right Act is a provincial Human right act, which has precisely zero relevance to interpretation of federal statute, and has no criminal value (being that the provinces don't make criminal legislation).

 

[Synobun]

Evie's right. There's also the matter of context and setting.

If you know what a person's identity is and you constantly misgender them all the while conducting yourself in a way that's oppressive (i.e. you're an authority figure or in some way capable of denying them service or opportunity), you'd be covered under this legislation. The same way you'd be covered if the person was black and you were dropping n-bombs or they were a woman and you made baby factory remarks.

Being a bell-end in your daily life and calling someone you know the wrong gender every time you see them won't get you imprisoned. Won't even get you imprisoned in a business setting (as Evie said), but that'll come with recompense instead.

 

[Chose]

The Ontario Human Right Code is not criminal legislation, being that it is provincial law (and the provinces can't legislate in criminal matters). Nor is it penal legislation, which the provinces have limited authority in. Being a completely separate law from a completely separate level of government, it cannot be used to define the meaning of terms in C-16.

The normal remedy for a human right code violation is to pay damages. Of course, before you get to that point you have to demonstrate that moral/physical/etc damages actually occured as a result of the discrimination ; or that exemplary damage is required given the nature and severity of the case.

In short, you're conflating apples and oranges.

Then where will the definitions come from? It was argued that the Federal DoJ will use the Human Rights Tribunals for these definitions, and that this has been the case historically, I do not know if this is true. Regardless, the same terms are used, presumably they have the same/similar definitions. Would you agree that misgendering would also be discrimination based on gender identity under the Canadian Human Rights Commission? I don't see any reason to think it wouldn't be, or that it shouldn't be.