Gender pronouns in Canada

It's always cute when assholes break out derogatory bullshit like "SJW" when someone asks for simple common courtesy.

There certainly ARE cases of "SJW" over-reach but it can be challenged on the merits, not simply based on the fact you define it as "SJW shit"

But worse than that is when the ask isn't even a burden at all, it just ruffles your delicate feathers a bit and you resort to "OMG SJW!" without even hesitating.

It's rather precious.

This link also does not establish that the non-discrimination laws specifically require him to use the requested pronouns.

Frankly, it looks more to me like it is he who is picking the fight, not the supposed "SJW" folks who object to his argument.

Consider this quote:

"University of Toronto psychology professor Jordan Peterson had enough of what he saw as a campus culture where "social justice warrior, left-wing radical political activists" ran rampant.
In September he released a video lecture series taking aim at political correctness."

HE is invoking the challenge by setting out to take on (OMG!!!) "political correctness" and "SJWs" - people who are just trying to respectfully discuss an issue do not rant about "radicals run rampant"

That said, he has a free speech right to voice those opinions, until and unless the Commission clarifies that the pronoun usage does fall under discrimination (my guess is that they will say it does in certain situations - and an official school function like a class would be one such because the student, once enrolled, is obliged to be there - but not in general terms) but let's not be fooled about which is the asshole in the room.

more specifically, it is a Christianized Western thing in the sense that a lot of other cultures just roll with it. The Hijras in India for one example among many. The rigid "pick a side" binary is inherent to the Mosaic religions but not so much elsewhere.

I've never run into the Hijras, but I've seen a thing or two in Indonesia ... It also puts me in mind of the eunuchs of China's dynasties. That was artificially induced, of course, but there was obviously room for a third category which was taken very seriously indeed, and was often politically powerful.

I've been thinking about what @Nova said about "rolling with it". That's what Western societies used to do with Muslim women wearing headscarves. Nobody cared. Then, after 911, people suddenly started caring. (And one murderous dingbat in the US shot a Sikh man under the misapprehension that he was Muslim ...)

Likewise, you have Liberace who was an outrageous "queen", as they used to be known. He was for anyone with the eyes to see, anyway. Yet nobody gave a damn, and I think that apart from some unlucky -- or careless -- individuals who fell victim to anti-homosexual laws, nobody really wished to know. Like your parents doing what they did to conceive you. Do we really want to know about that? Not many of us.

Then suddenly all these things -- headgear, sexual orientation, whatever -- get politicized. Then everybody gets into a lather. Whatever it is becomes a political football and people start demonstrating. Then there's a backlash by those concerned. And the circle keeps getting more and more vicious.

It's all a manifestation of our inherent tribalism, that us-against-them root that goes so deep in the human psyche.

If I'm uncertain of someone's gender, I'll usually ask politely what pronouns they prefer. If I can't actually ask them, I use "them/they" until given correct information (though most people seem to be fine with "them/they").

most of the time I just refer to people by name when I'm talking to them.

or "dude".

I call everything dude.

if I'm talking about them, then a) I'll probably refer to them by how they present
and b) they can't really get offended if I slip up on she/he by virtue of the fact they aren't there.

also, c) I don't give a fuck if I offend you. If you're so narcissistic as to demand third person forms of address, I don't want to speak or otherwise be associated with you.

In Liberace's case people didn't really know his true sexuality because despite his flamboyance he denied being homosexual his entire life. He even successfully sued publishers for daring to even "hint" that he was gay.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberace

People in those days really did try to keep their private lives private and with a few exceptions the media respected that.

The day will never come when I'll accept new PC-motivated pronouns. I will not use them and I'll not recognize those used when addressing me.

If you're biologically male, you're a "he." If female, a "she." If indeterminate, "they" (I actually like that fairly recent innovation). If you're transgendered, I will avoid pronouns for you altogether.

They're not PC motivated pronouns. See, I swear, when you replace "PC" or "political correctness" with "respectful/basic respect" it becomes clear how people think and what their true motivations are. You just don't do that to people, Pellegrino.

Actions speak louder than words. When you try to force others to go along with it, it's no longer about respect, it's about control.

If it were simply asking for common courtesy no one would care. The moment you involve institutions it becomes more about control than "courtesy."

Then don't bitch when SJW get called out for their over-reach you hypocritcal little snowflake.

Goddamnit.

See, to someone who actually has friends who have dealt with transitioning, that sounds like this:

"The day will never come when I'll treat those people with basic respect or courtesy. My refusal to accept anything I can't understand is way more important to me."

Who's forcing anyone to do that?

If I might steer a middle course here, I have no wish to be unkind or disrespectful to anyone (who hasn't outright earned it in my view). Yet I'm not necessarily in possession of intimate information about everyone I deal with. Or refer to in his/her/whatever's presence. And even if I am I don't know if they give a shit whether I tie myself in linguistic knots for them.

So I do my best to be gentle and, well, nice. But I'm damned if I'm going to Obey the Language Diktat of people whose concerns aren't really with anyone's feelings but rather with their own desire to split hairs and boss others around. Because that's what I think we're dealing with in situations such as those described in the OP.

I may end up doing what they prescribe, but it's because I think it's the best thing to do --- not because they're effing telling me to do it.

Here's another way to look at it. Say you meet a guy who says "My name is Wilberforce, but I really hate that name so I'd appreciate it if you called me Bob." Are you refuse to call him anything other than his given name, because darn it, not only is Bob not the name on his birth certificate, it isn't even a standard nickname for the name that is?

No of course not. Because he has instantly put me in possession of his preference.
If that's the way it is ----- fine.

But we aren't talking bilateral relationships here. We're talking an attempt to bend language across the board, from above. Otherwise, why would school authorities and provincial governments be involved?

The difference is this: you are the sole arbiter of what your name is. If you want to be called "Bob," fine. Heck, if Bruce Jenner wants to be called "Caitlyn," also fine.

But for many people, sex is a biological fact, not an interpretation, and not a state of mind. For them, calling a male person "her" or a female person "him" is illogical, and being coerced into doing it amounts to being told to say black is white.

If you're transgendered, I'll treat you decently and with respect just like I would anyone else, but I will not endorse your claims to being a sex you aren't, and I simply will not abide others trying to force that viewpoint on me by changing the language.

Controlling the language is an effort to control thought, and I don't think anyone should be in that business.

No.

It's male or female. Even for trans people I'd do it.

But come at me with this nonsense of "Xu", "Hir", "Ze" or other crap and you can fuck right off.

Good post El Chup.

There's a difference between Bob asking you to refer to him as Bob and groups, private or government, demanding compliance across the board.

I have three first names. Same as my dad. He uses the second name all the time. I used the third name as a kid. Once I hit 18 everyone started using my first name (the name on my birth certificate).

I never use the second name nor want any to use it for me. No one uses the third one now except for one niece and two nephews.

No one outside of my family was ever allowed to use the third name to refer to me. I wouldn't let them and really never told anyone.

If Wilberforce really hates the name he should just change it.

I don't care if you look like a doddering fool, that's your business.

Respect is a two-way street. You should respect those who don't want to be coerced into endorsing beliefs they don't hold.

No, that's absurd. For example, if you tell me you're a Nazi, I'm not going to give a fuck what you believe, and you sure wouldn't get respect. Ridiculous. Why should you get respect for denying someone their identity? There is no level of respect for such a person.

But I'm not a Nazi, so your argument falls apart. (For argument's sake, I'll put aside the question of whether it would be okay to coerce even a Nazi into espousing different beliefs.)

Or do you equate me with Nazis so you're justified in doing anything to override me?

Besides, I'm not asking you to respect the opinion, just the right to have one without being coerced.

You can have whatever opinion you wish, it's how you inflict it on to others that needs addressing, and unless someone's opinion actually leads to the harm of others, then it can be abided to a reasonable extent, if not respected. The problem with your opinion, that women and men are defined by their genitals, is that it can be harmful and destructive to those who do not fit into your little box. When you call someone "he" when they ask you to refer to them using "she," you are knowingly and willingly causing them mental and emotional distress because you refuse to acknowledge them as the person they are, instead replacing their own identity with what you consider a valid identity, when that is not your decision to make. If you're called Paladin, and I continually refer to you as Pellegrino, knowing full well your name is Paladin, and that you have repeatedly asked me to refer to you as Paladin, it is a sign of great disrespect. I am essentially telling you that you cannot be trusted with how you feel and who you are, and you must be corrected by someone who has no investment in your emotional or physical well-being.

If none of this resonates with you, then consider this: how do you break someone's will? You deny them the right to their own humanity.

Gotta love the conservative "I'm a victim because you're asking me not to be a dick to someone" card.

Are you asking or are you coercing?

"I think X is ugly."

This opinion is bound to hurt X's feelings. Can you abide that?

Not my opinion. Sex is determined by sex chromosomes. It is genetic. A man with no genitals is still a man, so please stop mischaracterizing my views.

My opinion has its basis in science and fact. If facts bother people, that does not confer obligation on me.

No, I'm refusing to endorse sex-as-a-belief-rather-than-biological-fact.

You could say you're the Queen of England, but that doesn't make it so, and I'm entitled to express my opinion telling you so.

Huh? They don't need my blessing to be what they want to be. And my interpretations of others' identities are always mine to make.

Maybe, but I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. See how that works?

No one is obligated to service my well-being, and, if I don't like what they say, I can simply disregard it.

Woe unto you if the only thing keeping your humanity in place is my affirmation of your self-image.