Gender pronouns in Canada

No of course not. Because he has instantly informed me 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?[/quote]

Moving the goalposts? This is what you said:

That's not "I'm cool with it, I just don't think it's anyone's role to enforce it." That's "I absolutely refuse to treat them with basic respect."

He does think you're a Nazi.

Oh he'll come back here and make a post denying it but if you've been watching the leftist hysteria these last few months they've gone full out "everyone whose not on my side is a Nazi" nuts.

Absolute twaddle.

Here's my equally vaid counter-twaddle: US conservatives now insist that anyone not giving the American flag the Nazi salute is un-American.

See? So easy. So brainless.

El Chup you don't live in America so you don't see it like we do. It's all over the place.

So do shut-up you ignorant chav.

I'm not only Chuppy's dual, I'm Zombie's as well. Only Z's dual has a real pulse.

And I ain't shuttin' up, so get used to it.

Goddamit. Inconceivably dense Paladin is back.

This is what privilege looks like. Of course it doesn't matter to you, because you aren't actually affected by it. You won't get fired because of a name. You won't get beaten because you want to be called the Queen of England (as you choose to use this false equivalency). As a result, you can play word games here, and discuss something that will not affect you negatively until you actively use your opinion to deny the identify of, or harass, someone.

As for "scientific fact," oh boy did you back the wrong horse:

http://www.apa.org/monitor/2013/04/transgender.aspx
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.731.9889&rep=rep1&type=pdf
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2697020/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3602930/
http://www.med.monash.edu.au/gendermed/sexandgender.html
http://epublications.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1019&context=gjcp
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150213112317.htm
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~colem001/hbigda/soc9.pdf
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/232363.php
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3388783/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3601631/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3326051/
http://www.mayoclinic.org/medical-p...egrated-care-for-people-with-gender-dysphoria
https://www.psychologytoday.com/conditions/gender-dysphoria
http://www.racgp.org.au/afp/2015/november/gender-dysphoria/

So your "scientific fact" about this issue is anything but. Now go on, play your little word games, and make Oldfella look intellectually agile and open minded by comparison.

Dinner still hasn't been banned El Chup. So why are you here?

And incidentally, if you think your co-worker is ugly -- one of the various examples used upthread -- nobody is going to stop you from thinking that. But if you say "By the way, Sandy, you're really ugly" 10 times a day, I'm pretty sure somebody from HR is going to talk to you about creating a hostile work environment.

I think you are confused.

No one is saying you should have the right to call Sandy ugly ten times a day and not pay a price for it.

What is being said is Sandy, her employer, AND/OR the government should not have the right to compel you to say, "By the way, Sandy, you're really beautiful" at all. Even if she is beautiful or ugly, it doesn't matter. No one should be dictating how you speak.

Nobody's saying you have to tell the transgender woman at the next desk that she's really hot. We're just saying you should have the basic decency to call her "she." Is that such a tremendously unfair burden?

This seems to be a favorite trope among social conservatives.

1950s: "Black people's right to equality and basic human rights is less important than my desire to not have to sit next to them at a lunch counter!"

2000s: "Gay people's right to equality is less important than my right to not feel icky because I know some of them are getting married!"

And so on.

Well, it's a way of being here while not really being here. Y'know, like Barack Obama.

As I've opined elsewhere, this-here is a truly Anglo issue that seems to be confined to a limited chunk of the planet --- as an issue I mean. If the woman at the next desk is transgender, I probably wouldn't even know it for sure, whatever questions I might ask myself. To my knowledge, I don't currently know a single transgender person. Repeat: to my knowledge.

So, if the woman at the next desk informs me that she's transgender (and I don't even know anyone who's even close to having a transgender person at the next desk or elsewhere in their life ...) and asks me to refer to her as "she", then naturally I'll do that. It's a simple question of courtesy.

However, I resent any manner of self-appointed language police issuing instructions to me on this subject. Are you really unable to grasp that?

If you'd stop being easily outraged at everything you don't like you'd see in my previous posts that I have not said the transgender woman should not be called she.

Paladin did.

Way I see it, the "snowflake" is the one who starts a youtube crusade because someone had the temerity to REQUEST that he show a little common courtesy.

There really isn't any "dicktat" here though.

Trans people ask those they are forced to deal with be kind > right wing snowflakes say "Fuck that noise! I'ma say what I want!" > civilized people say "that's not very nice" > RWS says "oh do you need a safe space for your widdle feelings!!!??!!"

Here's a VERY simple guide:

With the exception of maybe .1% of the people who are deliberately trying to blur their presentation to a gender ambiguous look, everyone you meet is "presenting" in a generally male or female fashion. Feel free to address them according to their presentation. When you do you will virtually always be addressing them as they prefer to be addressed.

On very rare exceptions, if you assume incorrectly, they will nicely correct you - and now you know and carry on from their.

No linguistic gymnastics required.

Now, on that .1%, what I do to the full extent possible, is frame my sentences with as few pronouns referencing them as is practical, and then use "they" unless said person tells me to do otherwise. This is incredibly simple to do if one is thoughtful of others.

Once in a VERY great while you MIGHT encounter a crusader trying to make a point and looking to take offense. If you've done what I describe and they are still offended, that's on them, not you. Move on with your day without remorse.

What Nova said.

The rabid militants Paladin describes are a minority of a minority who have voic due to technology, but I don't see anyone on either side of this issue bending over to accept new words when the ones we have now work fine.

Unlike Paladin, I know you aren't arguing this to be a stubborn shitheel demagogue, so I know you get that it's not the end of the world to call a trans woman "she".

not really, no. Intentionally disrespecting is a form of bullying. People in authority over a school or a place of employment often step in to quash intentional bullying.

Because it is entirely impossible for you to be wrong about biology and penis is the paramount consideration in the universe and in human biology?

it's not endorsing a belief. It's just being kind. As I've said before, work around it if possible, that goes a long way.

For example, on a recent thread, TLS made reference to a post I'd made when speaking to a third party and he said:

"He said that whatever..."

I scolded him for that, but the alternative was not necessarily that TLS choose to use the offending "S" in the first word, he could JUST as easily said:

"Nova said that whatever..."

No harm no foul no offense meant or given. But he choose purposely to give offense.

We can tell the difference. I deal with people every day in their place of business who either haven't "figured me out" or who call me she whether or not they "believe in it" because they are aware that being courteous to a customer is good for business. It doesn't cost them anything, there's no stain on their eternal soul, their votes don't change - they just choose to be kind.

It is not a reflection on what you believe, what words you use, it's a reflection on your character - whether you prioritize legalistic nitpicking that proves you the superior intellect (in your mind) or whether you prioritize simple human kindness.

ETA: to be fair you did say above you would avoid pronouns for trans people and that's a reasonable accommodation where possible. I'm compelled to give credit where due.

I'm asking, person to person,and that's all anyone can do. However - and this is a pretty conservative position in the abstract - if you work in the employee of another, they have the right to set terms and conditions on how you behave while on the job. If this professor finds the terms of employment onerous, he should seek other employment. This is coercion, to be sure, but no more or less coercion than if they instructed him to not refer to female students as bitches and hos.

There exists, on rare occasions, persons born with a vagina and fully female genital and reproductive organs who have a one X and one Y chromosome. Not to long ago there was a news story about such a person giving birth to a child with a vagina and so forth, and a one X and one Y chromosomes.

Is it your contention then that a man gave birth to a son, in this situation? Were you the doctor, would you say to your patient "Congratulations sir, he's a fine healthy baby boy!"

You as an individual? No, for the most part folks can ignore any asshole they want. But the principle matters because mayhap you are not just an individual, but the person who has the power to hire or fire me, the law enforcement officer I have to deal with, my landlord or my teacher. or my doctor...people I HAVE to deal with to go about my life.

That's where this "coercion" comes in - that professor is someone the students HAD to deal with or suffer definable loss. If dude wants to leave campus every day and go down to the bar and be an asshole to everyone he meets, oh well.

poor analogy, commenting on someone's appearance either way is not a function of the job

I feel dirty, but I'm with Paladin and Z on this one.
If that's how language evolves... so be it.
Forcing in newspeak isn't in anyone's interest.

Except it's not newspeak. Newspeak condenses nuance into simple terminology that's easy to grasp by the hoi polloi. The gender pronouns we use cannot evolve if it's shut down by people who refuse to acknowledge that there is a need for it. Gay couples who get married are partners, not husband and wife. If that kind of terminology can make room for new definitions, then surely someone who does not fit the gender binary can also have some room? I doubt highly that we're running out of wordspace.

I said I won't call that person "she," if that person is biologically male.

What others do is their own concern.

So you'll refute her stated identity, making it your business to deny her that identity even though it doesn't affect you at all, but what other people do isn't your concern.