Gender pronouns in Canada

No, but that doesn't mean you're not.

Who, me? Hell no. I'm not creepy at all. I'm simply responding to a blatant sexual overture.

Who's Volpine? More importantly, thank you. I'm flattered that you would consider me as someone you'd consider to be a decent flirt.

Oh, just the guy who always returns to the "make fun of MLP" well every time he interacted with you. Did I spell his name wrong? Honestly don't care.

Don't flatter yourself.

I thought it was rather subtle.

Yeah, but occasional pokes are fun, and I couldn't resist.

I don't have to, you already said you were flattered!

I don't accept some heliefs held by trans people and their supporters. That is not the same as wanting to erase their identities. What I require is that I not be coerced into endorsing those beliefs.

There are many, many shades of gray between the two extremes "I accept you as you want to be accepted without reservation and anyone who disagrees should be punished" and "Off to the extermination camp with you."

What legislation regarding their identities is pending?

If I'm not with you, I'm against you? The binary thinking you're exhibiting is what's poisoned our politics.

The only dignity I'm depriving anyone of is the power to coerce me into accepting their beliefs, specifically through the control of language.

"First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."

Shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."

"In spite of my shattered dreams of the past, I came to Birmingham with the hope that the white religious leadership of this community would see the justice of our cause, and with deep moral concern, serve as the channel through which our just grievances would get to the power structure. I had hoped that each of you would understand. But again I have been disappointed. I have heard numerous religious leaders of the South call upon their worshippers to comply with a desegregation decision because it is the law, but I have longed to hear white ministers say, "follow this decree because integration is morally right and the Negro is your brother." In the midst of blatant injustices inflicted upon the Negro, I have watched white churches stand on the sideline and merely mouth pious irrelevancies and sanctimonious trivialities. In the midst of a mighty struggle to rid our nation of racial and economic injustice, I have heard so many ministers say, "those are social issues with which the gospel has no real concern.", and I have watched so many churches commit themselves to a completely other-worldly religion which made a strange distinction between body and soul, the sacred and the secular.

So here we are moving toward the exit of the twentieth century with a religious community largely adjusted to the status quo, standing as a tail-light behind other community agencies rather than a headlight leading men to higher levels of justice."

Martin Luther King, April 1963
Letter from Birmingham Jail (excerpt)

Total terra incognita for the undersigned. If that's the case, people like me will glide blamelessly from cradle to grave with no untoward incidents to speak of.
And I honestly think that most people are like me.
Only a complete shithead would refuse or actively try to be unkind.

And complete shitheads are, by defnition, unreachable by the prescriptions of any authority issuing instructions on such matters.

I'm allergic to attempts to bend language because of the sheer futility of it all --- as I believe I explained upthread --- and my suspicion that, because of this well-known futility, people who do it anyway are actually being bossy little busybodies. I mean, we're talking rules here, not "suggestions" or "guidance" for the well-intentioned.

As a John Cleese fan for nearly a half century now, I think I can say with some confidence that practically none of that was intended to be comedy (maybe the bit about the BBC). Cleese is making a serious point about Determined Shitheadism. See Nova's post 78: the "crusader trying to make a point and looking to take offense". That's who Cleese is talking about in this video.

Cleese railed against Politically Correctness long before anyone dreamed that Donald would ever be anything but a pathetically loudmouthed rich guy. But Cleese's Politically Correctness always did apply equally to both sides of the political spectrum, recognizable by any rational person.

Now Crash Test Dummies: "I try to ... control my hate just like I know I should / But I can't help myself and I keep it up / Because it feels so good!"

Not in the same ballpark, league or even sport

Don't even try and equate this topic with what african americans were going through in the 1960s. You're not a group that was brought over in chains and a hundred years later couldn't even eat in the same restaurants as white people. You're just a privileged,pissy little snowflake who wants to force everyone else to acknowledge his fantasies.

How would you know?

The more I think about this, the more I'm convinced that any "rules" would be better replaced -- word for word -- by the common-sense suggestion made by Nova in post 78.

That's all anyone of goodwill -- including people like me who have zero experience with the matter -- needs to be told. In fact, it ought to be anyone's natural response anyway.

The trolls of our species ain't listenin' in any case.

That's all I've seen anyone advocate for anyway.

This. I'm not in favor of legislation that forces someone to use the proper pronouns, I'd rather it come from a place of respect and consideration. Legislating good feelings rarely if ever works, anyway. Legislation can be used to push society in the right direction, but society has to walk there themselves.

The idea that there is legislation against deliberately being a dick to people is not consistent with the story linked in the original post, which concerns how a university professor addresses his students.

Does an employer really not have the right to insist that its employees treat its customers with basic courtesy?

The professor in the article is in the position of having his job threatened and possibly facing legal charges over his non-use of some newly-invented pronouns. That's what I mean by coercion.

As far as employee rules for treating customers goes, the only pronoun one uses to them directly is "you." And they're not harmed if, in referring to them, someone calls them by name or by "the customer" or by "this person." That's not discourteous.

I don't think the law rightly can--as the Canadian law does--coerce people into using others' self-designated pronouns under pain of criminal prosecution. That goes way too far.

"Newly invented" does not mean invalid. If your employer says you have to wear the new uniform they issue you, you can't just toss it in the trash and wear whatever you want, simply because the uniform is new for you.

There is no authority on the English language. Someone can't simply invent a new word and then have someone else fired or prosecuted for not using it.

Can your employer ask you to say "Jesus died for your sins" to every customer?

Yes, they can. If you are told, by your employer, to use newly minted marketing terminology, and you fail to use those terms in a meeting, or when making a big presentation, and your employer feels that you lost them a potential sale, you can be fired. New words are invented every day, and they gain meaning depending upon their purpose, usage, and usability. That is how language grows and evolves. How is any of this new to you?

No, because that is a violation of your religious freedom. THAT SAID, you cannot discriminate against people based on your religion, either, though various legislators are trying to change that. Freedom to let people starve because they pray to the wrong god, and whatnot.

Those are words that relate to the job itself. If someone uses a circumlocution to avoid saying "her" for a biological male, what's the charge? It's hard to fire someone for not using a pronoun, especially since there's almost always a grammatically correct way to avoid using it...

What if acknowledging a transgendered person in a way contrary to their biological gender is against someone's religious beliefs?

Yes, they are. If you deal with customers, or office co-workers, and you misgender them (which means you disregard their stated gender identity) on purpose, especially if corporate policy is using those shiny new invented words, you're creating a hostile work environment.

Then you shouldn't be working in a job where you may come into contact with humans whom do not line up with your version of reality. You keep your personal beliefs outside of your work. When you're on the clock, you do your job. If you don't like it, either suck it up or get another job. That applies to transgender people, gay people, black people, and so on.

What if you don't refer to them in a gendered way at all?

What if you never use a pronoun when referring to a transgendered person?

Ah, see, this is what people do when they don't want to obey the rules, but also don't want to get caught. The ol' "how can I get around being decent, even though it takes more energy to be an asshole than to just be kind to other people" maneuver. I don't know, Paladin, and I don't know because I just treat people like human beings. Your mileage may vary.

Notice how you use the language of coercion ("obey," "rules," "caught"). Think for one second how this can be distressing to those who simply disagree with you. Or maybe you don't have to because...

...anyone who has a different opinion from you is indecent.

I treat the transgendered decently, just as I do everyone else. I just won't endorse their beliefs.

Jeez, Paladin, you're schooling Sammy Davis Jr. on tap dancing.

I'd expect this level of "I'm not touching her, Mom!" from my niece and nephew or Dayton or even Shep a decade ago, but I thought you were smarter than this.

Point of order... I've yet to hear any confirmation that Peterson is at risk of losing his job.. at least over pronouns.
The shitstorm this has stirred, mainly by our version of the alt right media, might.

Am I tap dancing? My argument has been pretty consistent.

Sex is biological. Our use of language reflects this. I've no problem with a person saying they're a different sex than they really are; I just don't want to be punished if I don't endorse that view.

As I said upthread, my worldview allows peaceful coexistence, even if it offends some. Yours require I not only tolerate but endorse views I don't hold.

First paragraph of the article:

When the villagers show up to your cottage in the middle of the night with pitch forks and torches, you may not wind up lynched, but it certainly doesn't look promising.

meh-that same union that's condemning him also protects him, the human rights complaint will not only exonerate him, but also create a benchmark for using the actual legislation in our human rights code. Namely, fetishes are not gender identities.

Oh, come on. You said it didn't seem like his job was at stake, but his superiors warned him that he is suspected of human rights violations.

Both cases have been stated; continuing seems pointless.