The problem isn't what is the correct pronoun, it's that certain groups of people get to decide what correct means in any given context and force you to abide by it. That's not a power that should be taken lightly.
What exactly are you afraid they'll do? Make you use a really long annoying word to refer to them? This isn't just a word; it's their identity, and any person has the right to decide their own identity. Saying someone can't choose pronouns isn't far off from saying they can't trust themselves to determine their identity.
Everyone should have their right to choose whatever pronouns they wish to be referred to as and to ask others to use those pronouns. I don't think everyone has the right to have others be forced to refer to them as such.
Pronouns aren't simply vehicles for the acceptance of identities, they can have all sorts of implications and associations for people to object to. People should have the right to live by such opinions, as long as it doesn't mean being inconsiderate of people with preferred pronouns they object to.
I don't think a set of pronouns is automatically valid and useful just because some people have chosen it as their preferred pronouns.
It depends on what you mean by 'slightly disparaging'- those aren't exactly the clearest words. My point is that word is far from being considered always offensive by everybody. It's not exactly an inherently racist remark, it just has a very strong association with racism- people do use it differently.
No.
At this point the word is effectively a death sentence to your character if you using it gets out to social media.
We weren't talking about that example, we were talking about a racial issues comparison
Right, so if someone complained or took offense at your use of the word, you'd have to either stop, or the government would step in and stop you.
It seems to reference a broader context, in the relationship of the people involved
So it all seems like pretty clear that Mann wasn't just using the word n****r.
There are certainly other facts pertinent to the case, but the court notes, "Perhaps no single act can more quickly "alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment," Meritor, 477 U.S. at 67, 106 S.Ct. at 2405, than the use of an unambiguously racial epithet such as "n****r" by a supervisor in the presence of his subordinates."
And also, it's not really important what the law is as to what the should be. Even if it's true that any use of n*****r by a nonwhite is considered discriminatory in the law, then all that changes is I have something else to disagree with because I don't think that's fair either. Uttering a single word- especially one that is perceived inconsistently with regards to offence- is such a trivial act it cannot be taken so dramatically as to constitute a serious offence in-and-of-itself.
Do you only object to the single-use case, or do you also object to the law stepping in when someone complains, and the person using the word refuses to stop?
It depends on what you mean by 'slightly disparaging'- those aren't exactly the clearest words. My point is that word is far from being considered always offensive by everybody. It's not exactly an inherently racist remark, it just has a very strong association with racism- people do use it differently.
The N-word is widely-considered in the US to be a completely socially-inappropriate epithet. Calling someone a n****r even once is enough to get fired. The word f****t is the same at this point. I've known people who have been fired for each (and I haven't exactly been in the workplace a long while; I'm relatively young).
Somehow I doubt I'd get away with calling my coworkers the n-word, no matter how respectfully I said it.
The comparison isn't completely fair. Either N****r or F****t used as a epithet can very reasonably get someone fired immediately; it's well-known that they are socially unacceptable. If one expressed that they didn't know that, they might have a chance, but even then it's not completely clear-cut, as establishing that concretely is difficult. Misgendering someone once is very different at this point. Multiple times even, unintentionally, is something else. Intent is also difficult to establish. Even once, clearly intentionally, still doesn't carry the same weight, though multiple times intentionally would be likely to get you fired. There may be a time in the future when any number of times intentionally misgendering someone will have the same gravitas as using N****r or F****t as an epithet, but I doubt it will be any time soon.
What exactly are you afraid they'll do? Make you use a really long annoying word to refer to them? This isn't just a word; it's their identity, and any person has the right to decide their own identity. Saying someone can't choose pronouns isn't far off from saying they can't trust themselves to determine their identity.
The "I identify as an assault helicopter" argument is not really an appropriate one. The longest gender-neutral pronouns you're likely to see out in the wild are the people who want the singular "they." But yeah, choice of pronouns should reasonably be left up to the person to whom it applies, or we might as well censor a lot more.
The comparison isn't completely fair. Either N****r or F****t used as a epithet can very reasonably get someone fired immediately; it's well-known that they are socially unacceptable. If one expressed that they didn't know that, they might have a chance, but even then it's not completely clear-cut, as establishing that concretely is difficult. Misgendering someone once is very different at this point. Multiple times even, unintentionally, is something else. Intent is also difficult to establish. Even once, clearly intentionally, still doesn't carry the same weight, though multiple times intentionally would be likely to get you fired. There may be a time in the future when any number of times intentionally misgendering someone will have the same gravitas as using N****r or F****t as an epithet, but I doubt it will be any time soon.
To be clear, I am absolutely not saying that calling someone n****r or f****t is the equivalent of misgendering. I just want to explore the claim that the government should never tell us how we are allowed to address each other. Since the n-word is a particularly extreme example, I think it's a useful example in that regard - not as a moral equivalent of misgendering.
We weren't talking about that example, we were talking about a racial issues comparison
Right, so if someone complained or took offense at your use of the word, you'd have to either stop, or the government would step in and stop you.
It seems to reference a broader context, in the relationship of the people involved
So it all seems like pretty clear that Mann wasn't just using the word n****r.
There are certainly other facts pertinent to the case, but the court notes, "Perhaps no single act can more quickly "alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment," Meritor, 477 U.S. at 67, 106 S.Ct. at 2405, than the use of an unambiguously racial epithet such as "n****r" by a supervisor in the presence of his subordinates."
The suggestion to me seems to be that using the word always goes a good way towards creating an 'abusive working environment', not necessarily that it by itself alters immediately the conditions to be an 'abusive working environment' to the level of being an offence.
And also, it's not really important what the law is as to what the should be. Even if it's true that any use of n*****r by a nonwhite is considered discriminatory in the law, then all that changes is I have something else to disagree with because I don't think that's fair either. Uttering a single word- especially one that is perceived inconsistently with regards to offence- is such a trivial act it cannot be taken so dramatically as to constitute a serious offence in-and-of-itself.
Do you only object to the single-use case, or do you also object to the law stepping in when someone complains, and the person using the word refuses to stop?
Again, it's about how it is used. If the person using it is only using it in a friendly way amongst a close group of their friends, and the person complaining is just some person who observed the usage, then I don't think that's issue of discrimination. Even if we consider that the word is inescapably offensive, that doesn't mean it can't be used without offence- because we have humour, acting and talking about words themselves.
Again, it's about how it is used. If the person using it is only using it in a friendly way amongst a close group of their friends, and the person complaining is just some person who observed the usage, then I don't think that's issue of discrimination. Even if we consider that the word is inescapably offensive, that doesn't mean it can't be used without offence- because we have humour, acting and talking about words themselves.
Okay, but specifically a case in which it is being used to address a particular person, and that person complains, and the user doesn't stop?
Again, it's about how it is used. If the person using it is only using it in a friendly way amongst a close group of their friends, and the person complaining is just some person who observed the usage, then I don't think that's issue of discrimination. Even if we consider that the word is inescapably offensive, that doesn't mean it can't be used without offence- because we have humour, acting and talking about words themselves.
Okay, but specifically a case in which it is being used to address a particular person, and that person complains, and the user doesn't stop?
Now, when I said, it's about how it used, I meant that. So responding to that idea by presenting me with a circumstance where you don't tell me how it is used seems a meaningless question.
I can't judge the validity of the complaint if I don't how it was used, because I don't think usage in-and-of-itself is the issue.
Now, when I said, it's about how it used, I meant that. So responding to that idea by presenting me with a circumstance where you don't tell me how it is used seems a meaningless question.
I can't judge the validity of the complaint if I don't how it was used, because I don't think usage in-and-of-itself is the issue.
Whenever Bob sees Alice in the morning, Bob says, "Good morning n****r" in a friendly tone. Alice has repeatedly requested Bob stop doing this. Bob has ignored these requests, and management has taken no action. Alice and Bob are otherwise cordial coworkers, but are not close friends. Bob is not attempting to make a joke, or otherwise be humourous. He is aware that Alice objects to the term.
What exactly are you afraid they'll do? Make you use a really long annoying word to refer to them? This isn't just a word; it's their identity, and any person has the right to decide their own identity. Saying someone can't choose pronouns isn't far off from saying they can't trust themselves to determine their identity.
It's a little trickier than that. Some people are narcissistic or delusional. The guy who thinks he's Napoleon Bonaparte? He doesn't need us to trust him; he needs us to help him. Drawing the line between "legitimate" identities and "pathological" ones can be a challenge.
Not just that, but I'd like to reiterate, it's a dangerous precedent to the concept of free thought and free speech to set to allow other people to dictate to you how you are allowed to speak to them. Why do your feelings about pronoun usage trump my feelings about submitting my freedom of expression to you? There's not even a clear limit to what identities you are going to consider valid, and thus no clear limit to how you want to restrict a person's speech in this regard. Why is the otherkin wolf's identity not given the same legal protection as the transgender person's identity? There are some people that believe in 30+ forms of human gender identity, let alone all the more crazy non-human ones. How exactly are you going to decide which ones deserve legal protection and which ones don't? And let's pretend that by some miracle, you figured out an objective way to make all these determinations; given that social norms progress much faster than the law does, isn't it inevitable that whatever definition of identity you come up with will become outdated by social interaction relatively quickly?
I will concede the point that the line between legitimate and pathological is challenging and fuzzy. However, I think it's fair to say that in cases like that of Napoleon Bonaparte, where a person's identity is impossible due to contradicting known scientific laws of nature, we need not and should not abide by those identities, since they are observably provable as impossible and insane. There is a definite grey area, and it's not as simple as I may have implied, but outside of these corner cases, subjective identity applies.
However, that has little bearing on free speech. You don't have to use their pronouns: You just can't use the wrong pronouns. If you wish, debate and speak out against these identities, or refrain from using any pronouns to refer to certain people. But intentionally misgendering people is needlessly offensive, and doesn't communicate your ideas in a civil way. It's much like using the N-word: its use does communicate an idea, but it's absolutely immoral to say it in a racially charged way.
In short: Free speech can and should protect the communication of any ideas, but there is no reason it should protect needlessly offensive methods of communication.
What exactly are you afraid they'll do? Make you use a really long annoying word to refer to them? This isn't just a word; it's their identity, and any person has the right to decide their own identity. Saying someone can't choose pronouns isn't far off from saying they can't trust themselves to determine their identity.
Everyone should have their right to choose whatever pronouns they wish to be referred to as and to ask others to use those pronouns. I don't think everyone has the right to have others be forced to refer to them as such.
Pronouns aren't simply vehicles for the acceptance of identities, they can have all sorts of implications and associations for people to object to. People should have the right to live by such opinions, as long as it doesn't mean being inconsiderate of people with preferred pronouns they object to.
I don't think a set of pronouns is automatically valid and useful just because some people have chosen it as their preferred pronouns.
What exactly are you afraid they'll do? Make you use a really long annoying word to refer to them? This isn't just a word; it's their identity, and any person has the right to decide their own identity. Saying someone can't choose pronouns isn't far off from saying they can't trust themselves to determine their identity.
For the sake of the argument, let's assume that people do have the right to decide their own identity (For the record, I am ambivalent on this).
Now, why does this mean that anyone else has to accept whatever identity that person chose?
See my above response. You don't have to accept their identity, and you don't have to use their pronouns: You just can't misgender them. If you wish, debate with them, or use no pronouns at all. The right to 'live by your opinions' is not universal; a radical religious terrorist may believe that acts of terror are right, but if they commit them they are justly punished by law.
It depends on what you mean by 'slightly disparaging'- those aren't exactly the clearest words. My point is that word is far from being considered always offensive by everybody. It's not exactly an inherently racist remark, it just has a very strong association with racism- people do use it differently.
The N-word is widely-considered in the US to be a completely socially-inappropriate epithet. Calling someone a n****r even once is enough to get fired. The word f****t is the same at this point. I've known people who have been fired for each (and I haven't exactly been in the workplace a long while; I'm relatively young).
Widely considered perhaps. I don't think it's true that it is universally considered to be so.
And regardless, as I've pointed out, that still leaves exceptions: "because we have humour, acting and talking about words themselves".
Quote from Tiax »
Somehow I doubt I'd get away with calling my coworkers the n-word, no matter how respectfully I said it.
The comparison isn't completely fair. Either N****r or F****t used as a epithet can very reasonably get someone fired immediately; it's well-known that they are socially unacceptable. If one expressed that they didn't know that, they might have a chance, but even then it's not completely clear-cut, as establishing that concretely is difficult. Misgendering someone once is very different at this point. Multiple times even, unintentionally, is something else. Intent is also difficult to establish. Even once, clearly intentionally, still doesn't carry the same weight, though multiple times intentionally would be likely to get you fired. There may be a time in the future when any number of times intentionally misgendering someone will have the same gravitas as using N****r or F****t as an epithet, but I doubt it will be any time soon.
I don't think 'misgendering' is a fair representation of the issue. For one because, again, pronouns are not simply the vehicles of acceptance. They are words with their own implications and effects. But also because refusing to use someones preferred pronouns doesn't mean you are going to refer to them with a pronoun that mismatches their supposed identity- you might think there is a better word for the same thing. And because there is serious question as to what exactly these gender identities are, what gender identity even means, and we shouldn't just take for granted that whatever people say is there identity is an actual identity they have. It's not discrimination to have a different definition of gender identity, or to question whether an identity is real even if in truth it is.
Quote from yodude4 »
What exactly are you afraid they'll do? Make you use a really long annoying word to refer to them? This isn't just a word; it's their identity, and any person has the right to decide their own identity. Saying someone can't choose pronouns isn't far off from saying they can't trust themselves to determine their identity.
The "I identify as an assault helicopter" argument is not really an appropriate one. The longest gender-neutral pronouns you're likely to see out in the wild are the people who want the singular "they."
The "I identify as an assault helicopter" argument could be an actual court case should preferred pronoun use be mandated- because who would decide what pronouns are at all valid? Unless the suggestion is to have judges decide what pronouns are valid (which I would think goes against the whole point), then forcing people to refer to others as attack helicopters would be exactly what would be happen so long as someone decides that attack helicopter is their identity. To suggest that most people would never be so unreasonable is paramount to special pleading. All it would take is one- and that's the point.
I think it would only be a matter of time before someone decided their preferred pronouns to be something absurd and unreasonable and is willing to it to take it to court. And the law would have them in the right.
You know what also be protected under such a law? Someone having their preferred pronoun being something that mismatches their identity. A cis male person could decide they want to be called she, because *****s and giggles, it's their preferred pronoun.
But yeah, choice of pronouns should reasonably be left up to the person to whom it applies, or we might as well censor a lot more.
Mandating the use of specific words over others is censorship, not the other way round.
Let's not forget, if not implementing this law is censorship, what you are saying is that censorship is currently happening. Are people currently being censored in the use of gender pronouns? No, they aren't. They can ask people to use whatever pronouns they want, they can use whatever pronouns they want to refer to themselves, they can talk about whatever pronouns they want- there is nothing they can't say in favour of their preferred pronouns.
What a law mandating preferred pronoun use would do, all in all, is not protect people from discrimination but protect people from the efforts of others contesting the creation of new pronouns and the usage of pronouns.
Now, when I said, it's about how it used, I meant that. So responding to that idea by presenting me with a circumstance where you don't tell me how it is used seems a meaningless question.
I can't judge the validity of the complaint if I don't how it was used, because I don't think usage in-and-of-itself is the issue.
Whenever Bob sees Alice in the morning, Bob says, "Good morning n****r" in a friendly tone. Alice has repeatedly requested Bob stop doing this. Bob has ignored these requests, and management has taken no action. Alice and Bob are otherwise cordial coworkers, but are not close friends. Bob is not attempting to make a joke, or otherwise be humourous. He is aware that Alice objects to the term.
Are there any other details you would need?
No, that seems to be sufficient to be some kind of discrimination. I don't think though that circumstance constitutes a particularly serious offence in my opinion. Nothing more serious than being fired perhaps. In order to be more serious, I think some kind of malicious intent would need to be there.
The most fundamental problem with comparing this word to the refusing to use certain gender pronouns is that it's an entirely optional affair to a specific word and one could live entirely consistently with their belief the word should not be taken to be offensive in at least some of the circumstances where it is without using it themselves. A person with such a belief could accommodate society's distaste with the word without having to be involved in promoting that distaste. With gender pronouns, there isn't really a say nothing option. There must be an affirmative decision to either accept a person's preferred pronoun or not to. In order to accommodate to it, one has to be actively involved in it's use.
I think there is also less grounds on which to object with the former than the later. For one simply because it's comparing one word to many. But also because of more implications that being a pronoun has versus a more optional word, other than being optional as I mentioned, related to the structure of language and such. And because not using a word doesn't have as strong of a force behind it than using specific words does- that the later is more grounded in certain motivations one could object to.
The "I identify as an assault helicopter" argument could be an actual court case should preferred pronoun use be mandated- because who would decide what pronouns are at all valid? Unless the suggestion is to have judges decide what pronouns are valid (which I would think goes against the whole point), then forcing people to refer to others as attack helicopters would be exactly what would be happen so long as someone decides that attack helicopter is their identity. To suggest that most people would never be so unreasonable is paramount to special pleading. All it would take is one- and that's the point.
I think it would only be a matter of time before someone decided their preferred pronouns to be something absurd and unreasonable and is willing to it to take it to court. And the law would have them in the right.
You know what also be protected under such a law? Someone having their preferred pronoun being something that mismatches their identity. A cis male person could decide they want to be called she, because *****s and giggles, it's their preferred pronoun.
Judges already determine which words are unacceptable racial epithets. They determine which claims of religious belief are valid. A huge variety of laws work by having judges determine what is reasonable and what isn't. The notion that this is some sort of slippery slope betrays an incredible naivety about how the law currently works.
No, that seems to be sufficient to be some kind of discrimination. I don't think though that circumstance constitutes a particularly serious offence in my opinion. Nothing more serious than being fired perhaps. In order to be more serious, I think some kind of malicious intent would need to be there.
The most fundamental problem with comparing this word to the refusing to use certain gender pronouns is that it's an entirely optional affair to a specific word and one could live entirely consistently with their belief the word should not be taken to be offensive in at least some of the circumstances where it is without using it themselves. A person with such a belief could accommodate society's distaste with the word without having to be involved in promoting that distaste. With gender pronouns, there isn't really a say nothing option. There must be an affirmative decision to either accept a person's preferred pronoun or not to. In order to accommodate to it, one has to be actively involved in it's use.
I think there is also less grounds on which to object with the former than the later. For one simply because it's comparing one word to many. But also because of more implications that being a pronoun has versus a more optional word, other than being optional as I mentioned, related to the structure of language and such. And because not using a word doesn't have as strong of a force behind it than using specific words does- that the later is more grounded in certain motivations one could object to.
I'm not really sure I followed all of this, so I apologize if this reply misses the mark.
Suppose in our scenario Bob has a belief that n****r is the proper form of address for Alice. The use of the word captures some aspect of the way he views the world. It's not just that he disagrees with whether it's offensive, it's his way of expressing his worldview. The so-called say-nothing option is not acceptable to him. Does this excuse his behavior, or shield him from being fired?
Fundamentally though, it seems to me that what you're doing here is exactly what I contend is necessary - analyzing the merits of a request that someone speak a certain way, and balancing those merits against the merits of allowing that person to speak as they see fit. We can't simply wave our hands and declare ourselves "neutral" - we have to either choose to protect Alice's desires to be referred to in the way she chooses - be it to not be called n****r, to be referred to as "she" instead of "he", or to be called an attack helicopter, or we have to choose to protect Bob's desires to speak as he sees fit. In the case n****r, it seems that in at least some circumstances, you believe that Alice's desire trumps Bob's desire. In the case of the attack helicopter, I think we all agree that Bob's desire trumps Alice's. We have to perform a similar analysis for the case of "he" vs "she". We have to evaluate the severity of misgendering, we have to evaluate the importance free pronoun use, and decide whose side we're on.
It seems to me that Canada's laws tend to side with Alice too often. They extend far beyond the workplace, and limit what Bob can post on the internet in his private life. But we don't have to take an all-or-nothing approach. Just like it's reasonable to restrict Bob from calling Alice n****r at work, perhaps it's also reasonable to prevent him from intentionally misgendering Alice, regardless of whether Alice is transgender. On the other hand, maybe misgendering is too mild a slight to warrant protection, and instead the law should focus on more virulent anti-transgender slurs. These are the evaluations we need to make.
What exactly are you afraid they'll do? Make you use a really long annoying word to refer to them? This isn't just a word; it's their identity, and any person has the right to decide their own identity. Saying someone can't choose pronouns isn't far off from saying they can't trust themselves to determine their identity.
It's a little trickier than that. Some people are narcissistic or delusional. The guy who thinks he's Napoleon Bonaparte? He doesn't need us to trust him; he needs us to help him. Drawing the line between "legitimate" identities and "pathological" ones can be a challenge.
Not just that, but I'd like to reiterate, it's a dangerous precedent to the concept of free thought and free speech to set to allow other people to dictate to you how you are allowed to speak to them. Why do your feelings about pronoun usage trump my feelings about submitting my freedom of expression to you? There's not even a clear limit to what identities you are going to consider valid, and thus no clear limit to how you want to restrict a person's speech in this regard. Why is the otherkin wolf's identity not given the same legal protection as the transgender person's identity? There are some people that believe in 30+ forms of human gender identity, let alone all the more crazy non-human ones. How exactly are you going to decide which ones deserve legal protection and which ones don't? And let's pretend that by some miracle, you figured out an objective way to make all these determinations; given that social norms progress much faster than the law does, isn't it inevitable that whatever definition of identity you come up with will become outdated by social interaction relatively quickly?
I will concede the point that the line between legitimate and pathological is challenging and fuzzy. However, I think it's fair to say that in cases like that of Napoleon Bonaparte, where a person's identity is impossible due to contradicting known scientific laws of nature, we need not and should not abide by those identities, since they are observably provable as impossible and insane. There is a definite grey area, and it's not as simple as I may have implied, but outside of these corner cases, subjective identity applies.
However, that has little bearing on free speech. You don't have to use their pronouns: You just can't use the wrong pronouns. If you wish, debate and speak out against these identities, or refrain from using any pronouns to refer to certain people. But intentionally misgendering people is needlessly offensive, and doesn't communicate your ideas in a civil way. It's much like using the N-word: its use does communicate an idea, but it's absolutely immoral to say it in a racially charged way.
In short: Free speech can and should protect the communication of any ideas, but there is no reason it should protect needlessly offensive methods of communication.
We are talking about the idea of treating the refusal to use preferred pronouns as legal discrimination.
But, ok, so you can refuse to a specific pronoun, but you can't refuse to use a category of pronouns trying to represent the same or essentially the same thing?
So who is responsible for deciding what these categories are? What you are suggesting is the legal system would be involved in deciding what identities are valid, no?
If all identities are valid no matter what, then no one is capable of exercising an opinion that some of those identities don't constitute valid gender identities. Why is that discriminatory? Doesn't gender identity have at least some restrictions beyond simply being an identity? Why can't people exercise their disagreement on this point?
And if we do take certain restrictions about gender identity- who gets to decide what those restrictions are? Why is that the state is involved in arbitrating what gender identities are valid? Doesn't that go against the point?
Why can't we simply institute protections against exercising malicious intent toward people based on whatever there claimed gender identity is, regardless of any point of validity? That way people are free to discuss what gender identity is and what gender pronouns should be used, and exercise those opinions, except when people exercise their opinions in a way that is malicious. Yes, this would result in people getting offended sometimes, but that's just always going to happen, you can't make everyone agree with each other by force.
The "I identify as an assault helicopter" argument could be an actual court case should preferred pronoun use be mandated- because who would decide what pronouns are at all valid? Unless the suggestion is to have judges decide what pronouns are valid (which I would think goes against the whole point), then forcing people to refer to others as attack helicopters would be exactly what would be happen so long as someone decides that attack helicopter is their identity. To suggest that most people would never be so unreasonable is paramount to special pleading. All it would take is one- and that's the point.
I think it would only be a matter of time before someone decided their preferred pronouns to be something absurd and unreasonable and is willing to it to take it to court. And the law would have them in the right.
You know what also be protected under such a law? Someone having their preferred pronoun being something that mismatches their identity. A cis male person could decide they want to be called she, because *****s and giggles, it's their preferred pronoun.
Judges already determine which words are unacceptable racial epithets. They determine which claims of religious belief are valid. A huge variety of laws work by having judges determine what is reasonable and what isn't. The notion that this is some sort of slippery slope betrays an incredible naivety about how the law currently works.
I didn't say you could have judges arbitrate what is reasonable here. The problem is- what is reasonable with this issue? Is it really the point to give the power of determining what gender identities and pronouns are valid to judges? At that point, why is it important what judges consider to be reasonable?
Why not have the standard that determines the difference between fair refusal to use gender pronouns and discrimination be based on what judges can determine about the intent, not what judges consider to be a reasonable gender identity? Murder isn't determined by whether or not judges think it was a reasonable act to kill the person, it's whether or not someone intentionally killed someone without being in self defence.
Judges can determine what racial epithets are unacceptable based on the relationship to intent as well. Religious belief can be based on societal institution mostly. A lot of other determinations about what is reasonable can be based simply on social convention.
There is always some kind of standard about how judges determine what is reasonable.
My argument is that objecting to the use of a preferred pronoun is reasonable as long as it's done without some kind of malice aforethought, like with murder. I don't think judges deciding what constitutes a valid gender identity is the right way to go about this.
I didn't say you could have judges arbitrate what is reasonable here. The problem is- what is reasonable with this issue? Is it really the point to give the power of determining what gender identities and pronouns are valid to judges? At that point, why is it important what judges consider to be reasonable?
Why not have the standard that determines the difference between fair refusal to use gender pronouns and discrimination be based on what judges can determine about the intent, not what judges consider to be a reasonable gender identity? Murder isn't determined by whether or not judges think it was a reasonable act to kill the person, it's whether or not someone intentionally killed someone without being in self defence.
Judges can determine what racial epithets are unacceptable based on the relationship to intent as well. Religious belief can be based on societal institution mostly. A lot of other determinations about what is reasonable can be based simply on social convention.
There is always some kind of standard about how judges determine what is reasonable.
My argument is that objecting to the use of a preferred pronoun is reasonable as long as it's done without some kind of malice aforethought, like with murder. I don't think judges deciding what constitutes a valid gender identity is the right way to go about this.
Are you saying there is no way to formulate a standard for what is and is not a reasonable gender identity? You can't imagine any sensible way to delineate "attack helicopter" as unreasonable but "female" as reasonable?
See my above response. You don't have to accept their identity, and you don't have to use their pronouns: You just can't misgender them. If you wish, debate with them, or use no pronouns at all. The right to 'live by your opinions' is not universal; a radical religious terrorist may believe that acts of terror are right, but if they commit them they are justly punished by law.
This seems contradictory.
How am I suppose to "not misgender" someone while simutaneously not using the pronoun of their choice?
I didn't say you could have judges arbitrate what is reasonable here. The problem is- what is reasonable with this issue? Is it really the point to give the power of determining what gender identities and pronouns are valid to judges? At that point, why is it important what judges consider to be reasonable?
Why not have the standard that determines the difference between fair refusal to use gender pronouns and discrimination be based on what judges can determine about the intent, not what judges consider to be a reasonable gender identity? Murder isn't determined by whether or not judges think it was a reasonable act to kill the person, it's whether or not someone intentionally killed someone without being in self defence.
Judges can determine what racial epithets are unacceptable based on the relationship to intent as well. Religious belief can be based on societal institution mostly. A lot of other determinations about what is reasonable can be based simply on social convention.
There is always some kind of standard about how judges determine what is reasonable.
My argument is that objecting to the use of a preferred pronoun is reasonable as long as it's done without some kind of malice aforethought, like with murder. I don't think judges deciding what constitutes a valid gender identity is the right way to go about this.
Are you saying there is no way to formulate a standard for what is and is not a reasonable gender identity? You can't imagine any sensible way to delineate "attack helicopter" as unreasonable but "female" as reasonable?
No, I'm not saying there is no sensible way, I'm saying is there an agreeable one? I am saying why should the state be in practice of deciding what it means?
No, I'm not saying there is no sensible way, I'm saying is there an agreeable one? I am saying why should the state be in practice of deciding what it means?
Agreeable to whom?
The state is already involved in deciding what is and is not legitimate, whether you like it or not. If Alice goes to court and says, "Bob called me 'he' and that made for a hostile work environment", the judge has to decide whether that's a legitimate complaint or not. You can argue that it's not a legitimate complaint, or you can argue that it is a legitimate complaint, but either way, the judge has to make that decision.
No, I'm not saying there is no sensible way, I'm saying is there an agreeable one? I am saying why should the state be in practice of deciding what it means?
Agreeable to whom?
The people. We are talking about a democracy, no?
The state is already involved in deciding what is and is not legitimate, whether you like it or not. If Alice goes to court and says, "Bob called me 'he' and that made for a hostile work environment", the judge has to decide whether that's a legitimate complaint or not. You can argue that it's not a legitimate complaint, or you can argue that it is a legitimate complaint, but either way, the judge has to make that decision.
Yes, and my argument is it's the hostile work environment part judges should be concerned with, not what is considered a valid gender identity.
I will concede the point that the line between legitimate and pathological is challenging and fuzzy. However, I think it's fair to say that in cases like that of Napoleon Bonaparte, where a person's identity is impossible due to contradicting known scientific laws of nature, we need not and should not abide by those identities, since they are observably provable as impossible and insane. There is a definite grey area, and it's not as simple as I may have implied, but outside of these corner cases, subjective identity applies.
This is a treacherous line of argument for your position, considering how common is the sentiment that transgendered identities are against the "laws of nature". One could very easily counter-argue it's observably provable that a trans woman is not female: there are certain physiological qualifications she clearly lacks. For a trans woman to rebut this, she has to redefine "femaleness" as a psychological construct rather than a biological property. And if she can do that for femaleness, why can't our would-be Napoleon do that for Napoleon-ness?
And as you say, the Napoleon delusion is an extreme case. Things only get fuzzier the more you look at them. Are Mormons and Unitarians Christians? Are illegal immigrants Americans? Is Rachel Dolezal black?
In short: Free speech can and should protect the communication of any ideas, but there is no reason it should protect needlessly offensive methods of communication.
Firstly, if the law only protects speech that is determined to be "needful", then that's not free speech. Secondly, this determination is subjective. A religious conservative judge and an LGBT progressive judge are going to have wildly different ideas about which speech is offensive. And if we're going down this route, then the conservative's opinion can't simply be disregarded: when Christians get offended by blasphemy, those feelings are real too.
The right to 'live by your opinions' is not universal; a radical religious terrorist may believe that acts of terror are right, but if they commit them they are justly punished by law.
The difference being that acts of terror are explicitly defined in the law as criminal, whereas acts of speech are explicitly defined in the law as protected.
Democracy is not a very specific term.
If with this case the definition isn't very agreeable, on what basis is to to be determined?
And would that hold up beyond opposition?
Yes, and my argument is it's the hostile work environment part judges should be concerned with, not what is considered a valid gender identity.
In order to determine whether a hostile work environment has been created, the judge must evaluate the reasonableness of the complaint.
In order to determine whether a hostile work environment has been created, the judge must evaluate whether the work environment is hostile as a result of what has been done. What does 'the reasonableness of the complaint' even mean here, let alone be the priority?
I would think it's not important what gender identity truly is, being mistreated because of one's views on the matter is an act of discrimination.
Democracy is not a very specific term.
If with this case the definition isn't very agreeable, on what basis is to to be determined?
And would that hold up beyond opposition?
The courts determine what is and is not a reasonable complaint.
In order to determine whether a hostile work environment has been created, the judge must evaluate whether the work environment is hostile as a result of what has been done. What does 'the reasonableness of the complaint' even mean here, let alone be the priority?
I would think it's not important what gender identity truly is, being mistreated because of one's views on the matter is an act of discrimination.
If we take the court case I posted, in which the complaint was about hearing the word "n****r", and change it so that the complaint is about hearing the word "apple", is that still a hostile work environment? No, it's fundamentally unreasonable to be offended by the word apple in the same way as people are offended by the n-word. If someone showed up to court with the apple complaint, they'd be laughed out of the building. You can't conclude whether there is a hostile work environment without evaluating the reasonableness of the complaint.
the conduct is severe or pervasive enough to create a work environment that a reasonable person would consider intimidating, hostile, or abusive.
Anti-discrimination laws also prohibit harassment against individuals in retaliation for filing a discrimination charge, testifying, or participating in any way in an investigation, proceeding, or lawsuit under these laws; or opposing employment practices that they reasonably believe discriminate against individuals, in violation of these laws.
To be unlawful, the conduct must create a work environment that would be intimidating, hostile, or offensive to reasonable people.
The reasonableness of the complaint is absolutely critical here. The laws would be completely unworkable if they covered any conduct that anyone perceived to be abusive, regardless of the reasonableness of that perception.
Democracy is not a very specific term.
If with this case the definition isn't very agreeable, on what basis is to to be determined?
And would that hold up beyond opposition?
The courts determine what is and is not a reasonable complaint.
And on what basis should they do that in this case? What standards should judges be expected to conform to? Surely judges should be expected to make such decisions in certain ways, and not merely however they personally choose? Are there not standards about how judges decide such things currently?
'Reasonable complaint' was also not where this particular line of argument started- it started with the idea of only considering certain supposed gender identities or uses of gender identities as valid. What a 'reasonable complaint' is is basically what this whole argument has been about.
Now you seem to be suggesting the state should be almost solely responsible for determining what is and is not discrimination with regards to pronoun use on a case by case basis. I do not accept this.
In order to determine whether a hostile work environment has been created, the judge must evaluate whether the work environment is hostile as a result of what has been done. What does 'the reasonableness of the complaint' even mean here, let alone be the priority?
I would think it's not important what gender identity truly is, being mistreated because of one's views on the matter is an act of discrimination.
If we take the court case I posted, in which the complaint was about hearing the word "n****r", and change it so that the complaint is about hearing the word "apple", is that still a hostile work environment? No, it's fundamentally unreasonable to be offended by the word apple in the same way as people are offended by the n-word. If someone showed up to court with the apple complaint, they'd be laughed out of the building. You can't conclude whether there is a hostile work environment without evaluating the reasonableness of the complaint.
the conduct is severe or pervasive enough to create a work environment that a reasonable person would consider intimidating, hostile, or abusive.
Anti-discrimination laws also prohibit harassment against individuals in retaliation for filing a discrimination charge, testifying, or participating in any way in an investigation, proceeding, or lawsuit under these laws; or opposing employment practices that they reasonably believe discriminate against individuals, in violation of these laws.
To be unlawful, the conduct must create a work environment that would be intimidating, hostile, or offensive to reasonable people.
The reasonableness of the complaint is absolutely critical here. The laws would be completely unworkable if they covered any conduct that anyone perceived to be abusive, regardless of the reasonableness of that perception.
I no longer really no what you are arguing. The start of this argument was whether refusing to use someone's preferred pronouns should be considered discrimination, what exactly are saying now? What is the proposal you are advocating here?
You seem to be suggesting that a 'hostile work environment' is not determined by practical consequences, but perceptions of what is 'hostile'. I do not agree with this.
I don't think it matters what a 'reasonable belief' is as to discrimination- unfairly treating people for holding absurd beliefs, even, is still discrimination.
For instance, I think that the idea that biological sex simply does not exist is an unreasonable belief. I don't think, however, that firing someone just because they hold that belief, however, is fair. In the same way, if someone uses the word apple repeatedly and unnecessarily even though it does for whatever make people extremely uncomfortable, then I would consider that to be creating a hostile work environment.
Hurting people is hurting people.
My argument is that discrimination should be determined primarily by intent and consequence. What is considered to be valid or reasonable ideas or beliefs should be at most a secondary consideration.
Everyone should have their right to choose whatever pronouns they wish to be referred to as and to ask others to use those pronouns. I don't think everyone has the right to have others be forced to refer to them as such.
Pronouns aren't simply vehicles for the acceptance of identities, they can have all sorts of implications and associations for people to object to. People should have the right to live by such opinions, as long as it doesn't mean being inconsiderate of people with preferred pronouns they object to.
I don't think a set of pronouns is automatically valid and useful just because some people have chosen it as their preferred pronouns.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
No.
At this point the word is effectively a death sentence to your character if you using it gets out to social media.
There are certainly other facts pertinent to the case, but the court notes, "Perhaps no single act can more quickly "alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment," Meritor, 477 U.S. at 67, 106 S.Ct. at 2405, than the use of an unambiguously racial epithet such as "n****r" by a supervisor in the presence of his subordinates."
Do you only object to the single-use case, or do you also object to the law stepping in when someone complains, and the person using the word refuses to stop?
The N-word is widely-considered in the US to be a completely socially-inappropriate epithet. Calling someone a n****r even once is enough to get fired. The word f****t is the same at this point. I've known people who have been fired for each (and I haven't exactly been in the workplace a long while; I'm relatively young).
The comparison isn't completely fair. Either N****r or F****t used as a epithet can very reasonably get someone fired immediately; it's well-known that they are socially unacceptable. If one expressed that they didn't know that, they might have a chance, but even then it's not completely clear-cut, as establishing that concretely is difficult. Misgendering someone once is very different at this point. Multiple times even, unintentionally, is something else. Intent is also difficult to establish. Even once, clearly intentionally, still doesn't carry the same weight, though multiple times intentionally would be likely to get you fired. There may be a time in the future when any number of times intentionally misgendering someone will have the same gravitas as using N****r or F****t as an epithet, but I doubt it will be any time soon.
The "I identify as an assault helicopter" argument is not really an appropriate one. The longest gender-neutral pronouns you're likely to see out in the wild are the people who want the singular "they." But yeah, choice of pronouns should reasonably be left up to the person to whom it applies, or we might as well censor a lot more.
To be clear, I am absolutely not saying that calling someone n****r or f****t is the equivalent of misgendering. I just want to explore the claim that the government should never tell us how we are allowed to address each other. Since the n-word is a particularly extreme example, I think it's a useful example in that regard - not as a moral equivalent of misgendering.
The suggestion to me seems to be that using the word always goes a good way towards creating an 'abusive working environment', not necessarily that it by itself alters immediately the conditions to be an 'abusive working environment' to the level of being an offence.
Again, it's about how it is used. If the person using it is only using it in a friendly way amongst a close group of their friends, and the person complaining is just some person who observed the usage, then I don't think that's issue of discrimination. Even if we consider that the word is inescapably offensive, that doesn't mean it can't be used without offence- because we have humour, acting and talking about words themselves.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Okay, but specifically a case in which it is being used to address a particular person, and that person complains, and the user doesn't stop?
Now, when I said, it's about how it used, I meant that. So responding to that idea by presenting me with a circumstance where you don't tell me how it is used seems a meaningless question.
I can't judge the validity of the complaint if I don't how it was used, because I don't think usage in-and-of-itself is the issue.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Whenever Bob sees Alice in the morning, Bob says, "Good morning n****r" in a friendly tone. Alice has repeatedly requested Bob stop doing this. Bob has ignored these requests, and management has taken no action. Alice and Bob are otherwise cordial coworkers, but are not close friends. Bob is not attempting to make a joke, or otherwise be humourous. He is aware that Alice objects to the term.
Are there any other details you would need?
I will concede the point that the line between legitimate and pathological is challenging and fuzzy. However, I think it's fair to say that in cases like that of Napoleon Bonaparte, where a person's identity is impossible due to contradicting known scientific laws of nature, we need not and should not abide by those identities, since they are observably provable as impossible and insane. There is a definite grey area, and it's not as simple as I may have implied, but outside of these corner cases, subjective identity applies.
However, that has little bearing on free speech. You don't have to use their pronouns: You just can't use the wrong pronouns. If you wish, debate and speak out against these identities, or refrain from using any pronouns to refer to certain people. But intentionally misgendering people is needlessly offensive, and doesn't communicate your ideas in a civil way. It's much like using the N-word: its use does communicate an idea, but it's absolutely immoral to say it in a racially charged way.
In short: Free speech can and should protect the communication of any ideas, but there is no reason it should protect needlessly offensive methods of communication.
See my above response. You don't have to accept their identity, and you don't have to use their pronouns: You just can't misgender them. If you wish, debate with them, or use no pronouns at all. The right to 'live by your opinions' is not universal; a radical religious terrorist may believe that acts of terror are right, but if they commit them they are justly punished by law.
Widely considered perhaps. I don't think it's true that it is universally considered to be so.
And regardless, as I've pointed out, that still leaves exceptions: "because we have humour, acting and talking about words themselves".
I don't think 'misgendering' is a fair representation of the issue. For one because, again, pronouns are not simply the vehicles of acceptance. They are words with their own implications and effects. But also because refusing to use someones preferred pronouns doesn't mean you are going to refer to them with a pronoun that mismatches their supposed identity- you might think there is a better word for the same thing. And because there is serious question as to what exactly these gender identities are, what gender identity even means, and we shouldn't just take for granted that whatever people say is there identity is an actual identity they have. It's not discrimination to have a different definition of gender identity, or to question whether an identity is real even if in truth it is.
The "I identify as an assault helicopter" argument could be an actual court case should preferred pronoun use be mandated- because who would decide what pronouns are at all valid? Unless the suggestion is to have judges decide what pronouns are valid (which I would think goes against the whole point), then forcing people to refer to others as attack helicopters would be exactly what would be happen so long as someone decides that attack helicopter is their identity. To suggest that most people would never be so unreasonable is paramount to special pleading. All it would take is one- and that's the point.
I think it would only be a matter of time before someone decided their preferred pronouns to be something absurd and unreasonable and is willing to it to take it to court. And the law would have them in the right.
You know what also be protected under such a law? Someone having their preferred pronoun being something that mismatches their identity. A cis male person could decide they want to be called she, because *****s and giggles, it's their preferred pronoun.
Mandating the use of specific words over others is censorship, not the other way round.
Let's not forget, if not implementing this law is censorship, what you are saying is that censorship is currently happening. Are people currently being censored in the use of gender pronouns? No, they aren't. They can ask people to use whatever pronouns they want, they can use whatever pronouns they want to refer to themselves, they can talk about whatever pronouns they want- there is nothing they can't say in favour of their preferred pronouns.
What a law mandating preferred pronoun use would do, all in all, is not protect people from discrimination but protect people from the efforts of others contesting the creation of new pronouns and the usage of pronouns.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
No, that seems to be sufficient to be some kind of discrimination. I don't think though that circumstance constitutes a particularly serious offence in my opinion. Nothing more serious than being fired perhaps. In order to be more serious, I think some kind of malicious intent would need to be there.
The most fundamental problem with comparing this word to the refusing to use certain gender pronouns is that it's an entirely optional affair to a specific word and one could live entirely consistently with their belief the word should not be taken to be offensive in at least some of the circumstances where it is without using it themselves. A person with such a belief could accommodate society's distaste with the word without having to be involved in promoting that distaste. With gender pronouns, there isn't really a say nothing option. There must be an affirmative decision to either accept a person's preferred pronoun or not to. In order to accommodate to it, one has to be actively involved in it's use.
I think there is also less grounds on which to object with the former than the later. For one simply because it's comparing one word to many. But also because of more implications that being a pronoun has versus a more optional word, other than being optional as I mentioned, related to the structure of language and such. And because not using a word doesn't have as strong of a force behind it than using specific words does- that the later is more grounded in certain motivations one could object to.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Judges already determine which words are unacceptable racial epithets. They determine which claims of religious belief are valid. A huge variety of laws work by having judges determine what is reasonable and what isn't. The notion that this is some sort of slippery slope betrays an incredible naivety about how the law currently works.
I'm not really sure I followed all of this, so I apologize if this reply misses the mark.
Suppose in our scenario Bob has a belief that n****r is the proper form of address for Alice. The use of the word captures some aspect of the way he views the world. It's not just that he disagrees with whether it's offensive, it's his way of expressing his worldview. The so-called say-nothing option is not acceptable to him. Does this excuse his behavior, or shield him from being fired?
Fundamentally though, it seems to me that what you're doing here is exactly what I contend is necessary - analyzing the merits of a request that someone speak a certain way, and balancing those merits against the merits of allowing that person to speak as they see fit. We can't simply wave our hands and declare ourselves "neutral" - we have to either choose to protect Alice's desires to be referred to in the way she chooses - be it to not be called n****r, to be referred to as "she" instead of "he", or to be called an attack helicopter, or we have to choose to protect Bob's desires to speak as he sees fit. In the case n****r, it seems that in at least some circumstances, you believe that Alice's desire trumps Bob's desire. In the case of the attack helicopter, I think we all agree that Bob's desire trumps Alice's. We have to perform a similar analysis for the case of "he" vs "she". We have to evaluate the severity of misgendering, we have to evaluate the importance free pronoun use, and decide whose side we're on.
It seems to me that Canada's laws tend to side with Alice too often. They extend far beyond the workplace, and limit what Bob can post on the internet in his private life. But we don't have to take an all-or-nothing approach. Just like it's reasonable to restrict Bob from calling Alice n****r at work, perhaps it's also reasonable to prevent him from intentionally misgendering Alice, regardless of whether Alice is transgender. On the other hand, maybe misgendering is too mild a slight to warrant protection, and instead the law should focus on more virulent anti-transgender slurs. These are the evaluations we need to make.
We are talking about the idea of treating the refusal to use preferred pronouns as legal discrimination.
But, ok, so you can refuse to a specific pronoun, but you can't refuse to use a category of pronouns trying to represent the same or essentially the same thing?
So who is responsible for deciding what these categories are? What you are suggesting is the legal system would be involved in deciding what identities are valid, no?
If all identities are valid no matter what, then no one is capable of exercising an opinion that some of those identities don't constitute valid gender identities. Why is that discriminatory? Doesn't gender identity have at least some restrictions beyond simply being an identity? Why can't people exercise their disagreement on this point?
And if we do take certain restrictions about gender identity- who gets to decide what those restrictions are? Why is that the state is involved in arbitrating what gender identities are valid? Doesn't that go against the point?
Why can't we simply institute protections against exercising malicious intent toward people based on whatever there claimed gender identity is, regardless of any point of validity? That way people are free to discuss what gender identity is and what gender pronouns should be used, and exercise those opinions, except when people exercise their opinions in a way that is malicious. Yes, this would result in people getting offended sometimes, but that's just always going to happen, you can't make everyone agree with each other by force.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
I didn't say you could have judges arbitrate what is reasonable here. The problem is- what is reasonable with this issue? Is it really the point to give the power of determining what gender identities and pronouns are valid to judges? At that point, why is it important what judges consider to be reasonable?
Why not have the standard that determines the difference between fair refusal to use gender pronouns and discrimination be based on what judges can determine about the intent, not what judges consider to be a reasonable gender identity? Murder isn't determined by whether or not judges think it was a reasonable act to kill the person, it's whether or not someone intentionally killed someone without being in self defence.
Judges can determine what racial epithets are unacceptable based on the relationship to intent as well. Religious belief can be based on societal institution mostly. A lot of other determinations about what is reasonable can be based simply on social convention.
There is always some kind of standard about how judges determine what is reasonable.
My argument is that objecting to the use of a preferred pronoun is reasonable as long as it's done without some kind of malice aforethought, like with murder. I don't think judges deciding what constitutes a valid gender identity is the right way to go about this.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Are you saying there is no way to formulate a standard for what is and is not a reasonable gender identity? You can't imagine any sensible way to delineate "attack helicopter" as unreasonable but "female" as reasonable?
This seems contradictory.
How am I suppose to "not misgender" someone while simutaneously not using the pronoun of their choice?
No, I'm not saying there is no sensible way, I'm saying is there an agreeable one? I am saying why should the state be in practice of deciding what it means?
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Agreeable to whom?
The state is already involved in deciding what is and is not legitimate, whether you like it or not. If Alice goes to court and says, "Bob called me 'he' and that made for a hostile work environment", the judge has to decide whether that's a legitimate complaint or not. You can argue that it's not a legitimate complaint, or you can argue that it is a legitimate complaint, but either way, the judge has to make that decision.
The people. We are talking about a democracy, no?
Yes, and my argument is it's the hostile work environment part judges should be concerned with, not what is considered a valid gender identity.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
And as you say, the Napoleon delusion is an extreme case. Things only get fuzzier the more you look at them. Are Mormons and Unitarians Christians? Are illegal immigrants Americans? Is Rachel Dolezal black?
Firstly, if the law only protects speech that is determined to be "needful", then that's not free speech. Secondly, this determination is subjective. A religious conservative judge and an LGBT progressive judge are going to have wildly different ideas about which speech is offensive. And if we're going down this route, then the conservative's opinion can't simply be disregarded: when Christians get offended by blasphemy, those feelings are real too.
The difference being that acts of terror are explicitly defined in the law as criminal, whereas acts of speech are explicitly defined in the law as protected.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
That's not what a democracy means.
In order to determine whether a hostile work environment has been created, the judge must evaluate the reasonableness of the complaint.
Democracy is not a very specific term.
If with this case the definition isn't very agreeable, on what basis is to to be determined?
And would that hold up beyond opposition?
In order to determine whether a hostile work environment has been created, the judge must evaluate whether the work environment is hostile as a result of what has been done. What does 'the reasonableness of the complaint' even mean here, let alone be the priority?
I would think it's not important what gender identity truly is, being mistreated because of one's views on the matter is an act of discrimination.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
The courts determine what is and is not a reasonable complaint.
If we take the court case I posted, in which the complaint was about hearing the word "n****r", and change it so that the complaint is about hearing the word "apple", is that still a hostile work environment? No, it's fundamentally unreasonable to be offended by the word apple in the same way as people are offended by the n-word. If someone showed up to court with the apple complaint, they'd be laughed out of the building. You can't conclude whether there is a hostile work environment without evaluating the reasonableness of the complaint.
https://www1.eeoc.gov//laws/types/harassment.cfm?renderforprint=1
The reasonableness of the complaint is absolutely critical here. The laws would be completely unworkable if they covered any conduct that anyone perceived to be abusive, regardless of the reasonableness of that perception.
And on what basis should they do that in this case? What standards should judges be expected to conform to? Surely judges should be expected to make such decisions in certain ways, and not merely however they personally choose? Are there not standards about how judges decide such things currently?
'Reasonable complaint' was also not where this particular line of argument started- it started with the idea of only considering certain supposed gender identities or uses of gender identities as valid. What a 'reasonable complaint' is is basically what this whole argument has been about.
Now you seem to be suggesting the state should be almost solely responsible for determining what is and is not discrimination with regards to pronoun use on a case by case basis. I do not accept this.
I no longer really no what you are arguing. The start of this argument was whether refusing to use someone's preferred pronouns should be considered discrimination, what exactly are saying now? What is the proposal you are advocating here?
You seem to be suggesting that a 'hostile work environment' is not determined by practical consequences, but perceptions of what is 'hostile'. I do not agree with this.
I don't think it matters what a 'reasonable belief' is as to discrimination- unfairly treating people for holding absurd beliefs, even, is still discrimination.
For instance, I think that the idea that biological sex simply does not exist is an unreasonable belief. I don't think, however, that firing someone just because they hold that belief, however, is fair. In the same way, if someone uses the word apple repeatedly and unnecessarily even though it does for whatever make people extremely uncomfortable, then I would consider that to be creating a hostile work environment.
Hurting people is hurting people.
My argument is that discrimination should be determined primarily by intent and consequence. What is considered to be valid or reasonable ideas or beliefs should be at most a secondary consideration.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice