What's the intent? What's the tone in which it's done? Does the person using the she/her pronoun go out of their way to use the pronoun very often?
I don't think using non preferred pronoun constitutes harassment. I think using non preferred pronouns to demean someone constitutes (EDIT: harassment)- because you are demeaning them. Which is to say I think using non preferred pronouns is not itself harassment but can be used to harass someone. Going back to my name abbreviation analogy, using an abbreviation of someone's chosen name is not itself harassment but it could be used to harass them.
Let's say we have Bob and David, both cisgendered men. Bob refers to David exclusively using female pronouns. David has repeatedly asked Bob to stop doing so. Bob does not use the female pronouns with a particularly derisive or insulting tone - it's the same normal tone he uses when talking about female coworkers. Bob is not making a mistake or a slip of the tongue, nor is he doing it as an attempt at a joke. He fully intends to use the female pronouns when talking about David, and matter-of-factly refuses David's requests to stop.
Is that harassment? Would you be okay with this situation if you were David?
It's not harassment, but I would consider doing that without a good reason to be ethically bad. I would not be okay with that if they weren't doing it for a good reason.
I find it very unlikely someone would use she/her/herself to refer to someone who identifies as male simply because of effeminacy despite their asking otherwise without any other kind of issues related.
I'm not asking you whether you find it likely. It's a hypothetical. I'm asking whether you think that, by itself, constitutes workplace harassment.
What's the intent? What's the tone in which it's done? Does the person using the she/her pronoun go out of their way to use the pronoun very often?
I don't think using non preferred pronoun constitutes harassment. I think using non preferred pronouns to demean someone constitutes (EDIT: harassment)- because you are demeaning them. Which is to say I think using non preferred pronouns is not itself harassment but can be used to harass someone. Going back to my name abbreviation analogy, using an abbreviation of someone's chosen name is not itself harassment but it could be used to harass them.
I will refer to someone by whatever pronouns they ask me to use, because I'm not an ********.
For one, I don't think you will refer to a person by wahtever pronouns they want, I don't think really anyone will, you just don't expect someone to ask you to refer to them as something totally random, very long and/or very difficult to pronounce.
Is it really morally reprehensible for individuals to have personal standards about what they consider to be appropriate pronouns? Because what you do if you simply accept whatever pronoun preferences is establish in practice that any pronoun is valid, even if there are dozens of existing pronouns to describe the same thing, to the point of linguistic chaos. Do I really have to point out that this would be unreasonable?
I think it is morally reprehensible to not be at least somewhat accomodating to others despite personal beliefs/values, but I think it is also morally reprehensible to expect others to use your prefered pronouns no matter what they are. I think people should work within reason to find alternative pronouns to their most preferred pronouns- that there needs to be a balance where people on both sides of the exchange sometimes make accomodations or compromises.
There is a vast difference between "make up a new word that means the exact same thing as an existing word", and similar words with nuanced usages.
There are definitely currently used pronouns that mean the same thing.
I'll concede the point that I'd be unlikely to call someone "Valentinez Alkalinella Xifax Sicidabohertz Gumbigobilla Blue Stradivari Talentrent Pierre Andry Charton-Haymoss Ivanovici Baldeus George Doitzel Kaiser III" when asked to do so, because that's simply being silly. But we're talking pronouns.
Yes, so you have conceded that you will not simply accept whatever pronouns someone asks of you, that you have certain standards about what constitutes a valid pronoun.
So where exactly is the line? What standards are acceptable? It's not a one dimensional subject.
Objecting to a pronoun someone wants you to use for them is like objecting to the name someone wants you to use for them.
Names don't carry the same implications (as names are generally purely referential, pronouns carry grouping implications) or standards for usage as pronouns.
I'm not going to call you "Steve" if you ask me to call you "John". Because I'm not an ********. Similarly, if you ask to be referred to with "zhe" or something, that's fine, I'll do it. Because I'm not an ********. I might make a mistake because it's outside the norm for my speech, but I'll also correct myself when I notice it.
But by your own admission, you wouldn't call someone "Valentinez Alkalinella Xifax Sicidabohertz Gumbigobilla Blue Stradivari Talentrent Pierre Andry Charton-Haymoss Ivanovici Baldeus George Doitzel Kaiser III" if they asked you to.
I expect you'd ask them about an abbreviation.
In the same way, I think it's reasonable to ask people if there are any alternative pronouns they would be ok with being referred to as other than their top preference, just as I think it's reasonable for people to make the pronoun request in the first place.
I think both persons should be willing to compromise. I don't think it's morally reprehensible to contest new pronouns just as I don't think it's morally reprehensible to suggest them.
If they haven't asked me to use anything specifically, I'll use their apparent gender if I can, because that's all I have to go on. But there's zero cost to me using the requested pronouns, and goodwill is earned in the process.
There is a cost- using a pronoun gives it validity in practice when one may consider the pronoun to be in some way invalid, and pronouns can carry ideological implications that people may want to avoiding supporting by using them.
What ideological implications are carried by "please call me X"?
What's the point of spreading new pronouns at all?
Because pronouns are grouping words. They carry implications about the meaningful and significant existence of specific groups, and not everyone agrees that all the specific groups these pronouns are implying do meaningfully and significantly exist, and may instead believe people have characterised a group in such a way as they consider it misleading, perhaps even false.
Furthermore, pronouns don't have to be created to describe every one of these groups. People may have different opinions about how pronouns should be created and used in the first place. Some people will have higher standards about how broad a use a pronoun should have, others very low. I think both those people are within reason logically and ethically, and they can work out their differences without either being 'an ********'.
'biological sex, gender identity and gender expression do not vary independently' was his main point.
So it is impossible for someone to be born a man, present themselves as a woman, and consider themselves to be neither?
That's not what that statement means and that's already explicitly stated immediately before what you quoted.
What that statement means is that these aspects affect each other and are correlated, and are not entirely separate things.
Sure, sex, identity, and expression are related... in that most people are the same in all three categories. But that's really it.
Disagree. The correlation is not coincidental. They are related in what they are and how they work.
I will refer to someone by whatever pronouns they ask me to use, because I'm not an ********.
For one, I don't think you will refer to a person by wahtever pronouns they want, I don't think really anyone will, you just don't expect someone to ask you to refer to them as something totally random, very long and/or very difficult to pronounce.
Is it really morally reprehensible for individuals to have personal standards about what they consider to be appropriate pronouns? Because what you do if you simply accept whatever pronoun preferences is establish in practice that any pronoun is valid, even if there are dozens of existing pronouns to describe the same thing, to the point of linguistic chaos. Do I really have to point out that this would be unreasonable?
I think it is morally reprehensible to not be at least somewhat accomodating to others despite personal beliefs/values, but I think it is also morally reprehensible to expect others to use your prefered pronouns no matter what they are. I think people should work within reason to find alternative pronouns to their most preferred pronouns- that there needs to be a balance where people on both sides of the exchange sometimes make accomodations or compromises.
If they haven't asked me to use anything specifically, I'll use their apparent gender if I can, because that's all I have to go on. But there's zero cost to me using the requested pronouns, and goodwill is earned in the process.
There is a cost- using a pronoun gives it validity in practice when one may consider the pronoun to be in some way invalid, and pronouns can carry ideological implications that people may want to avoiding supporting by using them.
Jordan Peterson strikes me as an anti-trans bigot and all-round meanie. I sympathize with the trans and queer activists/revolutionaries who're giving Peterson a hard time. On the other hand, this new bill and Canada's anti-discrimination laws indeed constitute oppressive censorship. As often happens, both sides are wrong.
As far as language goes, gendered pronouns are ridiculous to begin with. Why do pronouns need to be gendered? Trans/nonbinary/genderqueer/etc. folks are just doing our best to negotiate the goofy gendered language that doesn't suit us. You can ignore our preferred pronouns as you can ignore anybody else's, but doing so adds, if only slightly, to our marginalization. I don't recommend it.
In what way does Peterson behaviour constitute bigotry? What evidence is there of him harboring or exercising any kind of contempt against trans people? Maybe his opinions on these issues aren't the most well informed or well considered, but holding an imperfect or bad position with regards to a rights issue does not automatically make someone a bigot.
EDIT: Importantly for this point, Peterson has indicated that he is not totally adverse to the idea of using some nonbinary pronouns. In particular, the singular 'they/them/themself', but that it 'might depend on how they asked', and later 'depend on what I thought of your motivations'- to which let's note the response to the former was 'so, no' which I find to be a ridiculous response. See here at 11:40-12:30 (unfortunate title here and I recommend avoiding the comment section).
I don't think refusing to use certain preferred pronouns necessarily adds to marginilisaion. Pronouns aren't simply the vector of some kind of acceptance, they are specific linguistic constructs and that means people can take issue with them beyond simply what they are intended to describe.
I agree that gendered pronouns are in general an archaic, unnecessary idea.
Perhaps.
But that's a private decision, not a public mandate. That's a fundamentally different issue.
Okay, suppose that instead of coworker, it's my employee. And he sues me for workplace harassment, and wins. Is that fair?
I find it very unlikely someone would use she/her/herself to refer to someone who identifies as male simply because of effeminacy despite their asking otherwise without any other kind of issues related. If someone is generally being uncooperative and demeaning, then that would constitute a perfectly good reason to sue someone, because that's just general harassment, that's not discrimination.
The problem is defining things such usage of pronouns itself, no matter the implications in the circumstance, is regulated. The way this is being set up is that people could potentially get charged even if the person who is being referred by pronouns other than their preferred pronouns is okay with the person who is referring to them making their own decision based on their own values.
Well, it's definitely a point here that the existing laws are concerning, but what is specifically concerning about C-16 is how the relevant are defining the terms. As I posted above, both 'gender identity' and 'gender expression' are being defined in ways that are potentially problematic, I'd say particularly the later, in that implies that supposedly 'misgendering' people by not consenting to use their particular preferred pronoun is some kind of offence. I don't thik it's fair to include other people's use of pronouns as being controlled under anti-discrimination law, or at very least not in a way that basically gives the person being addressed the power to determine as they wish what the person must say in addressing them.
Suppose one of my male coworkers is a bit on the effeminate side. I decide to exclusively refer to him using female pronouns, even after he corrects me and asks me to stop. I get fired for workplace harassment. Is that fair?
Perhaps.
But that's a private decision, not a public mandate. That's a fundamentally different issue.
Canada's free speech/hate speech laws are already a mess, so it's not surprising that trying to add another protected class to them would result in something that's still a mess. It's not really a feature of the new protected class, though.
Well, it's definitely a point here that the existing laws are concerning, but what is specifically concerning about C-16 is how the relevant are defining the terms. As I posted above, both 'gender identity' and 'gender expression' are being defined in ways that are potentially problematic, I'd say particularly the later, in that implies that supposedly 'misgendering' people by not consenting to use their particular preferred pronoun is some kind of offence. I don't think it's fair to include other people's use of pronouns as being controlled under anti-discrimination law, or at very least not in a way that basically gives the person being addressed the power to determine as they wish what the person must say in addressing them.
What exactly are we debating here? You've brought up a lot of related-but-separate points and it is unclear to me what sort of argument is being made here.
I suppose the central question is whether the approach to policy with regards to anti-discrimination practice in Canada is appropriate and generally good.
These debate threads tend to end up broad no matter what, so I figured I'd leave it mostly open ended about different points.
Ok, so this is something I came across recently online and it's seriously peeked my interest.
So Canada is in the process of reviewing a piece of legislation called 'An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code', or bill C-16.
What the bill proposes is that 'gender identity' and 'gender expression' are added to the Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code.
The bill: http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/hoc/Bills/421/Government/C-16/C-16_1/C-16_1.PDF
And the current Human Rights Act and Criminal Code: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/H-6.pdf http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-72.html#h-93
This all seems relatively inarguable in that it simply ascribes that gender identity and gender expression are comparable to race, sex, marital status, etc.
Some of the provinces have already incorporated such legislature at their level.
But, I recently came across some videos by a professor of psychology from the University of Toronto, Jordan Peterson. Centrally for this discussion here that the legislature is facilitating, or at least is indicative of a certain tolerance to, a kind of censorship. The main point with regards to the specific legislature is that the purpose of the acts as written is 'messy', and that it supports the idea of the government determining needs which Peterson argues is problematic because it is ineffectual at supporting needs.
The next argument to consider which I think is more important given the former only applies to the written goals, not functionality of the law.
That argument is that the way 'gender identity' and 'gender expression' are being defined by relevant bodies is problematic. The Department of Justice, The Ontario (the province of Canada where Toronto is located) Human Rights Commission, and other groups involved in the enforcement of the legislation have used definitions of gender identity and gender expression as such:
Gender identity is each person’s internal and individual experience of gender. It is their sense of being a woman, a man, both, neither, or anywhere along the gender spectrum. A person’s gender identity may be the same as or different from their birth-assigned sex. Gender identity is fundamentally different from a person’s sexual orientation.
Gender expression is how a person publicly presents their gender. This can include behaviour and outward appearance such as dress, hair, make-up, body language and voice. A person’s chosen name and pronoun are also common ways of expressing gender.
Peterson argues that the former as expressed is not a scientifically grounded idea. He argues that 'he has seen no evidence' that a person can have in some tangible sense a gender identity independent of sex that is neither or both female and male, and that therefore we shouldn't support it in legislature until we can demonstrate that such notions are scientifically supported and not conjecture. Later on the video (at around 43:15-43:50) he expands on this, looking at different formulations/expressions of the concept used, by arguing biological sex, gender identity and gender expression are not fundamentally different, but closely related. The importance of this argument is to say that a certain notion of gender identity is being mandated to be accepted but this notion is questionable, and people should be openly allowed to question it. I think it's important to clarify that what Peterson says here is I think could be slightly clearer as to his views on the subject. Looking at later videos, he clarifies that he does think 'nonbinary people' with regard to 'sexual identity' 'obviously exist', but that 'biological sex, gender identity and gender expression do not vary independently' was his main point. Note that despite this explicit clarification, people have continued to claim that Peterson does not believe nonbinary people exist.
He then argues that people should not be mandated to use whatever gender pronouns to refer to individuals as those individuals wish, as this definition of gender expression implies and has been taken to mean by groups supporting it. Peterson personally does not consent to using most nonbinary pronouns such as 'zhe/zhim/zher/zhimself'. He states that he doesn't 'recognise another person's right to determine what pronouns I use when addressing them'. He argues that use of pronouns is involved in political ideology, and that he does not want to be involved in supporting these motivations. This as well as the implicit argument of free speech that he expands upon in other videos, in particular that there is a line crossed between preventing people from saying particular kinds of supposedly dangerous things, and mandating people to say specific things. Peterson questions the former as to how good a policy it actually is, but questions the later even more so, arguing that it is clearly dangerous and immoral, even if we accept the former.
The next part of the video looks at how these organisations (namely the OHRC) defines discrimination and harassment generally (not again this is not written into the law, but these are still involved in the legislation as the views and policies of bodies involved in the enforcement of the law).
Discrimination happens when a person experiences negative treatment or impact, intentional or not, because of their gender identity or gender expression.
Harassment is a form of discrimination. It can include sexually explicit or other inappropriate comments, questions, jokes, name-calling, images, email and social media, transphobic, homophobic or other bullying, sexual advances, touching and other unwelcome and ongoing behaviour that insults, demeans, harms or threatens a person in some way.
He argues with regards to former that it gives almost all control to the supposed victim and does not consider that negative impacts may be part of a longer term benefit, namely with regards to the acceptance of ideas. Even more so, he argues that including unintentional negative impact is problematic because intent is essential to discrimination, and that this places to much focus on consequence.
He then argues that the later 'has been written to cover the broadest range of possibilities' and this is problematic. He argues that things like jokes are not dealt with here carefully enough, such that accepted humour is considered harassment and discrimination.
The final section looks at organisational liability for these things, again from OHRC:
Organizations are liable for any discrimination and harassment that happens. They are also liable for not accommodating a trans person’s needs unless it would cause undue hardship. They must deal with complaints, take steps to prevent problems and provide a safe, welcoming environment for trans people.
As per the written text of the Ontario Human Rights Code
46.3 (1) For the purposes of this Act, except subsection 2 (2), subsection 5 (2), section 7 and subsection 46.2 (1), any act or thing done or omitted to be done in the course of his or her employment by an officer, official, employee or agent of a corporation, trade union, trade or occupational association, unincorporated association or employers’ organization shall be deemed to be an act or thing done or omitted to be done by the corporation, trade union, trade or occupational association, unincorporated association or employers’ organization
Peterson argues that it unreasonable to place accountability on an organisation for controlling any and all discrimination within.
So, I personally find Peterson's arguments quite convincing. And I think there's some fair concerns to be addressed here.
It's not harassment, but I would consider doing that without a good reason to be ethically bad. I would not be okay with that if they weren't doing it for a good reason.
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
What's the intent? What's the tone in which it's done? Does the person using the she/her pronoun go out of their way to use the pronoun very often?
I don't think using non preferred pronoun constitutes harassment. I think using non preferred pronouns to demean someone constitutes (EDIT: harassment)- because you are demeaning them. Which is to say I think using non preferred pronouns is not itself harassment but can be used to harass someone. Going back to my name abbreviation analogy, using an abbreviation of someone's chosen name is not itself harassment but it could be used to harass them.
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
There are definitely currently used pronouns that mean the same thing.
Yes, so you have conceded that you will not simply accept whatever pronouns someone asks of you, that you have certain standards about what constitutes a valid pronoun.
So where exactly is the line? What standards are acceptable? It's not a one dimensional subject.
Names don't carry the same implications (as names are generally purely referential, pronouns carry grouping implications) or standards for usage as pronouns.
But by your own admission, you wouldn't call someone "Valentinez Alkalinella Xifax Sicidabohertz Gumbigobilla Blue Stradivari Talentrent Pierre Andry Charton-Haymoss Ivanovici Baldeus George Doitzel Kaiser III" if they asked you to.
I expect you'd ask them about an abbreviation.
In the same way, I think it's reasonable to ask people if there are any alternative pronouns they would be ok with being referred to as other than their top preference, just as I think it's reasonable for people to make the pronoun request in the first place.
I think both persons should be willing to compromise. I don't think it's morally reprehensible to contest new pronouns just as I don't think it's morally reprehensible to suggest them.
What's the point of spreading new pronouns at all?
Because pronouns are grouping words. They carry implications about the meaningful and significant existence of specific groups, and not everyone agrees that all the specific groups these pronouns are implying do meaningfully and significantly exist, and may instead believe people have characterised a group in such a way as they consider it misleading, perhaps even false.
Furthermore, pronouns don't have to be created to describe every one of these groups. People may have different opinions about how pronouns should be created and used in the first place. Some people will have higher standards about how broad a use a pronoun should have, others very low. I think both those people are within reason logically and ethically, and they can work out their differences without either being 'an ********'.
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
That's not what that statement means and that's already explicitly stated immediately before what you quoted.
What that statement means is that these aspects affect each other and are correlated, and are not entirely separate things.
Disagree. The correlation is not coincidental. They are related in what they are and how they work.
For one, I don't think you will refer to a person by wahtever pronouns they want, I don't think really anyone will, you just don't expect someone to ask you to refer to them as something totally random, very long and/or very difficult to pronounce.
Is it really morally reprehensible for individuals to have personal standards about what they consider to be appropriate pronouns? Because what you do if you simply accept whatever pronoun preferences is establish in practice that any pronoun is valid, even if there are dozens of existing pronouns to describe the same thing, to the point of linguistic chaos. Do I really have to point out that this would be unreasonable?
I think it is morally reprehensible to not be at least somewhat accomodating to others despite personal beliefs/values, but I think it is also morally reprehensible to expect others to use your prefered pronouns no matter what they are. I think people should work within reason to find alternative pronouns to their most preferred pronouns- that there needs to be a balance where people on both sides of the exchange sometimes make accomodations or compromises.
There is a cost- using a pronoun gives it validity in practice when one may consider the pronoun to be in some way invalid, and pronouns can carry ideological implications that people may want to avoiding supporting by using them.
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
In what way does Peterson behaviour constitute bigotry? What evidence is there of him harboring or exercising any kind of contempt against trans people?
Maybe his opinions on these issues aren't the most well informed or well considered, but holding an imperfect or bad position with regards to a rights issue does not automatically make someone a bigot.
EDIT: Importantly for this point, Peterson has indicated that he is not totally adverse to the idea of using some nonbinary pronouns. In particular, the singular 'they/them/themself', but that it 'might depend on how they asked', and later 'depend on what I thought of your motivations'- to which let's note the response to the former was 'so, no' which I find to be a ridiculous response. See here at 11:40-12:30 (unfortunate title here and I recommend avoiding the comment section).
I don't think refusing to use certain preferred pronouns necessarily adds to marginilisaion. Pronouns aren't simply the vector of some kind of acceptance, they are specific linguistic constructs and that means people can take issue with them beyond simply what they are intended to describe.
I agree that gendered pronouns are in general an archaic, unnecessary idea.
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 find it very unlikely someone would use she/her/herself to refer to someone who identifies as male simply because of effeminacy despite their asking otherwise without any other kind of issues related. If someone is generally being uncooperative and demeaning, then that would constitute a perfectly good reason to sue someone, because that's just general harassment, that's not discrimination.
The problem is defining things such usage of pronouns itself, no matter the implications in the circumstance, is regulated. The way this is being set up is that people could potentially get charged even if the person who is being referred by pronouns other than their preferred pronouns is okay with the person who is referring to them making their own decision based on their own values.
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
Perhaps.
But that's a private decision, not a public mandate. That's a fundamentally different 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
Well, it's definitely a point here that the existing laws are concerning, but what is specifically concerning about C-16 is how the relevant are defining the terms. As I posted above, both 'gender identity' and 'gender expression' are being defined in ways that are potentially problematic, I'd say particularly the later, in that implies that supposedly 'misgendering' people by not consenting to use their particular preferred pronoun is some kind of offence. I don't think it's fair to include other people's use of pronouns as being controlled under anti-discrimination law, or at very least not in a way that basically gives the person being addressed the power to determine as they wish what the person must say in addressing them.
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 suppose the central question is whether the approach to policy with regards to anti-discrimination practice in Canada is appropriate and generally good.
These debate threads tend to end up broad no matter what, so I figured I'd leave it mostly open ended about different points.
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
So Canada is in the process of reviewing a piece of legislation called 'An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code', or bill C-16.
What the bill proposes is that 'gender identity' and 'gender expression' are added to the Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code.
The bill:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/hoc/Bills/421/Government/C-16/C-16_1/C-16_1.PDF
And the current Human Rights Act and Criminal Code:
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/H-6.pdf
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-72.html#h-93
This all seems relatively inarguable in that it simply ascribes that gender identity and gender expression are comparable to race, sex, marital status, etc.
Some of the provinces have already incorporated such legislature at their level.
But, I recently came across some videos by a professor of psychology from the University of Toronto, Jordan Peterson. Centrally for this discussion here that the legislature is facilitating, or at least is indicative of a certain tolerance to, a kind of censorship. The main point with regards to the specific legislature is that the purpose of the acts as written is 'messy', and that it supports the idea of the government determining needs which Peterson argues is problematic because it is ineffectual at supporting needs.
The next argument to consider which I think is more important given the former only applies to the written goals, not functionality of the law.
That argument is that the way 'gender identity' and 'gender expression' are being defined by relevant bodies is problematic. The Department of Justice, The Ontario (the province of Canada where Toronto is located) Human Rights Commission, and other groups involved in the enforcement of the legislation have used definitions of gender identity and gender expression as such:
Peterson argues that the former as expressed is not a scientifically grounded idea. He argues that 'he has seen no evidence' that a person can have in some tangible sense a gender identity independent of sex that is neither or both female and male, and that therefore we shouldn't support it in legislature until we can demonstrate that such notions are scientifically supported and not conjecture. Later on the video (at around 43:15-43:50) he expands on this, looking at different formulations/expressions of the concept used, by arguing biological sex, gender identity and gender expression are not fundamentally different, but closely related. The importance of this argument is to say that a certain notion of gender identity is being mandated to be accepted but this notion is questionable, and people should be openly allowed to question it. I think it's important to clarify that what Peterson says here is I think could be slightly clearer as to his views on the subject. Looking at later videos, he clarifies that he does think 'nonbinary people' with regard to 'sexual identity' 'obviously exist', but that 'biological sex, gender identity and gender expression do not vary independently' was his main point. Note that despite this explicit clarification, people have continued to claim that Peterson does not believe nonbinary people exist.
He then argues that people should not be mandated to use whatever gender pronouns to refer to individuals as those individuals wish, as this definition of gender expression implies and has been taken to mean by groups supporting it. Peterson personally does not consent to using most nonbinary pronouns such as 'zhe/zhim/zher/zhimself'. He states that he doesn't 'recognise another person's right to determine what pronouns I use when addressing them'. He argues that use of pronouns is involved in political ideology, and that he does not want to be involved in supporting these motivations. This as well as the implicit argument of free speech that he expands upon in other videos, in particular that there is a line crossed between preventing people from saying particular kinds of supposedly dangerous things, and mandating people to say specific things. Peterson questions the former as to how good a policy it actually is, but questions the later even more so, arguing that it is clearly dangerous and immoral, even if we accept the former.
The next part of the video looks at how these organisations (namely the OHRC) defines discrimination and harassment generally (not again this is not written into the law, but these are still involved in the legislation as the views and policies of bodies involved in the enforcement of the law).
He argues with regards to former that it gives almost all control to the supposed victim and does not consider that negative impacts may be part of a longer term benefit, namely with regards to the acceptance of ideas. Even more so, he argues that including unintentional negative impact is problematic because intent is essential to discrimination, and that this places to much focus on consequence.
He then argues that the later 'has been written to cover the broadest range of possibilities' and this is problematic. He argues that things like jokes are not dealt with here carefully enough, such that accepted humour is considered harassment and discrimination.
The final section looks at organisational liability for these things, again from OHRC:
As per the written text of the Ontario Human Rights Code
Peterson argues that it unreasonable to place accountability on an organisation for controlling any and all discrimination within.
So, I personally find Peterson's arguments quite convincing. And I think there's some fair concerns to be addressed here.
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