note: peterson has said all through this he has no qualms with saying "she" to a trans person. in fact he hasn't had much of anything to say about trans people (who often use traditional pronouns.) not the issue.
So how would he expect that to be enshrined into the law?
smith, i'm just referring to people's aversion to the pronouns generally, i think it's one of the reasons people generally are averse to it is the large number of pronouns that exist.
And of course, as it relates to peterson--the code they're using asks him to use the "preferred pronoun", leaving open the whole list as opposed to just "they". he's also pointed out other universities where the preferred pronoun is policy, not a general "they" so i think it's fair to assume that's how it would be implemented at u of t.
wage zombie: the simplest and fairest thing to do would be to say: let the same human rights codes apply to everyone. there's no need for us to legislate speech laws to protect anyone else, we usually just make the insults "out of line". we could do the same here by just applying the same kinds of rules against actual harrassment that would be apllied in any other case. so if someone was purposely misgendering a trans person , and using it to harrass them in any way they would have protection.
i mean, would it be nice if everyone was like "i just want to cooperate and be happy" absolutely! but that is not the world we live in. putting laws on the book which open the door (yes, even if only a creak) to authority figures who aren't even elected by anyone, or have proper oversight to have a hand in telling people what they must say, and even in many cases what they can't say (boycott, divestment, sanction for palestine) that's giving a small, out of touch, unnaccountable group of people too much power.
i know i sound like i'm over reacting in the current context, but i'm looking to the future--laws don't go away, they get reused by later gvovernments for whatever they can get away with.
or like at the g-20, they will just pretend a law exists and then say sorry when they don't need it anymore.
What if someone was being continually called "he" instead of "she", or "she instead of he"?
If you want to be called "she," you know what you have to do. Changing your name, appearance, behaviour is the major part of it. You signal to others that you are functioning as a "she."
So let's say someone does all that, and still gets "he" constantly from their unapologetic supervisor?
You realize that they would only ever get "he," constantly or otherwise, if they were listening in on their supervisor talking to other people? "He" and "she" are third-person pronouns.
But, okay, let's say this happens. Then what? What's your point?
According to the Ontario Human Rights Commission, refusing to use a person's chosen pronoun is a form of gender-based harrassment.
Gender-based harassment can involve:
- Refusing to refer to a person by their self-identified name and proper personal
pronoun.
...
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.
http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/policy-preventing-discrimination-because-gender...
And of course, as it relates to peterson--the code they're using asks him to use the "preferred pronoun", leaving open the whole list as opposed to just "they". he's also pointed out other universities where the preferred pronoun is policy, not a general "they" so i think it's fair to assume that's how it would be implemented at u of t.
That's a reasonable compromise, milo. But if a student has a personal special made-up pronoun for themselves ("zierselves?") and Petersen refuses to use it, U of T could at least be liable in a lawsuit filed in Ontario.
How many times to I need to repeat this? If anyone went for coffee during the part of that video where Brenda Cossman talks about people believing "post truth" lies you might want to go back and watch again. In fact, she also made this very point.
Here it is from the chief commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission Renu Mandhane:
•Peterson has argued that for the first time, the OHRC is putting words in people’s mouths by requiring the use of certain pronouns. Is this a fair characterization?
“OHRC policies provide guidance on how to understand and apply existing legal obligations. The OHRC does not require any particular gender-neutral pronoun. If in doubt, ask the person how they wish to be addressed. Use “they” if you don’t know. Or simply use their chosen name.”
http://www.stcatharinesstandard.ca/2016/11/13/human-rights-commissioner-...
No, there is no large group of pronouns. No, Peterson will not be forced to call anyone "purple" or "dog" or "zee" and no the university will not be sued for it. No, there doesn't need to be a conference of gender neutral people to sort out their problem because it isn't their problem.
In fact there is nothing to be sorted out except in the mind of Dr. Peterson and those who have bought his paranoid theory rather that looking at reality.
You know, if someone want to express bigoted opinions about this fine. No one is going to sue the or put them in jail. But please let's not try to dress it up with pseudo legal or pseudoscientific lies and pretend it is anything other than bigotry.
At least here in Saskatchewan hockey teams are standing up to leftist transgender authoritarianism. Hopefully they won't all wind up in a work camp because of C-16.
The Melville Millionaires of the Saskatchewan Junior Hockey League have come under fire from a grandmother who says the club removed her from an approved list of player billets because her transgender granddaughter lived at her home.
“(But) there was no misunderstanding. They again said that until my daughter were to move out of the home, the home is not suitable to place any billets. And (they weren’t) leaving it up to individual billets.”
http://leaderpost.com/news/saskatchewan/melville-hockey-club-removes-hos...
At least here in Saskatchewan hockey teams are standing up to leftist transgender authoritarianism. Hopefully they won't all wind up in a work camp because of C-16.
what does this mean? are you mocking or serious?
[youtube]-N--22Ynf90[/youtube]
Covert Aggression Destroys Society, Workplaces, Systems - Narcissism in Society
Now how many people can relate to this??
No, I think the team is really messed up for doing this.
I doubt if it actually contravenes the code, because she isn't being refused service, only being refused as a volunteer. But my point is there is actually a reason why C-16 was passed that is a bit more compelling than this pretend free speech nonsense. And the equally nonsensical line about leftist authoritarianism.
You realize that they would only ever get "he," constantly or otherwise, if they were listening in on their supervisor talking to other people? "He" and "she" are third-person pronouns.
Wouldn't the same thing apply to Peterson? He'd never be using a third person pronoun if he was talking directly to a student. So what's he complaining about?
But, okay, let's say this happens. Then what? What's your point?
Should that person have any legal recourse?
No, there is no large group of pronouns. No, Peterson will not be forced to call anyone "purple" or "dog" or "zee" and no the university will not be sued for it.
We're starting to see the kind of arguments we saw against equal marriage, ie. "if this goes through people will demand to marry their dog, or their toaster".
You realize that they would only ever get "he," constantly or otherwise, if they were listening in on their supervisor talking to other people? "He" and "she" are third-person pronouns.
Wouldn't the same thing apply to Peterson? He'd never be using a third person pronoun if he was talking directly to a student. So what's he complaining about?
If he's got nothing to complain about then why are people talking as though his claims are so bigoted, transphobic etc.? It's no different, in my view, from the people calling him a racist for opposing mandatory, and ideological, anti-bias training (and for claiming that there is no evidence that it actually helps reduce bias) instituted at the behest of a group that Peterson regards as dangerous. It's racism because it's badthink.
But, to answer your question, it is going to come up more often for teachers or for those leading small groups, workshops, therapy groups etc.
But, okay, let's say this happens. Then what? What's your point?
Should that person have any legal recourse?[/quote]
It would probably depend on the context, but my gut is to say no, they shouldn't. I think that you could make a case that someone might do it maliciously and that this *could* contribute to a hostile work environment, but a distinction should be drawn between doing it out of malice and doing it out of conscience, as Peterson explicitly says he would do.
"The OHRC does not require any particular gender-neutral pronoun. If in doubt, ask the person how they wish to be addressed."
i think it's easy to see how this goes quite quickly into "hey, you HAVE to address me how I want" which will find a quite sympathetic ear amongst the human rights tribunals who will justify that "in spririt" if you don't use the one they want, then you're abstractly "misgendering" them.
i mean, the reason i'm not going to trust the lawyer with a stated agenda in this (cossman) is she's clearly ignoring precedence, and skirted all petersons concerns and his "lived experience" dealing with this...
so, let the codes go as far as they NEED to, but no further. there's enough ways to deal w any harrassment under the existing code which, if you add gender identity without any mention of "preferred pronouns".
like, does anyone here think petersons arguing for his "right" to treat someone who he disagrees with in a shitty way? has he given any indication he's going to start PURPOSELY calling people he or she to piss them off intentionally? he's never gone after anyone personally nor misgendered or harrassed anyone in his many debates and discussions on the topic...if he carried himself that way in any other situation--with a different subject--what's the problem here in how he's interacted with the trans/gend neutral people he's interacted with?
there isn't one. so why do we need that part of the law to all get along?
so, let the codes go as far as they NEED to, but no further. there's enough ways to deal w any harrassment under the existing code which, if you add gender identity without any mention of "preferred pronouns".
Are "preferred pronouns" mentioned anywhere in the changes to the existing code?
Not explicitly, which is the slightly troubling part.
It's like asking "does our new law against 'unpatriotic behaviour' mention protests?".
No, that'll be left to an unaccountable tribunal to decide... is that not sufficient?
How much clarity do you want from us, anyway??? We'll figure it out when the time comes. Geez.
i think when you look at the legislation as a package, and the precedents set by the tribunals/court cases in addition to the way the issue is applied against peterson, that's the code at work.
i.e. he's being attacked for even raising the issue of pronouns for debate in reference to freedom of speech/expression --before c-16 is even in the code. He's already got university lawyers saying he's in contravention... so the interpetation i think is very clear.
The odd thing is, expression and speech are also protected, so (as peterson has pointed out) it's odd that those rights are considered secondary in this example, even where his actions have been non-discriminatory, and he's only trying to have a debate on the issue itself, as opposed to a personal kerfuffle with one of his students or any example of harrassment of someone.
that's in esscence what his beef with "social justice warriors" or "left wing authoritarians" is. if theres rules around harrassing PEOPLE or trying to drum up hate and violence--perfectly reasonable to invoke the rights act.
but he's getting harrassed/threatened for just discussing the subject generally, and debating a possible new legislation in our country, and as a professor in psychology to boot! that strikes me a wrong and unfair.
just the same as people totally understand if some university students are like "we're not gonna let david duke spread hate on our campus" but when speakers are getting torched for just sharing research people don't like, or challenge accepted ideas purely on an intellectual basis--as opposed to being countered with words/evidence ... most reasonable people will agree, that's unacceptable, unfair and authoritarian.
The two letters, FYI milo:
http://thevarsity.ca/2016/10/24/u-of-t-letter-asks-jordan-peterson-to-re...
point is, there's a furor over this guy and so far every interaction he's had with a gender neutral or trans person has been perfectly respectful and fine.
He's been able to interact with them and not use the pronouns and there's been no problem, no one was insulted, or anything.
Someone please tell me why that should be illegal?
I knew Bryson was a whack job the minute she opened her mouth.
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/christie-blatchford-ubc-prof-w...
Watching the "debate" again it's increasingly clear Bryson did not offer one substantive word. Calling that a debate demeans the term, not to mention the University.
Fucking Blatchford can't leave any smear unsmeared.
No, Galloway was not fired for having an affair. The accusation (by a complainant whom Galloway isn't even allowing to see the investigation report he is breaking an agreement to blab to the press about) confirmed that the accusation is about harrassment and assault:
http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/woman-who-accused-ubc-prof-autho...
And milo, There's a reason I posted the letters. Maybe you should go back and read them again, because the claims you are making don't seem to be supported.
Fucking Blatchford can't leave any smear unsmeared.
Who is Blatchford smearing, exactly?
No, Galloway was not fired for having an affair. The accusation (by a complainant whom Galloway isn't even allowing to see the investigation report he is breaking an agreement to blab to the press about) confirmed that the accusation is about harrassment and assault:http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/woman-who-accused-ubc-prof-autho...
It would seem that your link and mine both say exactly the same thing about that, maybe you should learn to read.
In his first public statement, Galloway said this week that only one allegation against him was substantiated by the probe — that he had an affair with a married student.On Wednesday, Galloway issued a statement for the first time since he was suspended, confirming he was accused of sexual assault but saying the only allegation that was substantiated by former judge Mary Ellen Boyd’s investigation was that he had a two-year affair with a student.And he hasn't been fired, at least not yet. If you're going to post corrections about the facts, you could at least bother to get the facts straight.
We're off on a tangent now, but feel free to split that hair with the CBC:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/steven-galloway-statement...
smith the letter also points out he is being held responsible in some abstract way for "students receiving threats" even though it's got nothing to do with him, while the u of t is basically washing its hands of an actual assault (or two or three) that was the result of counter protestors...that took place ON CAMPUS...(and there is like 10 videos of...)
i wonder if the people that are calling for his head are getting letters from the uni warning them to make sure and keep it civil? and to not slander peterson, or compare him to monsters?? or that their behavious is condoning assault on campus which is a crime??
i'd looooooove to see those letters.
also this interesting piece (albeit by blatchford) outlining some of the faults of prof BRYSON (from the debate, the other prof) as outlined by former students...
fisting porn, presenters in class dropping their pants, shaming non homosexual students...
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/christie-blatchford-ubc-prof-w...
in NP, so you might need a proxy:
also this interesting piece (albeit by blatchford) outlining some of the faults of prof BRYSON (from the debate, the other prof) as outlined by former students...
fisting porn, presenters in class dropping their pants, shaming non homosexual students...
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/christie-blatchford-ubc-prof-w...
in NP, so you might need a proxy:
Yes. A very "interesting" piece indeed.
"Dear Editor, National Post,
The November 24 article, "UBC prof who denounced U of T colleague in gender debate has skeletons in her own classroom" represents some of the most misinformed, yellow journalism I have ever seen. Shame on the National Post for cooking up a scandal where there never was one. One woman "from a small Ontario town" speaks up to say she didn't like a course taught 25 years ago. She watched an art video that featured lesbian sex! She watched students come out as LGBT! You call that 'a skeleton'? By then this student would have watched any number of heterosexual sex scenes inside or outside of the classroom. (I had to watch "Last Tango in Paris" in first year undergrad). She would have been taught by any number of male professors who expressed their heterosexuality and masculinity in any number of appropriate and inappropriate ways. That is the norm. Academic freedom means that professors have the right to do non-normative research and have expertise, and teach, on topics that may or may not appeal to conservative colleagues or readers/audiences. This is how libraries are created, how knowledge is built, how democracy is sustained. University students have a lot of choice and leeway - the course was, presumably, an elective - not a mandatory course. The student had the freedom to speak to the (highly personable) prof about her discomfort, to become more informed, or to drop the course entirely. It sounds like she misunderstood a great deal, including a misconstrual of feminism as being about hating men. I taught women's studies for 15 years and never once heard or read any such thing from colleagues. Feminism, by the way, is a critique of sexism, not of men. As an academic practice it is a highly sophisticated interdisciplinary field that is frankly more concerned with philosophy, discourse, and representation than a critique of unshaved legs. The fact of the matter is that these sorts of courses present narratives, ideas, perspectives, and even life choices that are hard to find in a university, let alone a small town. As a professor, I know, in fact, that courses with feminist and LGBT content change, and sometimes save lives.
Yours sincerely,
Dr. Marusya Bociurkiw
note the author of the letter has no connection to anyone who's being discussed, so she has no idea if the sources are credible (i think there was more than one as well) or if they're justified in their complaint against the prof. it is her random opinion, clearly full of bias.
i do think it's worth noting that as soon as the debate happened, her ex-students start talking to the media. because she did come off as being a bit unrealistic accusing him of "hate propaganda", comparing him to anti-gay extremists etc. i can imagine her treating any student that might have disagreed with her on a minor point the same way judging by how she was talking in the debate.
also, comparing fisting porn to last tango in paris? that crisco scene was a little strange but...
The former student describes classes that were harrowing, especially for a young woman, then 21, from a small Ontario town.
She needs to get over her political correctness and accept that controversial topics are disucssed in universities. What's this small-town Ontario "trigger warning" stuff? Can't she hack challenges to her assumptions?
I'm sure Jordan Peterson could enlighten her about the need to get away from this "safe space" PC crap in university.
Because the way a person debates in a highly politicized and polarized context against someone who is their institutional equal....will mirror the way that they teach people who are not.
Ok.
+1 to swallow's points, too.
also, comparing fisting porn to last tango in paris? that crisco scene was a little strange but...
Don't get me wrong. I think there were some great moments in that movie - like the scene where he is talking to his dead wife. But having a bigger problem with a simple sex act than a depiction of sexual assault?
Kind of underscores the backwards and demonizing way of looking at things, both in Blatchford's article, and in Peterson's spin on people who are just asking for respect.
The pearl-clutching is amusing.
so in one case, we have a bunch of people freaking out (literally) becuase a prof won't say "xer" and will instead just not use pronouns...that's reprehensible, hate propaganda, a grave moral shame, demands action, etc...
we could never subject these poor students to that horrible atmosphere...
but you're making fun of someone who was a little shocked that without warning, speakers are dropping their pants wearing a strap on in class, showing violent porn (in what context who knows) and possibly discriminating against students based on their sex or sexual orientation?
this is the double standard people like peterson are talking about...
The pearl-clutching is amusing.
I'm pretty sure I missed that scene.
The pearl-clutching is amusing.
I'm pretty sure I missed that scene.
Blatchford's entire article is dripping with it. And is being full-throatedly embraced in this thread.
so in one case, we have a bunch of people freaking out (literally) becuase a prof won't say "xer" and will instead just not use pronouns...that's reprehensible, hate propaganda, a grave moral shame, demands action, etc...
we could never subject these poor students to that horrible atmosphere...
but you're making fun of someone who was a little shocked that without warning, speakers are dropping their pants wearing a strap on in class, showing violent porn (in what context who knows) and possibly discriminating against students based on their sex or sexual orientation?
this is the double standard people like peterson are talking about...
So...she was shocked. Why is that a problem? On what basis does that get turned into a sinister hit against Bryson 25 years later?
The "what context who knows" is detailed in the article. But, of course, because you despite Bryson so much, you think she showed it for kicks! To traumatize people! Because she's just a fucking asshole!
And...."possibly discriminating" against straight people. Oooookay.
Blatchford is trying to pass it off as pearl-clutching anyway, and it seems to be getting that reaction, given the response.
Really, of course it is just a calculated hatchet job. There is nothing about it at all that relates to Peterson, or Bryson's debate with him, nor even an attempt at any connection. Blatchford just uses the old trick of starting her 5th paragraph with "But..." to fool people into assuming there is some logical connection there.
And capping it off with Steven Galloway's firing? Of course, left wing radical authoritarians persecuting poor straight guys just for having affairs. That proves it, even if it isn't actually the whole story.
And even if it has absolutely no connection to the issue at hand.
well, there's a debate about a contentious issue, i'd like to know about any past history of these people to see where they're coming from because i have no idea who they are, they're being taken seriously and they seem to be making some quite ridiculous claims (in my view)
and that might explain her attitude and invective, as opposed to her actually having a serious debate about the issue...
that's not sinister, it's just sensible. it's relevant info.
i just think it's weird that when she's accused of discriminating it's like "impossible!" even though (as demonstrated by the hate propaganda claim, and comparing him to anti-gay bigots) she's clearly not super rational and is coming from a very ideological standpoint and may very well not like people who aren't just like her. That's real discrimination, and she has the power to screw people as a prof...
on the other had, peterson (who has shown no ill will, mistreatment of anyone just doesn't like pronouns and wants to preserve academic/social freedom) is the guy everyone is so sure is the discriminating one, the one who should be stopped, is making people unsafe, is going to screw up students academic situation...
it's like bizarro world
Yeah, totes. Peterson (a man) is "rational" and fighting for the freedom to challenge his students' assumptions and entitlement, but Bryson (a woman) is "not super rational" because she showed a film 25 years ago that challenged her students' assumptions.
no, she's not very rational because she said peterson is using hate speech and comparing him to anti-gay crusaders. The film just generally shows poor taste (it's a minor aside to the real issue)
i'd also note that even the crowd here who is against peterson seems to have no problem calling bryson a woman--even though i'm pretty sure her "preferred pronoun" is "they"
so what does that tell us about this subject?
I think one person made that oversight, Milo, not a crowd. A bit different than a refusal, don't you think?
different than a refusal to be sure, but it should be pointed out.
especially in the context of what the debate is.
I made that oversight. I am happy to correct it and will refer to Bryson by their preferred pronoun in future.
Wow, that was easy.
Are you planning to do the same Milo? Or is this a point of free speech for you?
tbh, i have no problems not using gender pronouns if someone asks me, but i'll ususally just use their name as opposed to "they"...
like i said, i'm just not in favor of legislation, cause i know not everyone thinks the same as me (or generally hangs out with a bunch of radical leftist muckrackers, activists and artistsl
Is there any existing legislation requiring pronoun use? I'm not aware of any. There are guidelines from human rights tribunals, but that isn't legislation so far as I know.
I mean, the federal bill adds transgender people to the list of protected groups. Pronouns are not mentioned. The case against it (by non-lawyers, as far as I can tell) appears to be that something about pronouns may, one day, become an issue. Some lawyers dispute that. Like all alws, it will need to be worked out in practice.
I support, of course, adding transgender people to the groups that should not be discriminated against. I would not support adding a pronoun requirement to law. But the law has no wording that does that.
The chief commissioner has already clarified this. See 255, above.
And although the severity of any potential penalty is probably best determined by absence of any similar cases (and that it has just happened again in a major newspaper, and nothing has happened), I am sure it isn't going to stop some people from pretending this is a big deal when it is not.
From the horses mouth
Three hours.
I got as far as the host calling Fidel Castro "that fucking savage".
If there is something in there worth pointing out, posting a time might help. I am not going to watch that whole thing on spec.
Ya...i know . .he talks about that echo chamber thing..i think.
i watched the whole thing, JP lays out his reasoning and talks about his research an psychology and it was super interesting.... 3h is perfect cause he can actually lay out his views long form and talk about why he has them....i'd say totally worth at least skimming through if you disagree with him.
so, question: smith and others have been asserting that the law doesn't actually require pronoun use since it's not specifically stated in the legislation...
what are your thoughts on that? do you think that should be added to the bill?
I think the chief commissioner explained how it is in Ontario.
