Is this gonna be like that one Canadian bill that Kermit the Frog was upset about, where it's the use of slurs as a form of harassment that's been made a crime?
Wasn't that one about FORCING you to say whatever pronouns the person wants instead of just not allowing you to use bad words?
Nope, you fell for Kermit's propaganda. The point of the Canadian one wasn't to force you to use people's actual pronouns and names, it was to update the law to protect trans people from actual discrimination.
In fact, it doesn't say literally anything about pronouns! You can use the wrong ones!
It might raise harassment to hate crime if you make a point of harassing someone by using the wrong pronouns/name repeatedly, as a form of targeted harassment, but even then it would take several court cases before it had a chance to rise to that level.
They can use the new name a woman gains when she marries someone, or when someone changes their name by deed poll, but they can't handle calling someone their new name when they transition.
It's got fuck all to do with a new name and 100% because they're sad, small-minded bigots.
I disagree. I couldn't care less if you're a trans or whatever but if you make a scene when I don't call you a zer then you're an idiot and it has nothing to do with your sexuality. It's with the fact that you're acting like an entitled prick.
In my native language our pronouns are gender neutral and always has been. You can indentify as whatever you like and you're already included. That seems like the obviously better way to solve this "issue" instead of coming up with a boatload of new ones. Unless it's tattooed on your forehead I'm not going to remember.
Again, the law says nothing about pronouns.
Completely and totally irrelevant in this discussion. Only one case has been brought to the CHRT based on neopronouns, and it was dismissed.
Who is talking about names...?
Would it cover a situation where an individual repeatedly, consistently refuses to use a person’s chosen pronoun? It might.”
So, yes, it forces people to use the correct pronouns.
I mean, kinda? Like, you could say that the law forces you to not throw rocks, but really the law only cares about you throwing rocks at other people and their things. Nobody is gonna call the cops on you because you called someone a ma'am when they're actually a sir, unless you do it repeatedly as a form of discrimination.
You can't force me to use the right pronouns for you, because we're just two dudes passing on the street. If I was your boss, it might be a different story.
I'm specifically talking about the harassment case. It codifies repeatedly using the wrong pronoun as a crime.
Do I think that behavior is bad or morally wrong...Yes.
Do I think it's a crime? No.
It's a slippery slope when things like this become law.
What are you talking about? In the case of harassment (or, more broadly, discrimination), it's not the use of incorrect pronouns that gets you in trouble, it's the discrimination. The use of incorrect pronouns is not the deciding factor on whether a person is discriminating, it's only one piece of the puzzle, and the CHRT has already dismissed a case regarding refusal to use neopronouns because there wasn't enough reason to consider it discrimination.
In the link you sent, they explain that pronouns are whatever the person being referred decides, since there is nothing explicit.
So what is stopping someone from saying their pronouns are something ridiculous and if you don't use them for that exact reason you're in violation?
Did you even read the article? In violation of what?
If I say my pronouns are they/them, and you refer to me with she/her pronouns, that does not, and will never, constitute a crime. You're either willfully ignorant of what C-16 actually did, or you're willfully spreading transphobic propaganda. Either way, I'm done with this argument.
If someone refused to use a preferred pronoun — and it was determined to constitute discrimination or harassment — could that potentially result in jail time?
It is possible, Brown says, through a process that would start with a complaint and progress to a proceeding before a human rights tribunal. If the tribunal rules that harassment or discrimination took place, there would typically be an order for monetary and non-monetary remedies. A non-monetary remedy may include sensitivity training, issuing an apology, or even a publication ban, he says.
If the person refused to comply with the tribunal's order, this would result in a contempt proceeding being sent to the Divisional or Federal Court, Brown says. The court could then potentially send a person to jail “until they purge the contempt,” he says.
If I repeatedly refer to you by pronouns you don't identify with it's a pretty low bar to be considered discrimination or harassment, especially in today's environment.
The rest I'm sure you can follow.
First you would have to use the wrong pronouns for me repeatedly. Then I would have to file a complaint. Then we would have to go to court. The court would have to rule that what you did constitutes discrimination and harassment. If they do, there would be an order for you to apologize, or go to sensitivity training. You would have to refuse to do either, and then another court would have to determine whether what you did constitutes a hate crime.
This is not a low bar.
It's been six fucking years. Show me literally one person who's being convicted of a hate crime because of C-16, who only used the wrong pronouns for someone.
The first point, I assumed when you said what you said was already considering it was purposefully (my bad, I guess).
The second point is up to you, fair enough.
The third in my opinion is almost guaranteed.
The rest, if the first point went how I thought would also be guaranteed.
Also, there would not be a visit to another court because, technically speaking, the punishment would be for not accepting the first punishment demanded by the court.
And my point is not that this is gonna happen for sure, but that lazy laws with (un)intended openings in general have always been harmful to everyone and we should strive to have things as clear as possible.
So we're in agreement that if you intentionally harass someone, you may be charged with harassment, and that simply using the wrong pronouns while not harassing someone isn't harassment. What are you upset about again?
Do we also count harassment if the person being wrong just doesn't believe in the pronouns, or just purposefully trying to upset you?
If yes, I guess.
If no, no.
If a court decides it's harassment, then you could be charged with harassment. No court is going to charge someone with harassment because they simply didn't know what pronouns to use. The burden is on me to prove that you are intentionally using the wrong pronouns, even though you know the correct pronouns, in an effort to discriminate against me because of my gender identity.
Again, show me literally anyone who has ever been jailed for using the wrong pronouns.
Again, I don't know what you're upset about. It is as clear as possible. Don't do something that you know a court of law would consider harassment. It really is that simple. If you know that what you're doing could be considered a crime in a court of law, don't do it. If you don't know that what you're doing could be considered a crime in a court of law, go ahead. If you know that what you're doing is gonna upset someone for no good reason, don't do it. If you don't realize that what you're doing is gonna upset someone, go ahead and do it.
If I say my pronouns are, in fact, they/them, you have absolutely no reason not to use them. Don't say you don't believe in pronouns. Everyone has pronouns. You have pronouns. If you don't want to use the right pronouns for me, that's fine. But don't intentionally use the wrong pronouns for me, after I've told you what the right ones are, as an attempt to make me feel bad.
It can't be any simpler. Don't fucking harass people. It's not confusing. You may be confused as to why someone would have pronouns that you don't like, and that's fine. You don't have to use them. You can even use the wrong ones. Just don't do shit that's gonna get a judge to say "you're harassing this person with your ridiculous antics, cut it the fuck out."
It literally cannot be simpler. Just do what you're already doing, but do it for trans and nonbinary people too.
Out of curiosity, do you know if any tribunal cases, based on simple pronouns, have been ruled on?
So yeah, intentionally using nicknames and pronouns that someone has explicitly said they do not want used is both a dick move and illegal. The punishment was, of course, not jail time.
The tribunal ordered Buono Osteria to implement a formal pronoun policy, as well as mandatory diversity and inclusion training for all managers and staff. The restaurant and specific offenders responsible for the behavior will pay Nelson $30,000 in damages, according to the CBC.
Don't get it twisted though. Nelson didn't just decide to take them to court for easy quick money. They tried to get their manager to use the right pronouns and cut the nicknames out numerous times, until the restaurant fired them. This is absolutely not a case of someone accidentally using the wrong pronouns and being punished for it, this was legitimate, actual discrimination based on this person's gender identity.
Also another case. Not surprisingly, normal, functioning people can see the difference between genuine expressions of gender, and alt-right trolls.
Is this gonna be like that one Canadian bill that Kermit the Frog was upset about, where it's the use of slurs as a form of harassment that's been made a crime?
Wasn't that one about FORCING you to say whatever pronouns the person wants instead of just not allowing you to use bad words?
Nope, you fell for Kermit's propaganda. The point of the Canadian one wasn't to force you to use people's actual pronouns and names, it was to update the law to protect trans people from actual discrimination.
Here's some light reading
https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/features/canadas-gender-identity-rights-bill-c-16-explained
In fact, it doesn't say literally anything about pronouns! You can use the wrong ones!
It might raise harassment to hate crime if you make a point of harassing someone by using the wrong pronouns/name repeatedly, as a form of targeted harassment, but even then it would take several court cases before it had a chance to rise to that level.
They can use the new name a woman gains when she marries someone, or when someone changes their name by deed poll, but they can't handle calling someone their new name when they transition.
It's got fuck all to do with a new name and 100% because they're sad, small-minded bigots.
I disagree. I couldn't care less if you're a trans or whatever but if you make a scene when I don't call you a zer then you're an idiot and it has nothing to do with your sexuality. It's with the fact that you're acting like an entitled prick.
In my native language our pronouns are gender neutral and always has been. You can indentify as whatever you like and you're already included. That seems like the obviously better way to solve this "issue" instead of coming up with a boatload of new ones. Unless it's tattooed on your forehead I'm not going to remember.
Again, the law says nothing about pronouns.
Completely and totally irrelevant in this discussion. Only one case has been brought to the CHRT based on neopronouns, and it was dismissed.
Who is talking about names...?
So, yes, it forces people to use the correct pronouns.
I mean, kinda? Like, you could say that the law forces you to not throw rocks, but really the law only cares about you throwing rocks at other people and their things. Nobody is gonna call the cops on you because you called someone a ma'am when they're actually a sir, unless you do it repeatedly as a form of discrimination.
You can't force me to use the right pronouns for you, because we're just two dudes passing on the street. If I was your boss, it might be a different story.
I'm specifically talking about the harassment case. It codifies repeatedly using the wrong pronoun as a crime.
Do I think that behavior is bad or morally wrong...Yes.
Do I think it's a crime? No.
It's a slippery slope when things like this become law.
What are you talking about? In the case of harassment (or, more broadly, discrimination), it's not the use of incorrect pronouns that gets you in trouble, it's the discrimination. The use of incorrect pronouns is not the deciding factor on whether a person is discriminating, it's only one piece of the puzzle, and the CHRT has already dismissed a case regarding refusal to use neopronouns because there wasn't enough reason to consider it discrimination.
In the link you sent, they explain that pronouns are whatever the person being referred decides, since there is nothing explicit.
So what is stopping someone from saying their pronouns are something ridiculous and if you don't use them for that exact reason you're in violation?
Did you even read the article? In violation of what?
If I say my pronouns are they/them, and you refer to me with she/her pronouns, that does not, and will never, constitute a crime. You're either willfully ignorant of what C-16 actually did, or you're willfully spreading transphobic propaganda. Either way, I'm done with this argument.
If I repeatedly refer to you by pronouns you don't identify with it's a pretty low bar to be considered discrimination or harassment, especially in today's environment.
The rest I'm sure you can follow.
First you would have to use the wrong pronouns for me repeatedly. Then I would have to file a complaint. Then we would have to go to court. The court would have to rule that what you did constitutes discrimination and harassment. If they do, there would be an order for you to apologize, or go to sensitivity training. You would have to refuse to do either, and then another court would have to determine whether what you did constitutes a hate crime.
This is not a low bar.
It's been six fucking years. Show me literally one person who's being convicted of a hate crime because of C-16, who only used the wrong pronouns for someone.
The first point, I assumed when you said what you said was already considering it was purposefully (my bad, I guess).
The second point is up to you, fair enough.
The third in my opinion is almost guaranteed.
The rest, if the first point went how I thought would also be guaranteed.
Also, there would not be a visit to another court because, technically speaking, the punishment would be for not accepting the first punishment demanded by the court.
And my point is not that this is gonna happen for sure, but that lazy laws with (un)intended openings in general have always been harmful to everyone and we should strive to have things as clear as possible.
So we're in agreement that if you intentionally harass someone, you may be charged with harassment, and that simply using the wrong pronouns while not harassing someone isn't harassment. What are you upset about again?
Do we also count harassment if the person being wrong just doesn't believe in the pronouns, or just purposefully trying to upset you?
If yes, I guess.
If no, no.
If a court decides it's harassment, then you could be charged with harassment. No court is going to charge someone with harassment because they simply didn't know what pronouns to use. The burden is on me to prove that you are intentionally using the wrong pronouns, even though you know the correct pronouns, in an effort to discriminate against me because of my gender identity.
Again, show me literally anyone who has ever been jailed for using the wrong pronouns.
Again, I don't know what you're upset about. It is as clear as possible. Don't do something that you know a court of law would consider harassment. It really is that simple. If you know that what you're doing could be considered a crime in a court of law, don't do it. If you don't know that what you're doing could be considered a crime in a court of law, go ahead. If you know that what you're doing is gonna upset someone for no good reason, don't do it. If you don't realize that what you're doing is gonna upset someone, go ahead and do it.
If I say my pronouns are, in fact, they/them, you have absolutely no reason not to use them. Don't say you don't believe in pronouns. Everyone has pronouns. You have pronouns. If you don't want to use the right pronouns for me, that's fine. But don't intentionally use the wrong pronouns for me, after I've told you what the right ones are, as an attempt to make me feel bad.
It can't be any simpler. Don't fucking harass people. It's not confusing. You may be confused as to why someone would have pronouns that you don't like, and that's fine. You don't have to use them. You can even use the wrong ones. Just don't do shit that's gonna get a judge to say "you're harassing this person with your ridiculous antics, cut it the fuck out."
It literally cannot be simpler. Just do what you're already doing, but do it for trans and nonbinary people too.
Out of curiosity, do you know if any tribunal cases, based on simple pronouns, have been ruled on?
Here's one case
https://www.them.us/story/canadian-court-rules-misgendering-human-rights-violation
So yeah, intentionally using nicknames and pronouns that someone has explicitly said they do not want used is both a dick move and illegal. The punishment was, of course, not jail time.
Don't get it twisted though. Nelson didn't just decide to take them to court for easy quick money. They tried to get their manager to use the right pronouns and cut the nicknames out numerous times, until the restaurant fired them. This is absolutely not a case of someone accidentally using the wrong pronouns and being punished for it, this was legitimate, actual discrimination based on this person's gender identity.
Also another case. Not surprisingly, normal, functioning people can see the difference between genuine expressions of gender, and alt-right trolls.
Muh free speech! They're forcing me to use whatever name someone wants rather than calling him n****r boy. *clutchest pearls*
What's next? Not using pronouns to harrass and demean people intentionally?