The Great SSP Canada Cancel Culture & Wokeism Thread

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

This could be complicated, even with certain individuals. I saw an interview on TV earlier this week with a young lad/lady (he/she looked pretty androgynous) of about 12-14 years old.

This individual seemed exceedingly gender fluid. They asked how he/she wanted to be addressed, they said something to the effect "It depends, I might feel feminine in the morning, but by the time the evening rolls around I might feel more masculine. It's really whatever my mood is at that particular time......"

A person such as this really needs a whole new set of gender neutral pronouns.

My solution would be to use only the person’s preferred first name, as long as that too wasn’t “fluid”.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Pavlov

Concerns about "complexity" are, in my opinion, a total red herring. This is not rocket science. Here is the guidance from the Ontario Human Rights Commission (which is pretty easy to find for anyone actually interested):

Huh. So the guidance of the Ontario Human Rights Commission is basically "whenever not in doubt, just go and address people in the way that matches the gender they obviously present as".

Interesting.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by someone123

Another one I encountered was somebody who self-identified as "Sir" (in place of "he"; if I remember correctly was a trans person although I could be wrong about that) and potentially sexually enjoyed the minor act of control over others and their submission. I don't feel that people are actually entitled to be called whatever they want by others; it should be subject to negotiation and reasonableness on both sides like anything else.

There was that guy who made the news whose chosen pronoun was "His Majesty", in the same vein as your "Sir" case...

[Architype]

Some languages, such as Tagalog, are supposedly gender neutral or non gender-specific, where the pronouns are the same for he or she. Having been around Filipinos on multiple occasions I can attest to this, as they confused it consistently in English. Perhaps that is the direction we should go in with our language(s). Would that satisfy gender fluid and gender preoccupied individuals?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Architype

Having been around Filipinos on multiple occasions, I can attest to this as they confused it consistently in English.

A feeling very familiar to any Francophone who's witnessed FSL-speaking Anglos regularly misgender objects

[someone123]

Originally Posted by lio45

There was that guy who made the news whose chosen pronoun was "His Majesty", in the same vein as your "Sir" case...

Absolute pronouncements like "you always have to use what pronoun people want" or "always believe a woman no matter what" are not suitable rules to follow in the real world. There are a lot of bad actors out there. There will always be some who lie and deliberately twist rules to their advantage. So there always needs to be some common sense judgement.

Of course if you're just performing to demonstrate your dedication to a cause, the unqualified unrealistic pronouncements sound better. Crazy beliefs are stronger signals of dedication to a cause than boring common sense beliefs that anybody could agree with.

I guess some people are likely to argue that nobody really means these extreme things but I think we should say what we mean and definitely not castigate people for disagreeing with things we say that we don't mean! And I don't actually believe that the extremist stuff rarely or never ends up being enforced.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by lio45

A feeling very familiar to any Francophone who's witnessed FSL-speaking Anglos regularly misgender objects

How do I tell the sex of my furniture if I don't speak French?

[Architype]

..

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Architype

How do I tell the sex of my furniture if I don't speak French?

I suppose you could ask a German speaker what the sex of your furniture is, though that information won't be reliable, as many things have different genders vs French. Der Tisch (masculine) vs la table (feminine), etc.

(Not just furniture; the Sun and the Moon (among other examples) have reversed genders in German compared to French.)

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Architype

How do I tell the sex of my furniture if I don't speak French?

Lift up a leg and look?

[suburbanite]

Originally Posted by Architype

How do I tell the sex of my furniture if I don't speak French?

Latin languages are anti-woke and need to be extinguished. Just going around and assuming the gender of an inanimate object like that.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Lift up a leg and look?

Don't be such a Neanderthal. At most that'll only tell you the sex, not the gender. And that's if you're lucky!

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

Latin languages are anti-woke and need to be extinguished. Just going around and assuming the gender of an inanimate object like that.

I wish they had extinguished Latin before I slogged through three years of it at school! Although it has been known to help me guess correctly the gender of nouns.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Pavlov

I don't really understand your argument here.

On this basis, do you think that society/law should never have changed the meaning of the word "person"? Or "marriage"?

Or more frivolously, have you been able to adapt to the shifting meaning of the word "phone" over the past 20 years? Or "tablet"?

Again, I don't understand your argument here. Definitions change all the time. I don't see how the definitions of "he" and "she" will become irrelevant?

"He" [pronoun] used to refer a person who identifies as a man or boy, previously mentioned or easily identified.

Is that definition irrelevant? If so, please explain why?

Maybe it is just me, but I would say the changing definition of marriage from "between a man and woman" to "between two people" as less significant as to the changing definitions of he/her, man woman etc. For all our lives, including now for most people, the gendered terms have been used exclusively according to biological sex. The new definition completely disregards sex and says that someone can be whichever they want. That's a massive change, and if we are to go with that second definition, we may need new words to replace the ones we lost because man/woman etc now don't mean what they used to.

Maybe that's not a terrible thing, but I don't think it is as small a change as many are suggestion. If getting to a better world where less emphasis is placed on gender roles require us going through this ridiculous process of nomenclature redefinition, perhaps it is worth it. But it doesn't mean we can't think it is dumb and that the woke defenders of it aren't as enlightened as they think they are, nor their motives as pure as they think.

Originally Posted by Pavlov

"Man" means a person who identifies as a man.

"Woman" means a person who identifies as a woman".

The definitions of "he" and "she" aren't actually changing at all, but their changing usage reflects the shifting meaning of "man" and "woman".

You have to be able to see how your new definition of man/woman makes our current one completely meaningless? If the only thing that decides whether someone is a man or woman is how someone feels, then those terms mean nothing at all. And since we have been led to understand that we should place less importance on gender roles, why do we simultaneously now have to obey someone's command that they are a man even though they actually are not?

It's totally absurd, but I think most tolerant people will just go along with it. I'd go along with calling Eliot Page a he even though internally I would still believe the obvious - she's a she. Much in the same way as I'd probably have said I believed in god in the dark ages to avoid being burnt at the stake.

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by lio45

Huh. So the guidance of the Ontario Human Rights Commission is basically "whenever not in doubt, just go and address people in the way that matches the gender they obviously present as".

Interesting.

I guess we've reached that part of the discussion where you just start posting in bad faith/trolling. No problem. Its inevitable these days. You've certainly earned your reputation on this forum.

Just for record (in case anyone missed it the first time), here is the actual passage from the Ontario Human Rights Commission's website:

Gender-neutral pronouns may not be well known. Some people may not know how to determine what pronoun to use. Others may feel uncomfortable using gender-neutral pronouns. Generally, when in doubt, ask a person how they wish to be addressed. Use “they” if you don’t know which pronoun is preferred.[2] Simply referring to the person by their chosen name is always a respectful approach

.

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by someone123

Imagine the day when the Ontario Human Rights Commission rules on which skyline is best and SSP then instantly becomes redundant.

I tend to agree that this isn't so complicated overall, with most people navigating all of it just fine in everyday life, but there are edge cases where "accept whatever I identify as" fall down and they generate most of the legitimate debate. They tend to be less about pronouns and more about social boundaries and expectations of what's available to whom.

For example around here we had Jessica Yaniv who demanded that ladies be required to wax her penis and sued them when they refused. A wider objection tends to come from shelters for battered women which argue that self-identification should not be sufficient for their residents.

Another example is stuff for gay men which women tend to want to attend. This could include say a clinic for people who are high risk of HIV or are HIV positive, or a sex-positive environment for people who are mostly interested in male body parts.

Another one I encountered was somebody who self-identified as "Sir" (in place of "he"; if I remember correctly was a trans person although I could be wrong about that) and potentially sexually enjoyed the minor act of control over others and their submission. I don't feel that people are actually entitled to be called whatever they want by others; it should be subject to negotiation and reasonableness on both sides like anything else.

Yes, there are frivolous, bad faith requests for accomodation of trans-genderedness. The Jessica Yaniv application, in particular, was clearly frivolous and was easily dismissed by the HRTO.

Why aren't people bringing up the hundreds (well, probably thousands) of frivolous human rights tribunal applications made on the grounds of disability? Shouldn't we be using those to diminish or dismiss the issue if discrimination on the grounds of disability too? Why not?

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by Pavlov

I guess we've reached that part of the discussion where you just start posting in bad faith/trolling. No problem. Its inevitable these days. You've certainly earned your reputation on this forum.

Just for record (in case anyone missed it the first time), here is the actual passage from the Ontario Human Rights Commission's website:

.

Third-person pronouns are not used to "address" someone. You'd think grammar authorities like the Commission would have at least a Grade Seven-level grasp of what they're talking about.

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by milomilo

But it doesn't mean we can't think it is dumb and that the woke defenders of it aren't as enlightened as they think they are, nor their motives as pure as they think.

Please elaborate. What are my hidden motives? What are the hidden motives of the Ontario Human Rights Commission? What are the hidden motives of every provincial legislature in Canada which has explicitly prohibited discrimination on the grounds of gender identity? What about the tribunal members and judges who consistently apply that protection in broad, meaningful ways?

Frankly, the majority of concerns raised so far in this thread are not raising serious, legitimate issues regarding accomodation of gender identity issues. These debates have already been had over the last two decades and are largely already settled.

There are a handful of thoughtful, interesting, good faith issues raised in this thread. But they are overwhelmed by the rest of the trolling, bad faith, illogical nonsense that it just isn't worth participating. I'm going to follow MolsonExport's lead and leave you all to your German furniture jokes. Enjoy.

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by Andy6

Third-person pronouns are not used to "address" someone. You'd think grammar authorities like the Commission would have at least a Grade Seven-level grasp of what they're talking about.

It's an accomodation. To show respect for a fellow human being. That costs you nothing but a momentary waiving of grammar rules.

For fuck's sake.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Pavlov

Why aren't people bringing up the hundreds (well, probably thousands) of frivolous human rights tribunal applications made on the grounds of disability? Shouldn't we be using those to diminish or dismiss the issue if discrimination on the grounds of disability too? Why not?

I wasn't using the Jessica Yaniv example to diminish or dismiss discrimination. I see it as adding nuance to the discussion. I wonder if it's really true that we always need to apply each individual's chosen gender norms to them in every situation. You seem to agree with me and the tribunal that the answer is no, there are limits and exceptions. Unsurprisingly, the norm of respect and reasonable accommodation seems to apply rather than absolutes. That is all I was getting at with the example.

I find your perspective is sometimes very legalistic. Most people cannot or will not run to a human rights tribunal for the vast majority of their problems, and it's not appropriate or economically practical for courts or tribunals to mediate most interpersonal concerns. So an argument that there can't be problems if there aren't court cases or tribunal challenges is full of holes.