Red Mosquito

This one? http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42 ... yal-assent

I'm not seeing anything in there that actually forces anyone to use specific pronouns. It says, "an offence [that] was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on gender identity or expression constitutes an aggravating circumstance that a court must take into consideration when it imposes a sentence." Meaning, if I'm reading it correctly, that there still has to be a legal "offence," which wouldn't be using the wrong pronoun. Sounds like US hate crime laws (which, for the record, I don't support).

LoathedVermin72 wrote:This one? http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42 ... yal-assent

I'm not seeing anything in there that actually forces anyone to use specific pronouns. It says, "an offence [that] was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on gender identity or expression constitutes an aggravating circumstance that a court must take into consideration when it imposes a sentence." Meaning, if I'm reading it correctly, that there still has to be a legal "offence," which wouldn't be using the wrong pronoun. Sounds like US hate crime laws (which, for the record, I don't support).

https://youtu.be/IMBfT38xbhU?t=27m39s

That's his argument against it. I can't remember the written sources though.

BurtReynolds wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:This one? http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42 ... yal-assent

I'm not seeing anything in there that actually forces anyone to use specific pronouns. It says, "an offence [that] was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on gender identity or expression constitutes an aggravating circumstance that a court must take into consideration when it imposes a sentence." Meaning, if I'm reading it correctly, that there still has to be a legal "offence," which wouldn't be using the wrong pronoun. Sounds like US hate crime laws (which, for the record, I don't support).

https://youtu.be/IMBfT38xbhU?t=27m39s

That's his argument against it. I can't remember the written sources though.

Sounds like Canada has a bunch of other absurd laws they are using to leverage this into a problem, which is, indeed, crazy.

BurtReynolds wrote:

Mickey wrote:Dawg the quote from Peterson at the literal top of this page makes him out to be trans- and genderqueer-phobic

nope.

Dude, yes. Saying you will only use masculine or feminine pronouns is not only bobblehead-level thinking, it's actively discriminatory towards trans and genderqueer people. And he's saying this absent of any coerced speech context.

Mickey wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

Mickey wrote:Dawg the quote from Peterson at the literal top of this page makes him out to be trans- and genderqueer-phobic

nope.

Dude, yes. Saying you will only use masculine or feminine pronouns is not only bobblehead-level thinking, it's actively discriminatory towards trans and genderqueer people. And he's saying this absent of any coerced speech context.

My understanding is that he has said he is against compelled speech and will default to historical structure of the language, but if an individual trans person asked him to use a particular pronoun he would. Could be wrong, kinda sick of his shtick.

Bi_3 wrote:

Mickey wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

Mickey wrote:Dawg the quote from Peterson at the literal top of this page makes him out to be trans- and genderqueer-phobic

nope.

Dude, yes. Saying you will only use masculine or feminine pronouns is not only bobblehead-level thinking, it's actively discriminatory towards trans and genderqueer people. And he's saying this absent of any coerced speech context.

My understanding is that he has said he is against compelled speech and will default to historical structure of the language, but if an individual trans person asked him to use a particular pronoun he would. Could be wrong, kinda sick of his shtick.

I mean, go back and read his quotes from that BBC article that I posted on the last page. He's quite plainly saying that he will use either of the two traditional pronouns but will not use things like "they/them," even when asked in a private context. The idea that this is about compelled speech is incredibly disingenuous.

So? The interview I posted explains why he may not depending on the situation, and others explain it more fully. I don't have the slightest problem with that. And to say it's not about compelled speech is laughable. It's clear that it is. As if not using the right pronoun like xem and xyr is inherently transphobic in the first place.

BurtReynolds wrote:So? The interview I posted explains why he may not depending on the situation, and others explain it more fully. I don't have the slightest problem with that. And to say it's not about compelled speech is laughable. It's clear that it is. As if not using the right pronoun like xem and xyr is inherently transphobic in the first place.

Not using they (or any other preferred pronouns) when asked (not compelled, but asked) is inherently and blatantly transphobic. He's saying in that BBC article that he will not use they when asked. Does he walk back this claim at any point?

That's. Not. Inherently. Or. Blatantly. Transphobic.

And yes he does say he will depending on the situation. Numerous times.

And yes, its still about free speech.

Sorry, nope. It is purposefully disrespect and, yes, transphoboic to not respect someone's preferred gender identifying pronouns in an informal context. It does not "depend on the situation" if the given situation is "Hey, I prefer to go by them," which, again, Peterson is on-record as having said he will not use . I can't imagine being this much of an obtuse dunce about something that takes almost no effort, but, well, here we are.

Lol you are a silly boy.

BurtReynolds wrote:Lol you are a silly boy.

You're an inconsequential and aging sycophant desperately clinging to mid-century ideals and inventing boogeymen situations where the nonbinaries give you a swirly until you say "them"

Mickey wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Lol you are a silly boy.

You're an inconsequential and aging sycophant desperately clinging to mid-century ideals and inventing boogeymen situations where the nonbinaries give you a swirly until you say "them"

You should be terrified, because I'm you in ten years. You are literally looking into your future as you read this. See what the world has done to you?

BurtReynolds wrote:

Mickey wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Lol you are a silly boy.

You're an inconsequential and aging sycophant desperately clinging to mid-century ideals and inventing boogeymen situations where the nonbinaries give you a swirly until you say "them"

You should be terrified, because I'm you in ten years. You are literally looking into your future as you read this. See what the world has done to you?

I'm fairly certain that when I'm 40, I shant lay prostrate at the altar of Youtube Bill Buckley, but whatever makes yourself feel better man.

And I'll take mid-century ideals over your backwards ass early twentieth century ones any day. You are a caricature.

BurtReynolds wrote:And I'll take mid-century ideals over your backwards ass turn of the nineteenth century ones any day. You are a caricature.

Oh yeah for sure man, I love all that 1805 discourse about the singular "they."

In before the edit lol

Glad to see you don't even really know what you're objecting to or where it originates historically.

Also, one time he did a rolling stop to turn right on red before traffic started flowing.