Genders, Rights and Freedom of Speech - a debate on the Toronto gender controversy

[muina]

Jordan Peterson, a psychology professor at the University of Toronto, posted a YouTube video criticizing the proposed Bill C-16, which adds gender identity and gender expression to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination. His video caused concern and sparked conversation. The Agenda convenes a panel to ask: Is the legislation a matter of human rights or a case of legal overreach that threatens freedom of speech?

 

[Daughter of Cernunnos]

Toronto is so cucked. The only Canadian city worth shit is Montreal.

 

[Sailor_Jupiter]

When did Canada become the lolcow of nations..?

 

[Lackadaisy]

When did Canada become the lolcow of nations..?

>implying they never weren't a nation of lolcows

 

[IV 445]

>implying they never weren't a nation of lolcows

The king cow of all is Norway tho

And North Korea too

 

[idosometimes]

The idea that we have to accept someone else's self identifcation is ludicrous. People can seek to create their own image, but no one has to accept it. It isn't "abuse" as the bald faggot claims in the video. There could be very good reasons not to accept or acknowledge self-identity. Convenience is one. There is no need for different pronouns for every fucking student in a class. You might as well use the proper noun in every case. Singular they leads to confusion as you have to exactly to whom someone is referring. "Don and Linda wanted me to join them at the restaurant, but their car wouldn't start so it was only two of us." You need to use the damned nouns. I couldn't imagine being a professor and having to look down on the register to know what pronoun to use for little Harper or Mason.

Liberals are way too into the idea of identity politics. Nothing exists about us except what we claim. Chris is a lipstick lesbian because he says he is. Words have no meaning. We can be anything.

Praise Allah that Islam is growing and doesn't stand for this shit.

 

[Mariposa Electrique]

Jordan Peterson

This guy is amazing

I feel for the people that don't pass as their desired gender but that's not the world's problem.
This legislation does nothing at all because even the most fervent of liberals are going to teach their children the difference between men and women.
This is just thought policing on overdrive, which last time I checked is a symptom of an unchecked personality disorder (especially narcissism).

 

[Lackadaisy]

That long-haired tranny was p ok for a tranny

 

[Joan Nyan]

Is the legislation a matter of human rights or a case of legal overreach that threatens freedom of speech?

All anti-discrimination laws are legal overreach.

 

[Kartoffel]

I think tis is a case where the intend plays a big role; I think there are basically three reasons to call someone the wrong gender:
- You didn't know better or you had a memory slip and simply forgot (basically like forgetting someones name)
- You think the gender identity stuff is bullshit and call them by the gender which is the most apparant one
- You want to insult this person because you know that this kind of adressation hurts them

In the first case I think it shouldn't be made that big a deal out of it. Just appologize, accept it, no big fuss, mistakes happen that's part of life.

Spoiler: Sperging

Fun fact: Most mistakes are not because of human error itself, but because the design was not good enought to prevent this from happening. As far as you can speak about design when talking about a person, but using as much signifiers as possible is a good way to make mistakes less likely and to make clear that you want to be adressed as this gender in the first place.

In the second case I'd go by the line of effort in passing. If someone looks clearly like a gender call him that. If that person does not refrain from signifiers that strongly point back to their old gender, than it's okay to think their are their old one.

Spoiler: Extended thoughts

Of course you could argue that clothes don't make the gender, but I think if you look in between it is a small price to pay to adhere to the societal norms. You want to be treated like a normal person in a nice and polite way? Then adhere to the norms. If you dress like a "rebel" you will treated like a retard. Of course there is the minor subgroup of people where genetics and biology screwed up during development and which really did not start out with one definitive gender, but then it might be advisable to choose one for the legal paperwork (leaving genitals alone untill the person found out what it is unless there is an pressing medical reason) and let other people believe whatever they want whenever it's not relevant in the big scheme.
If you don't make a big deal out of something in the first place it won't bother you much whenever it comes up.

In the third case it's basically an insult and should be punishable like one. Of course it's an highly subjective thing (like almost every type of insult that does not use the most prominent curse words), but people should have at least the chance to take proper law-route in persistent cases.

 

[*Asterisk*]

In the third case it's basically an insult and should be punishable like one. Of course it's an highly subjective thing (like almost every type of insult that does not use the most prominent curse words), but people should have at least the chance to take proper law-route in persistent cases.

The criminalization of insults is always a bad idea.

There's no objective means of enforcement, unending opportunity for abuse, and by the time society's tolerant enough to even consider such actions for a group's protection, it's no longer a problem.

Just as important to this matter: when a society actually does have a problem with discrimination, they'll not only never consider putting in protections for those who actually face discrimination, they'll write hate-speech style laws requiring racism and oppression.

i.e., Turkey's criminalization of "insulting Turkishness" as a mechanism for state-mandated holocaust denial.

 

[Kartoffel]

The criminalization of insults is always a bad idea.

There's no objective means of enforcement, unending opportunity for abuse, and by the time society's tolerant enough to even consider such actions for a group's protection, it's no longer a problem.

Sorry no, you are neglecting some mayor aspects why we have laws here: The first one is prevention; if someone knows that he'll get punished for being an asshole when he calls the policemen who just did his freaking job asshole, he'd think twice about it. Second laws should (yes, they don't really, because changes take forever) reflect the morality of the majority of people. And you know what, the majority thinks it's false to insult somebody, exspecially on a constant base. No one will sue if it's a minor case; but in repeated or highly public ones? Then it's fair game.

Just as important to this matter: when a society actually does have a problem with discrimination, they'll not only never consider putting in protections for those who actually face discrimination, they'll write hate-speech style laws requiring racism and oppression.

I hate going the social justice route here - but I think we need such laws; it may be that many people are open in the general sense, but as soon as it affects them themselves they suddenly shy away from the right thing. It's part of the duty of the state to make sure that people can't wimp out from the right thing too easily, just because it's less frigthening to do so. When rates are at an acceptable level, then you can leave off the law and look if it's stays stable - but it's unrealistic that people change their behaviour only because of good intentions, because most don't; people even struggle to change their behaviour when it directly effects themselves in a negative way and they know it (e.g. smoking, overeating, to much TV, etc.).
To say something is differently from actually acting on it, and it's not necessarily bad to put a bit of pressure on people.

i.e., Turkey's criminalization of "insulting Turkishness" as a mechanism for state-mandated holocaust denial.

I agree that's highly stupid.


I don't think your oppinion is unvalid, but I think we might see it from a different standpoint: You see mainly the punishing of the priveleged side to help the unprivileged one (which is legetimate and also foreseeable, because you probably belong into the group that would get punished (at least the little information I got from your profile indicates this)) while I see the side of the ones that unprivileged ones and think they deserve help to get on an equal standing, because I doubt that such an equal standing will ever be come to be completely on its own, unless we make it mandatory. Of course there will be new people the system will discriminate, but that might perhaps open up completely new opportunities for them, because they can't go the "easy" road any more.

 

[idosometimes]

Sorry no, you are neglecting some mayor aspects why we have laws here: The first one is prevention; if someone knows that he'll get punished for being an asshole when he calls the policemen who just did his freaking job asshole, he'd think twice about it. Second laws should (yes, they don't really, because changes take forever) reflect the morality of the majority of people. And you know what, the majority thinks it's false to insult somebody, exspecially on a constant base. No one will sue if it's a minor case; but in repeated or highly public ones? Then it's fair game.

I hate going the social justice route here - but I think we need such laws; it may be that many people are open in the general sense, but as soon as it affects them themselves they suddenly shy away from the right thing. It's part of the duty of the state to make sure that people can't wimp out from the right thing too easily, just because it's less frigthening to do so. When rates are at an acceptable level, then you can leave off the law and look if it's stays stable - but it's unrealistic that people change their behaviour only because of good intentions, because most don't; people even struggle to change their behaviour when it directly effects themselves in a negative way and they know it (e.g. smoking, overeating, to much TV, etc.).
To say something is differently from actually acting on it, and it's not necessarily bad to put a bit of pressure on people.

I agree that's highly stupid.

I don't think your oppinion is unvalid, but I think we might see it from a different standpoint: You see mainly the punishing of the priveleged side to help the unprivileged one (which is legetimate and also foreseeable, because you probably belong into the group that would get punished (at least the little information I got from your profile indicates this)) while I see the side of the ones that unprivileged ones and think they deserve help to get on an equal standing, because I doubt that such an equal standing will ever be come to be completely on its own, unless we make it mandatory. Of course there will be new people the system will discriminate, but that might perhaps open up completely new opportunities for them, because they can't go the "easy" road any more.

This is a moral issue. Start a church if you want to force morality on others. Morality isn't the realm of the state. It can't be. You may not like it when people make fun of you for cutting off your dick or having below average intelligence, but that doesn't mean it should be a crime. The state has no duty to stop people from mocking you or force them to pretend that you aren't dumb. It can't. For this to happen, the state needs to adopt a specific morality. This requires that cultural hegemony thing that your kind is always railing against.

You mention three cases above, but your side doesn't care what the reason is. Dr. P is accused of abuse and nazism for stating his views. You idiots don't even want debate. You just want people to accept your supposedly "progressive" views that you learned from some high school dropout tranny on tumblr. Any use of incorrect pronoun or gender is seen as wrong and should be actionable. I don't believe in hair cuts because I hate the idea of human interaction. As such, I have been "misgendered" on occasion. I don't care because I knew that people were talking to or about me, so it didn't matter. This isn't abuse even if they did it on purpose. It isn't a crime. People use their own experience and language as they know it. If we need more pronouns so everyone can be a special snowflake like you, then they will develop over time. They can't be forced through the use of force. That is not how the English language works. If you want that to happen, get black people to start using them as urban language is driving our language use, fam. Or just start speaking French. French has a board that determines what words are okay and how to use them (not that people will necessarily like it).

Not that your authoritarian "don't let them laugh at me" ideas would do anything. Disadvantaged groups aren't disadvantaged because people make fun of them. Saying the "n-word" doesn't result in the achievement gap between non-asian minorities and white persons (the problem is poverty, not language). Not using "xir" doesn't result in trannies being poor and unable to work (the problem is mental illness, not language). So how do we get equality from your language policing? We don't. Trannies are happy that they get to make up their own pronoun, but still too mentally ill to hold down jobs (non-sex work) or relationships. What is the point then? To feel good about doing nothing? So you can have some power to lord over others because you are unhappy that you were born with a penis?

Most of the discrimination against trannies isn't even about language. It isn't about trannyness either. it is because most trannies are ugly, but won't admit it. It doesn't hold so much for FTM (which are so rare as to be irrelevant). It is an MTF problem. Chris doesn't look like a woman. He looks like a fat misshapen ugly man. No woman would want his girldick in their vagina. No one will see him as a cute young girl. He will never be feminine enough to get 18 year old super-qt dyke with minimum b-cup breasts from the swim team. It doesn't matter what he does or how the government polices speech. Sucks for him, but it is no different that life for other ugly people who aren't mentally ill attention whore psychopaths.

 

[Kartoffel]

This is a moral issue. Start a church if you want to force morality on others. Morality isn't the realm of the state. It can't be. You may not like it when people make fun of you for cutting off your dick or having below average intelligence, but that doesn't mean it should be a crime. The state has no duty to stop people from mocking you or force them to pretend that you aren't dumb. It can't. For this to happen, the state needs to adopt a specific morality. This requires that cultural hegemony thing that your kind is always railing against.

Not that your authoritarian "don't let them laugh at me" ideas would do anything. Disadvantaged groups aren't disadvantaged because people make fun of them. Saying the "n-word" doesn't result in the achievement gap between non-asian minorities and white persons (the problem is poverty, not language). Not using "xir" doesn't result in trannies being poor and unable to work (the problem is mental illness, not language). So how do we get equality from your language policing? We don't. Trannies are happy that they get to make up their own pronoun, but still too mentally ill to hold down jobs (non-sex work) or relationships. What is the point then? To feel good about doing nothing? So you can have some power to lord over others because you are unhappy that you were born with a penis?

Most of the discrimination against trannies isn't even about language. It isn't about trannyness either. it is because most trannies are ugly, but won't admit it. It doesn't hold so much for FTM (which are so rare as to be irrelevant). It is an MTF problem. Chris doesn't look like a woman. He looks like a fat misshapen ugly man. No woman would want his girldick in their vagina. No one will see him as a cute young girl. He will never be feminine enough to get 18 year old super-qt dyke with minimum b-cup breasts from the swim team. It doesn't matter what he does or how the government polices speech. Sucks for him, but it is no different that life for other ugly people who aren't mentally ill attention whore psychopaths.

No it's not simply about forcing morality on others, but making sure that an already commonly agreed on morality indeed gets acted on. I'll give you an example that has nothing to do with trannys: Enviromentalism. Take for example the simple fact that in order to have not toxic rivers you should not simply pump your silage into it. But if the state would not enforce that the water is cleaned and treated, only a few people would do it; because most would value their monetary income higher then the monetary and health cost to the wider public. But as a society there is an agreement that we don't want to poison everyone, so the state enforces the treatment of water and the majority of people far better for it.

And it's the same thing with insults

Spoiler: Definition I use

stuff said to people with the clear intend to hurt them on a regular basis or a longer period of time, with a low reasoning

; no one wants to get verbally abused, so others should have a mean to protect themselves when this happens and because theres such a thing like seperation of powers, it is duty of the state to make laws, so the courts can make judgements that the executive can fullfill.

I'm not for policing speech in the wider sense; just that there needs to be a way to punish people when they use speech to intentionally hurt others out of pure malicity. Using the law to force someone to use special pronouns is far too much in the other way around, because you know what: It's sensible to expect people to choose an gender in the long run. If your brain is fucked up and you want to be the other one, I'm okay with that, but then go the full way. If you don't want too despite this, then stay what you are and become happy with it.

Spoiler: side stuff

Exspecially because I sincerely think that a complete person has both classical male and female attributes - switching your gender just changes the way. But of course not everyone will ever reach completeness, but that's a different topic.

I'm not against making fun of people and it's even okay to be a little bit mean from time to time; but when it reaches the point that you do it constantly with the clear and open intend to hurt someone then it's going other the line. It's flat out violence; it might be of the verbal, psychological kind, but it still is; it hurts people with possible long term negative consequences.

Freedom of speach does not mean you can insult people left and right; because our freedoms can only reach so wide that we don't cut the freedoms of others. And the right to mentally stay unharmed has a higher priority to blabbering whatever someone wants.

And in the end; if it's someone asks you in a nice way to use special pronouns and does not act like a giant douchebag, why not at least try it out? Even if you think that's the most stupid thing ever, if you value being a decent person, then doing this favour at least for a trial period won't do much harm. If it's really as stupid as you think, the other will notice; and if it stays stupid, then try to talk with them. Try to explain them why you feel unconfortable with it. Basically tread people in a decent way and if they are too dumb to treat you the same in return, then make a thread about them. Because this is why we became Kiwis in the end, laughing about shitty people.

Sorry for producing such a long wall of text, I enjoy serious discussions way to much

Oh and on the topic of uglyness, I strongly recommend you to read up on the Halo effect, a well known psychological bias. People don't want to be ugly because ugly people are treated significantly shittier compared to pretty ones.

 

[Marvin]

And it's the same thing with insults

Spoiler: Definition I use

stuff said to people with the clear intend to hurt them on a regular basis or a longer period of time, with a low reasoning

; no one wants to get verbally abused, so others should have a mean to protect themselves when this happens and because theres such a thing like seperation of powers, it is duty of the state to make laws, so the courts can make judgements that the executive can fullfill.

I'm not for policing speech in the wider sense; just that there needs to be a way to punish people when they use speech to intentionally hurt others out of pure malicity.

There is no way to distinguish malice from political opinion.

"Obama is a fuckhead." is malicious, but also a political opinion.

This extends all the way down to the very lowest levels, like your boss, for example. It's valid to criticize your boss (whether or not you get fired is a separate issue). Saying he's a fuckhead is a criticism. It's not cleaned up, it's not nice, but it's still valid criticism.

For example, if your boss makes a bad decision and everyone's talking about it, and you nod in agreement and say "yeah, he's a fuckhead". That's an insult. But also in context, you were expressing agreement with what everyone else was saying. You didn't use the exact words, but the context is clear. Policing the exact manner in which people express their opinions is draconian and a ripe opportunity for exploitation.

(Not that it matters, because this issue is mostly absolute for me, but it should also be noted that regulating the manner of expression would only lead to society's less sophisticated members, like the poor, being oppressed for not being able to toe the line in what is legal expression and what isn't.)

To bring this back to gender, disagreeing with gender fluidity is a valid political opinion. And you're allowed to express that. Intentionally misgendering someone is, in context (like with your boss), a criticism of that. Malicious? Very likely. But also political opinion.

Regulating political opinion is not allowed.

Freedom of speach does not mean you can insult people left and right; because our freedoms can only reach so wide that we don't cut the freedoms of others.

In the United States it is.

Here's an really great example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._Johnson

 

[AnOminous]

t this kind of adressation hurts them

This is the most fun one and should be enjoyed.

Freedom of speach does not mean you can insult people left and right

The fuck it doesn't you goddamn idiot.

 

[Joan Nyan]

Freedom of speach does not mean you can insult people left and right;

Yes it does you faggot.

And the right to mentally stay unharmed has a higher priority to blabbering whatever someone wants.

That's not a right.

 

[Unseemly and Feral]

@Kartoffel I don't know what the perception in Germany is regarding free speech, but historically in the US (and by historically I mean several Supreme Court cases decades and even centuries ago) made free speech to be pretty much precisely that, no exceptions. That doesn't mean there aren't negative consequences for insults but the idea of legal consequences for speech is politically untenable that country, given that it has always historically been at odds with itself over everything and has greatly benefited from having a debate platform as wide as possible.

 

[Unseemly and Feral]

@Kartoffel I don't know what the perception in Germany is regarding free speech, but historically in the US (and by historically I mean several Supreme Court cases decades and even centuries ago) made free speech to be pretty much precisely that, no exceptions. That doesn't mean there aren't negative consequences for insults but the idea of legal consequences for speech outside of outright libel, slander, or obscenity is politically untenable that country, given that it has always historically been at odds with itself over everything and has greatly benefited from having a debate platform as wide as possible.

 

[AnOminous]

@Kartoffel I don't know what the perception in Germany is regarding free speech, but historically in the US (and by historically I mean several Supreme Court cases decades and even centuries ago) made free speech to be pretty much precisely that, no exceptions.

That's specifically related to the U.S. First Amendment.

However, the very concept of free speech is completely meaningless and empty without the right to be offensive. Nobody ever tried to stop speech they didn't find offensive!

Just having super thin skin and taking offense at fucking everything doesn't give you special rights. There is no "right not to be offended."