• El_Rocha@lm.put.tf
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    35
    ·
    1 year ago

    Wasn’t that one about FORCING you to say whatever pronouns the person wants instead of just not allowing you to use bad words?

    • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      41
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Bleeping Lobster@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        30
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          19
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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.

      • chakan2@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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.

          • chakan2@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              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.

      • El_Rocha@lm.put.tf
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        23
        ·
        1 year ago

        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?

        • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          19
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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.

          • El_Rocha@lm.put.tf
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            15
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              18
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              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.

              • El_Rocha@lm.put.tf
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                11
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

                • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  10
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  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?

                  • El_Rocha@lm.put.tf
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    9
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    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.

    • schroedingershat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      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?

        • schroedingershat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Normal non-fascist-reactionary people have the ability to distinguish between ridiculous bad faith pearl clutching (what you are doing now) and earnest expressions of identity.

          • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            My response is always to use whatever pronouns the person I’m talking to says are right. If it’s all alt-right troll, oh well. Maybe they’ll have half a moment of self reflection and realize how ridiculous it would be for nonbinary folk to lie about their pronouns all the time, day in and day out. Maybe they’ll realize that it would be exhausting having to lie just for the sake of… attention? Which wouldn’t make sense in the first place, because unfortunately the majority of attention that you get from being nonbinary in public is explicitly hatred.

            I know that hoping for conservatives to actually reflect on how they make people feel is a pipe dream, but if a man can’t dream, what can he do?

            • meco03211@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              The only one pulling shit out of their ass is you and your ridiculous pearl clutching slippery slope bullshit. If you don’t do stupid shit, you won’t get in trouble (and before you go all pedantic douche, I’m meaning in the context of gender discrimination and harassment).

              • El_Rocha@lm.put.tf
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Going from two genders for centuries to 100 in 10 years? Yeah, definitly not pulled out of the ass.

                • meco03211@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  It was 70 in the last comment. They’ve already added 30 more? My gods! … or are you still just pulling shit out of your ass?

                  • El_Rocha@lm.put.tf
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Didn’t know you were that disadvantaged that you need a big red arrow saying hyperbole pointing to the number.

                    It was very ableist of me and I am sorry for it.