The Death of the Author and the End of Empathy - Literature can now only be read through a victim's lens

[Alflives]

21 hours ago, 48MPHSlapShot said:

To be totally honest, I take pretty significant issue with Canada setting limits on speech at all. The Overton window is constantly evolving and changing, and regardless of which entity decides these rules, an enforced version of said Overton window  can't possibly be considered proper when the actual window is in a constant state of evolution and extremely maleable, depending any different number of variables. 

 

Interestingly enough, you told me earlier that I was "Free to ignore people that try to censor me". The way I see it, people are free to ignore opinions that they would consider hateful. I really don't believe that anybody has the right to not be offended.

I like the Utopian nature of your comments, where people don’t take offence to what’s said because it’s not offensive.  I just see groups of people (most often minority groups) being associated with a particular term (pronoun in this case) and that term makes them appear less than others, in some ways.  I agree these words shouldn’t have such an effort, but (unfortunately) for many they seem to.  

[richado]

2 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

Respectfully disagree - don't forget that there has to be an act of discrimination involved. Just refusing to acknowledge what someone wants to be called would have to be part of a discriminatory act of some kind, e.g. refusing to hire someone.

 

I dunno, I don't really understand what people are so worried about. So someone has a certain identity and doesn't want to face hate speech or discrimination for it. Whats the problem? 

 

 

Because who defines hate or discrimination for something so subjective? If I don't believe that someone is a wolfkin, for example, and voice it, am I being discriminatory? The person with a unique identity, especially under this law, can have a different definition of hate speech and discrimination than you. Which is why pronouns get dragged in. Also, I quoted the OHRC which is the reference for this bill, which clearly states refusals to use a requested pronoun I'd a discriminatory act on it's own. So there's your discrimination.

 

Is refusing to call someone zee or zer hate speech and discrimination or not? Who determines it and how? It's not clearly defined. It's stated that a tribunal will decide, so there's no real guidelines.

 

Laws take on lives of their own. This one is extremely vague. Hopefully it doesn't cause strange issues, but it certainly opened a door wide open for them to appear.

[JM_]

7 minutes ago, richado said:

Because who defines hate or discrimination for something so subjective? If I don't believe that someone is a wolfkin, for example, and voice it, am I being discriminatory? The person with a unique identity, especially under this law, can have a different definition of hate speech and discrimination than you. Which is why pronouns get dragged in. Also, I quoted the OHRC which is the reference for this bill, which clearly states refusals to use a requested pronoun I'd a discriminatory act on it's own. So there's your discrimination.

 

Is refusing to call someone zee or zer hate speech and discrimination or not? Who determines it and how? It's not clearly defined. It's stated that a tribunal will decide, so there's no real guidelines.

 

Laws take on lives of their own. This one is extremely vague. Hopefully it doesn't cause strange issues, but it certainly opened a door wide open for them to appear.

sure but the OHRC is an independent group, they aren't the legal system, its just their opinion. 

 

wolfkin isn't a protected group. why do you guys keep coming up with these analogies of animals or inanimate objects to make a point?  lets try to stick to people. 

 

the law is vague for all the other protected groups named, and civilization hasn't crashed. Laws don't have to come up with all possibilities ahead of time thats what the courts are for. 

 

on the bolded part: all depends on how its used. If its being used to incite hate or discriminate in a way that prevents someone from access to something or harms them then yes its discrimination. It'll be determined like all other cases of hate speech.

 

I guess the other point is, why wouldn't you want to respect the person and call them by what they prefer? you expect it in your life don't you?  

 

[richado]

1 minute ago, Jimmy McGill said:

sure but the OHRC is an independent group, they aren't the legal system, its just their opinion. 

 

wolfkin isn't a protected group. why do you guys keep coming up with these analogies of animals or inanimate objects to make a point?  lets try to stick to people. 

 

the law is vague for all the other protected groups named, and civilization hasn't crashed. Laws don't have to come up with all possibilities ahead of time thats what the courts are for. 

 

on the bolded part: all depends on how its used. If its being used to incite hate or discriminate in a way that prevents someone from access to something or harms them then yes its discrimination. It'll be determined like all other cases of hate speech.

 

I guess the other point is, why wouldn't you want to respect the person and call them by what they prefer? you expect it in your life don't you?  

 

They are an independent group and it is there opinion, but as I wrote earlier, the Canadian Justice Department themself stated that the definitions and guidelines they will use are from them. So their opinion is the basis of this law:

"Definitions of the terms “gender identity” and “gender expression” have already been given by the Ontario Human Rights Commission, for example. The Commission has provided helpful discussion and examples that can offer good practical guidance. The Canadian Human Rights Commission will provide similar guidance on the meaning of these terms in the Canadian Human Rights Act"

It can't be hand-waved away as some irrelevant opinion when it's written as the guideline.

 

Something like wolfkin is a unique gender identity, and something so subjective as ones identity leads to such things. In fact, the OHRC actually lists such things as gender identities, which is again, the basis and reference of the bill. 

 

I would call them what they prefer but not if it's some imagined pronoun. At some point I'd see it as appeasing someone's delusions. Also, I don't want respect put into law. Respect is generally earned, and someone can risk earning their own respect by being disrespectful if they so please.

[JM_]

20 minutes ago, richado said:

They are an independent group and it is there opinion, but as I wrote earlier, the Canadian Justice Department themself stated that the definitions and guidelines they will use are from them. So their opinion is the basis of this law:

"Definitions of the terms “gender identity” and “gender expression” have already been given by the Ontario Human Rights Commission, for example. The Commission has provided helpful discussion and examples that can offer good practical guidance. The Canadian Human Rights Commission will provide similar guidance on the meaning of these terms in the Canadian Human Rights Act"

It can't be hand-waved away as some irrelevant opinion when it's written as the guideline.

 

Something like wolfkin is a unique gender identity, and something so subjective as ones identity leads to such things. In fact, the OHRC actually lists such things as gender identities, which is again, the basis and reference of the bill. 

 

I would call them what they prefer but not if it's some imagined pronoun. At some point I'd see it as appeasing someone's delusions. Also, I don't want respect put into law. Respect is generally earned, and someone can risk earning their own respect by being disrespectful if they so please.

show me where wolfkin is a protected gender identity or where the CHRC is arguing for that. Thats just ridiculous and a massive fallacy. If thats where you need to go to make a point I think maybe you've gone off too far in the weeds. 

 

Its not the "basis" for the law its part of the information that informed the discussion. The OHRC isn't going to be behind the bench. 

[HerrDrFunk]

44 minutes ago, richado said:

They are an independent group and it is there opinion, but as I wrote earlier, the Canadian Justice Department themself stated that the definitions and guidelines they will use are from them. So their opinion is the basis of this law:

"Definitions of the terms “gender identity” and “gender expression” have already been given by the Ontario Human Rights Commission, for example. The Commission has provided helpful discussion and examples that can offer good practical guidance. The Canadian Human Rights Commission will provide similar guidance on the meaning of these terms in the Canadian Human Rights Act"

It can't be hand-waved away as some irrelevant opinion when it's written as the guideline.

 

Something like wolfkin is a unique gender identity, and something so subjective as ones identity leads to such things. In fact, the OHRC actually lists such things as gender identities, which is again, the basis and reference of the bill. 

 

I would call them what they prefer but not if it's some imagined pronoun. At some point I'd see it as appeasing someone's delusions. Also, I don't want respect put into law. Respect is generally earned, and someone can risk earning their own respect by being disrespectful if they so please.

Wolfkin is not a gender identity. 

[HerrDrFunk]

32 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

show me where wolfkin is a protected gender identity or where the CHRC is arguing for that. Thats just ridiculous and a massive fallacy. If thats where you need to go to make a point I think maybe you've gone off too far in the weeds. 

 

Its not the "basis" for the law its part of the information that informed the discussion. The OHRC isn't going to be behind the bench. 

This is in the same vein as the 4chan crowd who claim they identify as an attack copter (or fire hydrant) to try and delegitimize queer or trans identities. 

[richado]

17 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

show me where wolfkin is a protected gender identity or where the CHRC is arguing for that. Thats just ridiculous and a massive fallacy. If thats where you need to go to make a point I think maybe you've gone off too far in the weeds. 

 

Its not the "basis" for the law its part of the information that informed the discussion. The OHRC isn't going to be behind the bench. 

The OHRC won't be behind the bench. But the Canadian Justice Department will, and they clearly stated the OHRC as the guidelines for their definitions of the terms and the discrimination. It's their self-declared reference point. Bill C-16 gave no definitions for any of the terms in it, or what constitutes discrimination, and they point to the OHRC to describe them. So if not the OHRC, then what? Hold tribunals with subjectively and vaguely defined gender terms and subjectively defined definitions of hate speech or discrimination? It's a mess. It may very well result in nothing, and I hope it doesn't, but again, they've just opened the door to a possible mess.

 

My argument isn't hinged on wolfkin. That's just an example of what the law allows to be protected by law. From OHRC: 

 

"Everyone has the right to define their own gender identity."

"Gender identity is each person’s internal and individual experience of gender."

"Gender non-conforming individuals do not follow gender stereotypes based on the sex they were assigned at birth and may or may not identify as trans. “Lived” gender identity is the gender a person feels internally (“gender identity” along the gender spectrum) and expresses publicly (“gender expression”) in their daily life including at work, while shopping or accessing other services, in their housing environment or in the broader community."

 

That's ridiculously subjective. Your gender can be whatever you want it to be. It's the legislation of subjective feelings. You can go as far off into the weeds as you want with when subjective feelings are brought in. There's essentially no limit on gender given by these definitions, and again, these are the definitions the Canadian Justice Department point to. If not, then what? These are the ONLY definitions they've referenced. The other categories, race, age, sex, etc, aren't subjective but documented and verifiable. 

 

I understand where you're coming from, and I want people to be respected and feel belonged as well. It's the law part that makes it hairy. We don't normally legislate what people 'feel to be'.  It's too subjective. I'll probably have to leave it here or we'll go in circles.

[richado]

2 minutes ago, HerrDrFunk said:

Wolfkin is not a gender identity. 

It is if you can invent your own gender. Or if not, something equally bizarre.

 

"Everyone has the right to define their own gender identity."

"Gender identity is each person’s internal and individual experience of gender."

"Gender non-conforming individuals do not follow gender stereotypes based on the sex they were assigned at birth and may or may not identify as trans. “Lived” gender identity is the gender a person feels internally (“gender identity” along the gender spectrum) and expresses publicly (“gender expression”) in their daily life including at work, while shopping or accessing other services, in their housing environment or in the broader community."

[HerrDrFunk]

1 minute ago, richado said:

It is if you can invent your own gender. Or if not, something equally bizarre.

 

"Everyone has the right to define their own gender identity."

"Gender identity is each person’s internal and individual experience of gender."

"Gender non-conforming individuals do not follow gender stereotypes based on the sex they were assigned at birth and may or may not identify as trans. “Lived” gender identity is the gender a person feels internally (“gender identity” along the gender spectrum) and expresses publicly (“gender expression”) in their daily life including at work, while shopping or accessing other services, in their housing environment or in the broader community."

Wolfkin is an identity but it doesn't involve gender. As someone who actually knows queer and trans people, no one is out there clamoring to have the gender on their license changes to "wolf".

[richado]

Just now, HerrDrFunk said:

Wolfkin is an identity but it doesn't involve gender. As someone who actually knows queer and trans people, no one is out there clamoring to have the gender on their license changes to "wolf".

What is gender if gender can be anything? I know queer and trans people too. 

[HerrDrFunk]

Just now, richado said:

What is gender if gender can be anything? I know queer and trans people too. 

While gender is certainly a wider spectrum than man/woman binary, I've never heard anyone claim that gender can be anything. Usually the people claiming that are trying to delegitimize queer or trans identities using facetious examples like attack copter.  

[richado]

1 minute ago, HerrDrFunk said:

While gender is certainly a wider spectrum than man/woman binary, I've never heard anyone claim that gender can be anything. Usually the people claiming that are trying to delegitimize queer or trans identities using facetious examples like attack copter.  

"Everyone has the right to define their own gender identity."

"Gender identity is each person’s internal and individual experience of gender."

 

Guidelines for bill c-16. Who are you/we to tell someone their experience of gender is wrong, by this definition? And if it's beyond man/woman, what is gender? What are the limits?

[HerrDrFunk]

Just now, richado said:

"Everyone has the right to define their own gender identity."

"Gender identity is each person’s internal and individual experience of gender."

 

Guidelines for bill c-16. Who are you/we to tell someone their experience of gender is wrong, by this definition? And if it's beyond man/woman, what is gender? What are the limits?

You're trying to mash something that isn't related to gender identity into the discussion to make an extreme case. 

 

Let's say we run with your example of wolfkin. Wolves still have genders, so what then?

[JM_]

17 minutes ago, richado said:

The OHRC won't be behind the bench. But the Canadian Justice Department will, and they clearly stated the OHRC as the guidelines for their definitions of the terms and the discrimination. It's their self-declared reference point. Bill C-16 gave no definitions for any of the terms in it, or what constitutes discrimination, and they point to the OHRC to describe them. So if not the OHRC, then what? Hold tribunals with subjectively and vaguely defined gender terms and subjectively defined definitions of hate speech or discrimination? It's a mess. It may very well result in nothing, and I hope it doesn't, but again, they've just opened the door to a possible mess.

 

My argument isn't hinged on wolfkin. That's just an example of what the law allows to be protected by law. From OHRC: 

 

"Everyone has the right to define their own gender identity."

"Gender identity is each person’s internal and individual experience of gender."

"Gender non-conforming individuals do not follow gender stereotypes based on the sex they were assigned at birth and may or may not identify as trans. “Lived” gender identity is the gender a person feels internally (“gender identity” along the gender spectrum) and expresses publicly (“gender expression”) in their daily life including at work, while shopping or accessing other services, in their housing environment or in the broader community."

 

That's ridiculously subjective. Your gender can be whatever you want it to be. It's the legislation of subjective feelings. You can go as far off into the weeds as you want with when subjective feelings are brought in. There's essentially no limit on gender given by these definitions, and again, these are the definitions the Canadian Justice Department point to. If not, then what? These are the ONLY definitions they've referenced. The other categories, race, age, sex, etc, aren't subjective but documented and verifiable. 

 

I understand where you're coming from, and I want people to be respected and feel belonged as well. It's the law part that makes it hairy. We don't normally legislate what people 'feel to be'.  It's too subjective. I'll probably have to leave it here or we'll go in circles.

 

Subjectivity isn't a reason on its own to prevent something from being protected. If it were, we wouldn't protect freedom of religion, which is about the most subjective and unprovable thing we protect in the Charter of Rights. 

 

[richado]

3 minutes ago, HerrDrFunk said:

You're trying to mash something that isn't related to gender identity into the discussion to make an extreme case. 

 

Let's say we run with your example of wolfkin. Wolves still have genders, so what then?

If you legislate feelings you legislate extreme cases. What are the limits of gender if it's based on one's feelings? Why can't a gender then have a gender, if we don't define gender by any limitations? If gender is not hinged on man and woman, what is it hinged on, and what even is it?

[richado]

2 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

 

Subjectivity isn't a reason on its own to prevent something from being protected. If it were, we wouldn't protect freedom of religion, which is about the most subjective and unprovable thing we protect in the Charter of Rights. 

 

Which is exactly why there is people taking the piss out of those laws and trying to gain more rights through joke and satirical religions. It's subjective. Which is a good example of what such gender legislation opens the door to. Again, I hope not. But vague laws make all sorts of things possible. 

[HerrDrFunk]

22 minutes ago, richado said:

If you legislate feelings you legislate extreme cases. What are the limits of gender if it's based on one's feelings? Why can't a gender then have a gender, if we don't define gender by any limitations? If gender is not hinged on man and woman, what is it hinged on, and what even is it?

Saying that gender is a wider spectrum than binary doesn't automatically open the door to identifying as any object that pops into your head. Here's a handy chart for visualization:

 

28 minutes ago, richado said:

Which is exactly why there is people taking the piss out of those laws and trying to gain more rights through joke and satirical religions. It's subjective. Which is a good example of what such gender legislation opens the door to. Again, I hope not. But vague laws make all sorts of things possible. 

Since that door has been opened with gender, have we seen any legitimate cases of a gender non conforming person trying to identify as a wolf, helicopter or fire hydrant? Or has it all been from people trying to take the piss out of those laws as a joke or political statement? 

[JM_]

24 minutes ago, richado said:

Which is exactly why there is people taking the piss out of those laws and trying to gain more rights through joke and satirical religions. It's subjective. Which is a good example of what such gender legislation opens the door to. Again, I hope not. But vague laws make all sorts of things possible. 

humans are vague, what can you do? the law reflects that. I don't see any satirical religions taking down the Charter anytime soon. 

 

so far all I've seen thats supposedly "possible" are just slippery slope fallacies.  Lets talk about a real concrete example. 

[richado]

6 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

humans are vague, what can you do? the law reflects that. I don't see any satirical religions taking down the Charter anytime soon. 

 

so far all I've seen thats supposedly "possible" are just slippery slope fallacies.  Lets talk about a real concrete example. 

Alright, does Scientology deserve some of the tax exemptions it enjoys?