[SpecialOlympian]

Jordan Petersen is a moron and everyone who listens to him is a whiny toddler and a loser who likely earns less than the median income.

I feel for them, but they are still losers.

[ness31]

Time for some comic relief ..

[ingliz]

enforced monogamy does not mean government-enforced monogamy.

— On the New York Times and Enforced Monogamy

I read Dr. Peterson's reply to the NYT article on incels and enforced monogamy. The problem is (if he's not just rowing back because he feels silly) we have that now.

How does serial monogamy help incels?

Most people I know are not in polyamorous relationships; they flit from flower to flower like butterflies.

[Pants-of-dog]

Please provide a source for this claim. You are forming an opinion based on your biases.

Please note that @Unthinking Majority already provided the links to the stories. Thank you.

[Truth To Power]

@Truth To Power

If you do not see it, then you do not.

What a gracious concession.

[Truth To Power]

Jordan Petersen is a moron and everyone who listens to him is a whiny toddler and a loser who likely earns less than the median income.

I feel for them, but they are still losers.

This comment says far more about you than about Peterson.

[Potemkin]

This comment says far more about you than about Peterson.

Indeed it does, and it says that @SpecialOlympian is awesome!

[Pants-of-dog]

https://torontoist.com/2016/12/are-jord ... 6-correct/

Could Bill C-16 trample free speech and criminalize freedom of expression?
So claims Jordan Peterson, the U of T professor who posted a video lecture online in September that criticized political correctness, and in which he discussed his belief that non-binary identities are invalid.

Peterson has said he would refuse to use gender-neutral pronouns if requested by a non-binary student.

Of the proposed federal Bill C-16, Peterson told the Toronto Sun: “These laws are the first laws that I’ve seen that require people under the threat of legal punishment to employ certain words, to speak a certain way, instead of merely limiting what they’re allowed to say.”

Peterson has also said he believes freedom of speech is under attack in Canada.

What’s the legitimacy to Peterson’s claims about Bill C-16? We fact-checked them.

......

What has Peterson said about Bill C-16?

“I think that some of the things that I say in my lectures now might be illegal,” Peterson says in this video (at 17:35). “I think that they might even be sufficient for me to be brought before the Ontario Human Rights Commission under their amended hate speech laws.”

He says he’s concerned that something he says when he’s teaching can be “transformed suddenly into hate speech.”

In a panel discussion on TVO’s The Agenda in October, Peterson said not only would not using someone’s preferred pronouns be considered discrimination under the new human rights legislation, it would be a form of hate speech.

“That’s why I made the video. I said that we were in danger of placing the refusal to use certain kinds of language into the same category as Holocaust denial.”

In the same discussion, he said:


“If they fine me, I won’t pay it. If they put me in jail, I’ll go on a hunger strike. I’m not doing this. And that’s that. I’m not using the words that other people require me to use. Especially if they’re made up by radical left-wing ideologues.”

Analyzing Peterson’s claims

According to Brenda Cossman, a professor of law at the University of Toronto, Peterson is “fundamentally mischaracterizing” Bill C-16.

“I don’t know if he’s misunderstanding it, but he’s mischaracterizing it,” Cossman says.

.......

Cossman says it seems Peterson is trying to argue that the misuse of pronouns could constitute hate speech.

“I don’t think there’s any legal expert that would say that [this] would meet the threshold for hate speech in Canada,” she says.

Our courts have a very high threshold for what kind of comments actually constitutes hate speech, and the nature of speech would have to be much more extreme than simply pronoun misuse, according to Cossman.

“The misuse of pronouns is not equivalent to advocating genocide in any conceivable manner,” she continues. “If he advocated genocide against trans people, he would be in violation, but misusing pronouns is not what that provision of the code is about.”

Cossman, who has participated in a debate with Peterson, takes issue with the way he uses the language to describe what could happen if he was found in violation of the Ontario Human Rights Code.

“If he was found guilty by the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, he would have been doing something illegal but not criminal,” Cossman says. In other words, he wouldn’t go to jail. Jail is only a punishment for committing a criminal offence—a violation of the Criminal Code.

If Peterson was found to be in violation of the code, there are different possible remedies. He could be ordered to pay money, he could be ordered to correct the behaviour, he could be ordered to go to training, etc.

......(article continues)

So, when it comes to Bill C-16 and the criminalization of speech, we see that JP is incorrect about people being jailed for misuse of pronouns.

[SpecialOlympian]

I really don't think it's necessary to do a big break down on why a man who cries while talking about Disney films is wrong. The dude doctor shopped halfway across the world until he found someone who would give him a treatment guaranteed to give him a stroke, it's pretty apparent that he is broken and stupid.

[Godstud]

So, when it comes to Bill C-16 and the criminalization of speech, we see that JP is incorrect about people being jailed for misuse of pronouns.

His concern was for compelled speech. While he did mischaracterize the bill, his concerns were legitimate and now have been shown to be completely valid.

[Pants-of-dog]

His concern was for compelled speech. While he did mischaracterize the bill, his concerns were legitimate and now have been shown to be completely valid.

How so? Who has been jailed for not using proper pronouns? No one. So JP has been shown to be incorrect there.

Or even charged with a criminal offence? No one. So again, JP is wrong there.

Or, in the cases of the restaurants put forth by Unthinking Majority, who was fined? And why? If it was the business itself, then no actual living person was fined. And this is after continued harassment of employees.

It seems very difficult to argue JP was correct when you cannot even provide an example of a real person suffering any negative impact, except for the loss of freedom to be a bigot and engage in discrimination.

[Godstud]

The biggest bigotry and discrimination is coming from Feminists, like you, and the LGBTQ+ communities, @Pants-of-dog. If someone doesn't address them the right way it's a criminal offense.

Using a wrong pronoun shouldn't be seen as anything but rude, but in your world, it's an offense to offend anyone, even when that person is delusional.

Look at all the HATE and vitriol you have towards Jordan Peterson. You don't look at what he says. You don't try to actually understand what he's saying, either. You pick and choose things, mostly out of context, like the bigots that you are.

Toss off.

[Rugoz]

These are brilliant

[Unthinking Majority]

Or, in the cases of the restaurants put forth by Unthinking Majority, who was fined? And why? If it was the business itself, then no actual living person was fined. And this is after continued harassment of employees.

It seems very difficult to argue JP was correct when you cannot even provide an example of a real person suffering any negative impact, except for the loss of freedom to be a bigot and engage in discrimination.

From the article I linked to:

In EN v Gallagher's Bar and Lounge, a bar and its owner were found to have breached the Human Rights Code and told to pay general damages of $10,000 each to three employees for compensation for injury to their dignity, feelings and self-respect, in addition to awards for lost wages.

“This decision serves [as] an important reminder that employers should respect their employees' wishes regarding the use of pronouns,” says Maria Tassou, senior legal counsel at Pallett Valo in Mississauga, Ont., in speaking with Canadian HR Reporter.
...
The tribunal found that by mis-gendering the applicants and by using incorrect pronouns when referring to them, the applicants were subjected to adverse treatment in their employment at the bar, says Tassou.

https://www.hrreporter.com/focus-areas/ ... uns/361374

In Ontario, the owner was found to have breached the code through his misgendering, so yes he was punished with a fine.

In the BC case, the individual owner was fined, so it's the same thing:

Deliberate misgendering in the workplace is a human rights violation, according to a ruling from a Canadian court.

Last Wednesday, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal ruled in favor of Jessie Nelson, a restaurant worker who filed a complaint against their former employer, Buono Osteria. Nelson, who is nonbinary and genderfluid, claimed the British Columbia Italian restaurant discriminated against them by intentionally using incorrect pronouns.

https://www.them.us/story/canadian-cour ... -violation

[Pants-of-dog]

From the article I linked to:

https://www.hrreporter.com/focus-areas/ ... uns/361374

In Ontario, the owner was found to have breached the code through his misgendering, so yes he was punished with a fine.

Yes, he also called them slurs, and outed them.

But since this was through the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, this is not a criminal case.

In the BC case, the individual owner was fined, so it's the same thing:

https://www.them.us/story/canadian-cour ... -violation

According to your link, the owner is not named in the suit. There is the restaurant itself, Buona Osteria, as well as the person who actually did the harassing (the bar manager) and the bar manager’s two bosses who let him harass the trans employee. None of these are the owner, as far as I can tell. So, no, I do not think that the individual owner (if there is one) was held responsible.

And it should also be noted that the person who brought the case before the BCHRT dealt with a pattern of harassment and misgendering, the employer knew it was happening and let it go on, and the complainant was fired for being trans.

So, in both cases, misuse of pronouns was deliberate, prolonged, continued to occur even after the trans people initiated a dialogue, and existed within a larger context of harassment.

So, while these two cases are clear examples of human rights tribunals ruling on misuse of gender pronouns, it is also true that the harassment experienced by the employees was enough that any boss would be sued, and that this harassment occurred because of the gender identity of the employee(s). And no one dealt with a criminal charge. Even the guys who did not bother to show up to the trial did not receive a charge of contempt of court.

[wat0n]

Are you saying that having your business pay a fine is fundamentally different from having to pay it yourself?

[ingliz]

bigotry and discrimination

What does it matter if gender is a category that is in flux and under constant revision and negotiation?

I know who I am.

I think you do too. For the most part, anyway.

Why should we give a shit?

[Godstud]

Why should we give a shit?

Because you can get charged and fined if you don't address someone with the "right" pronoun, that's why.

[ingliz]

@Godstud

If it's deliberate misgendering and harassment, bullying, why not?.

Deliberate misgendering in the workplace is a human rights violation, according to a ruling from a Canadian court.

Inadvertent honest mistakes would not give rise to charges or fines.

[Pants-of-dog]

You cannot be charged with a crime for misgendering someone in Canada.

For more info, see the quoted text from the lawyer who answers this exact question.

It is in this thread, on the last page or two.