The Pronoun Wars Continue

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

Thanks for the clarification and the additional information. The quoted information from the OP seems to be very right slanted.  I think it is always good to look at several sources reporting on a issue.

The problem is this is all through the father or almost all.  The National Post link found by bsjjki and the. Press release link I put up seems to have the most thorough info so far, IMO.  And I don’t like single sources.  Could be miscommunications...like the comment the dad took a year to realize something was happening.  What is the state of the shared custody and why is a big question for me.  Also why the child is attempting emancipation from both parents iirc.  Perhaps it is necessary to do both and not just one and this is the only way he can control his contact with his father.

[Scott Lloyd]

On 3/19/2021 at 5:22 PM, Calm said:

A B.C. father who objects to his teenage child’s gender transition therapy was arrested on Tuesday and put in jail until at least Friday for repeatedly speaking publicly about aspects of the case

Doesn’t Canada protect freedom of speech? 

[bsjkki]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Doesn’t Canada protect freedom of speech? 

No. England’s free speech rights also don’t compare to the US.
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/tom-kott/freedom-of-speech-canada_b_2324999.html

Edited March 21, 2021 by bsjkki

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

No. England’s free speech rights are also don’t compare the US.
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/tom-kott/freedom-of-speech-canada_b_2324999.html

This gives me renewed appreciation for how the U.S. Constitution sets the example in the protection of civil liberties and how, according to scripture, it was divinely inspired in that respect. 
 

It also serves as a warning how even in this country we need to beware  of the enactment of laws that would make hurting somebody’s feelings a criminal offense. 

[The Nehor]

I told people we should normalize they/their as a gender-neutral singular pronoun and they laughed at me and said it was unnecessary.

Well, who is laughing now?

 

 

 

Not me, I am kind of sad today.

Edited March 22, 2021 by The Nehor

[Damien the Leper]

On 3/19/2021 at 4:59 PM, strappinglad said:

This is the new way the State has to jail those who use free speech and religious exemptions to go against the narrative. The state can't jail the person directly so they put a court order on them and then can jail them for " contempt of court " 

We as a society have decided that children under 18 shouldn't smoke or drink and those under 16 shouldn't drive ... because they are not mature enough. On the other hand changing gender at 5 or 6 is just fine. They are mature enough for that major life decision. Schools are given the power to make enable those decisions but parents ? Nope!!

Could be worse. We can force our personal religion on children from the day they are born. 

[The Nehor]

On 3/21/2021 at 2:20 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

Doesn’t Canada protect freedom of speech? 

The US first amendment is a rare thing. It is also a controversial thing. We have worked in a few exceptions to the First Amendment (sadly most were created to persecute minority religious, racial, or cultural groups).

The “fighting words” exception, for example came from a Jehovah’s Witness who was preaching on a street corner. He was assaulted by a mob who attempted at one point to impale him with an American flag (the more things change...). The police pulled him away instead of arresting the mob. He called the police “fascists” and he was successfully prosecuted for “inciting” the police.

The oft-cited “can’t cry ‘fire’ in a crowded theater” anecdote came from a case where socialists in World War I were urging people to resist the draft. Following it were more cases where the legal system was used to suppress political views during the war. It is now regarded as bad law and a bad ruling.

I like our system and I like the First Amendment but it does mean that the people in the system have to be more responsible to maintain the system itself. I am not optimistic.

Edited March 23, 2021 by The Nehor

[Duncan]

On 3/21/2021 at 2:41 PM, bsjkki said:

No. England’s free speech rights also don’t compare to the US.
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/tom-kott/freedom-of-speech-canada_b_2324999.html

England and Canada are two different countries

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, Duncan said:

England and Canada are two different countries

Sure they are. Just like the Commonwealth isn’t an Illuminati front controlled by the Pentaverate.

[bsjkki]

16 minutes ago, Duncan said:

England and Canada are two different countries

Sorry if I was unclear. Canada does not have free speech rights like the US nor does England. The article discusses both countries.

Edited March 23, 2021 by bsjkki

[Duncan]

I don't understand this, anyone in Canada can say anything but there are consequences to what you say, are there not consequences for what you say in the US? is that limiting free speech if their are consequences to what you say in either country?

[Rain]

27 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I don't understand this, anyone in Canada can say anything but there are consequences to what you say, are there not consequences for what you say in the US? is that limiting free speech if their are consequences to what you say in either country?

There are always consequences, but many things you say don't have legal consequences.  There are some things that have legal consequences like with yelling fire in a crowded place or child pornography. You can see those kind of  exceptions here.

[bsjkki]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/ideas-a-canada-free-speech-case-that-would-scare-us-here-in-dayton/ar-BB1eKLoO
 

 

Edited March 23, 2021 by bsjkki

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

I don't understand this, anyone in Canada can say anything but there are consequences to what you say, are there not consequences for what you say in the US? is that limiting free speech if their are consequences to what you say in either country?

Some people want there to be no consequences. The reality is that some people are literally (using this word intentionally in the literal sense) deranged about what the 1st Amendment protects. It protects from persecution or prosecution from the government for the things you say and only from the government. There are some exceptions where you can be penalized but they are intentionally very narrow.

Some try to expand this outside the legal sphere. They try to make it so privately owned internet and other media cannot censor content as they wish. My recent ban proves that it does not apply here. I will get you one day Nemesis! ONE DAY!!!!!

In the US you can be fired because your boss does not like what the bumper sticker on your car says. There is no fundamental right to free speech in a job. At least you can be fired for saying just about anything. There are some defined areas of protection around race, religion, and a few other things but they are hard to enforce successfully in most cases. In practice you can say whatever you want but people will scream about the 1st Amendment as if there is a moral imperative that others not punish them socially or economically for saying it. There is no such imperative.

Remember that crowing about the First Amendment when your speech is unliked is basically admitting that your position is pretty indefensible and bankrupt. When your defense boils down to it not being actually illegal for you to say it maybe you need something better to say. 

It is like “that guy” that asks you to do something dodgy while insisting that what he wants to do is not “technically illegal” except that is almost always actually illegal and speech is not.

Edited March 23, 2021 by The Nehor

[bsjkki]

Yes, unless speech violates a pretty narrow set of facts, the government will not arrest you for words. And, while private companies do work outside legal structures to police speech, when monopolies or power is concentrated, free speech as we are used to will/can be in jeopardy. 
 

“Imagine that you are a resident in a low-population county in 1950. You run afoul of the small group of families who are effectively in charge. Your political and legal rights are unimpaired. You are free to vote and you are free to sue in municipal and county and state courts. The police treat you with unfailing courtesy and respect.

But strange things start to happen. The only newspaper in the county refuses to take ads for your business. The only bank in the county announces that it is closing your account and calling in your mortgage. Your car breaks down and the only garage and service shop in the county refuses to repair it. The only general store in the county refuses your patronage and the few restaurants in the county turn you away at the door. After you lose your business to the newspaper advertising boycott, you try to get a job, but discover that you have been blacklisted by all of the employers in the county. Nobody will hire you.

Are you free, in this scenario, just because there is no official interference with your voting rights and your civil rights? Private power is power, no less than government power. You can be immobilized, impoverished, humiliated, tormented, and perhaps driven to suicide by hostile businesses and banks in an otherwise functioning liberal democracy, just as surely as by the police or military in a dictatorship.

The United States in 2021 is a continental nation-state with nearly 330 million people. And yet its social system today, in disturbing respects, resembles that of my imaginary county in 1950. Instead of one general store, there is Amazon with its dominant online position. Instead of one local newspaper, there is Google, which serves as the 21st-century version of the old Yellow Pages. Instead of one county bank, there are a handful of giant banks and credit card companies. As in the old 1950 county, if one essential firm spurns you there may be no alternatives in that industry who want your business, as a practical matter. If one or all of these national monopolies and oligopolies turn against you, for whatever reason, your business or your reputation or your life can be destroyed.”

 

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/americas-new-corporate-tyranny

 

Edited March 24, 2021 by bsjkki

[The Nehor]

11 hours ago, bsjkki said:

Yes, unless speech violates a pretty narrow set of facts, the government will not arrest you for words. And, while private companies do work outside legal structures to police speech, when monopolies or power is concentrated, free speech as we are used to will/can be in jeopardy. 
 

“Imagine that you are a resident in a low-population county in 1950. You run afoul of the small group of families who are effectively in charge. Your political and legal rights are unimpaired. You are free to vote and you are free to sue in municipal and county and state courts. The police treat you with unfailing courtesy and respect.

But strange things start to happen. The only newspaper in the county refuses to take ads for your business. The only bank in the county announces that it is closing your account and calling in your mortgage. Your car breaks down and the only garage and service shop in the county refuses to repair it. The only general store in the county refuses your patronage and the few restaurants in the county turn you away at the door. After you lose your business to the newspaper advertising boycott, you try to get a job, but discover that you have been blacklisted by all of the employers in the county. Nobody will hire you.

Are you free, in this scenario, just because there is no official interference with your voting rights and your civil rights? Private power is power, no less than government power. You can be immobilized, impoverished, humiliated, tormented, and perhaps driven to suicide by hostile businesses and banks in an otherwise functioning liberal democracy, just as surely as by the police or military in a dictatorship.

The United States in 2021 is a continental nation-state with nearly 330 million people. And yet its social system today, in disturbing respects, resembles that of my imaginary county in 1950. Instead of one general store, there is Amazon with its dominant online position. Instead of one local newspaper, there is Google, which serves as the 21st-century version of the old Yellow Pages. Instead of one county bank, there are a handful of giant banks and credit card companies. As in the old 1950 county, if one essential firm spurns you there may be no alternatives in that industry who want your business, as a practical matter. If one or all of these national monopolies and oligopolies turn against you, for whatever reason, your business or your reputation or your life can be destroyed.”

 

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/americas-new-corporate-tyranny

 

Why not just say you are black in the south in the 1950s? Would have saved time.

[Amulek]

14 hours ago, Duncan said:

I don't understand this, anyone in Canada can say anything but there are consequences to what you say, are there not consequences for what you say in the US? is that limiting free speech if their are consequences to what you say in either country?

There is a marked difference in both the type and degree of consequences that can be imposed by private citizens as opposed to the government. 

 

[bsjkki]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Why not just say you are black in the south in the 1950s? Would have saved time.

True. These are the things that should be unacceptable in America.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

On 3/19/2021 at 1:49 PM, smac97 said:

willfully and repeatedly failing to use a resident’s preferred name or pronouns after being clearly informed of the preferred name or pronouns.

Can someone explain to me why this is objectionable? Is this really what Latter-day Saints are worried about? Their right to torment trans-people in long term care facilities by “willfully and repeatedly” referring to them in a way that causes them distress? 

[Amulek]

My preferred pronoun is My Holiness.

Please be sure to use this when speaking about me from here on out, even in casual conversations which I may or may not even overhear. 

Remember, there is no religious exemption for this, and failure to do as you have now clearly been informed will result in a fine of up to $1,000 and/or a year in jail. 

Thanks for your understanding.

 

Edited March 25, 2021 by Amulek

[SeekingUnderstanding]

19 minutes ago, Amulek said:

My preferred pronoun is My Holiness.

Is it really? Do you know any trans people? My Aunt, as a young boy dressed in women’s clothing. She struggled her whole life to live according to gospel precepts. Serving a mission, marrying, and raising 6 kids in the church. At some point the depression of it all hit and became overwhelming. She tried to kill herself. At that point she decided it was time to accept who she was and she transitioned. That you somehow think this life long struggle is at all analogous to your lame attempt at a joke is pretty telling. 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

willfully and repeatedly failing to use a resident’s preferred name or pronouns after being clearly informed of the preferred name or pronouns.

Can someone explain to me why this is objectionable? Is this really what Latter-day Saints are worried about? Their right to torment trans-people in long term care facilities by “willfully and repeatedly” referring to them in a way that causes them distress? 

A few thoughts:

1. I differentiate between, on the one hand, a request and, on the other, a legally-enforceable and punishable-by-law-if-you-don't-comply demand.  I'm willing to consider going along with the former, but will resist the latter quite mightily.

2. I think it is important to not perpetuate falsehoods.

3. I think it is important to consider whether mental illness is involved, and whether going along with a mental illness is a good idea.  As I see it, a person cannot change their gender, any more than they can change their age (Stefoknee Wolscht), or their ancestry (Rachel Dolezal, Jessica Krug) or their species (Eva Tiamat Medusa).

4. The Pronoun Wars are a form of tyranny.  Using the law to compel me to speak in a way that contravenes what I want to say is immoral.

5. The Pronoun Wars are, I think, the thin edge of the wedge.  The camel's nose in the tent.  Pick your metaphor.

6. I have no interest in "tormenting" anyone.  But I dispute that declining to go along with an absurdity or a falsehood is equivalent to "torment."

7. What is the limiting principle here?  Are we risking our individual autonomy by surrendering on personal pronouns?  

8. Compelled speech is unconstitutional.

9. Our society is pretty darn inconsistent in how it treats personal preferences in this context.  If Bruce Jenner can become a woman, why can't Rachel Dolezal and Jessica Krug become black?  Why can't Stefoknee become a six-year-old girl?  Again, what is the limiting principle?

10. Ben Shapiro speaks of this topic here: "One of the problems that we have is that this determination, that men can become women and women can become men, undermines some barriers between men and women that I think are useful and good, particularly in children."  He goes on to explain:

11. Stefoknee Wolscht is an interesting case study:

Quote

'I've gone back to being a child': Husband and father-of-seven, 52, leaves his wife and kids to live as a transgender SIX-YEAR-OLD girl named Stefonknee

• Stefonknee Wolscht, 52, lived as Paul until she realized she was trans at age 46 and was not accepted by her family
• After two suicide attempts and a bout of homelessness, she found hope in the transgender community in Toronto  
• She now resides with an adoptive 'mommy and daddy' and spends her time playing with dolls and the couple's young grandchildren 

 

A Canadian man who was married, with seven kids, has left his family in order to fulfill his true identity - as a six-year-old girl.

In an emotional video with gay news site The Daily Xtra in collaboration with The Transgender Project, Stefonknee (pronounced ‘Stef-on-knee’) Wolscht, 52, of Toronto, says she realized she was transgender - rather that simply a cross-dresser - at age 46, and split from her wife, Maria, after she told her husband to 'stop being trans or leave'.

Now, Stefonknee lives with friends who she cans her 'adoptive mommy and daddy' as a six-year-old girl, dressing in children's clothing and spending her time playing and coloring with her adoptive parents' grandchildren.

Before: Paul was married to his wife and was a father to their seven kids for 23 years, until at age 46, he realized he was a woman. His wife told him to 'stop being trans or leave', so he left 

Our society is, I think, willing to accept him as a "woman."  But are we also willing to accept him as a perpetual six-year-old girl?  If yes, then are we being honest and truthful?  Is this person actually a perpetual six-year-old girl?  

And if not, why not? 

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 24, 2021 by smac97

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

My preferred pronoun is My Holiness.

Is it really?

If you can ask that question of Amulek, can it be asked of others?

And is sincerity a replacement for reality?  

8 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Do you know any trans people? My Aunt, as a young boy dressed in women’s clothing. She struggled her whole life to live according to gospel precepts. Serving a mission, marrying, and raising 6 kids in the church. At some point the depression of it all hit and became overwhelming. She tried to kill herself. At that point she decided it was time to accept who she was and she transitioned. That you somehow think this life long struggle is at all analogous to your lame attempt at a joke is pretty telling. 

I don't think we should joke about such things.  But I also am not sure we should reflexively and automatically go along with such things either.  And I'm really not comfortable with the government punishing us for not reflexively and automatically go along with such things.

I am also not comfortable with your invocation of suicide as a basis for going along with you uncle/aunt.  It seems coercive.  

Also, your statement that your uncle/aunt "accept{ed} who she was" presupposes that which is in dispute.  I don't think that works.  I think there is an ongoing debate that merits some attention.  Is a person situated like your uncle/aunt well and truly "misgendered?"  A woman trapped in man's body?  Or is this a form of mental illness?  Is gender arbitrarily "assigned at birth," or is it essentially an intrinsic trait like age?

I think reasonable minds can disagree about these questions.  But my concern is that one side of the discussion is being shouted down.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Is it really? Do you know any trans people? My Aunt, as a young boy dressed in women’s clothing. She struggled her whole life to live according to gospel precepts. Serving a mission, marrying, and raising 6 kids in the church. At some point the depression of it all hit and became overwhelming. She tried to kill herself. At that point she decided it was time to accept who she was and she transitioned. That you somehow think this life long struggle is at all analogous to your lame attempt at a joke is pretty telling. 

My daughter (she is not trans, she is non-binary) just asked me yesterday (she was unaware of the Canadian case) if I would be bothered if someday she asked me to use they/them and call her my child rather than daughter. There was no pressure. While she prefers no specific gender, she isn’t certain yet whether she wants to take the step to ask others to change.

While the query brought tears as almost all do because they remind me that her life is a struggle in too many ways, the request in my view is reasonable as my request to my parents when I asked them to stop calling me what I saw was a childish name.

I intend to start working on changing my habit of speech even though she is not asking me to change at this point.  Most likely I see me using her name mostly. 

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

As I see it, a person cannot change their gender,

Gender is a label and if one doesn’t see gender in the same way, a different label may be chosen. 
 

My brother currently lives in Asia now. If he is asked his age there, he says 55 until the next Chinese NY.  If he is asked his age here, he says 53 until his birthday. Age is a measurement and measurement can vary depending on how they are defined. 
 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Asian_age_reckoning

Quote

Since age is incremented at the beginning of the lunar or solar year, rather than on the anniversary of a birthday, people may be one or two years older in Asian reckoning than in the international age system.

 

Edited March 24, 2021 by Calm