Compelled Speech VS Respecting Trans-person's pronouns

[Kinghex]

There's some unfair presumptions made that I'd like to briefly resolve for the sake of aiding continuations. Anti-vaxxers are against autism spreading, they're not against people with autism. Similarly, people taking vaccinations against the flu are against having the flu, not against people with the flu. It's this distinction, or fair possibility considering the alternative could exist but it's not as likely, that facilitates the existence of this argument. If there is a harmless alternative, and there's reasonable evidence this alternative context is prevalent, it's a bad basis for censorship.

Within the segment on suicide rates: rejection and misgendering are two different concepts. They may overlap. However, there's instances where fair error is not a product of malice. Without knowing about gender theory, it's assumed someone could misgender another on the honest premise that they believe it to be an absurd or false claim. Again, it's an instance where a non-harmful context is present.

So, the illuminated problem here is assuming the severity is inherently live or die, wound or no wound. It's not. I think it should be possible to argue the issue without targeting that extreme, especially because media and public acceptance is overall rising.

It may be more productive to adhere more closely to whether further legal adoption of this issue should be taken, and the grounds that it's rightful to do so. There's a subordinate argument over whether freedom of religion contradicts or supercedes other free speech rights; that should probably be labeled and discussed in that frame to make it clear it's not overlapping with the general coercion theme. (Topics like this are difficult to keep orderly, there's a lot to touch on.)

Carry on.

[Skynet]

I just don't know if we want to be legislating laws based around respect out of fear that not being compelled to show respect will then cause physical harm... All things considered, I imagine compelled speech laws like this might even cause people to grow more hateful, not less.

We already have laws which are based around preemptively preventing harm. Disturbing the peace follows a similar line of logic.


Now in regards to legislation in regards to pronouns, a lot of the fear comes from Jordan Peterson's public freakout over a Canadian Human Rights Bill. That was a myth propagated by conservative groups. You can tell it's a myth because no Canadian citizen has yet to serve jail time for using the wrong pronoun. The bill to my knowledge is specifically in regards to healthcare and housing providers prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity or expression.

Here's a news article about it, and how legal experts disagree with him on it:

Dr Peterson is concerned proposed federal human rights legislation "will elevate into hate speech" his refusal to use alternative pronouns.

Legal experts disagree.

Bill C-16, currently before Canada's parliament, prohibits discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act on the basis of gender identity and expression. The bill covers the federal government and federally regulated industries like banks or airlines. It also extends hate speech provisions under Canada's criminal code to transgendered people.

"I don't think any legal expert would say using an inappropriate pronoun, while not something that respects the human rights of trans people, would ever result in a criminal conviction," said Kyle Kirkup, a law professor with the University of Ottawa who specialises in gender identity and sexuality law.

But Dr Peterson could face sanction under Ontario's human rights code, which extended protection to trans people in 2012.

Penalties range from fines and damages to mandatory anti-discrimination training.

So the worst are fines and anti-discrimination training, which is not at all uncommon for professors, employers, and others with a state of power over those who they provide service.

As for making people more hateful, hate and bigotry will always be around in some form. Rather, civil rights legislation made racism and other "isms" go underground due to the changing cultural climate. They resorted to code words, private online groups, etc. But they were still there, and where a powerful political bloc:

Legal and human rights are there to mitigate their worst excesses. The United States is perhaps one of the most Free Speech countries on the planet, but we have a large amount of hate groups.

[Skynet]

There's some unfair presumptions made that I'd like to briefly resolve for the sake of aiding continuations. Anti-vaxxers are against autism spreading, they're not against people with autism. Similarly, people taking vaccinations against the flu are against having the flu, not against people with the flu. It's this distinction, or fair possibility considering the alternative could exist but it's not as likely, that facilitates the existence of this argument. If there is a harmless alternative, and there's reasonable evidence this alternative context is prevalent, it's a bad basis for censorship.

When you're disagreeing with 99% of the scientific community, cherrypick evidence, and only ever talk and acknowledge a tiny sliver of autism horror stories, you're on some level either malicious or deep in denial. And many anti-vaxxers when presented with evidence of how they'll be responsible for disease outbreaks, they shrug their shoulders and don't care. "I don't care about other kids, just my kids." But they don't even care about the latter.

Within the segment on suicide rates: rejection and misgendering are two different concepts. They may overlap. However, there's instances where fair error is not a product of malice. Without knowing about gender theory, it's assumed someone could misgender another on the honest premise that they believe it to be an absurd or false claim. Again, it's an instance where a non-harmful context is present.

A "fair error" is not what is being discussed, either in the article or by Icelandic. It's about whether there should be social (as well as legal) consequences for being intentionally disrespectful.

[Kinghex]

When you're disagreeing with 99% of the scientific community, cherrypick evidence, and only ever talk and acknowledge a tiny sliver of autism horror stories, you're on some level either malicious or deep in denial. And many anti-vaxxers when presented with evidence of how they'll be responsible for disease outbreaks, they shrug their shoulders and don't care. "I don't care about other kids, just my kids." But they don't even care about the latter.

A "fair error" is not what is being discussed, either in the article or by Icelandic. It's about whether there should be social (as well as legal) consequences for being intentionally disrespectful.

'Or in deep denial' is the principle I'm illuminating. People don't learn consistently. There's a resurgence of flat earthers too. Neither are credible, that's beyond debate. Whether they're malicious by intention in consistent enough a manner to be barred from podium is debated. My position is they're not. They're stupid, but it's a form of stupidity best voiced. (Especially because the ability to disagree with them and engage with their positions, rather than conduct amongst themselves silently, is a worse alternative. This public shame against them came about in contention, and while they are significant enough a population to note, they're also known for being mocked and shamed for the aforementioned stats.) It's not concrete, consistent, or credible enough a malicious form of stupidity to legislate against without unintended losses. But I support social shaming.

On the later note, I disagree. Once it hits a legislative body, there is a chance that utterance despite context will be penalized. Whether context or intent influence legal coercion is absolutely relevant once a penalty for a phrase or word being spoken is applied. The case linked was deliberate and intentional, so in that instance, no debate about use.

My point for bringing that up related to the broader discussion. It's possible and likely intent would contribute to legal reasoning on this matter for a broader sum of cases, and that some would involve mistaken or ignorant examples.

I've already posted by position to the central argument earlier, so I'll try not to be redundant, haha. My position is that I support social consequence, support the ability for workplaces to integrate rules that prevent employees from misgendering, but I'm against federal regulation.

I suspect we may agree with the fundamental decisions this discussion brings, and I agree with many supporting arguments.

[Skynet]

My point for bringing that up related to the broader discussion. It's possible and likely intent would contribute to legal reasoning on this matter for a broader sum of cases, and that some would involve mistaken or ignorant examples.

Of course it will. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done, for there are many cases where even reasoned laws are improperly applied. But US law can and does separate intent; it's why there are differences between 1st degree murder (planning over time on how to kill someone) vs. 2nd degree murder (stranger shooting another stranger in a fit of road rage) vs. manslaughter (accidentally causing a car crash which results in death).

As for mistaken and ignorant examples, this would likely be cases of first-time offences, which in the US are treated more leniently than repeat offenders. Courtrooms would (and already do) take those into account.

[Kinghex]

Of course it will. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done, for there are many cases where even reasoned laws are improperly applied. But US law can and does separate intent; it's why there are differences between 1st degree murder (planning over time on how to kill someone) vs. 2nd degree murder (stranger shooting another stranger in a fit of road rage) vs. manslaughter (accidentally causing a car crash which results in death).

As for mistaken and ignorant examples, this would likely be cases of first-time offences, which in the US are treated more leniently than repeat offenders. Courtrooms would (and already do) take those into account.

Yes, exactly! See, this is why I think we're already on the same page for the fundamentals. To summarize what we've mutually agreed on: legal system already seperates intent. Courts already seperate consequences. We're even agreed that the likely consequences of this law would not be significant enough to match the rationalization that it would necessitate jail time.

Prior (my second thread post) , I mistakenly believed the insinuation of your posts was that a majority of misgendering instances contributed to the transgender suicide rate, or that anti-vaxxers are necessarily and consistently a hate group against autistic people. Further, that this was the basis for expanding federal legislation on coercing speech. That was a premise I wanted to clarify. Now, I have a better grasp of your position. While I still disagree with the expansion of legislation, I'm happy to better understand the premises shared.

[Mithlomwen]

Due to the number of reports and issues this thread has caused, it is being locked to avoid anymore of these problems.