Nonbinary gender discussion

yyy · November 28, 2017, 5:10pm

First, @Noniway you can see what a storm this is brewing among a group of people who probably have more exposure to the concept than most Taiwanese do, so, um, you can do the math.

About the “pronoun laws” in Canada, this is partly a misunderstanding.

The MercatorNet article takes a quotation from the Ontario Human Rights Commission out of context, implying that it refers to non-standard pronouns like ze.

Few Canadians realize how seriously these statutes infringe upon freedom of speech. The Ontario Human Rights Commission has stated, in the context of equivalent provisions in the Ontario Human Rights Code, that “refusing to refer to a trans person by their chosen name and a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity … will likely be discrimination when it takes place in a social area covered by the Code, including employment, housing and services like education.”

In other words, failure to use a person’s pronoun of choice — “ze,” “zir,” “they” or any one of a multitude of other potential non-words — will land you in hot water with the commission. That, in turn, can lead to orders for correction, apology, Soviet-like “re-education,” fines and, in cases of continued non-compliance, incarceration for contempt of court. This peril is exactly what Peterson warned of in his video, for which he was mocked for scaremongering.

Repent! The end is nigh!

This is what it actually says:

http://ohrc.on.ca/en/questions-and-answers-about-gender-identity-and-pronouns

What does the Ontario Human Rights Code say about gender issues?

Ontario added explicit protection for gender identity and gender expression to the Code in 2012. The Code prohibits discrimination and harassment against trans people in employment, services (including education, policing, health care, restaurants, shopping malls, etc.), housing, contracts and membership in vocational associations. The Code does not specify the use of any particular pronoun or other terminology.

Is it a violation of the Code to not address people by their choice of pronoun?

The law recognizes that everyone has the right to self-identify their gender and that “misgendering” is a form of discrimination.

As one human rights tribunal said: “Gender …may be the most significant factor in a person’s identity. It is intensely personal. In many respects how we look at ourselves and define who we are starts with our gender.”[1] The Tribunal found misgendering to be discriminatory in a case involving police, in part because the police used male pronouns despite the complainant’s self-identification as a trans woman.

Refusing to refer to a trans person by their chosen name and a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity, or purposely misgendering, will likely be discrimination when it takes place in a social area covered by the Code, including employment, housing and services like education. The law is otherwise unsettled as to whether someone can insist on any one gender-neutral pronoun in particular.

Gender-neutral pronouns may not be well known. Some people may not know how to determine what pronoun to use. Others may feel uncomfortable using gender-neutral pronouns. Generally, when in doubt, ask a person how they wish to be addressed. Use “they” if you don’t know which pronoun is preferred.[2] Simply referring to the person by their chosen name is always a respectful approach.
Doesn’t this interfere with freedom expression?

Our lawmakers and courts recognize the right to freedom of expression, and at the same time, that no right is absolute. Expression may be limited where, for example, it is hate speech under criminal law.

The Supreme Court has also found that some limits on free speech are justifiable to protect people from harassment and discrimination in social areas like employment and services.[3] On the other hand, decision-makers have said that freedom of expression is much less likely to be limited in the context of a public debate on social, political or religious issues in a university or a newspaper.[4]

In situations where equality rights and freedom of expression must be balanced, context is critical.[5] The words that are chosen matter: the more harmful the words, the further they are from the core values of freedom of expression.[6] Other important considerations are the vulnerability of the group affected by the speech, and the degree of impact on their ability to access employment, services and housing on an equal basis.[7]

Tl/dr:
They were talking about the illegality, in some contexts, of calling a transwoman he or a transman she. The controversy over non-binary gender and ze etc. is a more recent development.

The new law some people are so upset about says nothing directly about pronouns.

The full text is linked to in the article.

Whether or not the sky really is falling (i.e. we will all go to re-education camp for not learning the correct pronunciation of zir or hir or whatever) remains to be seen.

Oh and btw we do have a thread about this already.