Does Jordan Peterson have a coherent argument that not using preferred pronouns is free speech?

[DrZoidberg]

This is like Thor slaying the Ice Giants. Because there are no Ice Giants, therefore Thor exists. Erm... no.

You understand wrongly. Nobody wants to legislate the English language. Jordan Peters is against something that doesn't exist.

Yes, and he wants it to stay that that way.

Who the fuck cares? Where's the news in this?

I'm against changing the laws of physics. I want to go on television to argue against it. After all, what kind of world would it be if gravity kept changing all the time. I'm sick and tired of people wanting to take my gravity away. Where's my TV show!!!

 

[DrZoidberg]

BTW, this is all a storm in a tea cup. What this guy is against is legislation to regulate which pronouns he is allowed to use. Nobody (we need to care about) has proposed such legislation. Nor will they ever. That is not how languages evolve.

Jordan Peters is fed up and angry about something which isn't a problem and never will be. He is an idiot. He misses the point entirely.

The transgendered guy arguing against him isn't either trying to get such regulations passed. He/she/it (see how annoying gendered pronouns are) just wants to talk on TV a bit. Good for he/she/it (please, shoot me it's so annoying to have to write that shit out). They're not remotely talking about the same thing.

What a fucking pseudo-debate and pseudo-controversy. If you like it, use it. If you don't don't. I'm all for anything that enhances ease of understanding and ease of reading. As far as I am concerned languages should be constantly evolving. That is a good thing.

Actually, Peterson is arguing specifically against Bill C-16 which he claims would open the door for legislating the use of certain pronouns. I think some people have argued this is a misconception. I am no legal expert, but that is the argument, but it isn't an argument about nothing.

Lol. Absolut bullshit. Bill C-16 is against hate-speech. That's speech intended to induce people to break laws to hurt people of some targeted minority. That's not "hurt" as in "hurt feelings". That's actual harm as bodily harm or significant economic loss due to a concerted hate-campaign. The rules for proving harm in these cases are pretty stiff. You need something pretty extreme to get nailed by it. A wobbling lower lip on TV isn't good enough.

Bill C-16 has nothing to do with calling a trans person by the "wrong" pronoun. That's just ice giants!!

Jordan Peters is using the slippery slope argument. But it's idiotic on the face of it. They were saying the same stuff a hundred years ago about giving women the vote. Well, that turned out just fine. There's nothing inevitable about including trans people in the hate-speech and the following totalitarian thought police state.

I should say here that I'm a liberal here. I am against Bill C-16. I want all hate-speech laws to be removed. I want it to be legal to express anything against anyone freely (as long as it isn't about exposing sensitive private stuff of non-celebrity individuals). I'm for radical free expression. But I still think Jordan Peters is an idiot.

 

[Deepak]

Full text of the bill http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&DocId=8609176

I'm not able to square Peterson's with the text of the bill.

 

[barbos]

Full text of the bill http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&DocId=8609176

I'm not able to square Peterson's with the text of the bill.

I understand it's not so much about text in the bill itself it's about context and what lead to it and intentions. Obviously they can't directly legislate english language, that would be ridiculous. But if you watched the video you have seen the list of pronouns, that should give you some clues about intent.

 

[Trausti]

My impression is that the real concern is Canada's Orwellian "Human Rights Commission." There were past controversies involving freedom of speech. In any event, could a person now be called before that kangaroo court for refusing to refer to someone as xir, xirs, or xirself?

 

[Malintent]

Seems like he is making too much of a big deal about it even if he is technically correct. In many languages there are no gender pronouns, I wonder how gender non-typicals deal with that aspect there.

Sweden recently transferred from he/she to a new gender neutral pronoun. No government regulation or rules. It just caught on because it was more helpful. In Swedish he, is "han" and she is "hon". The new gender neutral one is "hen". Much more practical. Also doesn't obstruct anybody who would prefer to use the old system.

I for one prefer a gender neutral pronoun instead of having to write he/she all the time.

I've been using non-gender pronouns casually ever since email was invented... but only verbally when talking about a conversation I might have had with someone whose gender is unknown to me.... Never got into the habit of writing it down or actively spreading the word.. So I will spell these pronouns I made up as best as I can...

Him / Her / Them = Um (I told um not to do that!)
His, Hers, Theirs = Ehz (Put down ehz hat, it does not belong to you!)
He / She / They = Eay (I like that person. Eay is a great guy*.

* "Guy" and "Guys" are already gender neutral, IMO.

 

[LordKiran]

Sweden recently transferred from he/she to a new gender neutral pronoun. No government regulation or rules. It just caught on because it was more helpful. In Swedish he, is "han" and she is "hon". The new gender neutral one is "hen". Much more practical. Also doesn't obstruct anybody who would prefer to use the old system.

I for one prefer a gender neutral pronoun instead of having to write he/she all the time.

I've been using non-gender pronouns casually ever since email was invented... but only verbally when talking about a conversation I might have had with someone whose gender is unknown to me.... Never got into the habit of writing it down or actively spreading the word.. So I will spell these pronouns I made up as best as I can...

Him / Her / Them = Um (I told um not to do that!)
His, Hers, Theirs = Ehz (Put down ehz hat, it does not belong to you!)
He / She / They = Eay (I like that person. Eay is a great guy*.

* "Guy" and "Guys" are already gender neutral, IMO.

How about an informal They/Thiers/Them used in the singular?

 

[Malintent]

I've been using non-gender pronouns casually ever since email was invented... but only verbally when talking about a conversation I might have had with someone whose gender is unknown to me.... Never got into the habit of writing it down or actively spreading the word.. So I will spell these pronouns I made up as best as I can...

Him / Her / Them = Um (I told um not to do that!)
His, Hers, Theirs = Ehz (Put down ehz hat, it does not belong to you!)
He / She / They = Eay (I like that person. Eay is a great guy*.

* "Guy" and "Guys" are already gender neutral, IMO.

How about an informal They/Thiers/Them used in the singular?

Ya'll works for that, I think.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Who's trying to legislate the English language?

Some transgender people I understand.

Actually there has been a shift with pronouns They and Them which classically was more about a set of people, not an individual, is now being used more as a gender-free pronoun for individuals as well. And I think this really goes back a bit in order to not assume gender between a male and female.

So the change has been occurring for a bit already.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

My impression is that the real concern is Canada's Orwellian "Human Rights Commission." There were past controversies involving freedom of speech. In any event, could a person now be called before that kangaroo court for refusing to refer to someone as xir, xirs, or xirself?

Probably will. And they'll hang you for it too... or banish you to Newfoundland.

 

[Malintent]

Some transgender people I understand.

Actually there has been a shift with pronouns They and Them which classically was more about a set of people, not an individual, is now being used more as a gender-free pronoun for individuals as well. And I think this really goes back a bit in order to not assume gender between a male and female.

So the change has been occurring for a bit already.

Yes.. pluralization has classically been a means to "hide" the gender of someone you are referring to... commonly used by same-sex partners to refer to each other in the other's absence while not revealing their sexual orientation to whomever they are speaking to. I've heard it called "playing the gender game" on the show Modern Family.. not that it is a documentary or anything, heh.

 

[Malintent]

How about an informal They/Thiers/Them used in the singular?

Ya'll works for that, I think.

.. and the plural of that is, "All Ya'll"

 

[repoman]

I like "you people"