On Professor Jordan Peterson's Thought Crime.
- i am presently sitting on once indigenous native lands.
- to be perfectly clear, of course, no one should be discriminated against based on their gender, orientation, fetish or state of confusion, in sorting out any of the aforementioned.
Labelled “The Legal Case for Gender-Neutral Pronouns”, the author presents absolutely no legal case for gender-neutral pronouns other than to describe the fullest extent of the law [hate crime] and completely ignore the [carefully crafted] knock on effects.
Indeed, individuals who choose of their own free will to ignore plea's for kind labels such as zeer, zim and they, will obviously fall short of a hate crime. This is so painfully obvious, as to be biologically 'not a thing'.
However comma, individuals that must interface with zims/zeers/theys as a part of their employment [particularly government employees], these 'institutionalised' individuals, who exercise their right to ignore participating in a confused 'non-binaries' physiological journey, will suffer supposedly unintended [non-hate crime] consequences.
Professor Jordan Peterson is a prime example; he had the audacity to merely express his opinion [he's not yet had a gender conflicted individual who has yet actually, demand interstellar mind expanding labels] and he's on the receiving end of formal notices from his employer to cease and desist. If in fact, Peterson's declarations are not-a-thing, why would a Canadian University feel it necessary to initiate the process [we all know the HR drill, 1st letter, a 2nd letter, possibly a third, and then your out of a job]?
If C-16 does not call for this, how does the U of T feel justified in any manner, in formally calling for him to stand down on his self-declared option of language and free speech? We know why U of T is doing this and we know that Ontario's Human Right Tribunal decisions and C-51 give them every legal right to call for Peterson's legal execution....even tho he has yet to actually, not comply with the entire gender pronoun thing; he's just expressed an opinion. A thought.
As Peterson explains, under these new SJW laws, it's not very difficult to envision [short of any hate crime] a student or citizen he encounters in his professional 'institutionalised capacity, where he refuses to call Bob, “Zim”, launching a civil suit for damaged feelings. A $ amount is awarded to the wallflower for their lack of self-esteem, Peterson refuses to pay, which places him or anyone in 'contempt of court', which is precisely, a jail-able offence.
This is not theoretical, it is entirely the logical likely lawful outcome. And as a bonus in the process, social just warrior's would pee themselves in glee, seeing this otherwise absolutely distinguished and outstanding professor, indeed loses his job.
Despite the honorific-ally degree'd peer-reviewed social justice warriors, [one specifically of BC fame who insists on her gender studies students, declaring their orientation (only to be mocked if their 'straight' (feelings?)) and then admittedly subjects them to 'artistic' (her word) video interpretations of lesbian ~fisting~ love (really !)] who declare a 3rd, 4th - 41st (NY State for example) gender/non-gender flavor, which have more affinity with fetish than gender....there is not a shred of biological scientific evidence to support more that the human genders of male and female.
These same pant suit wearing intellectuals, avec strap-on, also declare virtually no difference between the sexes; obviously not having been exposed to the theory of X and Y chromosomes. It's not surprising that the penis and clitoris start out with very similar structural threads. However comma, they are at a loss as for how to then explain how the two organs then develop into different looking handlebars, 'cause we're all the same' don't you know ?
Exercising his white privilege, one Chris Alexander [of FB fame said], "If I don't "identify" as being white, it doesn't mean I'm not white'.
Likewise, being a woman in a man's body [which makes me a lesbian I guess]....'If I don't “identify” as being a woman, it doesn't mean I'm not a woman. But I digress.
These same social just warriors, being previously successful at lobbying the [very notably un-elected] Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, in lawfully declaring one's feeling of sexuality/gender as legitimate, the terms of ' zee, zim, they ', are required politically correct form.
So it's the federal legislation that gives these 'Tribunal' decisions additional legal weight.
Local elementary school-boards where I live in Parkland County, cite the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal decisions, in their official declarations, as the example to follow [when in doubt]. This, precisely obligates [institutionalised public and private Catholic for that matter] teachers to mouth zim & zeer as appropriate, so as not to offend those afflicted with gender diaspora. We can all agree that this is nice, it's warm and fuzzy and friendly.
The unintended knock on effect, is the disintegration of historical family terms such as mom, dad,, mother, father, sister, brother, grandpa, grandma.
Teachers, so as to not offend the fantastical non-binary, simply will not refer to anyone, as mom, dad, mother, father.... Now rather, it's your “parent/parents.
Students, so as to not offend a (3rd party to the conversation with their teacher) fantastical non-binary, are not refer to their mom, dad, mother, father....rather it's your “parent/parents. It's not my 'brother', rather it's now, my 'sibling' … WTFrack ?
It's so unintended, that even when the supposed non-binary is the 3rd, distant person overhearing the conversation, from a distance, this is the required language. It keeps the teacher safe, and thus, more importantly, it keeps the institution safe, from litigation.
I fully expect that upon picking my 6 year old Grandson up at school, if I was to utter the gender specific slur “ Hello there, I'm Billy's Grand-Father, here to drive him home... ”, I'd be quickly taken aside by [at least] the Vice-Principle, and spoken to, in a one sided conversation.
Social justice warriors might gain some sympathy, if they only requested the creation of new words to avoid hurt feelings, when being addressed; (which I could almost buy into if only to be nice) However comma, the [apparently] unintended consequences will end up in those who refuse to utter the legally mandated words, being eventually, litigated, fined, out of a job, and in rare cases, jailed for remaining obstinate.
Secondly, social justice warriors might gain some sympathy, if they only requested the creation of new words to avoid hurt feelings, when being addressed, without inadvertently destroying the cultural language of gender, that has been in use for generations.
This second point is currently an unintended knock-on effect. But, present Ontario legislation, is designed expressly to make it law. The terms of Mother and Father will be legally expunged, to be replaced with the term(s), “Parent(s)”. And for some reason I've yet to fathom, you will be able to have not 2, but rather '4 Parents'...
In a somewhat disturbingly related case, Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott, it was decreed that even the truth can be litigious:
Quote- Truthful statements can be presented in a manner that would meet the definition of hate speech, and not all truthful statements must be free from restriction. -Unquote
In summary, my opinions (having nothing to do with any religious moralising) are based on science, biology specifically, which to my knowledge, in humans supports 2 genders, male and female. The fact that you look like a woman, but feel like your a guy, is perfectly ok [not that anyone needs my permission].
If you suffer from gender diaspora, seek psychological therapy to resolve your conflict-ions and do not demand that every else's Mother and Father become State sanctioned, neutered non-gendered 'parents'.
I am a father and a grand-father and expect I will remain so (in my own mind), regardless of legally mandated nouns.
Regarding the enforced mandated use of non-binary gender pronouns,at my Grandson's elementary school in Stoney Plain, Alberta, administered under EVERGREEN CATHOLIC SCHOOLS
Administrative Policy # 160, Safe & Caring Schools - page 8, Section 8.2.1
which refers us to the following re gender diversity issues:
Province of Alberta – Ministry of Education - Guidelines or Best Practices: Creating Learning Environments that Respect Diverse Sexual Orientations, Gender Identities and Gender Expressions. - Para 11 (Page 14)
Quote- Truthful statements can be presented in a manner that would meet the definition of hate speech, and not all truthful statements must be free from restriction. - Unquote
Supreme Court Judgments - Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott
Date 2013-02-27 Case number 33676