The Great SSP Canada Cancel Culture & Wokeism Thread

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Andy6

Third-person pronouns are not used to "address" someone. You'd think grammar authorities like the Commission would have at least a Grade Seven-level grasp of what they're talking about.

Maybe they're just trying to cover the Silence of the Lambs type situations.

[Pavlov]

Responding to this because I think you're generally a good poster (even when we disagree).

Originally Posted by someone123

I wasn't using the Jessica Yaniv example to diminish or dismiss discrimination. I see it as adding nuance to the discussion. I wonder if it's really true that we always need to follow the wishes of everybody as far as them according to the gender norms they pick. You seem to agree with me and the tribunal that the answer is no, there are limits and exceptions. Unsurprisingly, the norm of respect and reasonable accommodation seems to apply rather than absolutes. That is all I was getting at with the example.

Certainly (and obviously) every accommodation request need not be acceded to. However, we've spent the last x number of pages debating whether sincere, good faith requests by transgendered persons to be referred to by the pronoun with which they identify should be accommodated. That, to me, is sad

I find your perspective is sometimes very legalistic. Most people cannot or will not run to a human rights tribunal for the vast majority of their problems, and it's not appropriate or economically practical for courts or tribunals to mediate most interpersonal concerns. So an argument that there can't be problems if there aren't court cases or tribunal challenges is full of holes.

That's a fair criticism (regarding my perspective). And certainly I agree that the vast majority of interpersonal problems should not be resolved through litigation. But I do think that the law (both legislation and common law) are the clearest expression of our society's current values/positions on difficult issues.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Pavlov

Please elaborate. What are my hidden motives? What are the hidden motives of the Ontario Human Rights Commission? What are the hidden motives of every provincial legislature in Canada which has explicitly prohibited discrimination on the grounds of gender identity? What about the tribunal members and judges who consistently apply that protection in broad, meaningful ways?

The courts may be an important institution in countries, but they do not decide what is true and false, right or wrong or the definitions of words and are quite capable of making poor decisions.

The barely hidden motives are those that we sometimes see from the subject of this thread, the "woke", "SJWs" etc, who will defend absurdities in the name of justice, while gleefully shaming anyone who points out how nonsensical these new norms are.

No, it isn't that important, but just because something isn't important, doesn't mean it isn't up for discussion. Despite your protestation, you appear just as interested in it as the rest of us, if it didn't matter the conversation could just be ignored. If it truly is so unimportant, isn't it a good idea to keep this all contained to one thread?

Originally Posted by Pavlov

illogical nonsense

Funny, "illogical nonsense" is how I would describe redefining words that previously had concrete definitions to something else entirely. Perhaps a bit of illogicality is what is necessary to move forward, but it still doesn't make it logical to say a man can be a woman one day and back to a man the next.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Pavlov

However, we've spent the last x number of pages debating whether sincere, good faith requests by transgendered persons to be referred to by the pronoun with which they identify should be accommodated. That, to me, is sad

This isn't how I have interpreted the thread. I'd be somewhat surprised if anybody posting in here would refuse what they perceived to be a good faith request to use a particular pronoun when referring to a transgendered person.

From what I can tell the biggest problem in these threads is that instead of just debating issues a lot of people jump to assuming the ones they don't agree with have bad intentions, are less informed, etc. Whatever happened to having a difference of opinion or a misunderstanding instead of just Good and Evil in discussions? And if one really is on a crusade for justice will they succeed at rallying people to their side by hurling insults or expressing some kind of dissatisfaction at everybody who's not quite 100% on board?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by someone123

I find your perspective is sometimes very legalistic.

I've observed that as well. (Not that surprising, Pavlov being a lawyer.)

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Pavlov

I guess we've reached that part of the discussion where you just start posting in bad faith/trolling. No problem. Its inevitable these days. You've certainly earned your reputation on this forum.

Just for record (in case anyone missed it the first time), here is the actual passage from the Ontario Human Rights Commission's website:

How is any of what I said "in bad faith"? It's all corollary to what's explicitly stated by the OHRC.

I would find this position (basically the OHRC's, or at least my reading of it, including between the lines) to a be decently reasonable one:

"Some people may not know how to determine what pronoun to use. Other people may feel they know how to determine what pronoun to use - male pronouns to refer to people who are obviously male, female pronouns to refer to people who are obviously female. Such people may be comfortable using non-neutral pronouns. Generally, when in doubt, ask a person how they wish to be addressed, but when not in doubt, you can generally go ahead."

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Pavlov

However, we've spent the last x number of pages debating whether sincere, good faith requests by transgendered persons to be referred to by the pronoun with which they identify should be accommodated. That, to me, is sad

As someone123 kinda pointed out earlier, you absolutely can't run a society and legal system that way ("if someone is 'sincere and in good faith' then they get legal outcome/result X, if someone isn't then they get legal outcome/result Y").

In the real world most cases don't end up getting judged like that, the law/rules just apply to the letter and that's it. Everyone gets the same outcome; the legal system can't read people's minds.

The example given earlier in the thread of a "safe haven" shelter for traumatized abused women that accepts to let in hairy muscular men who "in good faith" have feminine gender identity, is the realistic outcome if gender becomes fully self-determined in the eyes of the law and society, since "good faith" isn't legally possible to determine with accuracy.

Imagine a society run like that - "no parking here, except if you have a good faith valid reason to want to leave your car in that spot, then it's okay. If not, you'll get a ticket."

[jamincan]

Originally Posted by lio45

The example given earlier in the thread of a "safe haven" shelter for traumatized abused women that accepts to let in hairy muscular men who "in good faith" have feminine gender identity, is the realistic outcome if gender becomes fully self-determined in the eyes of the law and society, since "good faith" isn't legally possible to determine with accuracy.

Our courts have to deal with balancing these issues all the time and I believe in general they do a good job of it. Evidence supports that situations like you describe only come up rarely (unlike the online world, most people in real life do act in good faith) and when they do come up, the courts rule in a way that is reasonable.

This is why I get frustrated with these so-called concerns. So far, except for a few rare cases that appear to have been handled reasonably in the end, we have no good evidence that these issues are more than hypothetical. On the other hand we do have good evidence that trans people are a particularly vulnerable population. It's slightly ironic, because you'd probably consider me a heads-in-the-cloud idealist, and yet, I very strongly believe that when balancing these sorts of issues, we have to have a strong basis in science and reality.

The reason that this starts to feel like less than good faith on the part of particularly Acajack (less than good faith meaning that he claims to want to discuss things while it seems like he isn't - you've made fewer lofty claims and so I hold you to a lower bar) is that when these arguments are raised, over and over again, people respond in good faith with issues they might see with the instance you raise, or where there is a misconception or inaccuracy that it is predicated on, or any other manner of response you might have in a discussion. Instead of responding in kind, the carousel of "concerns" just spins around and a new one is presented. Eventually the subject loses steam for awhile and we wait a week or two for Acajack to recycle another point that we've already discussed repeatedly.

It's an exhausting game of whack-a-mole. I spend time crafting a response, considering the issue, delving into HRC cases, etc. only to get a "yeah, but what about this other thing" only to then see the exact same thing posted several weeks later. Of course I'm going to start thinking that maybe the poster is less interested in debate and more interested in spreading right-wing talking points that generally evaporate once you spend more than a few moments considering them.

[big T]

Originally Posted by jamincan

Our courts have to deal with balancing these issues all the time and I believe in general they do a good job of it. Evidence supports that situations like you describe only come up rarely (unlike the online world, most people in real life do act in good faith) and when they do come up, the courts rule in a way that is reasonable.

I found this interesting. As far as I can tell, there is generally less of an assumption of good faith in Quebec culture - rightly or not I might add. I’m sure there are cultural reasons we can infer, but at the end of the day that is why we have stuff like civil law. We feel a stronger need to regulate in sort of a top-down fashion. This is, after all, the land of j’ai l’doua.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by jamincan

Our courts have to deal with balancing these issues all the time and I believe in general they do a good job of it. Evidence supports that situations like you describe only come up rarely (unlike the online world, most people in real life do act in good faith) and when they do come up, the courts rule in a way that is reasonable.

Right now, yes, the courts seem to be ruling in ways that are reasonable. For example (Jessica Yaniv case), the courts have ruled "even though YOU feel you are a woman, other people disagree that you're a woman, and you're wrong and they're right: they can legally refuse you this woman-only service ("waxing the customer's genitals") and that's how this is settled."

Legally, that's pretty clear and the position expressed in this court ruling would almost certainly satisfy the "sometimes considered transphobic by SJWs" faction (i.e. many of the people who have posted in this thread so far).

However, it's always a risk to see people bringing up unreasonable requests before the courts, because you can never know for sure that the courts will continue to be reasonable. In my ideal society, blatantly unreasonable requests would just not ever reach the level of being debated in court - either because every member of society is reasonable (best case), or else because the court system weeds out frivolous stuff correctly (worst case).

So, while I agree with you that (I think) so far the courts haven't erred, and that's a good thing, I still find the fact that this "slippery slope" might exist (should courts start to lose it, eventually) to be slightly frown-worthy to me as a member of society. (Again, it's not a big issue for me, we're just discussing on a forum, so I'm giving you my honest opinion.)

I suppose in a nutshell my position is: I'm reasonably satisfied with how things are now (IMO trans people have access to all the tools they need to successfully transition), but I don't like the agitators who are clamoring for unreasonable changes, and wouldn't want them to fully get their way.

It's an exhausting game of whack-a-mole. I spend time crafting a response, considering the issue, delving into HRC cases, etc. only to get a "yeah, but what about this other thing" only to then see the exact same thing posted several weeks later. Of course I'm going to start thinking that maybe the poster is less interested in debate and more interested in spreading right-wing talking points that generally evaporate once you spend more than a few moments considering them.

If you ever see something already addressed getting re-posted, by all means, point it out.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by big T

I found this interesting. As far as I can tell, there is generally less of an assumption of good faith in Quebec culture - rightly or not I might add. I’m sure there are cultural reasons we can infer, but at the end of the day that is why we have stuff like civil law. We feel a stronger need to regulate in sort of a top-down fashion. This is, after all, the land of j’ai l’doua.

Very true. Quebec is the Land of (Over-)Regulation, at least by the standards of this continent. Big government, nanny state, lots of rules, rigid rules. Partly cultural, I guess. ("Québécois are a unruly bunch, so they need to be watched like kindergarten kids.")

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by lio45

Right now, yes, the courts seem to be ruling in ways that are reasonable. For example (Jessica Yaniv case), the courts have ruled "even though YOU feel you are a woman, other people disagree that you're a woman, and you're wrong and they're right: they can legally refuse you this woman-only service ("waxing the customer's genitals") and that's how this is settled."

Legally, that's pretty clear and the position expressed in this court ruling would almost certainly satisfy the "sometimes considered transphobic by SJWs" faction (i.e. many of the people who have posted in this thread so far).

I know that I said that I would not post any further in this thread but I feel compelled to correct this.

Ms. Yaniv's claim of discrimination regarding a denial of genital waxing was not dismissed on because "other people disagree that [Yaniv] is a woman, and you're wrong and they're right... and they can legally refuse [her] this woman-only service". The BC Human Rights Tribunal dismissed that claim because the respondent salons only offered vagina-waxing services, not scrotum waxing services. As Ms. Yaniv did not have a vagina, she could not be denied a vagina-waxing service. See below:

[85] In sum, each of the Respondents advertised, and customarily provided, the service of “brazilian waxes”. A brazilian wax is a commonly understood term which refers to the removal of hair from the genitals of a person with a vulva. Ms. Yaniv presented no evidence that any of these Respondents customarily provided the service of removing hair from a scrotum. As a result, their denials of service do not fall within s. 8 of the Code. I have dismissed all of these complaints on the basis they are not justified, pursuant to s. 37(1) of the Code.

This in stark contrast to Ms. Yaniv's complaints regarding denial of arm- and leg-waxing services. One salon owner expressly denied this waxing service to Ms. Yaniv because she was a man, not a woman, and her husband did not permit her to perform services on men. The Tribunal found that this constituted discrimination (but dismissed the application anyway on different grounds). See below:

[86] This portion of my decision addresses Ms. Yaniv’s complaints against Sukhdip Hehar and Sukhi Beauty Dream Salon, and Hina Moin. In each of these cases, the service provider refused to provide Ms. Yaniv with an arm or leg wax after she disclosed that she was transgender. These complaints raise different issues than the genital waxing complaints.

[87] Most significantly, there is no material difference in waxing the arms or legs of a cisgender woman and a transgender woman. Ms. Barnetson confirmed this in her expert testimony, and no Respondent argued otherwise. I agree generally with Ms. Yaniv that a person who customarily offers women the service of waxing their arms or legs cannot discriminate between cisgender and transgender women absent a bona fide reasonable justification: Eadie at paras. 139-145.

So the respondent salons were indeed NOT permitted to deny a woman-only service to a transgender woman. Similarly, the Tribunal clearly accepted that having a vagina is not a precondition to being a woman or being entitled to receive "women-only" services.

If anyone wants to read the decision for themselves, it is here.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by big T

I found this interesting. As far as I can tell, there is generally less of an assumption of good faith in Quebec culture - rightly or not I might add. I’m sure there are cultural reasons we can infer, but at the end of the day that is why we have stuff like civil law. We feel a stronger need to regulate in sort of a top-down fashion. This is, after all, the land of j’ai l’doua.

The original video evidence. (Actually filmed dangerously close to where I live.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVyoVdA2Uq0

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Pavlov

I know that I said that I would not post any further in this thread but I feel compelled to correct this.

Ms. Yaniv's claim of discrimination regarding a denial of genital waxing was not dismissed on because "other people disagree that [Yaniv] is a woman, and you're wrong and they're right... and they can legally refuse [her] this woman-only service". The BC Human Rights Tribunal dismissed that claim because the respondent salons only offered vagina-waxing services, not scrotum waxing services. As Ms. Yaniv did not have a vagina, she could not be denied a vagina-waxing service. See below:



This in stark contrast to Ms. Yaniv's complaints regarding denial of arm- and leg-waxing services. One salon owner expressly denied this waxing service to Ms. Yaniv because she was a man, not a woman, and her husband did not permit her to perform services on men. The Tribunal found that this constituted discrimination (but dismissed the application anyway on different grounds). See below:



So the respondent salons were indeed NOT permitted to deny a woman-only service to a transgender woman. Similarly, the Tribunal clearly accepted that having a vagina is not a precondition to being a woman or being entitled to receive "women-only" services.

If anyone wants to read the decision for themselves, it is here.

What a mess. The first ruling you mention of course makes sense and is totally reasonable. The second, again of course, is impossible to use as a logical basis. By their logic, I could go to that waxing salon, say I was a woman, and get the service. Unless, of course, the salon's reasonable justification is that I am obviously male, in the same way Yaniv is quite blatantly, without a single shadow of doubt, a man. I'd actually say I look more feminine than he does, so it would be more reasonable in my case.

[ssiguy]

One thing is I totally disagree with is a trangendered woman born as a man demanding to be able to compete in women's sports. The women was born with a male body and hence should only be able to compete with men or all gender compatition.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

One thing is I totally disagree with is a trangendered woman born as a man demanding to be able to compete in women's sports. The women was born with a male body and hence should only be able to compete with men or all gender compatition.

Reality is starting to catch up with absurdity in this regard. I think it was rugby that put a stop to this...

Yes, it was:

A ban by World Rugby could prove influential for transgender sports

[O-tacular]

The absurdity of this thread has culminated in the revelation that lio owns a literal whore house!

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Pavlov

I know that I said that I would not post any further in this thread but I feel compelled to correct this.

Ms. Yaniv's claim of discrimination regarding a denial of genital waxing was not dismissed on because "other people disagree that [Yaniv] is a woman, and you're wrong and they're right... and they can legally refuse [her] this woman-only service". The BC Human Rights Tribunal dismissed that claim because the respondent salons only offered vagina-waxing services, not scrotum waxing services. As Ms. Yaniv did not have a vagina, she could not be denied a vagina-waxing service.

So this court decision means a tiny formal change would allow to continue to "discriminate". The logical end point of this is that we'll eventually live in a society where we have stuff like safe shelters for traumatized vagina-equipped humans, gyms designed for a clientele of humans-with-vaginas, taverns providing the express service of supplying alcohol to the blood stream of scrotum-possessing humans, bathrooms reserved for the use of humans that have vaginas, etc.

So... nothing will have changed, except the legal definitions will have shifted slightly: olympic medals in the "vaginas" category, olympic medals in the "scrotums" category, while man/woman are now fluid and essentially useless terms, at least legally, since anyone can officially be anything anytime.

Okay, I guess. I mean, if that's where we're going, I suppose we'll have to live with that. Won't change that much...

... and her husband did not permit her to perform services on men. The Tribunal found that this constituted discrimination (but dismissed the application anyway on different grounds). See below:

I wonder if anyone ever submitted the case of women-only gyms to that Tribunal? Or seniors-only residences? Surely they're bound to find that it constitutes discrimination. So what's the next step - abolish all those places tailored to a certain clientele?

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by lio45

So this court decision means a tiny formal change would allow to continue to "discriminate". The logical end point of this is that we'll eventually live in a society where we have stuff like safe shelters for traumatized vagina-equipped humans, gyms designed for a clientele of humans-with-vaginas, taverns providing the express service of supplying alcohol to the blood stream of scrotum-possessing humans, bathrooms reserved for the use of humans that have vaginas, etc.

So... nothing will have changed, except the legal definitions will have shifted slightly: olympic medals in the "vaginas" category, olympic medals in the "scrotums" category, while man/woman are now fluid and essentially useless terms, at least legally, since anyone can officially be anything anytime.

Okay, I guess. I mean, if that's where we're going, I suppose we'll have to live with that. Won't change that much...



I wonder if anyone ever submitted the case of women-only gyms to that Tribunal? Or seniors-only residences? Surely they're bound to find that it constitutes discrimination. So what's the next step - abolish all those places tailored to a certain clientele?

If I've learned anything from this discussion, it's that logic is irrelevant. It is simply verboten to try and establish some rules of what is and is not true, and if you question that... "oh my god, this totally isn't important, why do you even care so much (I don't, to be clear), no you leave, I'm leaving now, for real this time... byeee....

Oh by the way...".

[lio45]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

The absurdity of this thread has culminated in the revelation that lio owns a literal whore house!

Sure, but I don't see what that has to do with anything...?

(I realize that we're currently discussing vaginas, but I can confirm that my exposure to vaginas has always been 100% a function of my girlfriends (current one and exes) and hasn't been impacted one iota by this landlording over a whore house, ever since it began. )