Ben Shapiro OWNING the libs again with FACTS and LOGIC or How a snowflake melts live on air.

[Moonbeam]

Commodus: That's a pretty lousy argument on his part. It assumes that everyone on the left tosses out hierarchies of competence, which is categorically false, and implies that hierarchies are always good and impossible to escape.

M: I don't see these assumption you make, apparently categorically, since I see no examples of counterargument.

C: The truth, as is often the case, is somewhere in between. Rising to the top through competency is frequently good, but it's not always necessary, and we shouldn't assume that everything is a meritocracy.

M: The point? I don't get what you are trying to say. Peterson says hierarchy arise because people are better or worse at some tasks and also that hierarchy tends to stagnate by privilage and the job of the left is to keep that from happening not destroy all hierarchies by engaging in incompetence generated grievance. Become competent. Make the rules of the game so everybody wants to play

C: For that matter, there's a certain irony to Peterson being a champion of the right when, if we accept his claims at face value, he would have to utterly reject Trump and much of the modern right. These are people who are frequently incompetent, believe in hierarchy primarily for the sake of power, and are all about group identity (that is, marginalizing anyone who isn't a white straight Christian male). By his logic, Democrats should find something in common with Trump... but they don't.

M: He is a champion of the right, in my opinion, because the right doesn't get him any more than the authoritarian left does. Both the left and the right, in the face of a truly evolved understanding, in my opinion, hear only what they are looking for, not truth but conformation of ideological belief.

 

[ecogen]

He is a champion of the right, in my opinion, because the right doesn't get him any more than the authoritarian left does. Both the left and the right, in the face of a truly evolved understanding, in my opinion, hear only what they are looking for, not truth but conformation of ideological belief.

And yet he only whines about the "left", never condemns the "right" for "not getting him" as you put it, frequently shares right wing misinformation garbage like PragerU climate change denialism and the list goes on. Peterson is a grifter, he found an audience he can swindle and he's milking them for all they've got. Stop digging Moonbeam, this isn't the hill to die on.

 

[dank69]

oops

So where is the part that says you have to use someone's preferred pronoun?

 

[Victorian Gray]

So where is the part that says you have to use someone's preferred pronoun?

It's written in the fevered imagination of some grifters and their true beliebers.

 

[Moonbeam]

Victorian Gray: Punk? Yeah right.

M: What, you didn't like that. Did I intrude on your safe space?

VG: You're still wrong no matter how many words you keep tossing at the screen.

M: WOW, really? Are you hoping the logic is so sophisticated I can't follow it?

VG: Maybe it would be more constructive to worry about the fucking fascist govt. that you have rather than the ravings of some asshole like Peterson who continues to play the rubes and makes good money doing so.

Why, when I can be told what to think by Brenda Cossman Mark S. Bonham Centre for Sexual Diversity Studies for free.

Please, you seem to imagine I'm in this struggling to maintain some world view that I hold sacred when my real interest is in sharing the joys I find in looking deeply at things, seeing what I can about the biases I bring with me about and ameliorating their deleterious effects as best I can. Got it punk? Try to lighten up. Not going to reread what I have already read about the Canadian bill. I am going with it mandating PC speech rather than preventing hate speech. The day P & N says I have to call you Ms Victoria Gray I am out of here. You'll have to become Mrs. Moonbeam and ask me nicely before that happens.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Victorian Gray: Punk? Yeah right.

M: What, you didn't like that. Did I intrude on your safe space?

VG: You're still wrong no matter how many words you keep tossing at the screen.

M: WOW, really? Are you hoping the logic is so sophisticated I can't follow it?

VG: Maybe it would be more constructive to worry about the fucking fascist govt. that you have rather than the ravings of some asshole like Peterson who continues to play the rubes and makes good money doing so.

Why, when I can be told what to think by Brenda Cossman Mark S. Bonham Centre for Sexual Diversity Studies for free.

Please, you seem to imagine I'm in this struggling to maintain some world view that I hold sacred when my real interest is in sharing the joys I find in looking deeply at things, seeing what I can about the biases I bring with me about and ameliorating their deleterious effects as best I can. Got it punk? Try to lighten up. Not going to reread what I have already read about the Canadian bill. I am going with it mandating PC speech rather than preventing hate speech. The day P & N says I have to call you Ms Victoria Gray I am out of here. You'll have to become Mrs. Moonbeam and ask me nicely before that happens.

Read the fucking bill that I posted and tell us exactly where and how it does what you and Peterson claim it does.

 

[Moonbeam]

And yet he only whines about the "left", never condemns the "right" for "not getting him" as you put it, frequently shares right wing misinformation garbage like PragerU climate change denialism and the list goes on. Peterson is a grifter, he found an audience he can swindle and he's milking them for all they've got. Stop digging Moonbeam, this isn't the hill to die on.

You make me think of the story of the fox that got caught in a swamp, laying in the mud covered with blood sucking flies. Forget who or how he was offered help in brushing them away to which he pleaded not to help him. He said that all the blood sucking flies covering his body had already eaten and if brushed away would be replaced by ones in need of a meal. Why this story comes to mind, I have no sure idea but I do have an inkling. I wonder too, if there isn't some other way to help such a fox.

 

[dank69]

Victorian Gray: Punk? Yeah right.

M: What, you didn't like that. Did I intrude on your safe space?

VG: You're still wrong no matter how many words you keep tossing at the screen.

M: WOW, really? Are you hoping the logic is so sophisticated I can't follow it?

VG: Maybe it would be more constructive to worry about the fucking fascist govt. that you have rather than the ravings of some asshole like Peterson who continues to play the rubes and makes good money doing so.

Why, when I can be told what to think by Brenda Cossman Mark S. Bonham Centre for Sexual Diversity Studies for free.

Please, you seem to imagine I'm in this struggling to maintain some world view that I hold sacred when my real interest is in sharing the joys I find in looking deeply at things, seeing what I can about the biases I bring with me about and ameliorating their deleterious effects as best I can. Got it punk? Try to lighten up. Not going to reread what I have already read about the Canadian bill. I am going with it mandating PC speech rather than preventing hate speech. The day P & N says I have to call you Ms Victoria Gray I am out of here. You'll have to become Mrs. Moonbeam and ask me nicely before that happens.

The bill literally says nothing about speech. All it does is add gender identity to the list of protected classes with thing like race. If you think race should be a protected class, perhaps you can explain why you think preferred gender identity shouldn't be protected from discrimination?

 

[Moonbeam]

The bill literally says nothing about speech. All it does is add gender identity to the list of protected classes with thing like race. If you think race should be a protected class, perhaps you can explain why you think preferred gender identity shouldn't be protected from discrimination?

Excuse me, but I don't follow the straw man arguments very well because while I can see a falacy in thinking I don't have names for the different kinds. But isn't the throwing up of the proposition that I think 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.”

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/br...aw-to-use-reasonable-pronouns-like-ze-and-zer

So apparently it is the effect of the law that one can get in trouble for not saying the right words that somebody demands of you to use that is called discrimination. Why any liberal would allow somebody else to say that they what you to say what they want you to say is beyond me. You might as well ask me to drop this subject because people will think badly of me, as if that should be more important than an exploration for truth. I have mentioned, have I not, how deeply we were shamed to conform and how the fear of feeling it again creates our mental prison? Maybe someday we will see what our Supreme Court has to say about this kind of law. And just call me Nanbopietorpiangulgwaddlemcabrodifliangunchlucker Moonbeam or I'll take your ass to court.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Excuse me, but I don't follow the straw man arguments very well because while I can see a falacy in thinking I don't have names for the different kinds. But isn't the throwing up of the proposition that I think 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.”

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/br...aw-to-use-reasonable-pronouns-like-ze-and-zer

So apparently it is the effect of the law that one can get in trouble for not saying the right words that somebody demands of you to use that is called discrimination. Why any liberal would allow somebody else to say that they what you to say what they want you to say is beyond me. You might as well ask me to drop this subject because people will think badly of me, as if that should be more important than an exploration for truth. I have mentioned, have I not, how deeply we were shamed to conform and how the fear of feeling it again creates our mental prison? Maybe someday we will see what our Supreme Court has to say about this kind of law. And just call me Nanbopietorpiangulgwaddlemcabrodifliangunchlucker Moonbeam or I'll take your ass to court.

Again: here is the bill. Point out exactly where and how it does what you and Peterson claim it does.

https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-16/royal-assent

 

[Moonbeam]

Again: here is the bill. Point out exactly where and how it does what you and Peterson claim it does.

https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-16/royal-assent

Read: Prof’s fear of pronoun punishment is all too plausible: DiManno here:

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/20...-punishment-is-all-too-plausible-dimanno.html

 

[Victorian Gray]

Read: Prof’s fear of pronoun punishment is all too plausible: DiManno here:

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/20...-punishment-is-all-too-plausible-dimanno.html

Again: here is the bill. Point out exactly where and how it does what you and Peterson claim it does.

https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-16/royal-assent

 

[dank69]

Again: here is the bill. Point out exactly where and how it does what you and Peterson claim it does.

https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-16/royal-assent

So I think we have moved past that, since the Ontario Human Rights Commission has stated:

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.

Peterson seems to have interpreted this to mean as Moonbeam states:

This was the first time any liberal democracy ever passed a law demanding politically correct speech.

and

... authoritarian mandated pronoun usage by the government.

and

Pay particular attention to the idea that there is a difference between legislation about what you can't say and what you are required to say.

The first statement is categorically false, the other two characterizations are false, and it doesn't take a deep understanding of all of Peterson's knowledge to see why. The first link Moonbeam provides in post 159 depends on this false interpretation, which is why that OHRC statement was included, out of context, and further edited to help shore up the already weak argument. The "or purposely misgendering" part is there to clarify that they are not talking about someone making a mistake because they can't keep track of 58 pronouns, but that they are talking about someone deliberately using a pronoun that the subject of the discrimination has clearly made known that they do not want. So no, the government has not made a law that forces someone to say x, it has made a law that forces someone to stop saying y when saying y has clearly crossed the line into discrimination/harassment. Looking at the OHRC statement in full context further clarifies what constitutes discrimination:

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.” 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. Simply referring to the person by their chosen name is always a respectful approach.

This clearly states that there is no law saying someone can demand the use of a specific pronoun, acknowledges that the law cannot expect people to know all the pronouns, and gives people some suggestions for how to refer to someone who has requested not to be referred to by one or more specific pronouns.

With that out of the way, @Moonbeam, I would suggest you be more careful when using the Google to find evidence to support your predetermined conclusion. I would suggest you actually read them, and fully digest them, before you regurgitate them here. We have enough vomit on this forum from conservatives doing this very thing. For example, someone who does not know you as well as I do might interpret your post 159 as an endorsement of it's statement that

These objections illustrate what few activists or politicians will openly acknowledge: “Human rights” are now a zero-sum game. Giving rights to some means taking them from others.

means you agree that when we gave rights to black people we took rights away from white people instead of you just not reading your source before rushing to post it here. In the future, seeing an ellipsis in the middle of a quote that is already taken out of context should be a red flag to track down exactly what the author decided to omit so you can figure out why. Other red flags to look for are statements like "an individual who defies the jackbooting of vocabulary fascists" and "trigger warnings" peppered throughout the article like they are in your second link in post 161.

 

[Moonbeam]

So I think we have moved past that, since the Ontario Human Rights Commission has stated:



Peterson seems to have interpreted this to mean as Moonbeam states:

and

and

The first statement is categorically false, the other two characterizations are false, and it doesn't take a deep understanding of all of Peterson's knowledge to see why. The first link Moonbeam provides in post 159 depends on this false interpretation, which is why that OHRC statement was included, out of context, and further edited to help shore up the already weak argument. The "or purposely misgendering" part is there to clarify that they are not talking about someone making a mistake because they can't keep track of 58 pronouns, but that they are talking about someone deliberately using a pronoun that the subject of the discrimination has clearly made known that they do not want. So no, the government has not made a law that forces someone to say x, it has made a law that forces someone to stop saying y when saying y has clearly crossed the line into discrimination/harassment. Looking at the OHRC statement in full context further clarifies what constitutes discrimination:
This clearly states that there is no law saying someone can demand the use of a specific pronoun, acknowledges that the law cannot expect people to know all the pronouns, and gives people some suggestions for how to refer to someone who has requested not to be referred to by one or more specific pronouns.

With that out of the way, @Moonbeam, I would suggest you be more careful when using the Google to find evidence to support your predetermined conclusion. I would suggest you actually read them, and fully digest them, before you regurgitate them here. We have enough vomit on this forum from conservatives doing this very thing. For example, someone who does not know you as well as I do might interpret your post 159 as an endorsement of it's statement that means you agree that when we gave rights to black people we took rights away from white people instead of you just not reading your source before rushing to post it here. In the future, seeing an ellipsis in the middle of a quote that is already taken out of context should be a red flag to track down exactly what the author decided to omit so you can figure out why. Other red flags to look for are statements like "an individual who defies the jackbooting of vocabulary fascists" and "trigger warnings" peppered throughout the article like they are in your second link in post 161.

OK, I am going to acknowledge your argument to be superior to mine, that the weight of legal analysis on the internet supports your conclusions and I had assumed facts not in evidence. I saw also that most Canadians support the bill and those who see it as dangerous forced speech are generally conservative. In the last link I posted the claim was made that if Peterson refused to use a requested pronoun in a classroom the university could wind up legally bound to fire him, that that is a real possibility under the law. Is this very different than forcing a cake shop run by fundamentalist Christians to sell a cake for a gay wedding. How did that turn out.

I find it outrageous that fundamentalist churches ale legally allowed to inculcate young Christian children with their bigoted homophobic, gender absolutist bilge, but it is perfectly legal, which means that science can legally be taught in schools.

So in Canada now, my right to regard your gender dysphoria as pure mental illness and utter bullshit, and be forced to acknowledge your pronoun choice no matter the level of my disgust or be blackmailed into moral submission by economic threat, you think that is a good thing.

Why not just pass a law requiring surgical removal of that portion of the amygdala beyond a certain size. The world would be so much better, or would that be better according to how most people might see it, conservative free, as scientific evidence could be easily read to suggest.

Are you going to train the monkeys with a whip, or do we allow each to find his or her or its own inner light.

People should share and we are all equal so let’s have communism. We must eliminate differences of opinion, right?

Today just the politeness of a pronoun, tomorrow the party line. Why stop at an inch when you can have the One Ring.

 

[dank69]

OK, I am going to acknowledge your argument to be superior to mine, that the weight of legal analysis on the internet supports your conclusions and I had assumed facts not in evidence. I saw also that most Canadians support the bill and those who see it as dangerous forced speech are generally conservative. In the last link I posted the claim was made that if Peterson refused to use a requested pronoun in a classroom the university could wind up legally bound to fire him, that that is a real possibility under the law. Is this very different than forcing a cake shop run by fundamentalist Christians to sell a cake for a gay wedding. How did that turn out.

I find it outrageous that fundamentalist churches ale legally allowed to inculcate young Christian children with their bigoted homophobic, gender absolutist bilge, but it is perfectly legal, which means that science can legally be taught in schools.

So in Canada now, my right to regard your gender dysphoria as pure mental illness and utter bullshit, and be forced to acknowledge your pronoun choice no matter the level of my disgust or be blackmailed into moral submission by economic threat, you think that is a good thing.

Why not just pass a law requiring surgical removal of that portion of the amygdala beyond a certain size. The world would be so much better, or would that be better according to how most people might see it, conservative free, as scientific evidence could be easily read to suggest.

Are you going to train the monkeys with a whip, or do we allow each to find his or her or its own inner light.

People should share and we are all equal so let’s have communism. We must eliminate differences of opinion, right?

Today just the politeness of a pronoun, tomorrow the party line. Why stop at an inch when you can have the One Ring.

I still don't think you fully understand. Do you think the professor should have the right to call the one black kid in his class a n****r over and over in front of the class despite the kid saying it bothers him?

 

[Moonbeam]

I still don't think you fully understand. Do you think the professor should have the right to call the one black kid in his class a n****r over and over in front of the class despite the kid saying it bothers him?

No. But I object to Peterson having to call a black kid white because the kid says he is.

 

[dank69]

No. But I object to Peterson having to call a black kid white because the kid says he is.

Good thing this law does no such thing, as I meticulously explained.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Given that I suspect that someone still hasn't read the bill:


First Session, Forty-second Parliament,

64-65-66 Elizabeth II, 2015-2016-2017

STATUTES OF CANADA 2017

CHAPTER 13

An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code



ASSENTED TO

June 19, 2017

BILL C-16

SUMMARY

This enactment amends the Canadian Human Rights Act to add gender identity and gender expression to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination.

The enactment also amends the Criminal Code to extend the protection against hate propaganda set out in that Act to any section of the public that is distinguished by gender identity or expression and to clearly set out that evidence that an offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on gender identity or expression constitutes an aggravating circumstance that a court must take into consideration when it imposes a sentence.


64-65-66 Elizabeth II

CHAPTER 13
An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code

[Assented to 19th June, 2017]


Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:


R.‍S.‍, c. H-6


Canadian Human Rights Act


1998, c. 9, s. 9; 2012, c. 1, s. 137(E)


1 Section 2 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is replaced by the following:


Purpose


2 The purpose of this Act is to extend the laws in Canada to give effect, within the purview of matters coming within the legislative authority of Parliament, to the principle that all individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs accommodated, consistent with their duties and obligations as members of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.


1996, c. 14, s. 2; 2012, c. 1, s. 138(E)


2 Subsection 3(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:


Prohibited grounds of discrimination


3 (1) For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.


R.‍S.‍, c. C-46


Criminal Code


2014, c. 31, s. 12


3 Subsection 318(4) of the Criminal Code is replaced by the following:


Definition of identifiable group


(4) In this section, identifiable group means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or mental or physical disability.

1995, c. 22, s. 6

4 Subparagraph 718.‍2(a)‍(i) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(i) evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression, or on any other similar factor,

Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons

https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-16/royal-assent

 

[Moonbeam]

Good thing this law does no such thing, as I meticulously explained.

Does the law say that under certain conditions a person can be punished for not complying with a requested form of address? I think it does so all we need is for a widely held moral opinion to form that not calling a black man white who wants to be called white and feels discriminated against when not so addressed and Bob’s your uncle.

You are focused, naturally, on what the law says, not what many see as where it may lead and the feeling of victimization it supposedly is there to fix. How are you not a fundamentalist Christian imposing your morality on how I am to speak. Are you not filled with absolute m oral certainty?

Where are you on this and forcing Christians to bake gay cakes?

 

[dank69]

Does the law say that under certain conditions a person can be punished for not complying with a requested form of address? I think it does so all we need is for a widely held moral opinion to form that not calling a black man white who wants to be called white and feels discriminated against when not so addressed and Bob’s your uncle.

You are focused, naturally, on what the law says, not what many see as where it may lead and the feeling of victimization it supposedly is there to fix. How are you not a fundamentalist Christian imposing your morality on how I am to speak. Are you not filled with absolute m oral certainty?

Where are you on this and forcing Christians to bake gay cakes?

No, the law does not say that, for the 4th (6th?) (10th?) time.

 

[Moonbeam]

No, the law does not say that, for the 4th (6th?) (10th?) time.

Can you explain to me why, if it is discrimination to refer to a male who feels he is she and requests to be referred to as such, why would it not be discrimination to refer to a black person as black even if they wish to be considered as white? Is it not a matter of ideological position to believe that gender dysphoria is real? Don't you have to take people's word for it if you yourself have never had such feelings? So aren't you enforcing what you want to believe and violating other's right to disagree. How is it that one person can force another to conform to the first's belief rather than have to accept the belief of the second person. Why are you allowed to hold Republicans in contempt? Shouldn't they be able to take you to court and sue you for discrimination? Their whole identity is wrapped up in party loyalty. It's profoundly discriminatory to attack the essential being and source of self respect. And there are millions of them, not some tiny percent of the population. Yes, we need to add party affiliation as a protected class.

 

[dank69]

Can you explain to me why, if it is discrimination to refer to a male who feels he is she and requests to be referred to as such, why would it not be discrimination to refer to a black person as black even if they wish to be considered as white? Is it not a matter of ideological position to believe that gender dysphoria is real? Don't you have to take people's word for it if you yourself have never had such feelings? So aren't you enforcing what you want to believe and violating other's right to disagree. How is it that one person can force another to conform to the first's belief rather than have to accept the belief of the second person. Why are you allowed to hold Republicans in contempt? Shouldn't they be able to take you to court and sue you for discrimination? Their whole identity is wrapped up in party loyalty. It's profoundly discriminatory to attack the essential being and source of self respect. And there are millions of them, not some tiny percent of the population. Yes, we need to add party affiliation as a protected class.

Dear Moonbeam, a male who feels she is a she cannot demand that the professor refer to her as a she. What she can do, is demand that the professor NOT refer to her as a he. I am not sure why you are having so much trouble with this concept.

 

[Moonbeam]

Dear Moonbeam, a male who feels she is a she cannot demand that the professor refer to her as a she. What she can do, is demand that the professor NOT refer to her as a he. I am not sure why you are having so much trouble with this concept.

Well, for one thing, i’ll be damned if I am going to let conservatives have all the fun, but tell me what kind of a world is it if I run into a white person who demands I not call zer white. It’s discrimination to say I mustn’t believe my own eyes.

 

[dank69]

Well, for one thing, i’ll be damned if I am going to let conservatives have all the fun, but tell me what kind of a world is it if I run into a white person who demands I not call zer white. It’s discrimination to say I mustn’t believe my own eyes.

You can believe anything you want. What you can't do is harass someone by repeatedly calling them something they have asked you to stop calling them. Actually, you can, although you may run afoul of disturbing the peace laws. A professor cannot, as it should be. Why would you feel the need to repeatedly call someone white when they think they are black?

 

[pmv]

Can you explain to me why, if it is discrimination to refer to a male who feels he is she and requests to be referred to as such, why would it not be discrimination to refer to a black person as black even if they wish to be considered as white? Is it not a matter of ideological position to believe that gender dysphoria is real? Don't you have to take people's word for it if you yourself have never had such feelings? So aren't you enforcing what you want to believe and violating other's right to disagree. How is it that one person can force another to conform to the first's belief rather than have to accept the belief of the second person. Why are you allowed to hold Republicans in contempt? Shouldn't they be able to take you to court and sue you for discrimination? Their whole identity is wrapped up in party loyalty. It's profoundly discriminatory to attack the essential being and source of self respect. And there are millions of them, not some tiny percent of the population. Yes, we need to add party affiliation as a protected class.

There is the little matter of kindness and not wanting to inflict (unnecessary) suffering. Especially in the context of a lack of real scientific understanding on which to base decisions, which I think is the case with transex issues. If you are in a position of authority over someone and consistently insist on calling them by terms you know causes them distress, you are probably a bit of an arse. And there's a strong argument that should be covered by employment law.

What things should be in a 'protected class' is a really fraught issue, in my opinion. Right now in this country we have the Tory party rejecting a definition of Islamophobia proposed by a cross-party parliamentary committee and backed by Muslim groups. It's a direct echo of Corbyn's Labour Party not wanting to adopt the 'official definition' of antisemitism as part of it's constitution.

Everyone involved now seems to be on the opposite side of the argument that they were when it came to antisemitism, even though the two are clearly parallel (both Jewishness and Muslimness overlap with, but are not quite the same as, race). The exact same people who insisted the definition of antisemitism had to include a lot of things regarding what can be said about Israel (which was the Corbynistas fundamental problem with it) are now outraged at the argument that it's Islamophobic to call Palestine a 'terror state'. It's almost funny.

Personally, I sometimes want 'hate speech' against cyclists to be outlawed. (It clearly encourages motorists to behave in ways that leads to their being killed or injured). But conversely I sometimes think it's so hard to work out which groups should be covered, that maybe the whole concept should be abandoned. But either way, Peterson appears to be an arse.