University TA ‘Censured’ After Playing A Clip From A Debate About Transgender Pronouns

[JeTmAn]

Obviously. Everyone always has an agenda unless they are acting "randomly", which I don't think I believe is actually a thing people do. The issue here is that it's one that is beyond her authority to pursuit in a linguistics class. Why don't you address the rest of that post which focused on this?

Click to shrink...

You're ignoring the relevant semantics here. "Agenda" is a loaded word, implying a subversive motive. I can't see that the TA's motivation was anything beyond making sure that the students were exposed to opposing ideas in context. How else do you learn to defend your own ideas if you don't know how they can be attacked?

 

[excelsiorlef]

He literally stated that she can't present Peterson's arguments because they "are counter to the Canadian Human Rights Code ever since ... C-16, ever since this was passed". It has certainly bolstered those who wish to shut down the debate on the subject, and it's possible he wouldn't have gone as far as he had, had he not felt the law was on his side.

Click to shrink...

Yes their complete failure to understand a law was part of the problem... and did probably cause them to act even more aggressively... but the concerns they had also goes beyond was it illegal...

Key word is their complete failure to understand.... There's no logic in actually believing what she did was a human rights violation....and no court would conclude that either... You cannot blame the law for abject inability to understand it.

And you can't know what they would have done without the law in place so too try and blame the law itself for this is not accurate.

 

[JeTmAn]

I remember learning about the Skokie case in high school (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie). I don't remember anyone having to go out of their way to point out the Nazi's were the bad guys in that scenario.

 

[ListeningGarden]

I remember learning about the Skokie case in high school (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie). I don't remember anyone having to go out of their way to point out the Nazi's were the bad guys in that scenario.

Click to shrink...

Well, we have to point out that nazis are the bad guys today, so...

 

[Cocaloch]

You're ignoring the relevant semantics here. "Agenda" is a loaded word, implying a subversive motive.

Click to shrink...

I don't think it necessarily implies subversion. It implies a specific political or social motive. I believe the word fits here.

I can't see that the TA's motivation was anything beyond making sure that the students were exposed to opposing ideas in context.

Click to shrink...

I could see that being a possibility, though that doesn't mean much you don't have to address every topic people take issue with. That being said, based on the wider context here I think its more reasonable that she had a pretty specific reason for bringing up this topic and bringing it up in this way. The best case scenario here is bad teaching. Regardless of her intention, she overstepped her bounds in a way the university didn't like. They were heavy handed in their language use sure, but I'm not seeing issues other than that.

Frankly, the way academic labor is treated is the much more important issue facing TAs and I think it's indicative of what's actually going on here that people aren't focused on that.

How else do you learn to defend your own ideas if you don't know how they can be attacked?

Click to shrink...

This is but one goal of the university, and there is a quite good chance something of this sentiment wasn't expressed in this syllabus in particular. Moreover, a random very early grad student, presumably an MA student or at best early class stage PhD student, isn't necessarily the one who should be taking this much more difficult pedagogical interest as their main topic of instruction.

Again this was a TA, not a professor or even an instructor.

 

[kruis]

So, that's about the clearest description I've read, and the important part I think is actually at the every end, the "reasonable accommodation" bit. Peterson refuses to even use "they" which is preposterous and would have him run afoul of this, but I think he might be in a very very select group, there. but then again, schools can act a bit nuts, as we know. so there's a kernel of a point there. I still highly doubt anyone is getting fired or sued out of hand for a missed "Zer" or whatever. I would hope.

Click to shrink...

I watched the Youtube video with the complete discussion. Peterson says he doesn't want to be forced to use these artificial gender neutral pronouns which includes the singular "they". Nobody on the panel was able to get those pronouns right all the time. Nowhere does Peterson he objects to using masculine or feminine pronouns for transpeople who present themselves as either masculine or feminine. Peterson says he gets support from transsexuals and I believe that's indeed the case. I have yet to meet a post-op transsexual who thinks gender neutrality and gender neutral pronouns are a good idea.

 

[excelsiorlef]

I have yet to meet a post-op transsexual who thinks gender neutrality and gender neutral pronouns are a good idea.

Click to shrink...

Hi you have now

 

[Deleted member 2625]

Care to point me to the inception of a particular language? Pronoun use evolves all the time. Look at thou or y'all.

Click to shrink...

Well I wouldn't necessarily call "thou" recent and ya'll is a new contraction, not pronoun...

but sure, here's an example: Afrikaans, widely considered to be the youngest true "new" language (mid 18c) actually has a kind of contextual pronoun system:
http://www.easyafrikaans.com/easyafrikaans/personal_pronouns.html

 

[incogneato]

I watched the Youtube video with the complete discussion. Peterson says he doesn't want to be forced to use these artificial gender neutral pronouns which includes the singular "they". Nobody on the panel was able to get those pronouns right all the time. Nowhere does Peterson he objects to using masculine or feminine pronouns for transpeople who present themselves as either masculine or feminine. Peterson says he gets support from transsexuals and I believe that's indeed the case. I have yet to meet a post-op transsexual who thinks gender neutrality and gender neutral pronouns are a good idea.

Click to shrink...

A quick Google search tells you otherwise on trans activist group's opinions on gender neutral pronouns...

 

[ListeningGarden]

I have yet to meet a post-op transsexual who thinks gender neutrality and gender neutral pronouns are a good idea.

Click to shrink...

I don't think you've met any at all, then. Or the kinds you've met are the ones who were stupid enough to buy into, say, the Trump campaign's narrative that somehow they were going to be better off with them than Hilary. Agender/nonbinary people exist. Those pronouns are what is appropriate to use for those people. End of story.

 

[Cocaloch]

Well I wouldn't necessarily call "thou" recent and ya'll is a new contraction, not pronoun...

Click to shrink...

The dropping of thou is quite recent in linguistic terms, and I'm not sure how this is relevant to the point you were making. Meanwhile people absolutely use y'all as a pronoun regardless of if it originated as a contraction. What a strange argument.

but sure, here's an example: Afrikaans, widely considered to be the youngest true "new" language (mid 18c) actually has a kind of contextual pronoun system:
http://www.easyafrikaans.com/easyafrikaans/personal_pronouns.html

Click to shrink...

When specifically was its inception?

My point is that languages don't spring out fully formed like Athena from Zeus's head. We use language labels as descriptive categorical tools, but strong distinctions are ultimately not reflected in language use and are arbitrary to begin with. The idea that pronouns are some specifically stable element of linguistics doesn't hold up.

Pronoun use does not get "baked into language" if I understand your analogy at all.

 

[Pedrito]

Hardly. As I showed before, the problem with the law is in politicians said one thing but did another, and in how human rights commissions and tribunals are liable to interpret the law, based on how they've interpreted these things already. Politicians stated it would not be used to force the use of gender-neutral pronouns, but voted down an effort to put that into writing. Furthermore, Human Rights commissions and tribunals have already stated that they interpret it to mean that improper pronoun usage is a violation of the law, and have already enforced similarly worded law as such.

Click to shrink...

The article you linked is totally alarmist and based on hypothetical scenarios that border on absurdity. And I've read enough court cases in my life to know that they rarely lead to an absurd result. If they do, it's usually corrected with an appeal.

The Humans Rights commissions won't have the final say in what constitutes discrimination, the Courts will. And if the law needs to be interpreted, what has been stated by politicians is a factor that is taken into account.

 

[Johnny Cage itS]

1) I think she should have been talked to

2) I think how they talked to her was bad, wrong, and grossly negligent

3) Discussing issues relate to why she was talked to in the first place are germane... Talking about her views on Trans people is germane, talking about Jordan Peterson is germane.

Click to shrink...

That's fair, but again, your main theme of posting here has been

1)Your resentment towards Peterson... Fair enough, seems like the general census here

2) Speculation of her political and social views and ties to Peterson, based on her online activity and history (whatever info you can gather on her)

Which really isn't fair: As this incident is still very fresh to her and she only made that twitter account to control and communicate with the general public, and the internet's reaction to all this.


3) most importantly...

There is not enough evidence, and nobody here, including yourself can rightfully assume the video she used was totally off topic and unrelated to the Communication and Grammar class she was teaching... Yes, even if it involved Peterson, even if it was a three minute excerpt from TVO's The Agenda.

You keep trying to invalidate her methods of teaching or use of video clip involving Peterson as intensional bad intent and behavior... Which honestly (If you listened to the entire interrogation audio) PERFECTLY COINCIDES with the opinions and the prejudice towards her, by her superiors in that office...

Which by default, makes me question your honesty and integrity on your second point

"2) I think how they talked to her was bad, wrong, and grossly negligent"

They're basically criticizing the moral, ethical methods and intentions of her teaching. That is indeed "bad, wrong, and grossly negligent"

Again: 3 minute video of The Agenda featuring Jordan Peterson is not a call for spreading transphobia, hate speech or bigotry in a University classroom.

Also, it's not totally unrelated to Communication and Grammar, just because we can think of tons of other (better) examples... ( Is she bad at her job? ..Maybe? Is she unethical? Definitely not)

If you agree with this above, then you should disagree with the way the superiors chastised her, I fail to see it in any other way.


Remember that this outage and debacle is NOT about people justifying Jordan Peterson's views shown in TVO's The Agenda.

People are outraged how poorly and unprofessionally bunch of University professionals evaluated/prejudged the character of a TA due to her presenting a totally viable video clip by a publicly funded Canadian television programming.

 

[Deleted member 2625]

I watched the Youtube video with the complete discussion. Peterson says he doesn't want to be forced to use these artificial gender neutral pronouns which includes the singular "they".

Click to shrink...

Yeah and I think that's unreasonable, particularly on "they". It's arguable grammatically, but much more importantly, it's just a very very reasonable accommodation that solves most of this problem. So he's being a dick about that, he doesn't need to have this big pariah moment, and the "neo-Marxist" stuff is on the moon frankly. He used to be not quite so batshit but I fear that exposure to the kekistan radiation chamber has really fucked with the guy.

Nobody on the panel was able to get those pronouns right all the time. Nowhere does Peterson he objects to using masculine or feminine pronouns for transpeople who present themselves as either masculine or feminine.

Click to shrink...

but that's the rub right there, isn't it.

Peterson says he gets support from transsexuals and I believe that's indeed the case. I have yet to meet a post-op transsexual who thinks gender neutrality and gender neutral pronouns are a good idea.

Click to shrink...

Really. well... that's gotta be a short list

 

[kruis]

A quick Google search tells you otherwise on trans activist group's opinions on gender neutral pronouns...

Click to shrink...

I'm speaking from personal experience of course. I'm still on a private mailing list with a bunch of other M2F post-ops and we all agree this is a bunch of crazy politicized nonsense. I can't believe there are people fighting for the right to be called per, they, ve, xe or ze instead of he or she.

 

[MotionBlue]

I could see that being a possibility, though that doesn't mean much you don't have to address every topic people take issue with. That being said, based on the wider context here I think its more reasonable that she had a pretty specific reason for bringing up this topic and bringing it up in this way. The best case scenario here is bad teaching. Regardless of her intention, she overstepped her bounds in a way the university didn't like. They were heavy handed in their language use sure, but I'm not seeing issues other than that.

Frankly, the way academic labor is treated is the much more important issue facing TAs and I think it's indicative of what's actually going on here that people aren't focused on that.

Click to shrink...

This takes place in Canada. Jordan Peterson is near the front of the conversation here, he is arguably the best example to debate over. People defending the University for taking a 22 year old woman, putting her into a room with 3 older men who promptly threatened her career and implied she was a Nazi - need to take a long hard look at themselves. Not that it matters, this is already making headlines in Canada old media, and majority opinion is against the University.

 

[kliklik]

Yes their complete failure to understand a law was part of the problem... and did probably cause them to act even more aggressively... but the concerns they had also goes beyond was it illegal...

Key word is their complete failure to understand.... There's no logic in actually believing what she did was a human rights violation....and no court would conclude that either... You cannot blame the law for abject inability to understand it.

And you can't know what they would have done without the law in place so too try and blame the law itself for this is not accurate.

Click to shrink...

You were the only one making a definitive claim on that front - that she would've still been called in even if C-16 hadn't existed. I was merely arguing that you can't know that ("it's not possible to say that she would've been called in without it") and "it's possible he wouldn't have gone as far as he had".

I certainly can blame a law though for misinterpretation and misapplication beyond what it was purportedly intended to mean, and for unexpected unintended negative effects that result from its creation. For example, a law intended to curb traffic accidents by making it illegal to text and drive that results in more distracted driving accidents is a faulty law, despite excellent intentions. That one should probably be scrapped entirely. And this law here shouldn't be scrapped, but definitely should've been more carefully worded. Because despite plenty of public debate on it and politician reassurances, people still are unsure what they're compelled to do and where. And frankly, I think that's doing more harm than good for the relevant communities the law is supposed to protect.

 

[Deleted member 2625]

The dropping of thou is quite recent in linguistic terms, and I'm not sure how this is relevant to the point you were making. Meanwhile people absolutely use y'all as a pronoun regardless of if it originated as a contraction. What a strange argument.

Click to shrink...

Thou was dropped mostly mid 15th century? was 600 years ago so you'll forgive my characterization of "not recent". Ya'll is a slang substitute effectively for "they" but since pronoun is single-word use then sure, ok, I can agree with that one. Pretty singular, regional example, but sure ;)

When specifically was its inception?

Click to shrink...

I said 18th century

My point is that languages don't spring out fully formed like Athena from Zeus's head. We use language labels as descriptive categorical tools, but strong distinctions are ultimately not reflected in language use and are arbitrary to begin with. The idea that pronouns are some specifically stable element of linguistics doesn't hold up.

Pronoun use does not get "baked into language" if I understand your analogy at all.

Click to shrink...

I didn't say it was immutable, I just said the structure of pronouns tends to get defined and set in terms of whether or not inanimate objects have masculine and feminine pronouns like most latin languages, or are neutral, or have 3 like Afrikaans. Sorry I should have been more clear. Afrikaans is also considered a "daughter" language so I'm not disputing the fact that it is a continuum, but the pillars of pronoun construction, so to speak, those tend to mostly stay there. I can't think of many examples where say a gender-neutral language suddenly added more gendered pronouns, that's more like what I meant.

 

[Cocaloch]

This takes place in Canada. Jordan Peterson is near the front of the conversation here, he is arguably the best example to debate over. People defending the University for taking a 22 year old woman, putting her into a room with 3 older men who promptly threatened her career and implied she was a Nazi - need to take a long hard look at themselves. Not that it matters, this is already making headlines in Canada old media, and majority opinion is against the University.

Click to shrink...

Has anyone in this thread said the university went about this the correct way? Has a single person said that? If not you're shadowing boxing. If so I'd recommend you take up your issue with that poster.

 

[kruis]

Really. well... that's gotta be a short list

Click to shrink...

It's become a small group because most post-ops stop going to self-help groups or online metting places after SRS when life has settled down and the need to speak with other TS folks about trans problems melts away. The only reason I stuck around (or rather, I got back) was to keep in touch with a few old friends.

 

[WaffleTaco]

I'm speaking from personal experience of course. I'm still on a private mailing list with a bunch of other M2F post-ops and we all agree this is a bunch of crazy politicized nonsense. I can't believe there are people fighting for the right to be called per, they, ve, xe or ze instead of he or she.

Click to shrink...

Regardless of your personal opinion, "they" is an acceptable usage of gender-neutral phrasing, especially in professional settings. Anybody advocating for any more gender-neutral phrasing should have the right to debate it, but "they" is the default acceptable standard.

 

[MotionBlue]

Has anyone in this thread said the university went about this the correct way? Has a single person said that? If not you're shadowing boxing. If so I'd recommend you take up your issue with that poster.

Click to shrink...

No, the thread has devolved into a Jordan Peterson thread. Arguing semantics, and thinly veiled justifications for her treatment. Which isn't the issue at all.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Also, it's not totally unrelated to Communication and Grammar, just because we can think of tons of other (better) examples... ( Is she bad at her job? ..Maybe? Is she unethical? Definitely not)

If you agree with this above, then you should disagree with the way the superiors chastised her, I fail to see it in any other way.

Click to shrink...

No because i said I disagreed with how they went about talking to her not that they did at all.

I'm tired of trans rights being used as debate fodder, especially n topic that inherently don't need it to be brought up in, I especially don't like transphobic people being presented without comment (neutrally) and I question that neutrality after the fact given what I've learned... I think comparing Peterson to Milo is a perfect example... and I also think if this as him, David Duke, etc... that had been used instead the suggestion that presenting them "neutrally" is an issue wouldn't be so controversial... It's pretty clear that trans folk seem to be more allowed for debate on an existential level than many other groups.

I fundamentally agree with the statement her university queer group released and I think her response of reducing it to "why do you hate academic freedom" to be distasteful, and I especially find her being down with folk says transphobia doesn't even exist even more so (and sorry that's relevant)

I'm speaking from personal experience of course. I'm still on a private mailing list with a bunch of other M2F post-ops and we all agree this is a bunch of crazy politicized nonsense. I can't believe there are people fighting for the right to be called per, they, ve, xe or ze instead of he or she.

Click to shrink...

So you believe what? Gender is just a binary?

Nah. Believe it.

 

[Deleted member 2625]

It's become a small group because most post-ops stop going to self-help groups or online metting places after SRS when life has settled down and the need to speak with other TS folks about trans problems melts away. The only reason I stuck around (or rather, I got back) was to keep in touch with a few old friends.

Click to shrink...

I see. apologies if I sounded snide, just took me aback.

for the record/thread:
- i do personally think the TA should have given just a little context. just a little. playing a clip with this dude is sort of inviting trouble. she wasn't "promoting hate speech", that's crazy.
- school handled this very poorly
- I think "they" is the best most reasonable answer to this debate, when the situation arises. it's what I use online and it works, grammar nazis (hahaha.. heh... erm) be damned

 

[excelsiorlef]

No, the thread has devolved into a Jordan Peterson thread. Arguing semantics, and thinly veiled justifications for her treatment. Which isn't the issue at all.

Click to shrink...

It was always a Jordan Peterson thread...

There are two stories

1) What she did
2) How they reacted

We can talk about both.

 

[Cocaloch]

Thou was dropped mostly mid 15th century? was 600 years ago so you'll forgive my characterization of "not recent".

Click to shrink...

You mean the 17th century surely. The King James Bible is pretty famous... And yes 350 years really isn't that long in linguistic time. You yourself were talking about the youngest language which this antedates by only one century by your own reckoning.

Ya'll is a slang substitute effectively for "they" but since pronoun is single-word use then sure, ok, I can agree with that one. Pretty singular, regional example, but sure ;)

Click to shrink...

I'm not sure how many examples you want exactly. Considering there aren't massive numbers of pronouns and the speed at which language changes 2 in the last 500 years in one language doesn't seem to me to be something to sneeze at. Moreover lets not pretend whatever is going on here is conventionally understood linguistic development in the way linguists generally study it. It's something else going on that's more related to Habermas than the work of any linguist.

I said 18th century

Click to shrink...

The 18th century was a pretty long time. This is a vague period for a vague development. Which was the point of my rhetorical question.

I didn't say it was immutable, I just said the structure of pronouns tends to get defined and set in terms of whether or not inanimate objects have masculine and feminine pronouns like most latin languages, or are neutral, or have 3 like Afrikaans.

Click to shrink...

I'll grant you this is something that has happened, but I'm not sure how you went from this to generalizations about pronouns being "baked into languages" which was what I took issue with.

Sorry I should have been more clear. Afrikaans is also considered a "daughter" language so I'm not disputing the fact that it is a continuum, but the pillars of pronoun construction, so to speak, those tend to mostly stay there. I can't think of many examples where say a gender-neutral language suddenly added more gendered pronouns, that's more like what I meant.

Click to shrink...

Probably because of a specific historical development around the conception of gender. Let's not forget that gender used in a nonlingusitic way, which is mostly how it's being used in this thread, is a coinage of the mid 20th century. These conceptions are all quite recent. I'd wager most people in this thread have a conception of gender that really doesn't predate Judith Butler.

 

[Deleted member 2625]

Probably because of a specific historical development around the conception of gender. Let's not forget that gender used in a nonlingusitic way, which is mostly how it's being used in this thread, is a coinage of the mid 20th century. These conceptions are all quite recent. I'd wager most people in this thread have a conception of gender that really doesn't predate Judith Butler.

Click to shrink...

fair enough, I think I made my point. sorta talking past each other now. I'll leave you to google Afrikaans if you care to.

 

[excelsiorlef]

You were the only one making a definitive claim on that front - that she would've still been called in even if C-16 hadn't existed. I was merely arguing that you can't know that ("it's not possible to say that she would've been called in without it") and "it's possible he wouldn't have gone as far as he had".

I certainly can blame a law though for misinterpretation and misapplication beyond what it was purportedly intended to mean, and for unexpected unintended negative effects that result from its creation. For example, a law intended to curb traffic accidents by making it illegal to text and drive that results in more distracted driving accidents is a faulty law, despite excellent intentions.

Click to shrink...

I said she would still be called in because they laid out other reasons why she was...

But this is one example of a couple of people not having a fucking clue... And they aren't in any legal capacity to apply the law so you can't argue it's being misapplied....

And you're using this one example (which has resulted in think piece of opinion piece after law piece clarifying that they didn't have a clue about the law) to say I knew the Law was flawed... All that's come out of this regarding the law is clarification from like almost everyone.

Like if this had been a debate on an issue of race, sex, sexual orientation... and the same people misused human rights laws like that they did... would the conclusion really be that the law was the issue...

Someone offered that an issue was that the media (partly I'd argue by giving Jordan Peterson so much credibility on the topic for again literally no reason) did a piss poor job reporting on it and explaining it... which you like outright rejected in favour of blaming the law again even though the only issue so far is a bunch of private citizens being fucking clueless.

 

[Cocaloch]

No, the thread has devolved into a Jordan Peterson thread.

Click to shrink...

I see him mentioned in the OP, so I'm not sure it devolved into that despite what you may want to talk about.

Arguing semantics

Click to shrink...

Who could ever guess a thread about language use would ever involve semantics?

thinly veiled justifications for her treatment

Click to shrink...

Please point to specific examples. Unless you just mean people saying the university was right to take issue with her. You can think something should be done without agreeing with the specifics of what was done. I think it's quite disingenuous to suggest otherwise. I don't think anyone believes she should have been treated as she was, but that doesn't mean she shouldn't have gotten into some sort of trouble. Again this is a question about academic labor, and I'm not seeing anyone going to the root of this issue so ultimately I don't think that's what anyone in this thread is actually interested in.

Which isn't the issue at all.

Click to shrink...

What isn't the issue? What is the issue? Who determines that? It's just people talking. You can argue for people to talk about something else, but you're not somehow just correct about what they should be talking about in the abstract.

 

[Cryptosporidium]

Yes their complete failure to understand a law was part of the problem... and did probably cause them to act even more aggressively... but the concerns they had also goes beyond was it illegal...

Key word is their complete failure to understand.... There's no logic in actually believing what she did was a human rights violation....and no court would conclude that either... You cannot blame the law for abject inability to understand it.

And you can't know what they would have done without the law in place so too try and blame the law itself for this is not accurate.

Click to shrink...

This is the whole problem isnt it? It is partially the problem she wasnt able to show the panel of which peterson is a part of but also it is the problem that the university acted in the manner it did and wouldve continued acting this way had she not recorded them.

Thats what a lot of us are mad at. Im mad the school doesnt treat students as adults with the ability to critically think. Im mad the administration thought it was fine treating 22yr old TAs like trash. Im mad this school has given young conservatives ammo and i cant blame cons for using this example.

 

[Cocaloch]

This is the whole problem isnt it? It is partially the problem she wasnt able to show the panel of which peterson is a part of but also it is the problem that the university acted in the manner it did and wouldve continued acting this way had she not recorded them.

Thats what a lot of us are mad at. Im mad the school doesnt treat students as adults with the ability to critically think. Im mad the administration thought it was fine treating 22yr old TAs like trash. Im mad this school has given young conservatives ammo and i cant blame cons for using this example.

Click to shrink...

It sounds like besides the bolded your real issue is with how universities treat academic labor in general. But we aren't really talking about that issue so I'm confused.

Moreover I don't see how the topic of what she was talking about would even be relevant then, but I see a lot of people in this thread bringing it up. Which leads me to believe that for some people, not necessarily you, this is not the only thing going on here.

At the end of the day TA's do not have academic freedom in the sense that they can ride roughshod over syllabi and teach whatever they want to teach. That's simply not what's going on here.

 

[FeistyBoots]

I'm speaking from personal experience of course. I'm still on a private mailing list with a bunch of other M2F post-ops and we all agree this is a bunch of crazy politicized nonsense. I can't believe there are people fighting for the right to be called per, they, ve, xe or ze instead of he or she.

Click to shrink...

I doubt it. I work with trans people every day; they do not argue as you do.

 

[Cryptosporidium]

It sounds like besides the bolded your real issue is with how universities treat academic labor in general. But we aren't really talking about that issue so I'm confused.

Moreover I don't see how the topic of what she was talking about would even be relevant then, but I see a lot of people in this thread bringing it up. Which leads me to believe that for some people, not necessarily you, this is not the only thing going on here.

At the end of the day TA's do not have academic freedom in the sense that they can ride roughshod over syllabi and teach whatever they want to teach. That's simply not what's going on here.

Click to shrink...

Im fine with discussing the business of TAs since its already brought up and is the main thing ppl are talking about, whether or not its fine to show the clip. Ive argued about that in here. How much academic freedom should exist on campus etc

I am tho starting to feel the discussion is misguided and should be moved over to how administration handled this.

 

[Johnny Cage itS]

No because i said I disagreed with how they went about talking to her not that they did at all.

I'm tired of trans rights being used as debate fodder, especially n topic that inherently don't need it to be brought up in, I especially don't like transphobic people being presented without comment (neutrally) and I question that neutrality after the fact given what I've learned... I think comparing Peterson to Milo is a perfect example... and I also think if this as him, David Duke, etc... that had been used instead the suggestion that presenting them "neutrally" is an issue wouldn't be so controversial... It's pretty clear that trans folk seem to be more allowed for debate on an existential level than many other groups.

I fundamentally agree with the statement her university queer group released and I think her response of reducing it to "why do you hate academic freedom" to be distasteful, and I especially find her being down with folk says transphobia doesn't even exist even more so (and sorry that's relevant)




So you believe what? Gender is just a binary?

Nah. Believe it.

Click to shrink...

No one disagrees that they talked to her, in fact according to the main prof/supervisor, it was supposed to be an "informal, one on one" conversation... So I do disagree that they got three people in there and dog piled on her.. Would've been nice if the guy had a spine and an ounce of leadership skills in him as a prof... told the other two to fuck off and proceeded with his original intention of an "informal, one on one" talk.

Guess he lives with the sentiment.... "It's always easier to apologize than to ask for permission"?

I honestly don't understand your need of limiting talk/discussion about trans rights to only certain platforms and topics. How is this effective towards fighting transphobia or raising awareness of its existence? Transgender people are real people, None trans peeps may find themselves in the company of trans people on daily basis with intentions or not. Why not discuss the topic of gender pronouns? Why not discuss anything pertaining to the topic, especially if it effects the use of English grammar?

Now I get that most discussion concerning transgenderism becomes critical, judgmental, demeaning and awkward.. And totally get the "existential" level of discussion..
But whether you like it or not society hasn't caught on with the concept yet, and there is still along way to go...And it's not a topic of discussion we can only limit to a classroom dedicated to Trans rights... It's a topic a lot larger than that and it shoudl be discussed everywhere, of course with respect and integrity.

 

[gutter_trash]

as a non-academic myself you must be careful how this spills outside the campus bubble.

You already have Rex Murphy and Andrew Coyne weighing in and then you have the freakin' Conservative unknown leader Andrew Sheer weighing in on "free speech".

I'm fortunate to have skipped over the entire University experience but I have seen social media spats which left me head scratching trying to understand what is going on.


Let me be clear; do not let the Conservatives run with the ball on this!

 

[Cryptosporidium]

I'm speaking from personal experience of course. I'm still on a private mailing list with a bunch of other M2F post-ops and we all agree this is a bunch of crazy politicized nonsense. I can't believe there are people fighting for the right to be called per, they, ve, xe or ze instead of he or she.

Click to shrink...

These kind of crusades are usually vocal minorities. I dont know any trans/cross dresses who wishes to have their own individual pronoun. The internet as we know amplifies minority voices for better or for worse.

Only large scale grass roots crusades recently have been highly decentralized and often ineffective. See Occupy and Arab Spring. BLM is decentralized but its on going and i cant speak of its results.

 

[kliklik]

The article you linked is totally alarmist and based on hypothetical scenarios that border on absurdity. And I've read enough court cases in my life to know that they rarely lead to an absurd result. If they do, it's usually corrected with an appeal.

The Humans Rights commissions won't have the final say in what constitutes discrimination, the Courts will. And if the law needs to be interpreted, what has been stated by politicians is a factor that is taken into account.

Click to shrink...

Except that the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal has already found misgendering to be discriminatory.

From talking to a lawyer, this is my understanding of it:
Human Rights Tribunals are the first recourse for anyone who feels their human rights have been violated in the vast majority of cases. For Ontario for example you start with the Tribunals (Human Rights, Residential Tenancies, Employment Standards Act, Fishing and Wildlife, etc.), from there, they can appeal to the Ontario Court of Justice (OCJ). From there, they can appeal to the Superior Court of Justice (SCJ), from there they can appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal (OCA), and then if the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case (if there was dissent on the appeals panel, or if they are given leave to appeal) then it gets heard by the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC).

Thus, Tribunals (and Provincial Offences Court, which are on the same level) –> OCJ –> SCJ –> OCA –> SCC

Unless the Supreme Court hears the case, the Court of Appeal's decision from any province is binding on all lower courts and considered persuasive to other Court of Appeals across the country. Ditto for any court – its decision is binding on lower levels and binding on the level.

So while it's correct that the courts have the "final say" – specifically, the Supreme Court has the final say – the vast majority of cases will fall to Tribunals to interpret and decide on law. Your typical person doesn't have the resources to go through the lengthy appeals process, and the vast majority of cases are rejected for higher appeals. Very few make it all the way up to the Supreme Court. So it is correct to say that Human Rights Tribunals and Commissions will be the primary interpreters of the law. And provincial laws tend to mirror federal ones.

The entire damn point of laws is to be clear on their face. The legislators are paid to do that, to run it through the Justice Department and make sure the laws are unambiguous for interpretation. That's their JOB. And they've clearly failed.

 

[excelsiorlef]

No one disagrees that they talked to her, in fact according to the main prof/supervisor, it was supposed to be an "informal, one on one" conversation... So I do disagree that they got three people in there and dog piled on her.. Would've been nice if the guy had a spine and an ounce of leadership skills in him as a prof... told the other two to fuck off and proceeded with his original intention of an "informal, one on one" talk.

Click to shrink...

Wait are you saying no disagrees that they talk to her, or no one disagrees that they should have talked to her?

I honestly don't understand your need of limiting talk/discussion about trans rights to only certain platforms and topics. How is this effective towards fighting transphobia or raising awareness of its existence? Transgender people are real people, None trans peeps may find themselves in the company of trans people on daily basis with intentions or not. Why not discuss the topic of gender pronouns? Why not discuss anything pertaining to the topic, especially if it effects the use of English grammar?

Now I get that most discussion concerning transgenderism becomes critical, judgment, dreaming and awkward.. And totally get the "existential" level of discussion..
But whether you like it or not society hasn't caught on with the concept yet, and there is still along way to go...And it's not a topic of discussion we can only limit to a classroom dedicated to Trans rights... It's a topic a lot larger than that and it shoudl be discussed everywhere, of course with respect and integrity.

Click to shrink...

A) Please don't use trangenderism... it's laregly a term used by the right wing to shit on trans people....

B) I'd prefer people who think presenting "neutrally" anything Jordan Peterson has to say on the subject refrain... especially when I doubt they were all that neutral (again I'm sorry she chose to have a social media public face...when trying to figure out what the fuck she was doing bring Jordan Peterson into a grammar class to debate trans people... especially since in her limited usage she was agreed that transphobia isn't real and of any criticism lodged at her she pinned a rather thoughtful piece from the WLU LGBT group to the top of her twitter feed and reduced them to being against academic freedom.... end result btw is a lot of transphobic tweets being sent their way)

I point again that I doubt someone would present David Duke, or Milo or whomever you wish in regards to racism, sexism, etc debates.... and just present their opinion neutrally... and if they did I imagine far more would wonder what the fuck the TA was thinking.

 

[Pedrito]

Except that the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal has already found misgendering to be discriminatory.

From talking to a lawyer, this is my understanding of it:
Human Rights Tribunals are the first recourse for anyone who feels their human rights have been violated in the vast majority of cases. For Ontario for example you start with the Tribunals (Human Rights, Residential Tenancies, Employment Standards Act, Fishing and Wildlife, etc.), from there, they can appeal to the Ontario Court of Justice (OCJ). From there, they can appeal to the Superior Court of Justice (SCJ), from there they can appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal (OCA), and then if the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case (if there was dissent on the appeals panel, or if they are given leave to appeal) then it gets heard by the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC).

Thus, Tribunals (and Provincial Offences Court, which are on the same level) –> OCJ –> SCJ –> OCA –> SCC

Unless the Supreme Court hears the case, the Court of Appeal's decision from any province is binding on all lower courts and considered persuasive to other Court of Appeals across the country. Ditto for any court – its decision is binding on lower levels and binding on the level.

So while it's correct that the courts have the "final say" – specifically, the Supreme Court has the final say – the vast majority of cases will fall to Tribunals to interpret and decide on law. Your typical person doesn't have the resources to go through the lengthy appeals process, and the vast majority of cases are rejected for higher appeals. Very few make it all the way up to the Supreme Court. So it is correct to say that Human Rights Tribunals and Commissions will be the primary interpreters of the law. And provincial laws tend to mirror federal ones.

The entire damn point of laws is to be clear on their face. The legislators are paid to do that, to run it through the Justice Department and make sure the laws are unambiguous for interpretation. That's their JOB. And they've clearly failed.

Click to shrink...

Where? When?

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onhrt/#search/type=decision&ccId=onhrt&text=misgendering &origType=decision&origCcId=onhrt

If the law needs to be interpreted by the Courts, don't worry, it will be. If there's an absurd ruling, "free speech" organisations will pay the legal fees.

By the way, s. 3 of the CHRC also includes "colour" as a ground of discrimination, among many others, and I haven't seen people come up with absurd scenarios about employers being convicted because they asked their employee who painted himself blue to go wash himself, or that colour should clearly be defined as "natural colour of the skin". And what about spray tan? Has the the government thought about spray tan?

 

[Jack Remington]

Man, that audio is cringeworthy. Good to see that the TA received an apology. How ridiculous to censure her for this.

Some of today's students would not have made it through a lot of my college classes in the early 00s.

 

[SegFault]

People use the singular version of they far more than they even know.

It's a silly argument. Stop being such a fucking snowflake that you can't handle someone asking you one of the easiest fucking things you can do.

 

[CannonFodder52]

People use the singular version of they far more than they even know.

It's a silly argument. Stop being such a fucking snowflake that you can't handle someone asking you one of the easiest fucking things you can do.

Click to shrink...

He makes hundreds of thousands by refusing to say they.

Peterson's viewpoints are nothing but a collection of alt-right dog whistles.

"Cultural Marxism!", "Political correctness!"

Discussion and free speech aren't even his goals considering he wants his shitty viewpoints in academia and ones he disagrees with out.



I'm sure Rebel Media will have an exclusive interview.

Click to shrink...

Why do all of these personalities have to come out of Canada? Gavin, Lauren, Stefan Molyneux, Peterson, Gad Saad, Rebel Media, etc.

 

[kliklik]

I said she would still be called in because they laid out other reasons why she was...

But this is one example of a couple of people not having a fucking clue... And they aren't in any legal capacity to apply the law so you can't argue it's being misapplied....

And you're using this one example (which has resulted in think piece of opinion piece after law piece clarifying that they didn't have a clue about the law) to say I knew the Law was flawed... All that's come out of this regarding the law is clarification from like almost everyone.

Like if this had been a debate on an issue of race, sex, sexual orientation... and the same people misused human rights laws like that they did... would the conclusion really be that the law was the issue...

Someone offered that an issue was that the media (partly I'd argue by giving Jordan Peterson so much credibility on the topic for again literally no reason) did a piss poor job reporting on it and explaining it... which you like outright rejected in favour of blaming the law again even though the only issue so far is a bunch of private citizens being fucking clueless.

Click to shrink...

My point is that the lack of clarity in the language of the law (and it is unclear: the government stated it was not intended to apply to pronoun usage, but refused to put that into writing and tribunals have already ruled that similarly worded law meant that pronoun usage counts) has resulted in a chilling effect on discussion as employers/supervisors want to stop those in their employ from going so far as to run afoul of the laws and be hauled before a tribunal. That *itself* is a problem, and is to be blamed on the law. Just because they (the university representatives) "aren't in any legal capacity to apply the law" doesn't mean that the law isn't having a negative effect by discouraging expression *before* it ends up in violation of the law.

Any amount of clarification that's come out now is hardly different from that which resulted from previous discussions and think pieces surrounding the previous push for C-16 to become law. If all that discussion and those thinkpieces didn't clarify it adequately to prevent this from happening, there's no reason to believe it's been clarified adequately for the future. And really, it cannot be clarified adequately by anyone because promises from politicians don't mean shit. It's how it's interpreted in Tribunals and by the courts that's at issue, and there's actually good reason to suspect that they will interpret it to include pronoun usage.

The thing that would have settled all the speculation would have been amendment to C-16 to clarify the wording. But that was rejected and now, we're left with nagging doubt and room for possible different interpretations.

 

[excelsiorlef]

My point is that the lack of clarity in the language of the law (and it is unclear: the government stated it was not intended to apply to pronoun usage, but refused to put that into writing and tribunals have already ruled that similarly worded law meant that pronoun usage counts) has resulted in a chilling effect on discussion as employers/supervisors want to stop those in their employ from going so far as to run afoul of the laws and be hauled before a tribunal. That *itself* is a problem, and is to be blamed on the law. Just because they (the university representatives) "aren't in any legal capacity to apply the law" doesn't mean that the law isn't having a negative effect by discouraging expression *before* it ends up in violation of the law.

Any amount of clarification that's come out now is hardly different from that which resulted from previous discussions and think pieces surrounding the previous push for C-16 to become law. If all that discussion and those thinkpieces didn't clarify it adequately to prevent this from happening, there's no reason to believe it's been clarified adequately for the future. And really, it cannot be clarified adequately by anyone because promises from politicians don't mean shit. It's how it's interpreted in Tribunals and by the courts that's at issue, and there's actually good reason to suspect that they will interpret it to include pronoun usage.

The thing that would have settled all the speculation would have been amendment to C-16 to clarify the wording. But that was rejected and now, we're left with nagging doubt and room for possible different interpretations.

Click to shrink...

You're left with nagging doubt... you keep talking of a chilling effect... but beyond this example (which I note is literally proving to be the opposite) do you have any?

 

[Caz]

I'm speaking from personal experience of course. I'm still on a private mailing list with a bunch of other M2F post-ops and we all agree this is a bunch of crazy politicized nonsense. I can't believe there are people fighting for the right to be called per, they, ve, xe or ze instead of he or she.

Click to shrink...

Tell us how you and your friends really feel about gender fluidity and accompanying pronouns.

Let me be clear; do not let the Conservatives run with the ball on this!

Click to shrink...

Too late.

 

[kliklik]

Where? When?

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onhrt/#search/type=decision&ccId=onhrt&text=misgendering &origType=decision&origCcId=onhrt

Click to shrink...

It's on their website, so I assume they aren't lying: "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." Though I think it was the BC Tribunal on closer reading: Dawson v. Vancouver Police Board (No. 2), 2015 BCHRT 54 (CanLII) seems to be the citation.

Considering it's on their website, I assume they agree with the decision and will rule similarly though.

 

[Kinthey]

Isn't Peterson being challenged in the very clip she showed? I'm not sure why it's so bad that she remained neutral, especially if the point was to show the current disagreements on gender neutral language

 

[Simon Belmont]

It's on their website, so I assume they aren't lying: "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." Though I think it was the BC Tribunal on closer reading: Dawson v. Vancouver Police Board (No. 2), 2015 BCHRT 54 (CanLII) seems to be the citation.

Considering it's on their website, I assume they agree with the decision and will rule similarly though.

Click to shrink...

Interacting with the police is different than interacting with a university. The police are the government, the university is not.

 

[kliklik]

You're left with nagging doubt... you keep talking of a chilling effect... but beyond this example (which I note is literally proving to be the opposite) do you have any?

Click to shrink...

This is the start since it's quite new. When people claimed that this would be misused to shut down discussion on pronouns, people scoffed and called them scaremongers. And now it has. And now people scoff and still dismiss concerns about this.

Point is, this was significant in that it proved that the people who criticised C-16 and who were skeptical that it wouldn't be interpreted to force speech weren't wrong. Their concerns have already been validated.

 

[kliklik]

Interacting with the police is different than interacting with a university. The police are the government, the university is not.

Click to shrink...

Well let's be clear. What *she* did wasn't in violation of anything. But, suppose you have someone at the university who refuses to use a student's personal pronouns. They theoretically could be hauled before the same Tribunal as the police are.

If you think that the Tribunals only make rulings on cases involving government, you'd be wrong. You can haul private citizens before Tribunals too, and many have been.