Funny Events of the "Woke" world

[Hawki]

How about workplace harassment:

Deliberately misgendering someone violates their human rights, Canada tribunal rules

A human rights tribunal in British Columbia, Canada, has ruled that refusing to use someone's correct pronouns violates their human rights.

www.pinknews.co.uk

There's a reason those assholes didn't actually link to the article

I did read the article. I agree that what happened constituted harassment, and that the victim was entitled to compensation.

Both of which is besides the point, because if we're entering human rights territory...

Can't you guys give Blizzard a break? They're having to rush Overwatch 2 out the door because they already ran out of characters to retcon LGBTQ+ to cover their asses and distract from criticism. Isn't that enough?

Of the playable characters, there's two that are confirmed to be LGBT (Tracer and Soldier: 76). Neither of them were retconned to be so.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

I did read the article. I agree that what happened constituted harassment, and that the victim was entitled to compensation.

Both of which is besides the point, because if we're entering human rights territory...

Which it is, same as if a Black person was being harassed *for being black* or a woman being harassed for *being a woman*

 

[Hawki]

Which it is, same as if a Black person was being harassed *for being black* or a woman being harassed for *being a woman*

I looked up various definitions of human rights, all of them are frustratingly vague. But it seems that you draw the line when the harassment comes based on inherent traits, whereas it wouldn't be violating human rights if the harassment came from non-inherent traits. Which leaves us with a problem, because gender dysphoria is an inherent trait, whereas pronouns aren't...

You're basically setting up a scenario where the same behaviour can be carried out, but will only breach human rights some of the time. Which is highly problematic from both a legal and moral standpoint.

 

[Kwak]

I looked up various definitions of human rights, all of them are frustratingly vague. But it seems that you draw the line when the harassment comes based on inherent traits, whereas it wouldn't be violating human rights if the harassment came from non-inherent traits. Which leaves us with a problem, because gender dysphoria is an inherent trait, whereas pronouns aren't...

You're basically setting up a scenario where the same behaviour can be carried out, but will only breach human rights some of the time. Which is highly problematic from both a legal and moral standpoint.

Do people not have a basic right to not be subjected to bullying or harrassment?

 

[Hawki]

Do people not have a basic right to not be subjected to bullying or harrassment?

Short Answer: Yes.

Long Answer: In theory, but considering that bullying and harassment are universal, beginning as early as in school, framing this as a "human right," IMO, trivializes the idea.

I mean, if being bullied or harassed is a breach of human rights, then I'd bet that everyone on this forum, heck, most people, would have their rights violated. This isn't an argument against trying to stop these things, but to frame it as a right? Eh...

 

[Kwak]

Short Answer: Yes.

Long Answer: In theory, but considering that bullying and harassment are universal, beginning as early as in school, framing this as a "human right," IMO, trivializes the idea.

I mean, if being bullied or harassed is a breach of human rights, then I'd bet that everyone on this forum, heck, most people, would have their rights violated. This isn't an argument against trying to stop these things, but to frame it as a right? Eh...

Is it freedom of speech, and therefore a human right, to perpetrate bullying and harassment?
Which right would you defend, the right to express yourself through harassment, or to be protected from it?

 

[Hawki]

Is it freedom of speech, and therefore a human right, to perpetrate bullying and harassment?
Which right would you defend, the right to express yourself through harassment, or to be protected from it?

No idea why you're bringing freedom of speech into it.

To the first point, freedom of speech can easily slide into harassment. Sometimes the line is clear, sometimes it isn't.

To the second, I'm not demanding either for myself, because on the one hand, I don't go around harassing people, on the other, demanding that I'm free from harassment, while nice, isn't going to pan out.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Which leaves us with a problem, because gender dysphoria is an inherent trait, whereas pronouns aren't...

Uhh, do...do you not see the connection there? Between gender and pronouns?

Like, if somebody harassed you because you're male, that would be based on your inherent traits, right? And part of that could include not using your (presumably) male pronouns?

 

[Kwak]

No idea why you're bringing freedom of speech into it.

Because I assume that is a human right you agree is valid.
What human rights do you consider worthy of legal protection then?

 

[Hawki]

Uhh, do...do you not see the connection there? Between gender and pronouns?

Like, if somebody harassed you because you're male, that would be based on your inherent traits, right? And part of that could include not using your (presumably) male pronouns?

Gender is inherent, pronouns aren't.

Harassment based on either is shitty either way.

Because I assume that is a human right you agree is valid.
What human rights do you consider worthy of legal protection then?

I'm not sure if freedom of speech is a human right though (at least in the declaration). Certainly believe in it though.

As for what human rights I consider worthy of legal protection...most of them? I mean, bear in mind that there's a lot of discussion as to what entails a human right and what doesn't, to the point that there was the Cairo counter-declaration to human rights, to more recently critiques that the very idea of human rights is racist. But the most basic human rights that I could find are:

-Right to a fair trial
-Protection against enslavement
-Prohibition of genocide
-Right to an education
-Protection against torture

I doubt you'll find many people arguing against this (maybe for torture), not to mention the issue of what counts as a fair trial, or when to classify something as genocide. But to put harassment as a violation of human rights? Really?

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Gender is inherent, pronouns aren't.

Harassment based on either is shitty either way.

Do you not understand that this person was being harassed for their gender, with incorrect pronouns being one of the weapons?

 

[Hawki]

Do you not understand that this person was being harassed for their gender, with incorrect pronouns being one of the weapons?

Yes.

Do you understand that isn't the issue at hand?

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Yes.

Do you understand that isn't the issue at hand?

Sure it is:
If I harass you because i don't like you personally, that's a different situation than if I was harassing you because you're a guy. Motive matters in most crime. Same way that killing enemy civilians is a crime, while killing enemy civilians for specific reasons regarding inherent traits is genocide. (Overblown example, but it's 5am and nothing as clear cut was coming to mind)
While you're entitled to your personal opinion on whether or not gender, sexual, or racial harassment should be treated differently than personal harassment, it fits well within the legal purview of the Canadian justice system.

 

[ObsidianJones]

Sure it is:
If I harass you because i don't like you personally, that's a different situation than if I was harassing you because you're a guy. Motive matters in most crime. Same way that killing enemy civilians is a crime, while killing enemy civilians for specific reasons regarding inherent traits is genocide. (Overblown example, but it's 5am and nothing as clear cut was coming to mind)
While you're entitled to your personal opinion on whether or not gender, sexual, or racial harassment should be treated differently than personal harassment, it fits well within the legal purview of the Canadian justice system.

To build off of this, a lot of you know that I'm a black man.

Because I'm a black man, certain things have a deep seeded meaning when you use it with me. Although I'm a male, calling me a 'boy' after I reached my adult years is tantamount to racism because of the history of black people in this culture. Even adults back then were denied the respect of being referred to by adult nomenclature due to the 'inherent' juvenile nature of the slaves. And plainly, the slaver owners saw no need to respect them.

So while I could debate on gender being inherent (anatomy and physiology is blatantly inherent, but the brain and its wiring can yield a myriad of different results that are not just visible to the naked eye), pronouns aren't. Because Pronouns are a made up way of communicating with the limited knowledge of what we know. If we don't know something, we just don't say "We don't have a word for it, so everyone pretend that it doesn't exist". We go about naming it in attempts to understand it.

We can easily expand our language as we've done countless times before. And hell, using 'they' has been standard practice when the gender is unknown since the 14th century at least. The issue has never been grammar. At the least, it's people who are just this side of lazy who don't want to do anything extra for other people. And at most, it's an attempt to delegitimize a group of our fellow humans because certain people can't accept things beyond what they are comfortable with.

 

[Kwak]

I doubt you'll find many people arguing against this (maybe for torture), not to mention the issue of what counts as a fair trial, or when to classify something as genocide. But to put harassment as a violation of human rights? Really?

Yes.

Human Rights Code

"Nelson later took their case to the human rights tribunal, alleging that “Gobelle’s conduct towards them, and the employer’s response, amounts to discrimination in employment based on their gender identity and expression”, in violation of the British Columbia Human Rights Code"

 

[Silvanus]

Can't you guys give Blizzard a break? They're having to rush Overwatch 2 out the door because they already ran out of characters to retcon LGBTQ+ to cover their asses and distract from criticism. Isn't that enough?

"Retcon" in this case just meaning that they weren't previously established as straight or gay, of course.

 

[Agema]

And hell, using 'they' has been standard practice when the gender is unknown since the 14th century at least.

Slightly more strictly, it was standard practice, then it become not standard practice, and in the last few decades is returning towards standard practice.

 

[Trunkage]

"Retcon" in this case just meaning that they weren't previously established as straight or gay, of course.

Don't you understand. If you're gay, the first interaction you have with another person is to tell them your sexuality. Anything else is a retcon

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Slightly more strictly, it was standard practice, then it become not standard practice, and in the last few decades is returning towards standard practice.

Isn't it hilarious when someone whines "you're trying to erase tradition" when that tradition erased tradition?

 

[tstorm823]

Don't you understand. If you're gay, the first interaction you have with another person is to tell them your sexuality. Anything else is a retcon

I know that you're joking about fiction, but I can't help but apply your middle sentence to people who deliberately develop lisps.