Survey on sexual harassment and sexual assault in climbing

jg fox wrote:

I meant to post the human right's portion instead of the criminal code but this brings up a good point about the genocide portion.

I have no issues with (a) but its (b) that is troubling.  The whole pronoun debate is making it seem like it will lead to the destruction of the trans community, at least that's the jist of what I picked up on in the last 9 years.  By someone refusing to recognize pronouns, a flawed but popular argument could be made that it will bring about the destruction of their gender identity.  Also, consider that the trans community suicide rate, ranges from 32% to 50%, that means if a classmate or family member doesn't call someone by whatever pronoun they can think of and they decide to kill themselves, there could be a case to be made in charging someone with "genocide."

Just a note, that suicide rate is not related to perceived discrimination as ethnic minorities in Western cultures that face discrimination don't have anywhere near as high of a suicide rate.

Now the Human Rights act has been updated and it is a offense to not use someone's pronoun.  Canadian government is forcing the use of unnatural words or unnatural usage of words (they in the singular) on their country. 

I few thoughts on this long debate. First, kudos to all for staying in the ballpark of reasonable in what has sometimes been a heated exchange.

So, I'm curious, is French exempted somehow? It's a gendered language, after all.

Other thoughts. I realize Canada is not a democracy in the way the U.S. is, but I do believe it is representational, with elections. Doesn't that imply these policies reflect the will of the majority of Canadians?

I would assume the law will be applied appropriately, and that Canada has a justice system? I simply don't see getting charged if I'm simply yelling at some (apparently) woman to get her act together, when she almost clips me when I'm riding my bike, for example. Institutionalizing these pronouns? Specifically aimed at trans people? Yes, I could see charges. I also think this could enter into hate crimes and up charges in vandalism cases, for example. Same as spray painting swastikas on something Jewish in this country.

I, surprise, surprise, see both sides of this. I think it is a good move going forward to remove gender from our language, but, I also felt it was fairly silly to drop "man" from words like mailman. Common usage changes the meaning. "Guys", plural, is any group of friends, for myself and many others. Might not include a single male.

It will be messy, these things always are, but it will sort out eventually. In the meantime? MP is an awesome community. Discussions like this are how we learn about each other and start to think about our differences in respectful ways.

Much impressed, "guys"! Best, OLH

Here is another ad nauseum explanation by Cossman: http://sds.utoronto.ca/blog/bill-c-16-no-its-not-about-criminalizing-pronoun-misuse/ 

Old lady H wrote:

I few thoughts on this long debate. First, kudos to all for staying in the ballpark of reasonable in what has sometimes been a heated exchange.

So, I'm curious, is French exempted somehow? It's a gendered language, after all.

The non-binary French-speakers sometimes use iel, ille, eil,  or ol. However, the use of non-gendered pronouns for non-binary people seems less of an issue in French community, according to what I have seen/heard, than it is in English. One explanation I have heard is that because everything in French language is grammatically gendered, and a lot of times the grammar genders of the nouns don't align with what an non-French person might assume would be the gender of such things (for example uterus is masculine in French), there concept of grammatical gender is just more dissociated from human/personal gender and identity, and thus there is less of a desire for a special pronoun.

Whereas in English the only time you use gendered pronouns is when you are talking about people, and so the label seems a lot stronger/more meaningful.

Lena chita wrote:

The non-binary French-speakers sometimes use iel, ille, eil,  or ol. However, the use of non-gendered pronouns for non-binary people seems less of an issue in French community, according to what I have seen/heard, than it is in English. One explanation I have heard is that because everything in French language is grammatically gendered, and a lot of times the grammar genders of the nouns don't align with what an non-French person might assume would be the gender of such things (for example uterus is masculine in French), there concept of grammatical gender is just more dissociated from human/personal gender and identity, and thus there is less of a desire for a special pronoun.

Whereas in English the only time you use gendered pronouns is when you are talking about people, and so the label seems a lot stronger/more meaningful.

Thanks, Lena, that's about what I would expect. Down the road, our language will go there also, I expect. Punctuation is changing rapidly (periods from Dr, etc) as is usage. I think it will come down to a mix of using something neutral, and, not being so uptight about pinning down the pronoun/noun ("what a cute little boy") ("he's a girl"), and, not being offended when zero offense was meant.

Hebrew is gendered also, differently from romance languages, and I know Israeli society has had pretty interesting debates on this. They are a difficult mix of very egalitarian and very traditional, much more so than here. If you think it's difficult for English speakers, just Google a bit on Hebrew!

Best, Helen

The Canada Department of Justice published a review of the proposed Bill C-16 legislation (linked to an archived version as the original link was deactivated recently) and in doing so has confirmed that:
Q and A on Gender Identity and Gender Expression

1. Will “gender identity” and “gender expression” be defined in the Bill?
2. In order to ensure that the law would be as inclusive as possible, the terms “gender identity” and “gender expression” are not defined in the Bill. With very few exceptions, grounds of discrimination are not defined in legislation but are left to courts, tribunals, and commissions to interpret and explain, based on their detailed experience with particular cases.

Definitions of the terms “gender identity” and “gender expression” have already been given by the Ontario Human Rights Commission, for example. The Commission has provided helpful discussion and examples that can offer good practical guidance. The Canadian Human Rights Commission will provide similar guidance on the meaning of these terms in the Canadian Human Rights Act.
And with that statement of intent from the Department of Justice we see that the federal Human Rights regime will mirror that found at the provincial level including the policies.

The OHRC has produced a policy on gender identity and expression and what constitutes harassment and discrimination, including “refusing to refer to a person by their self-identified name and proper personal pronoun”.

Thereafter, the OHRC clarified its policy by creating a Question and Answer on gender identity and gender expression which seeks to define these terms, and to set out that the refusal of a person to use the chosen/personal/preferred pronoun, or deliberately misgendering, will likely be discrimination.

What this means is that if you encounter a person in a sphere of human activity covered by the Code, and you address that person by a pronoun that is not the chosen/personal/or preferred pronoun of that person, that your action can constitute discrimination.

https://litigationguy.wordpress.com/2016/12/24/bill-c-16-whats-the-big-deal/

Old lady H wrote:

Thanks, Lena, that's about what I would expect. Down the road, our language will go there also, I expect. Punctuation is changing rapidly (periods from Dr, etc) as is usage. I think it will come down to a mix of using something neutral, and, not being so uptight about pinning down the pronoun/noun ("what a cute little boy") ("he's a girl"), and, not being offended when zero offense was meant.

Hebrew is gendered also, differently from romance languages, and I know Israeli society has had pretty interesting debates on this. They are a difficult mix of very egalitarian and very traditional, much more so than here. If you think it's difficult for English speakers, just Google a bit on Hebrew!

Best, Helen

LOL, I don't need to Google it, my son speaks Hebrew, I know a smuttering.

Languages are funny. Russian has a third grammatical gender ("neutral" gender, though the literal name of it in Russian means "middle gender"), but it applies to only a few things, and obviously not in a way that makes sense to a non-native speaker.

There are at least 3 different ways of saying "a person regardless of the gender, or a person of either gender" (those are terms usually used in legal documents), but these three nouns themselves can be grammatically neutral, masculine, or feminine. Person as in "Litso" ( face) = middle gender. Person as "Persona" =feminine, Person as "chelovek" (human)= masculine.

As far as I know, there is no movement to use a non-gendered pronouns, such as the middle gender, by non-gender-binary people in Russia. but then again, the LGBT community there has a lot more serious issues to grapple with.

Ryan Swanson wrote:

Meme was derived from mimeme, an ancient Greek word. Gif is short for graphics interchange format. Emoji comes from the Japanese words for picture (e) and character (moji).

Xi, xir, xem, etc. don't base xirselves in anything other than throwing an X or Z in somewhere to be different.

                                                 ^^^   Did I do it right?

You haven't addressed why there is a fundamental need for a word to be derived from another series of works, or words in another language, at all; and then demonstrated that those words are more natural (e.g. easier to learn, understand, etc.) than a wholly new word. Basing a word on ancient Greek or Japanese is not likely any more understandable to a anglophone than a wholly new word.

Ryan Swanson wrote: "Ubu's ideas are rooted left-wing, pseudo-intellectual PC babble"

I'm not attacking your ideas, I'm attacking you by using fancy sounding words one might hear on talk radio.  But if you think that constitutes a legitimate argument, then I guess we are done here.

As I said before, you're entitled to your opinion, but since I don't have a body of published ideas relating to any of the adjectives or nouns used in your "attack" this is a nonsensical point you're trying to make.

J Squared wrote:

his ideas are none of those things.

"right wing" ????
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnHbkTgQRIA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0Nb5bO1R1Y
listen and grow up.

"new-age"???
nearly all of his major influences are from the atrocities of the 20th century, and from a score of philosophers and writers who are ALL DEAD NOW.

"uber-intellectual psychobabble"??
gee I guess his wide degree of viewers/attendees and the scores and scores of comments that pour in from all over the world, thanking him for his articulation... are because his ideas are so useless and hard to understand???

you can say those things all you want, but they don't constitute as an "attack" because they don't do any actual damage, except to you...  as they're just false if you spend any real amount of time digging at the truth of the matter in a serious way.
you've made several posts which say absolutely nothing other than "wahh, I don't like mr Peterson"
do you think anyone even cares what you say at this point?
you're DONE.

can we at least pretend to try and be on-topic here?
remember that this latest bout of inane ad hominems started out after I linked
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5O_FLUWYmg - an interview about The Boy Crisis
that a greatly increasing amount of children are raised in a way which is detrimental to society? and results in threads like this one, and the Meru thread about Toxic Masculinity?

and if you try and write this off as "oh it's just a Canadian issue"
http://ussanews.com/News1/2018/05/16/ohio-universitys-new-diversity-czar-will-make-nearly-200k-a-year/
wake up bucko, the mentality is spreading everywhere.

Wow.  You're really sensitive on this issue eh?

I'm not the one trying to have an argument here.  I've shared my perspective on Peterson, and could care less about "attacking" or "damaging" anyone.  You don't like my opinion?  That's your call, and you're welcome to keep trying to convince everyone that Peterson is the long awaited anti-PC messiah, but I'm not really interested in engaging.  Enjoy your fight.

p.s. for future reference, posting a ton of youtube links is not the same thing as making an argument.  Just something to consider if your goal is to make a cogent argument.

FosterK wrote:

You haven't addressed why there is a fundamental need for a word to be derived from another series of works, or words in another language, at all; and then demonstrated that those words are more natural (e.g. easier to learn, understand, etc.) than a wholly new word. Basing a word on ancient Greek or Japanese is not likely any more understandable to a anglophone than a wholly new word.

So hey, peeps, what words are people using these days, especially in the demographic we're addressing here? Still thrashing along trying to pick "he" or "she" on a wild ass guess? Having to ask? Structuring sentences wierdly to avoid pronouns entirely? I'm totally for being respectful, I just have no clue, literally, now and then how to do so. We really do need new words. Maybe we can axe that whole apostrophe plural possessive confusion whilst we're at it, eh?

Best, OLH

Old lady H wrote:

So hey, peeps, what words are people using these days, especially in the demographic we're addressing here? Still thrashing along trying to pick "he" or "she" on a wild ass guess? Having to ask? Structuring sentences wierdly to avoid pronouns entirely? I'm totally for being respectful, I just have no clue, literally, now and then how to do so. We really do need new words. Maybe we can axe that whole apostrophe plural possessive confusion whilst we're at it, eh?

Best, OLH

Asking is always a good policy, if you don't know and they don't volunteer that information during introductions. Apologize if you make a mistake after they tell you.  

FosterK wrote:

Asking is always a good policy, if you don't know and they don't volunteer that information during introductions. Apologize if you make a mistake after they tell you.  

Do we have new language emerging? I have had casual acquaintances transitioning, and that's a moving target. Whatever some of you may think about Idaho, the City of Boise, my employer, is putting a lot of effort into this, not just words (policy) but actions (single occupant restrooms, including one with a shower). 

I just had to do my annual online training for sexual harassment, which included reading all of the pertinent policy. The key to harassment is the reaction the word or act causes, including those not directly in the line of fire. If I over heard you and your buds (gender neutral here) making crass comments in the next cubicle over? If that bugs me, as a member of the group you're cracking wise about, and, that's a protected group, you're in trouble and risking your job. Your intent is irrelevant. Kinda simple.

Best, OLH

Old lady H wrote:

Do we have new language emerging? I have had casual acquaintances transitioning, and that's a moving target. Whatever some of you may think about Idaho, the City of Boise, my employer, is putting a lot of effort into this, not just words (policy) but actions (single occupant restrooms, including one with a shower). 

I just had to do my annual online training for sexual harassment, which included reading all of the pertinent policy. The key to harassment is the reaction the word or act causes, including those not directly in the line of fire. If I over heard you and your buds (gender neutral here) making crass comments in the next cubicle over? If that bugs me, as a member of the group you're cracking wise about, and, that's a protected group, you're in trouble and risking your job. Your intent is irrelevant. Kinda simple.

Well, there are points to be made there, but also... there is a dangerous cliff somewhere around the place where someone "feeling bad" (or for that matter, being "outraged" as a result of an action or utterance being sufficient to trigger discipline/reprisal.  People run towards such cliffs with tar, feathers, pitchforks and gin in hand...

Old lady H wrote:

Do we have new language emerging? I have had casual acquaintances transitioning, and that's a moving target. Whatever some of you may think about Idaho, the City of Boise, my employer, is putting a lot of effort into this, not just words (policy) but actions (single occupant restrooms, including one with a shower). 

I just had to do my annual online training for sexual harassment, which included reading all of the pertinent policy. The key to harassment is the reaction the word or act causes, including those not directly in the line of fire. If I over heard you and your buds (gender neutral here) making crass comments in the next cubicle over? If that bugs me, as a member of the group you're cracking wise about, and, that's a protected group, you're in trouble and risking your job. Your intent is irrelevant. Kinda simple.

Best, OLH

I'm not sure what you mean by new language? The lesson to learn is the someone's pronouns are theirs, so there is no, new, generalizable language that is in popular usage that I'm aware of. A common non-gendered pronoun is "they/them" but (as an example) someone in transition who strongly identifies as "she/her" is going to be equally misgendered, if you are speaking about a person specifically. Do you have more context for your question? 

How is it that the gender is a social construct people are perfectly OK with giving young children puberty blockers so the child can "figure it out"? Doesn't that seem constructionist?

Also, wouldn't a trans person want to be called the pronoun they are transitioning to, she/he? It would seem to me that they would want to be thought of as a man or woman once they transition. Maybe I am just missing something here.

The subtext of what FosterK suggesting is that there are infinite pronouns that one could create to describe themselves.

Where do we stop? What about otherkin?

I'll put my tinfoil hat on for a minute: If you convince people that personal identity is of utmost importance and tie people to their identity you trap them within their ego and the material world. Then you can further separate people from higher consciousness because higher states of consciousness lack identity or ego. If people cannot reach higher states of consciousness then they will be easier to manipulate and control.

"How is it that the gender is a social construct people are perfectly OK with giving young children puberty blockers so the child can "figure it out"? Doesn't that seem constructionist?"

I think that you are confusing gender with sex. Gender is the set of socially constructed meanings that we assign to sexual categories. I know that the language does get a bit unclear. It is my understanding that people who identify as transgender are experiencing issues with their sex rather then gender. There are people who have transitioned who are interested in maintaining traditional gender presentation. Some are not and may choose to present as gender queer. There are also folks who are cool with their bio sex and prefer to play with gender who present as gender queer.

I think that we are starting to see gender as a spectrum and when it comes to sex, there seems to be more of a spectrum as well. There is a significant number of people who are intersex and others who produce higher levels of some sex horemones (see the controversy in the track and field community).

When in doubt about someone's perferred pronoun just ask. It is a respect issue. 

Deirdre wrote: "How is it that the gender is a social construct people are perfectly OK with giving young children puberty blockers so the child can "figure it out"? Doesn't that seem constructionist?"

I think that you are confusing gender with sex. Gender is the set of socially constructed meanings that we assign to sexual categories. I know that the language does get a bit unclear. It is my understanding that people who identify as transgender are experiencing issues with their sex rather then gender. There are people who have transitioned who are interested in maintaining traditional gender presentation. Some are not and may choose to present as gender queer. There are also folks who are cool with their bio sex and prefer to play with gender who present as gender queer.

I think that we are starting to see gender as a spectrum and when it comes to sex, there seems to be more of a spectrum as well. There is a significant number of people who are intersex and others who produce higher levels of some sex horemones (see the controversy in the track and field community).

When in doubt about someone's perferred pronoun just ask. It is a respect issue.

Good God...

Guy 1 at bar: What pronoun do you prefer?
Guy 2 at bar: What?
Guy 1 at bar: Gender pronouns, that is if you identify as a gender. I won't want to disrespect you.
Guy 2 at bar: ...
Guy 1 at bar: You know, would you like to refer to you as He, Zhe, She..

Guess its good business for the dental implant folks.

Ashort wrote: Also, wouldn't a trans person want to be called the pronoun they are transitioning to, she/he? It would seem to me that they would want to be thought of as a man or woman once they transition. Maybe I am just missing something here.

Some people are intersex, some identify as genderfluid etc. That is why it may not be possible use existing he/she pronouns.

The subtext of what FosterK suggesting is that there are infinite pronouns that one could create to describe themselves.

Where do we stop? What about otherkin?

Why do we need to stop? 

I've climbed on Intersex Rock in Joshua Tree. It's a very popular formation.