SJWS - Has anyone met one?
-
"SJWs" as right wingers describe them are extremely rare, and are usually misguided 14 year olds who grew up in the trolling age and are therefore really good at pissing off old people. For the most part, the very concept of an SJW is just a straw-man set up by people who are very explicitly anti-socioeconomic-equality in order to make the people who are pro-equality look crazy. In that respect, the term lost any real meaning a very long time ago.
-
"SJWs" as right wingers describe them are extremely rare, and are usually misguided 14 year olds who grew up in the trolling age and are therefore really good at pissing off old people. For the most part, the very concept of an SJW is just a straw-man set up by people who are very explicitly anti-socioeconomic-equality in order to make the people who are pro-equality look crazy. In that respect, the term lost any real meaning a very long time ago.
LOL, you are so dishonest. I say thing because you won't talk about specific cases mentioned, but you will slag off those who disagree with SJWs.
-
If SJWs are as rare as you claim, then you have to explain Canada's Bill C-16.
That's the bill that criminalizes people who refuse to call people by any made up personal pronoun they want to use, among other things.
So if I refuse to call someone cisgender, or pansexual or non-binary, non comforming or whatever label they picked up in tumblr (no matter how little sense it makes to me) for themselves, then I'm commiting a hate crime?
Way to go Canada…. (It's all your fault USA, you infected the nice Canadians! D:< )
That's it. I'm going to Australia.
I don't think it's quite that.
The part I was referring to is the bit of C-16 that requires you to call someone by their personally chosen pronouns. Traditionally, personal pronouns are HE, HIM, HIS, SHE, HER, HERS, THEY, THEY'RE, THEIRS. Now it can literally be anything a person can imagine.
Excluding the muslim issue, Canada is only beaten for the SJW award by Sweden.
As a Canadian I would suggest you read bill C-16 before making any judgements on this issue. This bill was introduced to protect those transgender citizens who identify as male or female and their right to be addressed and treated as such. This was very important to the LGBT community and it's nice to know we have a government that recognized the rights of these people and protected them in law. I personally believe Canada has been one of the leaders in LGBT issues and rights You will note we didn't need to go to our Supreme Court to have these rights recognized and accepted throughout this fantastic Country. Just ask all the Americans that came her to be legally married long before they could hope to in their own country. I'd be curious to know if the LGBT community has as much support in the United Kingdom? Looking forward to finding out! And you are wrong to say that we in Canada "Now it can literally be anything a person can imagine"
-
I think you are being dishonest about C-16.
While I agree that it has protections for transsexuals, it also has "protections" for gender trenders and gender terrorists. I haven't seen anyone who's against the bit about protecting transsexuals.
You should search YouTube for the various discussions and debates over this.
-
I think you are being dishonest about C-16.
While I agree that it has protections for transsexuals, it also has "protections" for gender trenders and gender terrorists. I haven't seen anyone who's against the bit about protecting transsexuals.
You should search YouTube for the various discussions and debates over this.
Like I said before have you read Bill C-16 and second I don't get my news info from YouTube (are you serious) and if you do then all I can say is good luck with that!
-
Like I said before have you read Bill C-16 and second I don't get my news info from YouTube (are you serious) and if you do then all I can say is good luck with that!
He said 'watch debates' about it in YouTube…not getting your news from there.
Also, the LGBT community is not the issue, is obvious C-16 was meant primarily for transgender people. The problem as raphjd pointed out is that it also allows for gender trenders and gender terrorists to latch unto it.
If a male transits to female, of course deserves be called a 'she' and all the gender related pronouns; same goes for a female who transits to a male: be called a 'he' and be referred in the related male gender pronouns.
Because they actually identify and feel as that gender, to the point they are willing to alter their bodies (with all the toil and battle it implies)
What is not valid is that someone demands being called a weird way, just because is not gender-conforming, and people have to comply or be fined.
Oh Canada...you held so much promise...
But the Americans seem to flee in droves to you when anything they don't like seems to happen.
-
Like I said before have you read Bill C-16 and second I don't get my news info from YouTube (are you serious) and if you do then all I can say is good luck with that!
So, you are say that there is no news on YouTube. You really don't know what you are talking about. YouTube is more than just prank videos and whatnot.
YouTube has debates on all sorts of topics that normally you only get to see if you are there in person. There are even debates on C-16.
YouTube also has actual news broadcasts archived.
What part of C-16 are you wanting me to RE-READ?
AGAIN, no one has any problem with the transsexual protections. The problem is the gender trenders and gender terrorists.
I'm talking about that blonde high school GIRL, that claims to be pan-gender so she needs to use the boys bathroom, even though she only dresses as a girl, acts like a girl and looks like a girl. She also claims to be a gay heterosexual, in other words, she likes boys.
There are countless examples of these people.
-
So, you are say that there is no news on YouTube. You really don't know what you are talking about. YouTube is more than just prank videos and whatnot.
Yea I noticed that during the recent election in good ole USA and all the bull being spread via YouTube and Facebook"
YouTube has debates on all sorts of topics that normally you only get to see if you are there in person. There are even debates on C-16.
YouTube also has actual news broadcasts archived.
You are right there many debates on YouTube and when I need a good laugh I listen to them. And yes there is archived news broadcasts on YouTube which I don't access, seems senseless to me to re-watch the news I've already watched.
What part of C-16 are you wanting me to RE-READ?
All of it.
I'm talking about that blonde high school GIRL, that claims to be pan-gender so she needs to use the boys bathroom, even though she only dresses as a girl, acts like a girl and looks like a girl. She also claims to be a gay heterosexual, in other words, she likes boys.
Would it be too much to point to a legitimate news source about this Blond Girl as this story is news to me. Sounds like something one would read on Facebook or YouTube or one of the many fake news sites on the Web!
In closing I do believe you and I are never going to agree on this issue, but I do respect your right to say what you're saying even if I strongly disagree with you. Have yourself a great evening!
-
If you don't like that news source, there's enough info so you can find it on SJW news sources.
EDIT:
If you look a bit harder, you'll find that Elliot is raising money for male hormones. Not quite the "non binary" claimed. I smell a rat on the original story.
-
If you don't like that news source, there's enough info so you can find it on SJW news sources.
EDIT:
If you look a bit harder, you'll find that Elliot is raising money for male hormones. Not quite the "non binary" claimed. I smell a rat on the original story.
And the link goes to one of your "legitimate" news sources… explains a lot for me!
-
Are you saying the story isn't real because I didn't link to Clinton News Network, TYT or MTV Decoded? Besides, it was the first site I found because I didn't know the girl's name. I just remembered it was near Houston.
I noticed you didn't comment on the story at all. Why is that?
-
Are you saying the story isn't real because I didn't link to Clinton News Network, TYT or MTV Decoded? Besides, it was the first site I found because I didn't know the girl's name. I just remembered it was near Houston.
I noticed you didn't comment on the story at all. Why is that?
First of all I'm Canadian and therefore don't even know about the Clinton News Network or the Trump Tweets or TVT or MTV and frankly couldn't care less what they have to say on ANY subject.
Second, if the story is about a girl near Houston, what the hell does Bill C-16 have to do with this as it's a Canadian Law. In case you're unaware of this, there is a Canadian/USA border. On the Canadian side we have laws that protect everyone while on the American side, they have laws that protect Wall Street, Multi-Billionaires, Big Bussiness and don't much care about the rest of the people especially if they are part of the LGBT community.
Third, I asked earlier "Would it be too much to point to a legitimate news source about this Blond Girl as this story is news to me." at which time I will read the story and post any comments if I feel it needs to be made.
Fourth, In Canada we have laws that define the type of pronoun one can use to identify themselves, things like Mr., Mrs., Miss, or if they belong to certain professions such as Doctor. Teacher, Senator or our Prime Minister who is referred to by the Right Honorable Justin Trudeau or past Prime Ministers who are also entitled to be called the Right Honorable before their name.
"Quatrièmement, au Canada, nous avons des lois qui définissent le type de pronom on peut utiliser pour identifier les choses comme M., Mme, Mlle, eux-mêmes, ou s’ils appartiennent à certaines professions comme médecin. Professeur, sénateur ou notre premier ministre, qui est désignée par le très Honorable Justin Trudeau soit passé de premiers ministres qui sont également habilités à être appelé l’Honorable droit devant leur nom."
And as to the comment posted earlier in this discussion "Also, the LGBT community is not the issue, is obvious C-16 was meant primarily for transgender people", I would point out that transgender people are part of the LGBT community. I would also point out that bill C-16 has nothing to do with some girl near Houston as that is on the American side of the border. Trust this clears up any confusion you may have regarding an Canadian Law (Bill C-16) and what effect it would have on a girl near Houston (USA)?
-
For those members unaware of Bill C-16 a link was posted earlier to this article I have posted here. Please take the time to read it so you have a clear understanding of what the legislation is about. This article is by Brenda Cossman explains the issue very clearly. Thanks to the poster of the link http://sds.utoronto.ca/blog/bill-c-16-no-its-not-about-criminalizing-pronoun-misuse/
SexText: The SDS Blog
Bill C-16 – No, its Not about Criminalizing Pronoun Misuseby Brenda Cossman
From the sounds of it, Bill C-16 – an Act to Amend the Canadian Human Rights Code and the Criminal Code is all about speech – or rather, its curtailment.
Psychology Professor Jordan Peterson has made headlines the last two weeks, claiming that the Bill before the federal House of Commons is an unprecedented attack on free speech. He has claimed that the new law will criminalize the failure to use individual’s preferred pronouns. In a rally at the University of Toronto last week, he went so far as to say that the bill is the most serious infringement of freedom of speech ever in Canada.
The thing is – he is wrong.
Bill C-16 does three things.
First – It adds the words “gender identity or expression” to the Canadian Human Rights Code. This will prevent the federal government and businesses within federal jurisdiction – like banks – from discriminating on the basis of gender identity and gender expression.
The federal government is late to this game – most of the provinces and territories already include gender identity and gender expression in their provincial Human Rights Codes.
In 2002 the Northwest Territories were the first government in the Canada to explicitly prohibit discrimination against trans people by including gender identity in their Human Rights Code. In 2012, Manitoba added gender identity to their human rights legislation. In that same year, Ontario and Nova Scotia added both gender identity and gender expression to their human rights laws. Prince Edward Island as well as Newfoundland and Labrador followed suit in 2013. In 2014 Saskatchewan made provisions for gender identity, and in 2015 Alberta joined the club, adding both gender identity and expression to their Human Rights Code.
The other five provinces and territories—British Columbia, Québec, New Brunswick, Nunavut Territory, and the Yukon—have implicit protection, having interpreted their Human Rights Codes as including gender variance under existing prohibited grounds.
Bill –C-16 is just the federal government catching up on long overdue human rights protections for individuals within its fairly limited jurisdiction.
Non-discrimination on the basis of gender identity and expression may very well be interpreted by the courts in the future to include the right to be identified by a person’s self identified pronoun. The Ontario Human Rights Commission, for example, in their Policy on Preventing Discrimination Because of Gender Identity and Expression states that gender harassment should include “ Refusing to refer to a person by their self-identified name and proper personal pronoun”. In other words, pronoun misuse may become actionable, though the Human Rights Tribunals and courts. And the remedies? Monetary damages, non-financial remedies (for example, ceasing the discriminatory practice or reinstatement to job) and public interest remedies (for example, changing hiring practices or developing non-discriminatory policies and procedures). Jail time is not one of them.
The second thing that the Bill does is add the words “gender identity or expression” to two sections of the Criminal Code. So surely this must be what Peterson is getting at? Criminalizing something? Well, lets take a closer look.
It will add the words “gender identity and expression” to section 318(4) of the Code, which defines an identifiable group for the purposes of “advocating genocide” and “the public incitement hatred” It joins colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation or mental or physical disability.
Finally, Bill C-16 also adds “gender identity and expression” to section 718.2(a)(i) of the Criminal Code dealing with sentencing for hate crimes. The provision provides that evidence that an offence is motivated by bias, prejudice or hate can be taken into account by courts in sentencing. The list already includes race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation or any other similar factor.
So what does this mean for pronoun misuse? Well, refusing to use a person’s self identified pronoun is not going to be considered advocating genocide – unless the refusal to use the pronouns was accompanied by actually advocating genocide against trans and gender non-binary folks.
Similarly, it’s hard to see the refusal to use the appropriate pronoun –without something else – rising to the threshold of hate speech. Hate speech laws in Canada have only been used- and only can be used – against extreme forms of speech – explicitly and extreme forms of homophobic, anti-Semitic or racist speech. Moreover, prosecution needs the approval of the Attorney General.
It is entirely appropriate for gender identity and expression to be added to the list of identifiable groups. Hate speech directed at trans and gender non binary individuals should be treated the same as hate speech on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation. But, being treated equally means that the speech will have to be extreme and the Attorney General will have to approve the prosecution. These are not run of the mill prosecutions against professors who refuse proper pronoun usage. Offensive, sure. But criminal? Not unless it was accompanied by some other really nasty speech that promoted hatred towards trans and gender non-binary folks.
To return to the claim that Bill C-16 is the most serious infringement on free speech in Canada? Well, Professor Peterson is simply showing his ignorance around the history of free speech in Canada. There have been many endless limitations on free speech in Canada – many with which I disagree. Obscenity and indecency laws for example have long limited a broad range of literary, artistic and political expression in Canada – indeed far more so than our hate speech laws.
Personally, I am not a big fan of hate speech laws. I worry that prosecutions under hate speech laws end up bringing more rather than less attention to the offending speech, and more often than not, turns the offensive speaker into a martyr. I would rather see words fought with words. But, I also understand the arguments in favour – as the Supreme Court of Canada has said, it “send ~~out a strong message of condemnation….the community as a whole is reminded of the importance of diversity and multiculturalism in Canada, the value of equality and the worth and dignity of each human person being particularly emphasized.”
As long as we have hate speech laws, then it is a legal no-brainer that trans and non-gender binary individuals should be afforded the same protection as all other Canadians.
And that’s what Bill C-16 is about. Equality for trans and non-gender binary Canadians. It’s pretty simple. And right. And decent.~~
-
You are too limiting on what an SJW is.
SJWs include feminists, BLM, "Just Believe", the "Slut Walk", "Take Back the Night" and many, many others.
It's Norweign male politicians who apologize to their muslim rapist.
It's Swedish feminist Left Party politicians that claims being raped by Swedish men is worse than being raped by muslims.
It's the people that defend muslim "refugees" who rape 10yo boys because they had a "sexual emergency".
It's the people who demand the media de-muslim/de-refugee media articles, like the Paris McDonald's killer story.
I can't believe you would put down Black Lives Matter or Take Back the Night in your rant about SJWs. Black Lives Matter is in response to the multiple killings of black men being gunned down or chocked to death by police, which seems to be routine in the USA and I support their cause unconditionally. As for Take Back the Night this is in response to the multiple attacks on MEN and Women night after night and the demand that better policing is needed to stop these senseless attacks. As for your other "Its", I really wonder where you get your news from besides YouTube and Facebook I mean! I note that nothing you talk about deals with any issues from the United Kingdom or is everything rosy there? Just wondering!
-
This thread is not specifically about C-16, as the title shows. It's about SJWs.
I have talked about the UK in other threads. One example is how the police, government and media conspired to allow 1,400+ young girls get raped by a group of muslim men, so they wouldn't seem racist.
Black Lives Matter is based on lies and purposely, misleading stats. It's about dead criminals and not dead 9yo girls killed in a drive by while doing her homework.
Take Back The Night is similar to BLM. If you go back and research it, you'll find losts of problems with it. One of the problems is girls using it for celebrity, like the one that falsely claimed she was raped and even named the guy. She destroyed his life for 4 years before admitting she lied, she only admitted she lied because he went on to sue her.
Just Believe is why society has destroyed the lives and property of many man, especially on college campuses.
Your point about where I get my news shows you only get yours from your SJW echo chamber, while mine is quite broad. Like the BBC, the CBC is quite left leaning.
-
Non-discrimination on the basis of gender identity and expression may very well be interpreted by the courts in the future to include the right to be identified by a person’s self identified pronoun. The Ontario Human Rights Commission, for example, in their Policy on Preventing Discrimination Because of Gender Identity and Expression states that gender harassment should include “ Refusing to refer to a person by their self-identified name and proper personal pronoun”. In other words, pronoun misuse may become actionable, though the Human Rights Tribunals and courts. And the remedies? Monetary damages, non-financial remedies (for example, ceasing the discriminatory practice or reinstatement to job) and public interest remedies (for example, changing hiring practices or developing non-discriminatory policies and procedures). Jail time is not one of them.
Well, there you go.
As I pointed out to another member, jail time isn't required for something to be illegal.
Also, could you have found a more biased article? It's like a feminist article written by a university's feminist theory department.
-
Has anyone met or talked to an actual SJW? One of those crazy feminist tumblr types you see on YT and reddit? I swear I hear people talking and bitching about SJWS than I ever actually meet or interact with SJWS.
Has anyone asked you 'did you assume my gender'?
Has anyone asked you to refer to them as 'Xe' or 'Xer'?I feel like a large portion of the internet are getting extremely angry at a very small minority and they keeping being angry with eachother over the same shit. A circlejerk.
Can't we all just ignore this crap?
uuh, no, this is not a minority in any case. and even then your arguing for numbers doesn't even matter because those "fringe" groups really aren't disowned are they?
even then, EVEN THEN thier very core concepts are flawed and they can't be assed to follow their own high moral standards… because it's ok when they do it.
that is Othodoxy.
Now stop playing appologetics to some genuinely awful people who ran some really good ideas in to oblivion for selfish gain.
-
You are too limiting on what an SJW is.
SJWs include feminists, BLM, "Just Believe", the "Slut Walk", "Take Back the Night" and many, many others.
It's Norweign male politicians who apologize to their muslim rapist.
It's Swedish feminist Left Party politicians that claims being raped by Swedish men is worse than being raped by muslims.
It's the people that defend muslim "refugees" who rape 10yo boys because they had a "sexual emergency".
It's the people who demand the media de-muslim/de-refugee media articles, like the Paris McDonald's killer story.
So anyone who disagrees with you?
said the person disagreeing with with someone that doesn't like abuse and really horrible shit.
that's you, that's what sjws are all about. it's not that they want to be right, they want to be loud so much that a little tiny disagreement is called violence and anyone that disagrees with them is called a racist because it feels good to bully other people and try to justify defending
being an abuse apologist. yes, let's lie about rape statistics so that the resources get allocated away from actual victims. let's create fear because the ends justify the means. let's beat our chests and rip our clothes in the streets and be self-righteous instead of actually righteous.who cares if you make problems worse, you were just fighting for justice and anti racism… by being fucking bigoted fascists and worse than the religious right ever was. so long as you can get very powerful positions in the wasteful beuracracies and institutions you own make, and use to rape any dissent.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login