Tag Archives: trans

On Wilfred Laurier and Pronoun Rights

In the whole Lindsay Shepherd and Wilfred Laurier University fiasco it is hard to nail down a root cause for the affair because it sits at the nexus of a lot of issues swirling about in our culture and society today. But the story can be traced as such; Lindsay Shepherd showed a clip of Jordan Peterson in class.  Jordan Peterson is opposed to the concept of the use of gender neutral pronouns being potentially legally enforced under the auspices of bill C-16 and the Ontario Human Rights Code.  Progressives have come to view any opposition to the idea of using gender neutral pronouns is a litmus test for whether a person is “trans-phobic” and thus, whether intentionally or not, an advocate/agent for the Patriarchy.  The Patriarchy is an important idea because life is seen by modern Progressives as a giant series of ongoing power struggles between groups and identities with White Males at the top.  And to get to the top a group must actively be oppressing other groups.  And so, by proxy, Jordan Peterson by opposing the enforced use of gender neutral pronouns has become representative of the Oppressor.  The Oppressor must be resisted.  He must not be provided platforms for disseminating his views.  His views have no validity and any suggestion that they may have some merit is morally wrong because oppression of any type is wrong.  Some common examples of ongoing oppressions in our society;

  • Christianity oppresses free sexual expression
  • Whites oppress blacks and minorities
  • Straights oppress gays and transgendered
  • Capitalism oppresses poor people
  • The West oppresses Islam
  • Jews oppress Palestinians

And thusly Lindsay Shepherd was complicit in perpetuating the ongoing oppression of trans-gender people by providing Jordan Peterson a platform. And this warranted sanction in the eyes of the university… until the recording of the interrogation session became public.

The whole Post-Modernist world view of Oppressors and Victims and eternal power struggles is not something we have the philosophical tools to unpack here. Suffice to say that we should all be scared; university social studies and humanities faculties are filled with professors that believe in the Post-Modernist narrative and are “training” hundreds of thousands of young people who enter life interpreting the world through this prism that discards ideals of merit, rationality, intellectual rigour and cultural stability.

It is interesting though to examine whether being called “xie” or “xer” is a right or if failing to use those artificial words is a violation of transgender rights or an abrogation of one’s responsibilities in the exercise of Free Speech. If it weren’t actually a “right”, or seen to be a violation of accepted limitations on Free Speech, much of this brouhaha would be laughed at as just another peculiarity of politically correct campus life.

Rights should always be discussed in tandem with Responsibilities. There are no rights without the responsibilities that accompany each right.  Libertarians view rights as either “Negative” or “Positive” rights.   For a person to have rights there are responsibilities imposed on their fellow humans.  In the case of Negative Rights our fellow humans need to do nothing and need only abstain from doing anything.  Negative = Abstention.  Positive Rights however ask fellow humans for action in order for that right to be exercised.  Positive = Action.

An example is the Right to Free Speech. It is a Negative Right because in order for me to exercise my right I need you to do nothing, only abstain from any interference.  A Positive Right would be, say, a Right to Education which would by extension mean that someone has to take action to provide you with an education either by actually doing the teaching or funding it.  Libertarians argue that the only natural rights are Negative Rights and that all Positive Rights can only be enforced by contract between individuals; that it is morally wrong for the government to impose Positive Rights on the citizens and the country at large by compelling behaviour as a result of their monopoly on violence.

It’s worth noting that there is some dispute on the validity of Negative vs. Positive rights, the argument being that while say, the Right to Property is a Negative Right, if it’s violated and some thieves steal off with your stuff, it’s everyone’s prerogative to take action and restore your stuff to you as a way of ensuring that your Right to Property is not just some theoretical abstract and actual reality. Taking up the Libertarian idea of a Positive Right requiring contract, arguably by being citizens in a country we have contract with each other to ensure the protection of rights through necessary action.  And this introduces the notion of Reciprocity – a right can only be such a thing if there is reciprocity, an unwritten contract between citizens that if you protect and respect my rights then in turn I will protect and respect your same rights.  It’s a main reason why animals can have no rights like humans have – we can love and respect them and treat them humanely but because they cannot reciprocate our actions they cannot therefore have rights like humans.

But in today’s Western societies we accept that the self is not absolved of any responsibility in the exercise of rights. Going back to my Free Speech as an example, it is a Negative Right that asks you to do nothing, but our society also legally requires me to not use that Free Speech to incite violence, to incite hatred, nor to slander anyone.  Those are my responsibilities.  Unless you are a Free Speech absolutist that rejects government coercion of any behaviour and endorses a position of no restrictions and thusly no legally enforceable personal responsibilities in the matter of Free Speech, it’s generally accepted here in Canada that these are “reasonable” limitations on Free Speech and my responsibilities as a practitioner of that right.

So going back to “xie” and “xir”… if there were any “right” to have your gender pronoun of choice used that would be a Positive Right because it is asking for action by others. Beyond disputing the whole notion of Positive Rights (see the three generations of rights and what an open-ended mess Positive Rights in the 2nd and 3rd generation can become), but what is the reciprocal action from the trans community?  There is none.  And because it is a one-way street it is not a “right” but more appropriately a requested courtesy.  And manners are subjective and cannot be enforced by law.  I can call someone an asshole to their face, and while that may be rude and perhaps I should be socially sanctioned for this behaviour, I should not be thrown in jail or fined for doing so.  The government should never be in the business of compelling manners.

But that’s not the argument the proponents of gender neutral pronouns have taken up because they know it’s an easy loser. Rather they’ve hinged their argument on the idea that my responsibility in the exercise of Free Speech is not to incite violence or hatred as was described and is widely acknowledged.  And by refusing to use gender neutral pronouns I am doing exactly that.  Speech is violence. But that argument cannot stand either.  Better articles have been written by Jonathan Haidt and others about the push to have speech (or silence) interpreted as violence so there is no need to rehash them here.

So, in the end one can conclude that there is no first generation or even second generational “right” to be called by your gender pronoun of choice – at best it’s a Positive 3rd generational (i.e. social aspirational) right that has no evident reciprocity for the vast majority of fellow citizens.  And it’s a dangerous overstretch of the definition of violence to suggest that failure to use these pronouns of choice are in violation of our responsibility not to use Free Speech to incite violence or hatred.  It’s not a right, but virtue signaling and political correctness run amok, a power play and an attempt to create yet another litmus test to measure where you land on the Progressive scale of morality.

We’re still waiting for Justin Trudeau to use “xie” or “xer” in a speech. It’s coming.

Advertisements
Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

On a Variety of Topics

There’s no essay-length topic rumbling around in the brain to write about, so how about a couple of quick hit items.

The Best and Worst Places for Women in Canada

So this year the best place for women to live in Canada is Victoria, BC and the worst is Windsor, Ontario. This is the same bullshit “study” that last year determined Kitchener-Waterloo was the worst place to live for women largely because to the “wage gap” between women and men despite the fact that women in K-W earned more per capita than women in other cities around the country. But wait – men made even more, therefore the wage gap was larger than average ipso facto K-W was a bad city for women to live in. No accounting for the fact that many women might be married or partnered to some of these higher earning men and thereby experience a higher standard of living than they might enjoy elsewhere.

If you went by this study then the best place for a woman to live in Canada would be a) where all the political representatives/leaders are women, b) where there is no violence against women, c) where women are the top wage earners and in positions of power.

Sounds like Paradise Island ruled by the Amazons with Wonder Woman as their protector.  That’s the goal – a world without men.  If only we could start replicating female humans in a test tube, I’m sure that’d be the feminist dream for the future of the world.

Speaking of Feminists

Again, some clueless person refers to Sophie Gregoire-Trudeau as a “warrior”. We know that all perspective has been lost, but c’mon. The Battle of Verdun in 1916 saw almost 650,000 killed and another million wounded over a nine month period. Men literally drowning in mud holes created by artillery blasts that they couldn’t climb out of.  Corpses everywhere.  Miles and miles of barbed wire with machine gunned bodies stuck on it.  Mustard gas.  Cholera and dysentery.  But those men fought on. What on earth would those souls think about their sacrifices so that two gal-pals can ride around on their Vespa or what they’d think of a generation that holds them up as some sort of ideal?

Stephen Crowder made fun of Emma Watson’s speech to the UN a few months ago. Isn’t it wonderful when a person with so much wealth and fame can lecture us about our “privilege”? I’m sure the roofer, toiling up a ladder three floors high, carrying 2 bundles of shingles to work precariously on a massively sloped roof would love it if you yelled at them, “you lucky privileged bastards!  Stop oppressing Emma Watson!”

PS – where are their helmets? Oh wait, they’re so oppressed that these two attractive women can’t be arsed to wear legally mandated helmets because then people (men) wouldn’t be able to see how beautiful they are.

Watch These Videos and Say WTF

An anti-Jordan Peterson rally at the University of Toronto. Heaven forbid that you ask white cis-males what their opinions on social issues are.

I will contend that 90% of the SJW movement is evil. C’mon, you say, misguided maybe, but evil?  But I’m sure that communists and Nazis didn’t think what they were trying to bring to the world was evil, but now in the fullness of time the great majority of us can look back and say yep, those were evil ideologies, they killed a lot of people and made hundreds of millions of people miserable.   Same thing here – they’re bullies, they’re enemies of free speech, they’re anti-life (abortion, assisted suicide), they’re misandrists, segregationists and against scientific progress and economic prosperity.  If they took over we’d live in a completely miserable world.  That’s evil.

You want proof on what kind of horrible people we’re talking about? See this clip. What a POS.

The New SJW Movement

Wieners Out.

I Couldn’t Have Written It Any Better

A first-rate analysis of how we got where we are with Trump.

Finally

The fantastic Douglas Murray on free speech. Listen to the whole thing and wonder how anyone can disagree that free speech is the first fundamental right of people in a democracy.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
%d bloggers like this: