America is
riddled with fear. We see it every day: Violence, apathy, confusion, and fear.
It doesn’t matter where you’re from or who you are; in America, you’re afraid
of something. There are intelligent people on both sides of every argument
about policy. Whether you consider yourself liberal or conservative or
somewhere in between, there’s something you’re afraid of. Some people would use
this to your advantage. Others would use it to limit your freedoms and imprison
you, whether in a facility or within yourself.
We begin to
untangle these issues by talking about both sides. Communication is a two-way
street and I have witnessed first-hand, second-hand and third-hand how poor
communication can ruin a perfectly good friendship. People can be friends no
matter what side of the fence they are on, as long as they are willing to
listen to each other’s points of view.
The gender
identity debate seems to be strong, these days. The thing is, it’s not a very
important argument. It doesn’t really matter what someone calls you as long as
they treat you with dignity and respect—as you deserve based on your behaviour.
It doesn’t matter what or who you say you are, or what or who you actually are.
What matters is what you do with what you have. Are you making things around
you better, or worse?
When it comes
to the gender identity debate, this question comes into play frequently. On the
Left, the idea seems to be along these lines: “Anyone who doesn’t recognize my
self-identity is making my life worse by disrespecting me.” On the right, the
idea seems to be something along the lines of: “People who claim to be
something they’re not are making my life worse by taking my attention away from
things that matter.” Both of these ideas are expanded upon in many ways all
over social media and society.
Let’s start
with the idea outlined above for the Left: “Anyone who doesn’t recognize my
self-identity is making my life worse by disrespecting me.” It has been seen in
some universities that there are people who believe this idea means that a
person who uses the wrong pronoun when talking to another person is committing
assault or harassment against the other person. This has legal implications
and, if implicated, would have real ramifications in the legal world. People
could be arrested for harassment or assault just for calling a transgender
woman “he,” even if it was an accident. It implies that a transgender person
would charge someone with such a crime just for using the wrong pronoun.
To another
degree, less extreme, the idea above simply means that everyone should make an
active effort to use “proper pronouns” when addressing other people. The people
who think this way and can articulate a reasonable argument tend to phrase
their opinions in a way similar to: “Once you know someone’s preferred identity
and pronouns, you need to use them when you’re talking to them. It’s
disrespectful not to because you’re refusing to accept who they are. Centrists
can also think of things this way.
The Right
tends to see things a little differently. “People who claim to be something
they’re not are making my life worse by taking my attention away from things
that matter.” Many intelligent people who think this way believe that gender
identity isn’t even slightly important. They may believe there are only two
sexes and only two genders; they may believe that sex and gender are the same
thing, and they may even believe other things that have nothing to do with
gender identity but are often seen by the Left as bigoted, prejudicial, and
inaccurate. The point here is that with this argument, gender identity
shouldn’t be a priority. It shouldn’t matter what someone calls you or what you
think you are, and people on the Right tend to see those who prioritize
pronouns and “special” identities as just wanting to be “special” and get special
attention.
Many
reasonable people, Centrists and those on the Right, see bigger issues as more
important. By “bigger issue,” I mean an issue that affects everyone, regardless of what,
where, or who they are. These issues include climate change, corrupt
government, capitalism, big banks, voter fraud, and pollution. Many people do
not want to spend their time figuring out that their friend Jon wants to be
called Catie now and doesn’t want to be referred to as “he” or “him,” anymore.
They’d rather hang out with Jon, be free to make the mistake of using Catie’s
old name and pronouns, and still have fun or get work done together.
The
universities are a place for concern for people who do not prioritize gender
identity as a problem that needs to be fixed. I know many people who are more
than happy to use Catie’s new name and stop calling her Jon. They might make a
mistake sometimes, because Catie still looks like Jon and is pretty hairy and
bulky, but these are genuine people who do what they can to be sure their
friends are comfortable.
It is a
fact that gender and sex are not the same thing, even in science. This does not
mean that gender and sex are completely separate, however. On Tumblr, there can
be found more “genders” than an ordinary or reasonable person would want to
count in a day. Many of them do not make sense and may include alien or animal
qualities, or both. Tumblr is an insane spot of the Internet and the gender
identity debate runs as deep as it gets unreasonable. Just because a person
with a male body can have the mind and spirit of a girl, and a person with a
male body can have the mind and spirit of a boy, does not mean they are not
human, and “animalkin” genders and genders that “change” regularly are not
acceptable in the world of law.
So, we
transition into our talk about legal consequences of ideas presented within the
gender identity argument. This also brings hate speech into the discussion
here, where we detangle the mess that is this whole debate when it comes to
law.
In many places,
including universities, there’s an idea that “hate speech” should be considered
a crime. There is some debate and discussion over whether to classify “hate
speech” as harassment or assault, but make no mistake: harassment and assault
are crimes. They are also torts (civil wrongs), which naturally have lighter
implications of law, but when these discussions are being had at these high
levels, they’re talking about crimes.
First, a
person must define “hate speech.” In this case, we’re talking about gender
identity. In this case, the Left might say “hate speech” is when a person
doesn’t use the “proper pronoun” while talking to another person. Therefore, by
calling Catie by Jon and addressing her as “he” or “him,” Catie could
theoretically charge the person with harassment or assault for “hate speech,”
by not using Catie’s preferred pronouns.
In the
legal world, the ramifications of this limit free speech. It’s reasonable for a
Centrist or someone on the right to worry about freedom of speech from government
prosecution when people talk about enacting laws that would classify “hate
speech” in such a way.
An argument
from the Left concerning free speech in terms of hate speech and gender
identity is as follows: “Free speech can and should be limited.” They’re
absolutely correct to say this, but that doesn’t mean it should be limited to
the point of infringing on liberty—another Constitutional right wherein the
interpretation is often debated.
Law can be
debated. Liberty can be debated. The definition of “hate speech” can be
debated, and it can even be debated whether or not a person can be transgender.
What is fact, however, is that gender identity is not something that should
shape our laws. The Left is right to fear the slippery slope of infringements
of rights that could easily come after a piece of legislation passes to condemn
“hate speech” in an extreme way.
This fear
can be seen with the Canadian bill C-16. This bill is sometimes cited in
debates about “hate speech” and “free speech.” Those who may not understand it
very well think that this law, in Canada, allows a person to charge another
with the crime of harassment or assault because that person uses the “wrong
pronoun” when talking to them. This is false.
First, you
can read the bill C-16 at https://openparliament.ca/bills/42-1/C-16/.
Here, it is described as an act that amends a previous statute and applies to
propaganda. A reasonable person might then look up the word “propaganda.” Here
is where even a reasonable person may be confused. If they go to Google first,
the definition that comes up is as follows:
prop·a·gan·da
ˌpräpəˈɡandə/Submit
noun
1. derogatory
information, especially of a
biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular
political cause or point of view.
"he was charged with
distributing enemy propaganda"
synonyms: information,
promotion, advertising, publicity, spin; More
2. a committee of cardinals of the
Roman Catholic Church responsible for foreign missions, founded in 1622 by Pope
Gregory XV.
A legal
definition for propaganda can be found at https://thelawdictionary.org/propaganda/.
Someone who reads Google’s definition might think that it can apply to
anything. This is especially true if someone doesn’t understand that propaganda
must be published, or if they do not understand what a publication is.
Essentially, a publication is anything put into written form, with or without
pictures (but typically with pictures), and distributed to other people, or
third parties. The legal definition at the link above explains that propaganda
is a persuasive publication with a targeted message. I have used propaganda
throughout this blog entry to influence how you take the information I present.
Ultimately, I think gender identity
has no real place in the law except for anti-discrimination laws. Beyond that,
the idea that a person who calls a person by the “wrong pronoun” should be
charged with assault or harassment seems like an extreme response to a social
situation that could be handled with more effective communication. I think that
we have bigger fish to fry. My goal here was simply to give some information
that might help people understand that Canada is not, in fact, arresting people
for using the wrong words.
No comments:
Post a Comment