I don't demand someone use the honorific when they address me but I sure as heck make sure when filling out forms I use it. It's truly amazing the difference in treatment you get at airlines, hotel etc. if you put Dr. in that dropdown box instead of Mr.
It does get awkward when there is a medical emergency on a flight though....
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to ernie For This Useful Post:
Anyone with a PhD in anything has most certainly earned, is entitled to, and deserves that title.
That's really not an objectively true statement though. It's just as much socially-constructed as someone asking to be called by pronoun that they've made up. Anyways, I'll stop derailing the thread now.
That's really not an objectively true statement though. It's just as much socially-constructed as someone asking to be called by pronoun that they've made up. Anyways, I'll stop derailing the thread now.
Your statement isn't true at all. There's expertise backing the Dr. tag whereas a pronoun is something I can achieve in the next thirty seconds. But yeah. Stop derailing thread.
The Following User Says Thank You to OMG!WTF! For This Useful Post:
Also, people with phd's aren't demanding a law that fines people and makes them face possible jail time for not calling them doctor.
This is such an absurd mischaracterization of Bill C-16. It makes meaningful discussion so difficult. You should really read the Canadian Bar Association's letter in support to the Senate Committee. It provides an excellent summary of the actual effects of the amendments. It's easily found via google.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
This is such an absurd mischaracterization of Bill C-16. It makes meaningful discussion so difficult. You should really read the Canadian Bar Association's letter in support to the Senate Committee. It provides an excellent summary of the actual effects of the amendments. It's easily found via google.
I agree with you - DiracSpike's explanation of what that bill does, as well as Jordan Peterson's explanation - is not a realistic reflection of its impact. However, mechanically, the steps are there by which a person could, in theory, be subjected to legal repercussions (including, potentially, jail time) for failing to address someone by their chosen pronoun. That is to say, if you follow the provisions through to the OHRC policy documents in a sort of connect-the-dots manner, you can see where they get this concern from.
There are two questions that then arise from this.
First, in practice, would anything of the kind ever occur if Bill C-16 were enacted? My response is no, for a variety of reasons, most important being that any such legislation would be read down so as to minimally infringe peoples' rights particularly because of what a non-starter compelled speech is in Charter jurisprudence.
Second, as a matter of policy, should Parliament avoid enacting legislation that could on its face (even if it's through a series of unlikely, nuanced, technical steps that wouldn't hold up in Court in the remote case where they actually came to be used) produce an outcome like the one DiracSpike is worried about? I'm somewhat less sure about that one. I think it's probably fair for Parliament to say, "Canadians can presume that any legislation we pass is intended to be constitutionally valid, so interpret it as such wherever possible."
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The simple fact is that the Khadr critics’ ideology is irreconcilable with the law and the facts. The repetition of ill-informed and disingenuous talking points by the Conservative pundits and members of Parliament is nothing but a dishonest attempt at political gain that will only serve to undermine respect for human rights and the rule of law — and no settlement can compensate Canada for that crime.
Here, here!
The Following User Says Thank You to Flash Walken For This Useful Post:
So now we get to that awkward part where we see if Transplant99 and others change their tune a little with new information or do they do the thing that human beings are wired to do and dismiss/ignore findings that are contrary to their original, hardline stance?
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to jayswin For This Useful Post:
So now we get to that awkward part where we see if Transplant99 and others change their tune a little with new information or do they do the thing that human beings are wired to do and dismiss/ignore findings that are contrary to their original, hardline stance?
Not accusing transplant99 of it specifically, but there are multiple posters in this thread that formed their opinion based on previously developed hate and the purposeful ignorance of already established facts.
New facts, unfortunately, are likely going to be ignored just the same. New information is only successful in changing a mind of it's open, but it can't do anything with a closed mind.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
