Quote:
Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers
He has stated, countless times, that he would refer to someone as whatever they asked of him. It couldn’t be more clear. He always stated that it was about the legislation, not people’s personal preferences.
|
Yes, he has said he will use preferred pronouns.
He has also stated explicitly that he would not use people's preferred ponouns (when his opposition to bill C-16 started).
And, he's said he would use their preferred pronouns specifically "he or she" but not other pronouns such as they/them, or less common ones like ze (even I think this one sounds odd, but if someone asked me to use it, I would do them that courtesy) under the suspicion that it is in fact not part of a persons identity, but likely some sort of power play on their part.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_UbmaZQx74
So which Jordan do we believe? Perhaps a closer look at Bill C-16 will provide some insight.
Seriously have you read Bill C-16, it isn't long.
https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Bi...6_1/C-16_1.PDF
He opposed a bill that literally just added the worlds "Gender Identity or expression" to the list of identifiable groups. That's it, that's all it did.
The bill did no say simply calling someone by the wrong pronouns was now criminal, it simply added gender identity to the list of reasons you can't discriminate against someone.
Like every other group or any other reason on that list, if using the wrong pronouns rises to the level of harassment or discrimination (something he as a professor is in a position to do) then yes, it does become criminal, but simply making a mistake or being a jerk to someone in public does not rise to that level.
So he opposes a bill that provides protection to a group that has faced a lot of discrimination (transgender, non-binary, etc).
He explicitly says, in his opposition of the bill, he will not use the preferred pronouns of those people, which he later walks back partially or fully depending on his audience.
And he does this while using completely contrived reasoning as to why he is so opposed. Reasoning that he is smart enough to understand is contrived.
So yeah, on the balance of his actions on this matter, and in light of his other opinions on gender, equality, diversity etc, I have a hard time believing that his particular views on gender identity weren't the main reason he was opposed to this particular change to legislation (that change again being simply adding gender identity as an identifiable group)