“Would it cover the accidental misuse of a pronoun? I would say it’s very unlikely,” Cossman says. “Would it cover a situation where an individual repeatedly, consistently refuses to use a person’s chosen pronoun? It might.”

This was, from what I know of it, the way it enforces people to use specific speech, which is what he didnt like. Its not banning speech, it's enforcement of using correct speech. There are no protections for gay people along the lines of forced speech, that I know of.

I'm not being disingenuous, I purposely left out my personal feelings on the matter and just reiterated actions taken.

I looked into the judges' actual ruling some more, and it was a combination of things. I'd heard the college reacted to his tweets based on criticism towards Trudeau, and it is, but also included tweets about Paige and the plus sized model on sports illustrated (or one of the sports mags).

His claim was that the college board was overstepping their bounds and shouldn't suspend his license due to what he says outside of the profession, and the board claimed that because he says on social media that his qualifications for speaking about his opinions are because he's a phychiatrist, that he is speaking in a professional manner. The judge said that while it does impact his free speech in a small way, he can't both claim to be speaking outside of his profession and tell people he has these opinions because he's a psychologist at the same time.

I never said anywhere in my post that he is fighting for free speech, just that that was the reason he says he spoke up in the first place, and nowhere in my post did I say everyone hates him, nor did I give my personal take on the hatred he receives online. Your response, which is filled with personal feelings, whether right or wrong, is heavily opinionated. Mine was just laying out actions.

And I didn't blame Trudeau for anything, I just said those tweets are what the collage board responded too. And I was correct, I just didn't know it included the other tweets I listed here as well.

I get that you hate the guy, but maybe work on your reading comprehension? To take what I wrote and boil it down to what you did is wild.

[–] Hacksaw@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The law doesn't create anything for trans people that doesn't exist for gays. If you repeatedly call someone using male pronouns when they repeatedly ask to be called by female pronouns that's being insulting on purpose. This is very similar to using slurs or insults with any other protected minority, if you call a brown skinned person an "Indian" repeatedly when they tell you they're Philippino you'd get into the exact same trouble. It's not new. Purposefully being an asshole to minorities is, in many situations, illegal especially when you have a position of authority.

I've read what your said and I don't think I've been unfair. I feel your presentation of facts was narrow and omitted a lot of important nuance. I feel it created a narrative that is flawed at best and dangerously dishonest at worst. I do agree that my statements are more biased, I don't like JP and I think he's a predatory con man, I'm not claiming to be neutral. I also agree that on the surface your presentation of information is more neutral, but your choices on what to include and what to omit create a strong but more subtle bias, and I don't believe this was entirely accidental.

[–] OceanSoap@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I don't think you're being unfair, I think you are confusing straight up facts with no opinion bias whatsoever as positive, when in fact it's just neutral. I didn't put anything that sheds a positive or negative light on him on purpose. The fact that you are so angry and hateful towards him that you can't see anything but glowing positives from what I wrote is a you problem.

I didn't say you were claiming to be neutral, I said your perception of what neutral is is skewed. You get mad at me for not using a single opinionated word or descriptor both good and bad,, and list angrily a bunch of negative words and descriptors that you're mad I left out, then tell me yeah I'm more neutral than you are but I should be less neutral and more negative?

Seriously, it's not healthy or intelligent to be so skewed you can't tell the difference.

[–] Hacksaw@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

If you're trying to claim that a series of carefully selected "neutral" facts don't create a narrative then you're either being purposefully obtuse or extremely naive.

I note that you haven't aknowledged that bill C-16 doesn't create any protections for trans people that don't already exist for other minorities and I think that says a lot about this conversation.

Lastly, when reality paints a deeply negative picture of someone, "neutral facts" must reflect that reality. Painting a bad person in a "neutral" light is not being unbiased. If I said of the unibomber that he was "an esoteric reclusive mathematician who was eventually arrested due to his anti-technology views" that's a bunch of neutral facts, but it's deeply biased to paint a terrorist murderer in a "neutral light". Unbiased facts must reflect the murderous reality of his actions.

[–] OceanSoap@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

You do you, call me what you want, rail against what I've written and have a great day. :)