LogFAQs > #910988237

__B0xxY2J0sHBK_ posted...

Holy shit! Is that for real? That's all kinds of crazy. That's gotta be satire

Kind of, but not really. It is important to note that this does not apply to most people, only certain relationships are covered by human rights legislation in Canada. They don't apply between people on the street, but rather to employment, housing, commercial transactions and education- all areas that have much higher levels of government regulation already.
Further, C-16 only applied to federal jurisdiction, which is mostly banks, airports and fisheries. The most likely instance where pronoun use could even come up is employment- so let's take a hypothetical of an employer who hires a transgender employee. The boss referring to this employee with the wrong pronoun is not discrimination in itself, but if they continued to do so despite requests to use another, that could come to the realm of harassment or creating a hostile work environment, under which the employee could make a complaint to the human rights tribunal of their province. This would be like if the employee was black and the boss kept using racial slurs to refer to them- I think you can understand how that would be a problem.*
*In this context it's a useful example regarding what sort of conduct is being targeted by this legislation. It's not simple misgendering, but a repeated, malicious pattern of conduct. It doesn't even have to apply to a transgendered person- imagine a straight, cisgendered woman who dressed in a very masculine, "butch" way. Should her boss be allowed to mock her, and refer to her with male pronouns despite her making it clear to him that it bothers her? Can you see how that would be demeaning and hostile in a way that would interfere with her ability to work there, much like someone who used racially demeaning language to a black employee?
---

There are some things where I just bypass critical thinking. - ROD