So, we left off with Bard throwing in with the Left in declaring words (sex) can be redefined at any time for political ideology (“gender identity”). And Speech Coercion by Government is a fine thing for Government to tell us how to speak and think:
Yes, a transgender student has the right to be called by their preferred pronouns by others.
This is protected under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in education programs or activities. This includes discrimination on the basis of gender identity.
<snip>
If you are a student or an educator, you can help to create a more inclusive environment by using transgender students’ preferred pronouns. It is a small act that can make a big difference.
Sure, if part of learning is to teach students to lie to themselves about what reality is?
So I decided to zero in on the issue to see how Bard processes such questions and issues as well as see what is being loaded into it that contains bias. I hold that somethings are absolute – Bard seems to be set up to go along with the Progressive notion that there isn’t Right or Wrong – everything is thrown into “Relative Morality” in that nothing can be concretely determined. This is part of the “Chaos of Language and Reasoning” that the Left has been implementing for decades.
I asked again: “So preferred pronouns can coerce the speech of others against their will and the First Amendment Right to Freedom of Speech?”
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of speech. This means that the government cannot censor or restrict what people say. However, the First Amendment is not absolute. There are some types of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment, such as obscenity, defamation, and incitement to violence.
So far, so good. All of the above is correct. However, it quickly goes astray:
The issue of whether or not preferred pronouns can coerce the speech of others against their will and the First Amendment Right to Freedom of Speech is a complex one. There are strong arguments to be made on both sides of the issue.
On the one hand, it can be argued that requiring people to use preferred pronouns is a form of compelled speech. Compelled speech is a type of speech that is not protected by the First Amendment. For example, the government cannot force people to say the Pledge of Allegiance.
No, it’s not. It’s rather cut and dried as the recent SCOTUS decision in 303 Creative (ruling that a web designer cannot have her speech coerced into creating a transgender or gay wedding website that transgresses her religious beliefs that God may Man and Woman and not thousands of sexes). The only argument against the strict prohibition of “…or abridging the freedom of speech…” is one by the Trans-Authoritarians is the ideological one o “use pronouns or your kid dies”.
And right back on the Moral / Legal Equivalence bicycle and really bad logic:
On the other hand, it can be argued that requiring people to use preferred pronouns is not a form of compelled speech. Pronouns are simply words that are used to refer to people. They are not a form of expression or opinion. Therefore, requiring people to use preferred pronouns does not violate the First Amendment.
The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on whether or not requiring people to use preferred pronouns violates the First Amendment. Therefore, it is a matter of ongoing debate.
It is technically correct in that last bit – however, lower courts have decided, especially in the area of colleges coercing professors to use ideological speech; the colleges lost.
However, look at the redefining “requiring” vs “compelled” – even an ordinary schlub like me knows that there is no difference between the two. If Government makes it mandatory to only use speech it deems “proper” it is both “required” and “compelled”. And therefore, its supposition is dead wrong.
And how many people will believe that simply because “Bard said it on the Internet”? And it went back and contradicted itself once again: “So preferred pronouns trump the US Constitution?“:
No, preferred pronouns do not trump the US Constitution. The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any law or policy that conflicts with the Constitution is invalid.
And then repeated what it wrote above. So then it became a game, of sorts, to see how much idiocy I could get it to belch out by lengthening my question: “But the mandated use of preferred pronouns IS a coerced expression of speech and coerces a belief that isn’t true – that a biological man can become a woman. That is contrary to many peoples religious beliefs. Scientifically, it is impossible – a biological woman doesn’t have a prostate. Only men have prostates.”
I understand your point of view. It is true that the mandated use of preferred pronouns can be seen as a form of compelled speech, and that it can coerce people to express beliefs that they do not hold. It is also true that the belief that a biological man can become a woman is contrary to many people’s religious beliefs, and that scientifically, it is impossible for a biological woman to have a prostate.
Note the use of “can” instead of “is” when it wrote about compelled speech. And note that it said that turning from one sex to another is a “religious belief” instead of being scientific even as it correctly stated that women can’t have a prostate. Heh! And then it brought in that other made up word, misgender:
However, it is also important to consider the impact that misgendering can have on transgender people. Misgendering can be a form of verbal abuse, and it can be very hurtful and damaging to transgender people’s mental health. It can also make it difficult for transgender people to live their lives authentically.
No, the use of “misgender” is a form of language abuse utilized to shut down a conversation or debate. We are expected to accept the use of that word in normal parlance without most people understanding that’s a “gateway” into accepting the false idea that men and women can become the other sex. Which, scientifically, is false.
Besides, MY Social Construct rejects it (if the Trans-Authoritarians can use that phrase, so can we).
There’s more to that “conversation and what I saw was that the materials it has been fed are biased. I’ll probably, in Part 3, just post the rest up without commentary and let you decide for yourself.
Remember, Bard is a creation of Google. Have you heard ANYONE describe Google and its employees being conservative in the least bit?
