Bill C 16 What say you?

264 posts / 0 new
Last post

The Right to “Gender Identity” : A Clash with the Rights of Women – submission to the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill – Professor Sheila Jeffreys

January 12, 2013

The protected attribute of ‘sex’, under which women are protected from discrimination, is still in the list, but adding the new category of ‘gender identity’, could potentially create a clash of rights between male-bodied transgenders on the one hand, and those disadvantaged on the grounds of sex, women. In other jurisdictions, such legislation has seen the emergence of successful legal challenges in which male-bodied transgenders have sought access to spaces previously reserved for women, including women’s services such as sheltered housing, women’s toilets and women’s prisons.

The demands of transgender activists to have ‘gender identity’ included in human rights legislation were first articulated in detail in the US in the 1995 International Bill of Transgender Rights (Frye, 2000). It demanded the right to express the ‘gender identity’ of choice in whatever way the exponent desired, particularly in any spaces previously reserved for women. An important right in the Bill is that of entering spaces set aside by or for women, ‘The Right of Access to Gendered Space and Participation in Gendered Activity’ (Frye, 2000: 213). Since then, equality and human rights legislation has been updated and created in states across the western world that incorporates the ‘right’ to express ‘gender identity’. Women’s and feminist groups are not invited to contribute to consultation on such changes as if they would have nothing relevant to say, despite the fact that men may, under such legislation, gain the right to be recognised in law as ‘women’. Women are the ‘absent referent’, not officially referred to, despite the fact that it is ‘women’ that the majority of those persons who wish to express their ‘gender rights’ seek to emulate....Feminist critics argue that the concept of ‘gender identity’ is founded upon stereotypes of gender, and, in international law, gender stereotypes are recognised as being in contradiction to the interests of women. The idea of ‘gender identity’ is retrogressive. It depends upon the notion that there can be an ‘essence’ of gender in a person of one sex, that more clearly approximates to the ‘gender’ that is expected of the other sex. Feminists and researchers for many years now have challenged the idea that there is an essential behaviour of ‘femininity’ for example, that is appropriate for women.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

When I was a young Turk, in my 20's I'd say, I had very little patience for the arguments of transpeople.  I believed that they were indulging a fantasy, and that no matter how much a transwoman might believe herself to be a man, genetics said otherwise.

Then my long-suffering wife took me to school on the difference between "sex" and "gender"  The idea was that "sex" was the stuff you were born with, the way dogs and cats and lots of plants are born with certain biology, but then, regardless,  some of us would prefer to adopt a different social role, and that's gender -- an abitrary decision that ladies like flowers and chocolate and pretty pictures, while men prefer raw meat and nachos and pictures of tanks and wrestlers.



Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Sorry, I guess I didn't quite finish that thought.

So, gender is/was a social role, as I then understood it, and saying "I want to be referred to as a woman" wasn't the same as saying "my biology is clearly that of a female" when it's not, and I was OK with that because I didn't have to suspend my disbelief about chromosomes or body parts -- it was the social term "gender" not the biological term "sex.

Except now we seem to be back there again and we should all belive in "female penises".  We  seem to have jumped from re-writing social relations -- which have always been a construct -- to re-writing biology as well.


Funny that following the Nixon ruling it was her lawyer claiming that the court gave people the power to decide who was a woman.
I guess both sides are making that same false assumption when they feel others' rights protection is a threat to them.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Thanks Sineed that was a very good article. Some of the stories reminded me that being able to claim rights based on one's own perception of oneself is potentially subject to abuse on a grand scale if those rights allow easy access to supposedly safe spaces for women and children.  

It seems that I have both the right to claim that my gender identity is a woman and the right to also claim that I have a sexual orientation for the gender I flee inherently like. I think that a transgendered lesbian woman in a woman's space would be very similar to having a hetrosexual man in the room when to came to sexual tensions. The above thought is only part way down the slippery slope to the absurd.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

The above thought is only part way down the slippery slope to the absurd.

What would have once been characterized as an absurd "slippery slope" argument years ago -- e.g. "Can I just 'identify' as black, then??" -- are the new norm.  It would honestly be difficult for me to try to form a slippery slope or straw man argument with regard to self-identification and identity politics and not be concerned that someone, in good faith, wouldn't soon say the same silliness as me, but unironically.

What about someone who identifies as THE WEATHER?  Surely that's absurd and silly of me, right?


You know that slippery slope cartoon was satire regarding the absurdity of those fears, right?

But sure, we have used foxkins already, so why not the weather. I suppose god is next up.



That article is just insulting.

Indeed, Bill C-16 helps to redress incomplete protections for some of the most vulnerable women in Canadian society today: transgender women, who face unconscionably high rates of physical, sexual and fatal violence.

So, males have successfully positioned themselves as the most oppressed of all women.


How you want to interpret it aside, that's not what that sentence said.

It said they are some of the most vulnerable, and that they face unconscionable rates of violence. If you really want to argue that there are people more vulnerable who face more violence, fine. Doesn't change the fact it is correct.

I'd have thought someone might be critical of this paragraph:

On the same day, this petition was joined by a strong statement of support for Bill C-16 from eight organizational signatories, including Ontario Coalition of Rape Crisis Centres; Ottawa Coalition to End Violence Against Women and YWCA Canada, among others. The message was clear, and in stark contrast to VRR and PDFQ: trans women are women. 

... even though the new legislation does not make that determination at all.




not true smith.

Sineed posted data a ways back showing transwomen suffer less violence than do women. they just hyoe it as more.

i agree with Sineed's intrepretation.  men have positioned themselvs as the most oppressed of all women.



They just hype it as more? Are you kidding?

My point is the article did not say they were THE most vulnerable. They are among the most vulnerable. I cannot believe people being brutalized is being played as a competition.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Look. According to the article that Smith posted, a transactivist had her computer hacked and her home address disclosed against her will as a deliberate and targeted threat. This kind of activity is very disturbing and serious. It highlights exactly why transgender people need society's protection and support. It also highlights why they need human rights legislation.

However, this act does not have any amendments in place which distinguish this type of hate crime from say a group of 30 plus radical feminist activists wanting to meet to discuss abortion and reproductive issues regarding women and wanting the attendees to be restricted to biologically born women only. 

Now, surely this law could have added a clause which upholds the fact that biologically born women are a marginalized and oppressed group in society with distinct issues that are unique to them and that they have a right to organize collectively as they see fit without being harassed for being discriminitory to transgender women.

And this is not a lot to ask for. 

And instead of targeting these computer hackers for hate crimes, transactivists instead target radical feminists who uphold that biologically born women are a distinctly oppressed group in society with unique issues specific to them only.

i feel that this legislation was too impulsive and not well thought out and it is radical feminists and biologically born women who are going to suffer in the long run. 

Biologically born women need to have the right to collectively organize as women and the right to exclude who they choose.

i am also very worried about the safety and rights of women who are incarcerated. Radical feminists seem to be the only ones who care about their safety and needs.



6079_Smith_W wrote:
They just hype it as more? Are you kidding? My point is the article did not say they were THE most vulnerable. They are among the most vulnerable. I cannot believe people being brutalized is being played as a competition.

who's playing it as a competition other than transgender women? they're the ones spouting the figures depicting it as if they're the only ones and they need into our spaces to stop it.

the fact remains biologically born women are subject to  more acts of violence but yet we're supposed to fling open the door to our safe spaces because. 


@ Misfit

They are right to raise those concerns, because they are real. The article posted up near the top of this thread goes over some of the situations where it can be a problem, and points out that gender protection cannot be absolute. But there is no indication this legislation will have an effect on that. So far the right to those safe spaces has been upheld in the courts.

What isn't necessary is things like claiming it is about men being more oppressed than women. In the first place no one is saying that. In the second place that has nothing to do with what is in the legislation. It is about people being discriminated against based on gender.

And I agree finger pointing and accusations are a bad thing... from both sides.



Timebandit Timebandit's picture

According to the article that Smith posted, a transactivist had her computer hacked and her home address disclosed against her will as a deliberate and targeted threat. This kind of activity is very disturbing and serious. It highlights exactly why transgender people need society's protection and support. It also highlights why they need human rights legislation.

I just wanted to point out that this is something that frequently happens to feminist activists, and they are frequently told that there is nothing that can be done about it. In fact, I would venture a guess that this happens more commonly to women who are not trans. If there are no protections for them, why would there be for transwomen?


@ TB

Yup. Though there is good reason to point it out as invasion, even though it may be legal. Because really, it should not be done to anyone.

Also worth pointing out (as Misfit did) the mistake of targetting people who didn't commit the offense, rather than those who did. To my mind that is what sucks most about this vicious circle.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Here is an article about the Ontario Transgender Rights Bill and how it affects the rights of women to organize. This article alludes to what Timebandit just mentioned and expresses the concerns some here have about this new Federal bill. 



Interesting article by senator Linda Frum, who voted in favour of Bill C 16:

The big problem with Canada’s transgender rights bill

I voted in favour of Bill C-16 because it is obvious that in a just society transgendered individuals should enjoy the same protections as everyone else.

However, I have serious concerns about the drafting of Canada’s new “transgender” law and fear that it will not create rights for the transgendered as much as it will take away rights from women and girls.

Importantly, Bill C-16 does not provide explicit protections for the transgendered. Instead, it creates protections for “gender identity” and “gender expression”: vague concepts with no precise legal definitions.

During hearings at the Senate’s Legal and Constitutional Affairs committee, the Minister of Justice, Jody Wilson Raybould declined to provide a definition for “gender expression.” 

But I can. Gender expression is an individual’s choice of clothing, hairstyle and makeup. It is a person's appearance, look, and countenance.

By amending the Criminal Code and Human Rights Act to include the words “gender expression” as protected grounds (as opposed to “transgender” as protected grounds) Bill C-16 effectively redefines what it means to be a woman from something biological to something defined by external appearance. 

What an extraordinary diminishment for women who have struggled for centuries to unshackle ourselves from a value system that apportions our worth based on our physical appeal and sexual allure.

But why did she vote for it despite these concerns? She could have pushed for amendments that clarified a definition of transgender or gender identity/expression. But the bill passed with no amendments.

The activist community has made it plain that trans rights means the right to enter female-only spaces, and women are bigots to object. Says the woman whose bepenised spouse was not allowed into the woman-only Body Blitz Spa, a space where women are naked, “You can argue until you’re blue in the face that someone with a penis can be a woman, but being trans inclusive is the law.”


Here is a list compiled by a radical feminist that explains what rights women lose when they cannot have female-only spaces:

Removing the legal right of women to organize politically against sex-based oppression by males

Removing the legal right of women to assemble outside the presence of men

Removing the legal right of women to educational programs created for women outside the presence of men

Eliminating data collection of sex-based inequalities in areas where females are underrepresented

Elimination of sex-based crime statistics

Eliminating athletic programs and sports competition for women and girls

Removing the legal right of women to be free from the presence of men in areas of public accommodation where nudity occurs

Elimination of grants, scholarships, board and trustee designations, representative positions, and affirmative programs for women

Removing the legal right of women to create reproductive clinics, rape crisis services, support groups, or any organizations for females

Eliminating media and all public discourse specific to females

Removal of the right of journalists to report the sex, and history, of subjects

Eliminating the legal right of lesbians to congregate publicly

Elimination of lesbian-specific organizations and advocacy groups

Removing the legal right of women to free speech related to sex roles and gender

Elimination of the legal right of women to protection from state-enforced sex-roles (appearance/behavior/thought)

Elimination of the legal right of girls to protection from state-enforced sex-roles in public education

Elimination of the patient right of dependent females to hospital/facility bed assignments separate from males

Elimination of the right of dependent females to prefer female providers for their intimate personal care requirements

Elimination of the human right of female prisoners under state confinement to be housed separately from male prisoners


thanks misfit.

Women of Canada must not lose human rights in order to protect the rights of transgender people, due to sloppy lawmaking. The battle to reclaim women’s human right to assemble- that DiNovo claims was lost by the passage of Toby’s Act- will now start its long winding legal trail towards correction, after the fact. With Bill C-279 we have an opportunity to correct an unintended consequence before it occurs, and we have a lesbian Senator making a stand for our rights, right now. Do not leave her standing alone. She needs your support on this issue. Please organize to support Senator Ruth’s amendment now. Create awareness of the issue among women’s groups and legislators. Write letters to the editor. Contact her office and ask what you can do to help.

Let us protect the rights of all Canadians. Including the rights of Women and Girls.


and more from misfitès link

 “This bill will privilege men who choose to become women over women who are born female,” Ruth said. “While I do not question the good intentions of the sponsor and the supporters of the bill, I simply do not understand how they could advance this bill without including all women. Passage of Bill C-279 will mean that only if a woman is born a man who later chooses to identify as a woman will she receive protection, but a woman born a woman will not receive the same protection.


Did Frum even read the legislation before she voted for it? Or has she been reading too many editorials after the fact?

Here it is again:

Frum is confusing gender expression and gender identity. And she is also mistaken because C-16 doesn't define anything, and it has nothing to do with what a man or a woman is. Sex already was in the legislation.

The definitions of gender expression and identity which are in existing provincial legislation don't apply to anything except grounds for discrimination, so they don't change anything, and have nothing to do with defining what a man or woman is.

Gender expression is the right thing to be protecting, because it does not only apply to transgendered people, but to anyone who is discriminated against because of gender stereotypes. Someone who gets bashed or thrown out of someplace because they have the wrong colour hair or the wrong clothes.

It protects all of us.

Anyway, here are more people weighing in on what they think it means. Bruce Pardy, who argued against it:

And the Anti-Choicers still seem to think people are going to wind up in jail because of it:


And regarding the women only spaces fight, remember that the Nixon case went all the way to the door of the Supreme Court of Canada, which declined to hear the appeal. So that right of association stands.



6079_Smith_W wrote:


And regarding the women only spaces fight, remember that the Nixon case went all the way to the door of the Supreme Court of Canada, which declined to hear the appeal. So that right of association stands.

Wouldn't Kimberley Nixon's lawyers now argue that the Vancouver Rape Relief was practising illegal discrimination? 


PS: Bill C 279 was the predecessor to Bill C 16. The story about Bill C 279 is from 2013, FWIW.



They tried to make that argument in the original case., and ultimately lost.

The Tyee article at #84 is a good one because it points out VRR won the appeal because their right to association took precedence.


Misfit Misfit's picture

Here is an article from the Toronto Star from, yes, 2013, and read how scandalously the article treated the notion of biologically born women organizing to discuss abortion and reproductive issues. Cheri Di Novo referred to this organization as being "reprehensible", and the women involved were treated by the article like a bunch of nasty bigots.

And yes, the Toby Act is the Ontario Bill 33.

Here is the article...

Obviously the Nixon case has not and will not stop future challenges and complaints from being made to the Human Rights Commissions across Canada. If it did, there would not be the levels of concern being expressed right now.

And as far as I can tell, the Nixon ruling decided that womens shelters had the ultimate decision on who gets to determine who is a woman. I am of the impression that Bill C-16 overrides the Nixon decision. I'm not a lawyer, and I would welcome legal opinions on this  matter rather than relying solely on assurances from Smith that everything is ok.



Misfit Misfit's picture

And FWIW, all the issues and concerns about the Ontario Bill 33 carry over to Bill C-16 since there were no clauses protecting women and children in C-16, nor any Senate amendments to the legislation to protect the interests of women and children.


If it did, it would already be overridden by BC's Human Rights Code, which now includes gender.

And the appeals court did find that they had discriminated against her (so it is not as if that would change), but that they had an exemption as an organization serving an identifiable group. Which is precisely what people are asking for, no?

And no, I don't know that nothing would change. But there is no indication that it will.

Misfit Misfit's picture

That is the purpose of statutes.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

I suppose what would be nice to know is whether Nixon v. VRR failed because rights of association necessarily come before the right to not be discriminated against on the grounds of gender expression (the way four of a kind necessarily beats a full house, and everyone knows this) or whether one justice decided that in this specific case, it did.

As a silly aside, IIRC when the Nixon case was still fresh and new, I initially sided with Nixon.  Having read much since then, and times a'changin', I don't know that I'd have the same opinion now.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Yes, what trumps what and why? In that case with the woman wanting a haircut in a barber shop in Toronto a few years ago and the barber was a Muslim who could not touch another woman's hair. It was a case of sex vs religion and which group trumped the other. 

I really wish that we had legal input into this rather than just speculating all the time.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

I really wish that we had legal input into this rather than just speculating all the time.

That's a foolhardy wish straight out of Aesop's Fables, or the Brothers Grimm.

Discuss it all you wish -- that's what we're here for, and I'll surely join you -- but sleep sound tonight knowing that you don't actually have to decide this, because there's no possibility of a win-win here.  Any time laws change faster than society does, it's a mess.


That case was a shop offering service to the public. It was something else entirely. Plus it was in Ontario.

And Magoo, that is simply not true. I think most of us are quite happy living in a country with marriage equality, and recognition of a woman's right to choose, even though some haven't gotten used to it yet.

Misfit Misfit's picture

I'm concerned by what you just posted, Magoo.

You wrote that, "any time the laws change faster than society does there's a mess." 

What you said is very wise and true. However, your statement also implies that these concerned radical feminists are just slow at coming around when what they are expressing is alarm at a possible reduction in the rights of women and children. I think this is quite different from them not just getting on board with the change in societal attitudes towards transgender people.

Now, I think that there was a different option. The MPs could have consulted with all parties concerned and written the needs and protections for women and children into the legislation. They knew about these concerns from the Ontario Bill 33. I just linked earlier to two articles about it.



@ Misfit

Are there things that need to be worked out when it comes to balancing accommodation for transgender people with that of other people? Absolutely.

But that has been happening for some time, quite independent of this law. This law isn't going to resolve bathroom policies, nor is it going to magically solve most of the things mentioned in this thread.

And honestly, I don't see it causing some of the horror stories that are being predicted either.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Smith wrote:

"That case was a shop offering service to the public. It was something else entirely. Plus it was in Ontario."

Yes but they were both provincial Human Rights Tribunal rulings. They both covered issues of two distinct marginalized groups  and whether one disadvantaged group can discriminate against another disadvantaged group because of their own unique constraints and issues. The barber case came down to which group's rights  trump the other group's human rights as Magoo had alluded to earlier.

And women's shelters offer services to the public as well.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Smith wrote:

"And honestly, I don't see it causing some of the horror stories that are being predicted either."

I hope you are right. 

Unfortunately, my second article this evening showed how a group of 30+ women gathering in Toronto four years ago  to discuss abortion and reproductive rights were treated like a bunch of outcasts and dangerous bigots. The article made reference to hostile emails and protest tactics to get the gathering shut down. Specific reference was made by an Ontario MPP to women gathering as reprehensible and hopefully illegal.

I find this problematic. I also find it problematic that these issues were all addressed on a provincial level in Ontario four years ago and the sitting MPs in Ottawa today still found it irrelevant to consult with all parties involved to try to work these issues out. 

And if women are not allowed to legally associate as women anymore how do these issues get discussed and properly addressed?

Smith, yes it is happening. And the very few who are speaking out about it are being called intolerant biggots. They are being marginalized by the press instead of being listened to.



Misfit Misfit's picture





It shouldn't be controversial to maintain women-only spaces

Bill C-16 passed at the Senate on Thursday. Under this new Canadian legislation, which follows similar laws in a number of Western countries, a person can determine their gender or sex via self-declaration at any time and for any reason. It’s considered a human rights violation to question it. No criteria, physical markers, or tests have been identified to determine trans status. As an inherently individualistic idea, gender identity isn’t tethered to any external reality and is therefore considered immune from qualification or broader critical analysis.

If an individual’s identity doesn’t impinge on anyone, it’s easy to accept it at face value. But when an individual transitions into a group of people who face different challenges, questions will naturally arise about whether opportunities reserved for those who are marginalized in their own right will be inevitably claimed by these new members, once again making it more difficult for the original members to get ahead. Already, we’ve seen a handful of examples of males who transitioned later in life showered with praise and handed awards reserved for women, who have spent their entire lives enduring patriarchy as females....When it comes to female-only facilities, human rights law is clear: a male who claims the identity of “female” or “woman” can’t be turned away. If a woman has concerns or is in a vulnerable position, her options are to somehow get over it or leave. What this tells women and girls who are survivors of male violence is that females’ right to refuge and privacy away from males is negotiable and that they come last. This is an insidious form of grooming that tells women and girls that they are hysterical for recognizing the epidemic of discrimination and violence directed at them and that they must prioritize the feelings of others over their own sense of self-preservation.

The Kimberley Nixon verdict happened in 2003. Would we get the same verdict today? Since Vancouver Rape Relief won on the basis of their freedom to associate as a woman-only group, the court must have recognized Nixon as not female. But legislation such as Bill C 16 serves to change the definition of gender and identity in the law. Perhaps Nixon would be legally recognized as female today.


@ Misfit

Yes, those attacks are bad, and should be challenged; I completely agree. They have nothing to do with human rights law.

And the difference in the Ontario case wasn't that it was two identifiable groups. All that mattered was that it was a barber shop offering haircuts which discriminated against women. The fact the barbers were Muslim is irrelevant. They were not being discriminated against, and their religion does not give them the right to discriminate against others. Whether they hire another barber (and we don't know how that was resolved, only that it was) doesn't matter, but they can't run a business which discriminates based on sex.

This is similar to the justice of the peace here in SK who tried to get an exemption from marrying a gay couple and was told he had to do his job without discriminating. His religion was irrelevant. That case is different in that it involves provincial services and an officer of the court, not a business.

Also on that, we already have rights protection based on sex, but we don't see successful complaints by men wanting to get into women's washrooms or change rooms. Adding gender doesn't change anything that wasn't there already.

In the Kimberly Nixon case, the appeals court agreed that VRR discriminated against her, but they had an exemption in B.C. rights legislation (see article above) because they were a non-profit organization providing services to an identifiable group and so had the right to limit who gets in the door based on that. And the Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear a further appeal.

So might this new law mean that women's spas have to provide a change room for transwomen? I don't know, but one presumes that it wouldn't be automatic, and that any tribunal would also take into consideration the other women who might feel threatened. And more importantly, technically that protection is already there, because businesses aren't supposed to discriminate based on sex, yet there are many businesses which are men only and women only. It is one thing when it involves cutting hair; one expects it would be quite another when it involves people getting naked, because it does have an impact on other people.



Misfit Misfit's picture

In the barber case the barbers said that they were Muslim and could not touch another woman's hair who was not their wife or immediate family member.


It is still not an excuse for discrimination. No one is forcing them to do anything. They didn't open a mosque; they opened a business providing services to the public, and they aren't allowed to discriminate in doing that. Their religion is irrelevant.

By the same token, someone can't walk into a business and demand service that complies with their religion - like being served by a man or woman. The business just can't refuse service to anyone based on them being an identifiable group.

Anyway, tangent.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Sorry for the tangent but here is a newspaper article addressing the two issues here. Religion vs sex in the barber case.

i think that Air Canada allowed some male passenger of a certain faith to not have to sit beside a woman according to his faith IIRC.

Misfit Misfit's picture

It was a Porter flight in 2015 and not Air Canada.

edit to add...

Here is the link.

End of tangent.


They might do that, just as there are restaurants which serve Halal. But it is not a requirement, and to not do it is not discrimination.

And no, I wasn't complaining about the tangent; it is relevant. I just don't want to get too far down it

Misfit Misfit's picture

Smith wrote:

"Yes, those attacks are bad, and should be challenged; I completely agree. They have nothing to do with human rights law."

if you are referring to the article where transactivists lobbied to get a rad fem conference shut down because the conference was for women-born-women only, then yes, this pertains directly to human rights law. And they have used every arm of the law at their disposal to force their way into women only spaces and to disrupt and shut down women only gatherings.

These laws are designed to target and harass radical feminists who are the only ones voicing concern about the rights and needs of biologically born women. They want to shut down any feminist dialogue which contradicts their views on gender and gender identity. They want to force themselves into spaces where women need to feel safe from men, and they want the laws to back them up every step of the way and they are getting it.

Trans women are not targeting the men who commit violence against them.  They are going after feminists and invading their spaces.


Misfit Misfit's picture

Here is another example of transwomen moving in and taking over a women's centre at the University of Victoria and changing the entire focus and vision of the centre. Article.


Except that the conference happened, and the Ontario Human Rights Commission took no action other than to monitor it, even though there was a complaint.

You can't stop people from making complaints, even if they are groundless. 

I agree there are some in the trans community who are going after some feminists. Those misdirected attacks are equally matched by the rhetoric being used against transpeople. Both are messed up and and ignore the real oppression.