Bill C 16 What say you?

Quote:

And to say that people are protected from discrimination does not force others to accept those models and ideas. People are protected based on religion and politics, but we are still free to believe religion is nonsense.

Perhaps we've just had differences of religious belief longer than we've had differences of opinion about gender, and we've had to learn to get along, but I think that for the most part, a Christian can probably abide having a Jewish neighbour who doesn't believe that Jesus was the son of God, and probably even an atheist neighbour who doesn't believe that there even IS a God.  It doesn't seem to be a zero sum game, nor does there seem to be a pressing need to all agree on the "ONE TRUE" God, so long as we're all allowed to believe for ourselves what we want to believe for ourselves.  I know religion is still a huge source of global discord, but on an individual level, I think most of don't care *that* badly what someone else thinks, so long as it doesn't directly interfere with what we, individually, think.

This same sort of "live and let live" approach doesn't seem to apply to gender politics.  If it did then radical feminists could feel free to believe that women have vaginas, and trans-women could feel free to believe that a vagina isn't a necessary condition for womanhood, and everyone could similarly be happy so long as they were free to believe as they believe.

Is it that religion (mostly) happens in a personal context and gender (mostly) happens in the public context?  Is it that religious beliefs are primarily non-materialist beliefs, but gender beliefs aren't?  We seem mostly OK with the idea of many different Gods (including none at all) but at the same time need ONE and only ONE definition of men, women, sex and gender.

I'm ruminating on it, but I don't really know. 

Public toilets and change rooms are just that - public. And given that there are currently only two options I think the best workable option is for trans people to use the spaces they prefer for the basic function of going to the bathroom. I also look forward to a time when there are enough inclusive services so that it isn't a problem (there are already several schools in our region which have three bathroom options), but until we get there people have to be able to pee and change.

And the notion that people might commit assault, or make sexual advances - if this is not a concern with gays and lesbians why should we make that assumption about trans people?

As for shelters, and other services to victimized women, if an organization ran into a situation where that was a problem, and they felt they were being forced to accept someone they saw as a threat to their clients I would agree with you, but I don't see how this rights legislation does that.

I can think of a number of cases where people thought that new legislation was going to erode people's rights and cause major problems. People raised those concerns about hate crimes legislation in the 80s, the firearms registry and child pornography laws in the 90s, and with marriage equality.

Those warnings were baseless then, and I see no reason why it should be any different with this law. Like all protections, these ones are not absolute; they are balanced out against other rights. Nor are they applied in an absolute way, but (usually, anyway) in a way that makes sense.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Another good article that touches on some of the points of conflict and concern, and how the best solution might be different on a case by case basis:

http://www.newstatesman.com/2016/11/whats-missing-transgender-debate-any...

From the article:

...The University of Toronto last year rolled back some of its gender-neutral bathrooms in halls of residence after two female students reported being filmed in the showers; in Toronto in 2014, serial rapist Christopher Hambrook was convicted of entering women’s refuges under the name Jessica and assaulting two vulnerable women; and in 2013, transwoman prisoner Paris Green was moved out of Cornton Vale women’s prison near Stirling after having sexual relationships with female inmates. (Green still had full male genitalia.)

Bill C 16 privileges self-identity over biological reality, and in that reality, men are massively more violent than women. Men commit most murders, and make up 99 percent of rapists. And transwomen exhibit the same level of violence as non-trans men.

http://womanmeanssomething.com/violencedatabase/

Our view is not that transwomen are a danger to women but that predatory males have and will continue to perpetrate sexual violence against women where there are greater opportunities. Legislation like Bill C-16 will grant greater increased opportunity.

So because there are individual predators we should continue to allow people to suffer systemic discrimination and attack and not let them go to the bathroom safely? (and this includes not just transpeople, but non-trans men and women targetted for non-stereotypical gender expression)

Again, the philosophical difference about gender aside (which is to some degree valid IMO), that kind of discrimination doesn't sound that much different than shopkeepers and cops who think it is okay to profile based on race or social status because some people steal things.

Sineed wrote:

Bill C 16 privileges self-identity over biological reality, and in that reality, men are massively more violent than women. Men commit most murders, and make up 99 percent of rapists. And transwomen exhibit the same level of violence as non-trans men.

There was a comment in the other thread mentioning privilege. Rights legislation isn't about affording privilege, because it isn't a privilege to be murdered, attacked, raped, refused work, a place to live, or safe access to a toilet. Rights legislation is about protection from discrimination, and recognizing discrimination in the commission of crimes. I don't think we would assume non-white people or women have more privilege because they are more often in need of rights protection.

And sex is already recognized as a prohibited ground for discrimination, so C-16 does not raise gender expression and identity above it. It gives it equal recognition. The question we are wrestling with here, and in these articles, is how those protections are balanced off against one another. Part of the reason I posted that article is because while it recognizes men as being responsible for violence, it also recognizes transpeople as among the victims.

And I did look for that statistic on transwomen being just as violent as men. Sorry if I missed it. What is the source?

Quote:

there are already several schools in our region which have three bathroom options

At Ryerson there's a large sign in men's washrooms that basically says "This is a Men's washroom.  Anyone who identifies as male, or a trans-person, may use this washroom".  There's also a single-occupancy washroom for each set of men's/women's washrooms.  Curiously, I notice a lot of people using that one.  I doubt if any of them identify as trans, but I guess they like not having to urinate beside someone or whatever. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:

So because there are individual predators we should continue to allow people to suffer systemic discrimination and attack and not let them go to the bathroom safely? (and this includes not just transpeople, but non-trans men and women targetted for non-stereotypical gender expression)

Again, the philosophical difference about gender aside (which is to some degree valid IMO), that kind of discrimination doesn't sound that much different than shopkeepers and cops who think it is okay to profile based on race or social status because some people steal things.

The trouble with this argument is it suggests that if gender non-conforming men say that they don't want to go to the bathroom with other men because they fear for their safety, they are victims of bigotry, and require legislative protection. But when women say they don't want men in their bathroom because they fear for their safety, they are bigots. 

This is how gender is a hierarchy, and how the fears of men are taken more seriously because they are the dominant sex caste. Men are massively more violent than women, and it's a trait linked to sex, not gender identity. This is not to say that all men are rapists and murderers - just that some are, and women have a right to women-only spaces as a consequence of this gendered pattern of violence. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:

There was a comment in the other thread mentioning privilege. Rights legislation isn't about affording privilege, because it isn't a privilege to be murdered, attacked, raped, refused work, a place to live, or safe access to a toilet.

Most of the oft-cited statistics on crime against trans people actually are false. 

One in twelve trans people is murdered in their lifetime–one in eight trans women of color.

You’ve heard this statistic, right?  It comes up in just about any argument in which trans people want to talk about their experience of oppression.  It’s a horrifying statistic.

It’s also completely, demonstrably untrue–and its propagation has pernicious racist, sexist, and classist effects.  Strap yourselves in, kiddos, ’cause we’re going on a ride to Statisticsville, population YOU...

The National Transgender Day of Remembrance has documented just 15 cases of trans people being murdered in the United States last year.  However, many people believe that most of the murders of transgender people may be misreported as violence against gay or lesbian people.  According to our best statistics, 30 people were murdered because of their sexual orientation or identity last year.

Now, let’s assume that every one of those murders was of a trans person, and that furthermore, the actual rate is double due to underreporting–that sixty trans people are killed every year, just for being trans, out of the 500,000 out trans people in the United States.  That’s an annual rate of 12 per 100,000.  Even using these statistics that have been weighted heavily toward indicating a higher murder rate, it would take an out trans lifespan of about 700 years for the 1 in 12 rate to be true.  We’re talking about an exaggeration of the statistics that, in the very least, represents trans activists and their allies blindly quoting a statistic that is overestimating the actual murder rate by ten times.  Even with the most generous readings possible of available statistics, the maximum chance a trans person has of being murdered in the United States is less than 1 in 100....

Let’s talk about another group in America: black males.  Black males in the United States have a lifespan of 70.8 years.  Recent crime statistics show that nearly half of murder victims–5416 in 2011–were black males.  With around 19 million black males in the United States, this means that 1 in 3500 black males in the United States will be murdered this year alone, if we stay on par with 2011.  Over a lifespan of 70.8 years, this would mean that black males born today, assuming murder numbers and population stayed constant, have a…carry the 1…let’s see here.

Oh yes, about a 1 in 49 chance of being murdered in the United States.  Over twice the rate that trans people are murdered.

When trans activists claim that they’re being murdered at a rate of 1 in 12, they’re trying to claim the gold medal in the Oppression Olympics just by making up their own statistics.  In so doing, they’re leapfrogging their own oppression over groups of people whose murder rates are actually substantially higher than theirs.  For example, black women, while not murdered at the same rates as black men, are still significantly more likely to be murdered in their lifetimes than trans women.  Prostitutes, as a class, are significantly more likely to be murdered than trans women, when we’re using statistics that have any basis in reality.

But by using this 1 in 12 figure, what trans activists do is proclaim that they are being oppressed all out of proportion with other groups.  It’s a statistic meant to be alarming, meant to make people think that trans oppression is especially bad, that it is much, much worse than oppression of many other oppressed classes.  These made-up statistics, so easily debunked, should be something people are ashamed to repeat–except that they’re not.  You can see this statistic all over the internet, and every time it’s used, remind yourself that you’re seeing activists exploiting murders and making up hundreds of crimes that never happened just so that they can have immediate attention paid to their oppression, rather than the oppression of others being murdered at higher actual rates.

https://culturallyboundgender.wordpress.com/2013/04/27/one-in-twelve/

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Rights legislation is about protection from discrimination, and recognizing discrimination in the commission of crimes. I don't think we would assume non-white people or women have more privilege because they are more often in need of rights protection.

And sex is already recognized as a prohibited ground for discrimination, so C-16 does not raise gender expression and identity above it. It gives it equal recognition. The question we are wrestling with here, and in these articles, is how those protections are balanced off against one another. Part of the reason I posted that article is because while it recognizes men as being responsible for violence, it also recognizes transpeople as among the victims.

The actual effect of such laws is to help people gain access to opposite sex-only spaces, thus privileging gender identity over sex.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

And I did look for that statistic on transwomen being just as violent as men. Sorry if I missed it. What is the source?

Sorry, I did originally have that in one of my posts, and I accidently edited it out. Anyway, here it is:

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885

Here, we assessed mortality, psychiatric morbidity, and psychosocial integration expressed in criminal behaviour after sex reassignment in transsexual persons, in a total population cohort study with long-term follow-up information obtained from Swedish registers. The cohort was compared with randomly selected population controls matched for age and gender. We adjusted for premorbid differences regarding psychiatric morbidity and immigrant status. This study design sheds new light on transsexual persons' health after sex reassignment...

...regarding any crime, male-to-females had a significantly increased risk for crime compared to female controls (aHR 6.6; 95% CI 4.1–10.8) but not compared to males (aHR 0.8; 95% CI 0.5–1.2). This indicates that they retained a male pattern regarding criminality. The same was true regarding violent crime. 

Lifesitenews.com. Lianne Lawrence. Tues. May 16, 2017. "Feminist Criticizes Transgender Bill. If you were Born a Female You are Doomed." This is a must read article for everybody. Hilla Kerner and Meghan Murphy address some very serious issues with this bill which are alarming. One.  Biologically born women lose the right to organize collectively as women  as a distinct minority group.  Two.   Biologically born women lose their voice.  They lose their right to express them selves through their own unique lens. Three. An entire feminist analysis, a "radical feminist lense"  about our own history and our own story will be erased  with this legislation.  It can be considered a hate crime for biologically born women to express themselves and to uniquely identify themselves as is specific and unique minority group with our own history and our own issues that are unique to us. This is an anti-feminist piece of legislation. Hilla Kerner and Meghan Murphy were only allotted five minutes each to present their case for all biologically born women at the Senate Standing Committee for Bill C-16. And...no  pro biologically born feminists were ever consulted  for their input into the original drafting of this bill which was voted on by Parliament.  There are no amendments in this legislation which protect the rights of biologically porn women. This is an anti-feminist piece of legislation which  silences us from uniquely identifying ourselves, collectively organizing, and it erases our history. This bill legislates and normalizes mysogynistic stereotypes  men have about women. This bill legislates into effect an external cultural appropriation of our own unique identity as women by men.  

Smith, re post #22. In the Nixon case, it was the Supreme Court of BC which made the ruling. Nixon tried to appeal it to the Supreme Court of Canada, and the SCC would not hear the appeal, so for Nixon, it is the B.C. Supreme Court ruling which stands.

Smith, most, possibly all provincial human rights acts have specific clauses in them which upholds the rights of women's shelters to discriminate on the basis of sex.  But now with this Bill C-16, biologically born women lose their righ to organize as women. Hilla Kerner during her five minute allotment they entitled her to speak at the Senate Hearings into Bill C16 said that the entire second wave of feminism emerged by women organizing and sharing their stories in groups and outlining existing problems they shared in common and then discussing ways to overcome those barriers. They would organize as a collective of women and fight for those changes. We have issues that are unique to us. We have our own unique history as a marginalized group. However, we cannot throw a festival for ourselves and restrict access to only other biologically born women. Try telling any other minority group in Canada that they cannot throw a festival for themselves. We lose the right to define who we are as a marginalized group. We are a distinct marginalized group and yet under this legislation we lose our own status as the standard by which we now define womanhood. . We are biologically born women, but now men who feel like they are women become the new standard.  I guess we fit in as "other" or secondary category women. I don't feel feminine. I merely have a vagina and a uterus and mammary glands. Oh well. I'll just go into the other category of womanhood because this legislation doesn't define me as being a woman. When feminist women are excluded from the collaboration process of this legislation because our voice is obviously considered irrelevant, this is the kind of result you end up with. You end up with politicians and men who feel like they are women redefining what it legally means to be a woman in Canada. And in doing so the politicians and men who feel like they are women erased our identity. They also erased our rights to collectively organize as women and they have made us vulnerable to hate crime accusations for speaking up against this. Bill C-16 takes away our right to voice our concerns and complaints about any of this.

Smith. From my reading on this subject, absolutely no one is arguing against rights and protections for trans people. These feminists are arguing that biologically born women are losing their voice, their own right to define who is a woman, and their rights to collectively organize without the intrusion of trans-women into their spaces when they don't want them there. Radical feminists were never consulted for input into the drafting of this piece of legislation. This legislation makes it even easier for trans-women to threaten feminists with hate speech lawsuits for speaking up against their demands.

There are no amendments to the legislation allowing say biologically born women to organize a festival and allows access to only biologically born women. It does not allow biologically born women to form a group called say biologically born women for the protection of abortion services in Canada. And provincial Human Rights clauses which allow crisis shelters the right to discriminate never have extended to collective organizing like this. And it is collective gatherings like this that are targeted by lobbying trans-women. The Vancouver Women's Library is a prime example of trans-women lobbying and harassment. And NO it is not all trans-women either. There is a strong and vocal minority who are specifically targeting radical feminists and women's organizations and services. And yes, the Kimberley Nixon lawsuit against the Vancouver Rape Relief Women's Shelter was a prime form of legal harassment that she dragged on for years in the courts. Time, money, and resources had to go to fighting this legal battle when they lacked the financial resources to do so. Hilla Kerner said on CBC's The Current on Monday that other women's shelters do not have the financial resources to fight these kinds of legal battles. They have no other recourse but to cave into the demands of these trans-women. And Smith, this financial reality could be one major reason why many other women's shelters across Canada capitulated and now allow trans-women access. One year ago last February, a radical feminist was invited to be a guest speaker at the U of Regina. Trans-women lobbyists forced the U of R to shut the discussion down claiming that radical feminist theory on trans-women constitutes hate speech. Now with the wording in Bill C-16 any radical feminist discussion on trans issues, trans-inclusion and biologically women only spaces under this law can constitute hate speech. Radical feminist theory will never homogenize with trans-women ideology. The trans-women solution is to forcefully bully, harass, and shut down all radical feminist voice which they do not agree with. Radical feminists have no specific protections under this law. No radical feminists were consulted in the drafting of this law for how the law will impact them and the organizations which they involve themselves in. Smith, this is very serious. Biologically born women have their own history, their own issues which are specific to them only, their own language and words, their own identity which is separate and distinct as a specific marginalized group in society. They need their own clauses in this bill which exempts them from the hate speech provisions in this bill. Biologically born women need a clause in the bill which allows them to turn trans-women away when they are not welcome. Biologically born women need to be formally defined as a distinct marginalized group with the right to collectively organize as a distinct group.

Quiz, perhaps male socialized entitlement.

I do apologize for the rudeness, but why are you putting your energy into fighting other victims over who is more hard done by? I can't imagine anyone being assaulted or murdered characterized as narcissistic.

Does this really help your cause? Like a lot of things, this is not a zero-sum game.

Smith, just like the guest on the Current, some trans women present their stats in a manner which tries to portray their violence issues as being more severe than what women face. The challenges put forward by Sineed and quiz to these stats that they quote highlights exactly what you are claiming that I am somehow doing. They use their stats to try to undermine the pervasiveness of violence against biological women and children that their rates of violence far exceeds the rates of violence that women and children face. They are doing exactly what you have wrongly accused me of doing. But this speaks to a very real fear and concern that a rape crisis worker twenty-five years ago expressed to me. She said that her fear and the overriding fear of her close associates at the time was that trans women who were raised as men would push the other women's issues and needs to the sidelines and make their own needs front and centre. This is a direct result of socialized male entitlement. So yes, you have a trans woman activist on the radio making the claim that their rates of violence are way higher. This is another way of saying that their threats of violence is more severe than that experienced by others who are not trans. I have not undermined their rates of violence and I have not trivialized the very real threats that they face. Not all trans women behave like this either. There is a small yet vocal minority of trans activists who are behaving in a problematic fashion. And you keep twisting what I and others write that by saying that radical feminists have issues and concerns that need to be addressed and amendments need to be put into place to protect everyone's rights that you take it to the extreme that I and these feminist advocates are opposed to trans people having rights. They have to say over and over again that yes they face violence and yes they need special protections and you keep twisting it that we are against them having rights. I'm not debating you anymore on this. You twist too much around.

You are right that I wasn't really apologizing for what I said, though I do feel awkward having to be the one to point out, in this forum, that it is not okay to characterize victims of sexual assault like that.

And drawing C-16 into this is not my cause. I don't support it. If some here oppose that law as it stands, but support gender rights protection, well how do you square that?

Sorry, and I cross edited a bit.

Characterizing victims of assault as narcissistic. I realize this is a really hot issue on both sides. I am just saying that undermining other victims doesn't help anyone other than the perpetrators of violence.

And if I sound like I think opponents of C-16 don't care about protecting people on issues of gender, sorry. That isn't my intent. But I am asking how you would propose protecting us (because again, this affects EVERYONE, from TG people to those with a different haircut) without using that language, as imperfect and challenging as it is.

I didn't characterize victims of sexual assault as being narcissistic. I clearly said that some of these transwomen activists who portray transwomen assault as being more prevalent and more serious and significant than violence against women and childre are behaving in a narcissistic fashion when they do so.  Then I mentioned that these remarks are being made at the same time that are nation is facing an inquiry into MMIW and Boko Harem is releasing kidnapped child sec slaves in exchange for POW soldiers. The violence trans men and women face deeply upsets and concerns me. So do the high suicide rates of young trans people who have to live in fear and struggle to fit in. I strongly supported Bill C16 until I discovered the specific flaws in the wording and how these flaws could be used to undermine the spaces and free speech of women who may wish to express themselves and distinguish themselves from trans women if they need to. I support amendments to the legislation so that everyone benefits.

I'm not in support of bill C-16, but I'm still learning and thinking it though, and I appreciate this thread (and it's precursor).  

Smith:   Regarding your question at the end of post 43, can we turn it around?   How will C-16 or the addition of "gender indentity and gender expression" reduce violence against transpeople?   I get that it will allow activists an easier time getting funding for support services/shelters, but if the goal is to reduce violence against or protect transpeople, how does this bill accomplish it?   

I can see a transperson successfully prosecuting a landlord for refusing them an apartment,  perhaps  a university for refusing them access to a women's only scholarship or physical space on campus.   But I don't see how this stops bullying, sexual assault or gendered violence against transpeople at all.

FYI, here is the full text of C-16. Again, it adds four words to the Canadian Human Rights Act, and four words to the Criminal Code. It removes nothing.

http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-16/third-reading

Quote:

If some here oppose that law as it stands, but support gender rights protection, well how do you square that?

By making the limits of the Bill clear in the language of the Bill?

If the *real* problem is and always was access to employment, paid public/government services and residence, why not just say so?  Not just for trans-people or the gender-fluid, but for all protected groups?  Isn't that the original intent of this legislation, anyway?

And then it's written down, right there, for all to see.  I don't think the problem is that the Bill protects people in ways that radical feminists (or others, or myself) don't want.  It's that the Bill doesn't seem to recognize any boundaries to the term "discrimination", nor try to provide a materialist description of what, specifically, that term means and doesn't mean.