Gender Identity and gender expression should be protected by Human Rights Act: Siksay
Mon, 2005-05-23 01:38
#1
meades
Gender Identity and gender expression should be protected by Human Rights Act: Siksay
Mon, 2005-05-23 01:38
#2
meades
I just stumbled across this surprising, yet really awesome piece of news on the NDP website that seems to have been overlooked in all the non-confidence hullaballoo:
quote:
OTTAWA –NDP MP Bill Siksay (Burnaby-Douglas) introduced a bill in the House of Commons today that would include gender identity or gender expression as a prohibited grounds of discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act.This Bill is essential as it addresses the lack of protections against discrimination and harassment provided for Transsexual and Transgender people in the Canadian Human Rights Act. “Transgender and Transsexual people are often victims of violence and face discrimination on a daily basis”, said Siksay, “this is unacceptable and the inequity in protections for trans people must be immediately addressed by Canadian laws.”
Mon, 2005-05-23 06:12
#3
I think that's excellent.
Mon, 2005-05-23 08:32
#4
Well done. Do we know the status of this bill? Is it a private member's bill? Does it have any government support? I fear for the fate of any private member's bills we introduce.
[ 23 May 2005: Message edited by: skdadl ]
Mon, 2005-05-23 08:55
#5
It's a private member's bill, introduced late in the session, so there's no real expectation of success at this point.
It's not possible to proceed through the courts, as was done with sexual orientation and Alberta, because federal and provincial human rights commissions already accept and act on cases of discrimination on these grounds.
From the Ontario Human Rights Commission discussion paper released in October 1999:
[url=http://www.ohrc.on.ca/english/consultations/gender-identity-discussion-p...
Since March 1998, the Commission's working position has been that the existing legal structure set out in the Code can support a progressive understanding of the law and thereby protect transgendered people effectively. Although gender identity is not explicitly set out in the Code , this progressive understanding is rooted in the profound relationship between sex and gender. This approach was recently successfully used by the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal in a case involving a complaint from a individual who although living full-time as a woman but not having undergone sex reassignment surgery, was not allowed to use the woman's washroom in a nightclub. In ruling in favour of the complainant the tribunal found that "transsexuals in transition who are living as members of the desired sex should be considered to be members of that sex for the purposes of human rights legislation" and concluded by stating that "discrimination against a transsexual constitutes discrimination because of sex."
Given that there is no express ground of gender identity, there is no impediment in the Code to an interpretation of sex discrimination that includes gender discrimination. In other words, 'sex' is not limited to biological/genetic sex, but has been extended to include gender characteristics. The Commission's 1996 Policy on Sexual Harassment and Inappropriate Gender-based Comment and Conduct is official Commission policy and already supports an analogous view.
The Ontario Human Rights Commission is a central figure in the advancement of human rights in Ontario. The Commission is currently developing, implementing and operationalising policies and procedures related to transgendered issues.
At the time of writing, no human rights commission in Canada had an approved public policy on gender identity, although the British Columbia Human Rights Commission has formally proposed an amendment to include 'gender identity' as a protected ground. This protection would extend to transsexuals, intersexed individuals, cross-dressers, and others who are transgendered.
Other Commissions have made use of a variety of options, some of which are not possible under the Ontario Code . Manitoba, for example, has a ground of 'other' which is used to accept complaints from transgendered persons. In 1982, the Quebec Commission used the ground of 'civil status' and more recently has dealt with a complaint based on both civil status and sex. The Canadian Human Rights Commission took complaints on the ground of disability or perceived disability until 1992 and now uses the ground of 'sex.'
In my opinion, passage of this bill is likely a few years away, and will happen only under a stable (majority or stable Liberal/NDP agreement) parliament.
Mon, 2005-05-23 12:34
#6
As people may remember, I used to be a "judge" hearing Human Rights Code complaints in Ontario. (I say "judge" because the official title, Board of Inquiry, doesn't describe what the job involves.)
Anyway, it would have taken me about two seconds to extend the concept of sex discrimination to include transgendered people in most contexts.
Alternatively, I would have thought that transgendered people are a "discrete and insular minority" who might merit protection pursuant to s. 15 of the Charter, which is an open-ended section in terms of who is covered.
That said, there is a lot of merit in passing a law which makes this interpretation obligatory. Just because I think it's pretty obvious doesn't mean everyone would. Once Parliament speaks, there can be no debate as to whether they would be covered.
Mon, 2005-05-23 13:48
#7
I don't see why human rights protection should be limited to gender identity and gender expression, and not extended to physical appearance and personal expression in general. Surely a woman wearing a burka or dressed as a goth is as much deserving of protection under the Human Rights Act as a woman dressing up as a man. Surely a man has as much right to have tattoos, piercings and other body modifications as he does to have breast implants or whatever.
I'm not sure what protections are presently available under the law to people who choose unconventional personal identities, but it seems to me that transsexual/transgendered people should have exactly the same protections as everyone else. If those protections are inadequate, then they need to be expanded for all, not narrowed to apply only to gender issues.
Mon, 2005-05-23 14:16
#8
quote:
it seems to me that transsexual/transgendered people should have exactly the same protections as everyone else.
Everyone has the right not to be discriminated against on the grounds of sex. or arguably, transsexual status.
Everyone.
Mon, 2005-05-23 14:31
#9
I agree completely, Jeff. My question is, why limit it to sex? If I wear jeans to work instead of dress pants I would be violating the company's dress code. I would be regarded as "unprofessional" and ultimately I could be fired. But presumably under this proposed legislation I could wear lipstick and a dress with impunity. Does this make sense?
Mon, 2005-05-23 17:47
#10
Yes. Companies have the right to set standards of dress and grooming for humans, and apply them to all humans, regardless of what their genitals happen to look like.
Mon, 2005-05-23 17:53
#11
It's stupid, though. Dress codes are stupid.
"Standards of professional dress" are absurd. "Professional" is absurd.
Oh, I am so sorry that I will not live to see my own culture just plain Grow Up.
Mon, 2005-05-23 18:17
#12
Are you suggesting removing the bar absolutely, or simply lowering it some? If the latter, what's the point, and also: to where? If the former then I should be allowed to come to the office in a Speedo, a torn hockey jersey, and flip-flops. [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
Mon, 2005-05-23 19:17
#13
swallow
quote:
Surely a woman wearing a burka or dressed as a goth is as much deserving of protection under the Human Rights Act as a woman dressing up as a man.
Gender identity involves a great deal more than what clothes a person wears.
Mon, 2005-05-23 19:46
#14
Putting transgendered rights in the same argument as fashion accroutemements is fallacious. The decision to look hip is far different than the struggle with gender identity. Wearing tats and piercings is not a human rights issue.
I used to look like the son of Allen Ginsberg. Now I dress like James Bond. In my work place I supported a dress code and caught much heat, how could Mr. Lefty do that? Want to be treated professional, look professional.
Magoo if you showed up with a torn hockey shirt I would think you were a brave man. A speedo? The bravest.
Mon, 2005-05-23 20:12
#15
quote:
Magoo if you showed up with a torn hockey shirt I would think you were a brave man. A speedo? The bravest.
Assuming you still believed I was a man. [img]eek.gif" border="0[/img] [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
Mon, 2005-05-23 20:16
#16
quote:
Putting transgendered rights in the same argument as fashion accroutemements is fallacious. The decision to look hip is far different than the struggle with gender identity. Wearing tats and piercings is not a human rights issue.
Although I agree that gender identity is far different than 'fashion', I have noticed that it takes either significant time or money (often both) to dress in a 'professional' manner... I'm not talking about tattoos and piercings, I'm talking about people with relatively low incomes and busy lives (family, work, what have you) not always having the capacity to look as 'professional' as people who have higher incomes and/or more free time.
In my experience, dressing 'professionally' is a privelege, especially since 'professional attire' seems to change on whims, the same as regualar fashion does. Because of that, I have very little patience with the idea in order for people to be treated 'professionally' they should dress 'professionally'. Clean and tidy, I have no problem with, but in wool, silk, and linen? I think that's far beyond the means of most 'ordinary' folk.
Back on topic, though, I wondered about this when I was watching the deliberating on equal marriage on CPAC, it seemed like Siksay kept on making reference to something that I didn't know anything about. I guess this was it. Anyway, although I don't know if it'll go through, I'm happy it's been brought up! Thanks Bill!
Mon, 2005-05-23 23:17
#17
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
[b]It's stupid, though. Dress codes are stupid.[/b]
I think that workers who deal with the public have some responsibility to their employers to present themselves in a manner that at least does not scandalize or offend their customers. If my waiter arrived at my table wearing a speedo, I think I'd lose my appetite pretty quick. (Well, my appetite for food anyway.) Ditto if he sported a full beard and a tutu.
But I don't think it's something that can be codified, either in law or as a dress code. It's a matter of taste, and taste is subjective. If a guy wants to wear a miniskirt -- and has the legs for it, and the accessories -- then that would be fine with me. My Dad, on the other hand, is offended by a man with his hair in a ponytail.
Tue, 2005-05-24 02:17
#18
I feel like Ron is still confusing fashion taste with gender identity and expression.
[ 16 June 2007: Message edited by: babblerwannabe ]
Tue, 2005-05-24 07:51
#19
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Webb:
[b]My Dad, on the other hand, is offended by a man with his hair in a ponytail.[/b]
Can't we leave Chuck Cadman out of at least one thread?
Tue, 2005-05-24 08:48
#20
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
[b]It's stupid, though. Dress codes are stupid."Standards of professional dress" are absurd. "Professional" is absurd.
Oh, I am so sorry that I will not live to see my own culture just plain Grow Up.[/b]
I don't know, it's growing up somewhat. Magoo uses "flip flops" as an example of a crazy extreme to which the sky might fall if we were to allow it, but I wear my birkenstocks to work. "Professional dress" is a lot more open to interpretation now than it used to be, as well. I can't imagine getting away with going to work in the clothes that I do now during, say, the 80's.
As an admin assistant who has worked in many offices as a temp, from corporate to non-profit, from Bay Street to a downtown church, I find most offices have "business casual" for their workplace dress code, which can mean anything from a peasant skirt with a nice top to a business suit. If anyone is expected to dress to the nines, it's generally the executives, and they have the income to do so anyhow. Even the "no denim" rule is relaxed in some places, as long as it's a denim dress or skirt. Once the really clunky shoes and sandals started coming into style, it made it possible for me to get away with wearing birks with "office casual" outfits in the summer, which is a real relief to my feet.
I don't really feel oppressed by office dress codes. They're not that onerous. And most offices have "casual Fridays", so you can wear denim once a week.
[ 24 May 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]
Tue, 2005-05-24 09:09
#21
I agree we shouldn't be sidetracking the immediate issue of gender identity and expression here, but I think Amy has put the not-unrelated issue well. Pressure to dress "professionally," to do anything "professionally" (in the metaphorical, propagandistic use of that term), is a political problem and a class issue. It is definitely a way not only of marking off class and caste boundaries and authorizing exclusion, but also of enforcing attitudinal discipline even on members of relatively privileged classes and castes. It is politically, socially, and culturally horribly deforming -- or, at least, Ivan Illich certainly convinced me of that many years ago. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
And Mr Magoo: Please send me advance notice. I want a ringside seat. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
Tue, 2005-05-24 12:27
#22
quote:
I have noticed that it takes either significant time or money (often both) to dress in a 'professional' manner... I'm not talking about tattoos and piercings, I'm talking about people with relatively low incomes and busy lives (family, work, what have you) not always having the capacity to look as 'professional' as people who have higher incomes and/or more free time.
The people I know who have a 'professional' dress code where they work are typically in the income bracket that can easily support having to buy the odd necktie, even in silk.
Certainly if your employer pays you $10 an hour and expects you to dress in linen then there's a disconnect there, but if you're in the $40K-$??K salary range, I don't think dressing the part is out of the question. And once you're making that kind of money, it's not really a "class" issue either, other than to say that if you were promoted up from a $20K job, now you're in a different "class" and will be expected to dress appropriately.
quote:
Even the "no denim" rule is relaxed in some places, as long as it's a denim dress or skirt.
I wear jeans every day. One of the perks of University life (and the fact that I'm not management. If I were, it would be suit from Monday to Thursday, Dockers and no tie on Friday.)
Tue, 2005-05-24 12:34
#23
Alas, it is not true that people with limited incomes are never expected to dress "professionally". When I was teaching ESL and FSL in businesses and ministries, the private language school expected us to dress "professionally" although we were not earning over $20 [b]not including prep time[/b] or travel time, paid only when we were teaching - irregular hours. I got called on the carpet for it a couple of times, and I sure wasn't wearing ripped dungarees or a dirty old housedress... much less a Speedo and flip-flops.
I'm sure that is not the only case where there are expectations absolutely not in line with employees' earning power.
Tue, 2005-05-24 12:34
#24
What on earth does "to dress appropriately" mean, whatever amount of money you're making?
Why are the strange uniforms that men especially wear considered "appropriate"? Why?
I remember staring at the photos taken of the leaders at the Summit of the Americas, climbing on to risers in the middle of the lovely Plains of Abraham, all of them in these weird, stiff suits. Outdoors. In the middle of a field. And I was thinking: You guys just look silly.
You should have seen them in the courtyard of a Renaissance palace in Genoa. That was even worse.
Tue, 2005-05-24 12:37
#25
Oh, women's "power suits" are just as bad, and the shoes hurt more.
Tue, 2005-05-24 12:45
#26
quote:
What on earth does "to dress appropriately" mean, whatever amount of money you're making?
Whatever your employer says it means, since they're the one paying you to do so.
Don't get me wrong: I'm very glad to show up to work in jeans, and to teach in jeans as well, and not be seen as unprofessional (one of the perks of working in an "artsy" department, but what you have to wear is just another part of your job, like what you have to do, where you have to do it, and when you have to do it. Your employer pays for the right to be the final arbiter of all of these.
Wanna wear flip-flops? Freelance. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
Tue, 2005-05-24 12:49
#27
quote:
Your employer pays for the right to be the final arbiter of all of these.
Bollocks!
Why? I sell my labour, not my soul, my body neither.
And whyever would it matter?
Actually, I know the answer to that question. I know very well why it matters. And it has nothing to do with how productive or how creative I am or anyone else is.
[ 24 May 2005: Message edited by: skdadl ]
Tue, 2005-05-24 12:49
#28
We're talking about people who are refused jobs, refused service, refused entry to establishments because of their self-identified gender. And we're equating that with not being allowed to wear jeans in the workplace?
I'm all for casual dress, but I think it is a completely different issue.
Tue, 2005-05-24 12:50
#29
Well: we're talking about bourgeois ideology, and excluding any group is part of that.
Tue, 2005-05-24 13:00
#30
quote:
Bollocks!Why? I sell my labour, not my soul, my body neither.
Assuming you work for a "company", you sell whatever it is that they want to buy. If you don't want to "sell" your appearance, don't work for a company with a dress code.
Sorry to sound like "the man", but it seems to me that when I'm sitting in an office provided by my employer, acting as a representative of my employer, I should be subject to at least a few conditions set down by my employer. I don't think that some standard of appearance is egregious in that respect.
What's more, if I were truly selling only my labour and nothing but, I should be allowed to come to work in filthy, food-stained clothes, unwashed hair, and no shoes if I wished. None of these would interfere with me selling "ust my labour", but I trust these are so far beyond the pale that you can see why that would never happen.
For the record: if your employer doesn't pay you enough to purchase and maintain the necessities of their enforced dress code then I believe you have grounds for complaint. Also, if you believe the dress code in your place of work is unfairly applied. But if you make enough money to afford something other than jeans, I don't think it's a de facto human rights issue if your employer insists that you wear something other than jeans.
Tue, 2005-05-24 13:26
#31
There we had a good example of bourgeois ideology. In Quйbec we call that "l'arbitraire patronale", in other words "because I'm the boss, and I say so!"
As for this:
quote:
What's more, if I were truly selling only my labour and nothing but, I should be allowed to come to work in filthy, food-stained clothes, unwashed hair, and no shoes if I wished. None of these would interfere with me selling "ust my labour", but I trust these are so far beyond the pale that you can see why that would never happen.
No, because it is utterly rude to your co-workers to show up filthy. And shoes can be a hygiene and safety issue, even in an office.
Tue, 2005-05-24 13:33
#32
Mr Magoo, the assumption implicit in your last post is utterly disrespectful of people -- like, working people, but all people, of all sorts.
We would not wash, nor comport ourselves in civil manner, except that some Big Daddy forces us to? Think again, Mr Magoo.
I've never had the boss who knew more about dealing well with clients than I did. And why would the clients share the boss's dress sense except that they're all victims together in some asinine agreement to wear boring uniforms?
I repeat: I sell my work. And they had better be damned grateful for it, too. [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
Tue, 2005-05-24 13:38
#33
quote:
In Quйbec we call that "l'arbitraire patronale", in other words "because I'm the boss, and I say so!"
Isn't that how it works whenever you pay for something? You get to decide whether or not it's what you want to pay for?
For example, when ordering a meal, who gets to decide what it is? You, paying for it, or your server?
When choosing whether or not to rent a dwelling, who decides whether the dwelling is adequate? You, or the landlord?
So when it comes to hiring an employee, and paying for that employee, I don't think it's unreasonable for an employer to say "here's what I'm willing, and here's what I don't want to pay for". Again, I don't think this right is absolute or without bounds, but I don't think a "no jeans" policy is outrageous.
quote:
No, because it is utterly rude to your co-workers to show up filthy.
So? Who cares about them. I'm only selling my labour, not trying to impress the guy in the mailroom. Why should I care whether they like my dirty shirt or not? I'm not making them wear it.
quote:
And shoes can be a hygiene and safety issue, even in an office.
My feet are fastidiously clean. Cleaner, by far, than the bottom of my shoes. That's not really the point though. I'm not forbidden from going barefoot in order to quell the spread of Trench Foot in the office. I'm forbidden because it's unprofessional (unless you're a lifeguard).
I don't really believe that having to wear shoes in the office is an affront. Neither do I believe that having to wear non-denim pants, or a tie, or a shirt that has a collar.
Tue, 2005-05-24 14:11
#34
swallow
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Webb:
If a guy wants to wear a miniskirt -- and has the legs for it, and the accessories -- then that would be fine with me.
Gender identity involves a great deal more than what clothes a person wears.
Tue, 2005-05-24 14:20
#35
quote:
Originally posted by babblerwannabe:
[b]I feel like Ron is still confusing fashion taste with gender identity and expression.[/b]
Yeah, your clothing and personal appearance are a fundamental part of who you are; but mine are just a "fashion statement".
IMHO goth is not just a fashion statement. Neither are multiple facial piercings. Neither, for that matter, is the refusal to wear a business suit instead of jeans and a tee-shirt. It goes much deeper than that, as [b]skdadl[/b]/Illich have pointed out.
My concern is that every time we legislate specific protection for one counterculture, we imply that others are fair game for discrimination. You're dressed in drag because it's part of your gender identity, so you get protection. I'm wearing a turban because it's part of my religion, so I'm protected too. But the street kid with the spiky hair and the chains? He has no organized lobby to promote his "identity group" -- he's just a punk with poor fashion taste. We don't hire "those kinds of people".
I'm not opposed to the principle embodied by this legislation. I just don't know if it's possible to legislate politeness and respect for others as a general thing; and I'm not convinced that piecemeal approaches such as this don't end up generating more resentment against (and among) minorities, and more baseless lawsuits against the majority.
Tue, 2005-05-24 14:29
#36
quote:
IMHO goth is not just a fashion statement. Neither are multiple facial piercings. Neither, for that matter, is the refusal to wear a business suit instead of jeans and a tee-shirt. It goes much deeper than that, as skdadl/Illich have pointed out.
With very few exceptions, Sikhs wear their turban (and Kirpan, etc.) all their lives.
With very few exceptions, transexuals and transgendereds live as their chosen gender all their lives.
Goths, poonks, "rebels", sk8rs, etc., typically don't.
I'd happily allow a goth to wear their depressing black cape and pancake makeup if they'd sign a contract agreeing that this, being their true identity and all, will [b]never come off[/b]. Since it's their true identity, I don't expect any of them to have a problem with this. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
How, though, do you explain "the refusal to wear a business suit instead of jeans and a tee-shirt" in terms of one's personal identity?
I have a cousin who believed that having to wear anything other than a pair of destroyed jeans and a Def Leppard shirt was a violation of his human rights. I mean, he'd react like his entire sense of self was on the line. At weddings, the first thing he'd have to do once he got inside was remove his tie, open his shirt, pull it out of his pants, and roll up the sleeves, thus demonstrating to all in attendance that he was nobody's bitch, and nobody told [i]him[/i] what to wear and what not to wear!
I really don't think this is part of a "personal identity". I think it's just a reaction to authority and an excessive buy-in of the American culture of the Lone Rebel Who Does Whatever He Wants And Takes No Guff From Nobody.
Tue, 2005-05-24 14:33
#37
I can't believe this.
Magoo, how far back do you think history stretches? A century at least? Was Wilfred Laurier wearing the anonymous horrors that "professional" men and G8 leaders wear today?
"Little boxes
On the hillside
Little boxes
Made of ticky-tacky
Little boxes
Little boxes
And they all look
Just the same ..."
Tue, 2005-05-24 14:44
#38
quote:
Was Wilfred Laurier wearing the anonymous horrors that "professional" men and G8 leaders wear today?
You might be mixing up the two threadlets happening right now.
One has to do with "professional" attire, and the other with "personal identity".
I'm certainly not suggesting that professional attire won't change over the centuries. But I think that for the most part, the trappings of identity don't, or at least don't so much.
Sikhs wear pretty much what they've always worn, from the point of view of their identity. Fans of Avril Lavigne, not so much.
Otherwise, where are all the punks from the 70's? The disco queens? The 50's greasers? I think that notwithstanding a few odd holdouts, most of them have traded their "personal identity" for a newer, more fashionable "personal identity".
Ed'd to add:
quote:
We would not wash, nor comport ourselves in civil manner, except that some Big Daddy forces us to? Think again, Mr Magoo.
I said nothing of the sort. But if I wish to wear a filthy shirt to work, assuming my co-workers aren't forced to touch or smell it, why shouldn't I be able to. Would it interfere with selling my labour?
Lagatta says it's "rude". What about you?
[ 24 May 2005: Message edited by: Mr. Magoo ]
Tue, 2005-05-24 17:03
#39
Being forced to live in a different gender is more painful than being denied to dress like a goth. A goth doesnt always has his or her make up on, but a woman is always a woman all the time.
[ 16 June 2007: Message edited by: babblerwannabe ]
Tue, 2005-05-24 21:15
#40
quote:
I really don't think this is part of a "personal identity". I think it's just a reaction to authority and an excessive buy-in of the American culture of the Lone Rebel Who Does Whatever He Wants And Takes No Guff From Nobody.
Oh, if that were true of us now!
Conformity thy name is the American workplace. Thankfully, I worked in two exceptions.
I never knew I would miss one big aspect of working at home - my own personal dress code. Sure, I did the shirt and tie thing at the council meeting, but there's nothing like writing a story on deadline in a bathrobe and slippers. Gotta love it.
Working in radio is another one you can dress like a slob and no one cares. I stopped buying dress type clothes for the better part of three years. Jeans and t-shirts in the studio and the office unless I was meeting the public. Ah, what fun.
I remember hearing that for many years, BBC radio announcers had to wear a tux and tails while on the air. Apparently, the belief was the dress would inflect their on-air manner.
Anyway, I've always wondered about what it means to "dress appropriately" and what is "appropriate." Some of the best dressed sales people I've ever met were some of the biggest con artists.
edited to add: geez, I'm complicit in the thread drift! I agree with the title premise.
[ 24 May 2005: Message edited by: Amйricain Йgalitaire ]
Tue, 2005-05-24 23:05
#41
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
[b]With very few exceptions, Sikhs wear their turban (and Kirpan, etc.) all their lives.
With very few exceptions, transexuals and transgendereds live as their chosen gender all their lives.
Goths, poonks, "rebels", sk8rs, etc., typically don't.[/b]
So IYHO it's okay to discriminate, as long as it's based on characteristics that (also IYHO) might one day change? How progressive of you. [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]
Okay, how about discrimination on the basis of height? You're probably familiar with numerous studies that correlate height with social status and income (about a 20% disparity as I recall). Or how about physical attractiveness? You may have heard about a recent study that showed less attractive children were discriminated against [i]by their own parents[/i], who favoured more attactive siblings. And of course there are obesity bigots, and anti-smoking bigots, and on and on.
Millions of Canadians are affected by the above prejudices every day, and yet none of them have specific legislation protecting them.
How many transsexuals are there in Canada? The [url=http://transsexual.org/What.html]best current estimate[/url] is about one in 30,000 population, or about a thousand Canadians altogether.
So while I agree that it's a shame transsexuals aren't treated with more respect in our society, frankly I don't understand why it's such a cause celebre that it gets special attention by Parliament, let alone special mention in the Human Rights Act.
Tue, 2005-05-24 23:16
#42
It's so demeaning to equate gender identity as similar to trends. Being a goth is a trend, and one can practice that trend outside of workplace without much discrimination. Transsexuals face discrimination everywhere, i think the least anyone could do is to provide them some job opportunities so they can at least survive. I cant think of any other group that is in such dire need of employment protection.
And if you can't see the difference between living as a transsexual in this society and not attaining the perfect weight or the perfect height, than i have NOTHING to say to you.
[ 24 May 2005: Message edited by: babblerwannabe ]
Tue, 2005-05-24 23:27
#43
[b]babblerwannabe[/b], if I'm turned down for a job despite excellent qualifications, it makes no difference whatsoever whether it's because I'm short, fat, ugly or transsexual. I still wasn't given a fair chance.
Tue, 2005-05-24 23:29
#44
everyone has an equal chance to be short, fat and ugly. Only a very small minority of people are transexuals, they face GREATER discrimination in EVERY aspects of their lives than any other "groups." Employment protection for TRANSEXUALS is a MUST.
[ 16 June 2007: Message edited by: babblerwannabe ]
Wed, 2005-05-25 10:12
#45
One way that I often look at minority oppression is by asking the question: What is the likelihood that the minority person is going to be interviewed for a job by someone of their own likeness? I ask this question in order to assess the degree of oppression. For instance, an unattractive or overweight person probably often comes across other unattractive or overweight people in the course of their daily lives. They don't feel as isolated as a transexual living in a heterosexual world. What are the chances that a trans-gendered person will be interviewed for a job by another trans-gendered person. Not very likely.
The degree of oppression and likelihood of hate-violence are factors in deciding whether or not a group of individuals need specific, as opposed to generic, protection in law.
Wed, 2005-05-25 10:22
#46
quote:
So IYHO it's okay to discriminate, as long as it's based on characteristics that (also IYHO) might one day change? How progressive of you.
Uh, I'm not giving the world permission to deny jobs to goths and poonks just for the fun of it.
I'm saying that fads, trends, and short-lived Queen Street fashion statements don't deserve Charter protection.
If you want to dress all in black with a sad white face and stringy black hair, have at it.
If you want to get up at 6am every day to start preparing the egg whites and sugar to hold your circa 1975 mohawk in place, and begin putting the safety pins in your face, help yourself.
Me, I'll be walking around in flip-flops, my speedo and my hockey jersey. Let's just hope we're not both vying for the same job, eh?
[img]tongue.gif" border="0[/img]
Wed, 2005-05-25 10:27
#47
quote:
It's so demeaning to equate gender identity as similar to trends.
babblerwannabe, that wasn't what I was trying to do, although I understand your feelings and will cease with this post from what is drift of a kind.
But I wanted to emphasize that the political point was NOT to compare issues of identity with "trends": it was to raise, as a subset of issues of identity, a deep cultural problem, the way in which [b]conformity,[/b] as AE has helpfully identified it, is corrosive of any authenticity of identity in our culture.
There's the connection. But I am sorry to have usurped the more dedicated discussion of gender identity and gender expression.
Wed, 2005-05-25 13:12
#48
swallow
There's only 30,000 trans people in Canada? You're right, Ron, they don't deserve protection!
A transgender person faces routine discrimination on the basis of who they ARE every day -- not what they wear, who they are. That is a wrong, and deserves the attention of anyone who cares about human rights. Passing a law barring discrimation against them is hardly consuming the time of parliament. (Although, Ron, your arguments sound a lot like those made by people who were saying there should be no "special" protection for lesbian and gay people under the law.)
The issue of clothing is the biggest red herring i've seen in some years on this forum, to be quite honest, Ron. There is almost NO connection between clothing and gender identity, and it shows a huge misuderstanding of the issues to equate them.
If we're going to get into clothing, then everything is drag anyway. A business suit is just as much a gendered performance ritual as a bearded man in a dress or a woman born male in a pair of jeans.
Wed, 2005-05-25 21:15
#49
quote:
How many transsexuals are there in Canada? The [url=http://transsexual.org/What.html]best current estimate[/url] is about one in 30,000 population, or about a thousand Canadians altogether.
1 in 30,000 adult males and 1 in 100,000 adult females seek sex reassignment surgery. The proposed changes to the Human Rights Act would cover gender identity, not just those who seek SRS.
quote:
So while I agree that it's a shame transsexuals aren't treated with more respect in our society, frankly I don't understand why it's such a cause celebre that it gets special attention by Parliament, let alone special mention in the Human Rights Act.
Isn't the whole concept of "minority rights" the belief that everyone is entitled to rights and dignity, regardless of how populous they are in society? Your argument could also be used to erase "special attention" to most of the other minorities mentioned in the Human Rights Act.
I don't understand what you mean by saying trans people are a "cause celebre". They are commonly left out of any human rights legislation - even that which covers sexual orientation. This is the first time I can ever remember trans-identified people being specifically mentioned in federal legislation.
Wed, 2005-05-25 21:55
#50
quote:
Originally posted by swallow:
[b]There's only 30,000 trans people in Canada? You're right, Ron, they don't deserve protection![/b]
No, only about 1000. Thirty thousand is the approximate number of people who suffer discrimination due to HIV infection, and who have no specific protection under the Human Rights Act.
And when did I say they don't deserve protection? Of course they deserve protection, as part of their individual human rights, just as we all deserve protection against unfair treatment. What I said was transsexuals [i]as a group[/i] are too few to warrant special mention in the HRA -- or if they do, then there are about a hundred other groups in line ahead of them.
quote:
[b]The issue of clothing is the biggest red herring i've seen in some years on this forum, to be quite honest, Ron.[/b]
Maybe I'm missing the point, but it seems to me that clothing and related attributes of appearance are about the only characteristics of transexuals that might make them a prone to discrimination. Do potential employers ask candidates to describe their inner feelings of sexual identity, or their sexual history?
Wed, 2005-05-25 22:58
#51
quote:
Originally posted by spatrioter:
[b]Isn't the whole concept of "minority rights" the belief that everyone is entitled to rights and dignity, regardless of how populous they are in society?[/b]
I thought that was the concept of [i]individual[/i] rights. To me, minority rights are like class action lawsuits: they only make sense if the group is large enough that collective negotiation is more efficient and more fair than on a case-by-case basis.
quote:
[b]I don't understand what you mean by saying trans people are a "cause celebre".[/b]
I mean that the attention given to this issue in the media, and on discussion boards like this one, is out of all proportion to the numbers affected. That's not really surprising, either (despite my "I don't understand" comment, which was a poor choice of words). It's the oldest story in journalism: sex sells. And the more unconventional, the more it sells.
There are about a [i]million[/i] morbidly obese Canadians. That's about a [i]thousand times[/i] the transsexual population. Don't you suppose they suffer every bit as much discrimination as transsexuals? And yet the HRA is silent on this issue; and so, for the most part, is the media. Obesity, it seems, is not sexy, in more ways than one.