Bill C 16 What say you?

The squaring I was talking about was how to afford those protections without using those controversial terms.

But as to your point, I don't think you can foresee every possible circumstance, and given that these protections are absolute except when the impact on others' rights, you can't just set arbitrary lines, like it applies except when you are riding public transit.

Because it isn't arbitrary; it IS about that impact. And it isn't hierarchical. Ideally matters of conscience don't have higher priority than sexual orientation (though there was a ruling in recent years which found that in a specific case) and matters of race discrimination don't automatically trump discrimination based on sex.

Again, we are talking about legislation with not that many words, and there is a good reason why it is that way.

The problem is that if say a radical feminist says that your sex is determined by your chromosomes, that can be considered hate speech. Radical feminists have had their guest lecturers banned from speaking at universities citing their ideas constitute hate speech. That group at the Vancouver Women's Library wanted certain books banned because they feel it constitutes hate speech. The whole aim of this is to silence and forcefully shut down radical feminist ideology completely and to be able to use the full extent of the law to force them into submission and silence. Can "hate speech" be taught in women's studies programs at universities? Some of them want to eliminate radical feminist ideology altogether.

Quote:

The problem is that if say a radical feminist says that your sex is determined by your chromosomes, that can be considered hate speech.

As I understand it, actual hate speech is pretty narrowly defined in Canada, and I don't think that such a claim would qualify.  Colloquially, "hate speech" seems to be a stand-in for "negative speech about an identifiable group".

On the other hand, "discrimination" -- particularly when it's essentially undefined -- is actionable.  The "action" may fail, but not before some "hater" gets dragged through the courts or the HRTs.  I suppose we'll need to wait and see; it seems the Bill only recently had its third reading in the Senate, so unsurprisingly there aren't any real world examples to discuss.

That said, I find it funny that concerns about negative or unintended outcomes from this Bill are characterized as some kind of needless "Chicken Little" panic, whereas (for example) fretting that Lockheed-Martin is going to use a hidden backdoor in the Census application to send your personal info to Donald Trump is just due diligence.  Strange that we didn't need to wait until such a thing actually happened before expressing concern.

Www.nationalibserver.com. Meghan Murphy, Oct 25, 2016, "Bill C-16 is Flawed in Ways most Canadians have not Considered". 

"After University of Toronto psychology professor complained about what he calls 'political correctness', having to use gender neutral pronouns in class, and Bill C-16, students and professors alike spoke out...,and over 250 faculty members signed a letter associating Peterson's comments with 'hate speech'. Just last week administrators ordered Peterson to 'stop making statements' that could be considered discriminatory under provincial human rights legislation."

Let's hope this doesn't turn into yet another Jordan Peterson thread (because unlike those women's organizations which have concerns about this I don't think he has a leg to stand on). But here is what the university actually said to him in their two letters:

http://thevarsity.ca/2016/10/24/u-of-t-letter-asks-jordan-peterson-to-re...

If you had an employee in a very public position saying he was determined to break the law, even if he didn't have a clue what the law actually was, what would you do? In that, I don't think the U of T did too badly in underscoring their support for his academic freedom, but reminding him of his responsibilities.

From Egale's website, where they tried to address fears around Bill C-16. They speak of the fears around freedom of speech (about which I am not so concerned for reasons other babblers have adequately expressed), and then there's this:

Misconception 3

"Bill C-16 will put women and girls in harm’s way."

                Proponents against Bill C-16 often suggest that protecting gender identity and gender expression will allow individuals to take advantage of human rights legislation to gain access to gender-segregated spaces like washrooms. They believe this will lead to an increase in violence and harassment against women and girls.

Reality

Bill C-16, and previous versions of the bill, were created in part as a response to the high rates of violence and harassment transgender and gender diverse people face in public.

                Fears around increasing rates of violence against women and girls due to human rights protections for transgender and gender diverse people stem from misconceptions around access to gender-segregated spaces like washrooms and change rooms.

Transgender and gender diverse people are at a higher risk of experiencing violence than the general population. An Ontario based study by TransPulse found that 20% of trans people “had been physically or sexually assaulted for being trans, and another 34% had been verbally threatened or harassed but not assaulted” (Bauer & Scheim, 2015). These risks of assault or harassment cause transgender and gender diverse people in Canada to avoid public spaces. In fact, “the majority (57%) of trans Ontarians had avoided public washrooms due to these safety fears” (Bauer & Scheim, 2015).

As you can see, the fears of women and girls are not addressed at all, instead diverting the discussion straight into, "Transgender and gender diverse people are at a higher risk of experiencing violence than the general population." As my previous post elaborates upon, this oft-repeated statement about transpeople experiencing higher rates of violence than the general population has not been proven, and some of the information out there has been deliberately falsified (eg, the "one in 12 transwomen are murdered," often quoted and demonstrably false). In point of fact, governments don't use gender identity as a parameter for stratifying statistics on violent crime. The Trans Pulse survey is just that: a survey. The information reported is not verified, nor is it comparable to actual statistics on actual violence against women, such as the missing and murdered aboriginal women, women assaulted and murdered by their partners, attacks on sex workers, and so forth.

The executive director of Egale has made it explicit that the rights of transgender people are about access to locker rooms and washrooms. From an article here on rabble (Bill C-279 was a previous transgender rights bill introduced in 2012 and similar to Bill C-16):

"The human rights of transgender people must be protected in all spaces including public bathrooms and locker rooms. The amendment to Bill C-279 fuels discrimination against transgender individuals by making it seem like people have something to fear by sharing a bathroom with a transgender person, which of course they don't."  

http://rabble.ca/columnists/2016/05/bill-c-16-introduces-transgender-pro...

I think it's safe to say that nobody on babble wants anybody to suffer discrimination for housing or employment on the basis of their appearance or how they identify. But the rhetoric of activists, as you can see above, is frequently focused on how getting people into opposite-sex spaces on the basis of how they identify is central to the protection of their rights. That is precisely how gender identity and gender expression supercede sex. 

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Yes.  I think it's entirely reasonable to wonder why, if the REAL problems are lack of access to jobs, lack of access to housing, or violence, GAG would even have the time to take their fight to a tiny library.

There aren't bigoted landlords to protest?  There aren't transphobic employers to protest?  Transpeople are now all safe, so on to the libraries to fight the power?

Right?? But the attack on the library is consistent with the activists' rather puzzling focus on radical feminists as their central enemies. After all, if they really are being attacked and killed in large numbers, it's not radical feminists who are killing them. 

Like some of the other assumptions being made, it really doesn't help us work toward a reasoned discussion here.

..i believe you're searching for a middle ground that will not exist unless you deal with the underlying issue of the encroachment on women's rights.

No. I am saying to not make false extrapolations based on the actions of a single small group, since I assume no one would appreciate moving this into a discussion about feminist murderers.

If you want to talk about potential encroachment, go back and read the multiple times I have already pointed out where I stand on it WRT shelters and bathrooms.

And how I have asked for any concrete examples of human rights legislation being the source of any encroachment. I am still waiting.

If you want to talk about potential encroachment, go back and read the multiple times I have already pointed out where I stand on it WRT shelters and bathrooms.

..that doesn't address what quizz, misfit or sineed are saying. eta: and because your male i don't think you can.

..you keep trying to shove the discussion to a middle ground. there is no middle ground. at least not yet. that is what i'm saying.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Can we maybe dispense with equating the action of a fringe group with all of us who support transgender rights?

Thing is, Winston, if you add up all the fringe groups, you end up with the main driving force of a social justice movement. 

From the executive director of Egale:

Quote:

"The human rights of transgender people must be protected in all spaces including public bathrooms and locker rooms.

They speak of human rights, but what motivates them is getting men into women-only spaces, and vice versa. When they are saying it themselves, I don't know how anybody can deny that is their motive.

And I actually agree with them when it comes to public bathrooms, so long as there is no third option. I would be in favour of solving that problem to everyone's satisfaction. And in fact, that is something that is already happening in a lot of places. Many public washrooms are now single use unisex.

And you are making a leap there from people who vandalize libraries to people who lobby for rights to use the bathroom. It is not the same thing. At all.

And there is a third leap to the assumption that this amendment to the federal Human Rights Code will have any bearing whatsoever on this issue. Provincial codes haven't played any role in this at all so far.

Well it should creep you out; it creeps me out. And no, I am not equating feminists with murderers. But I am pointing out what it feels like to be equated with vandals, rapists and zealots who try and shut down discussion just because people support trans people's rights to go to the bathroom in safety.

I know we do not agree on all these points. And I have been pretty clear that I respect your right to hold positions even if I don't agree. I even acknowledge that some of these concerns are reasonable even if I don't think there is a valid connection to C-16.

But no, some of these implications about others are not reasonable or fair. They don't help this discussion at all.

(edit)

And @ Misfit. Yes, I agree it is a complicated issue on all sides. And on Greer, I think some of the concerns she raises on this issue are completely valid.

Except I wasn't doing that either.

Look at my comment which you quoted. I said that is something I would never do. But I feel something similar is being done here by associating vandalism and assault with people who are advocating for rights.
 

I think it goes beyond her rightly calling out the no-platforming; her analysis of gender and its potential effect is valid, and her talk is well worth listening to. Thing is, it isn't absolute, doesn't apply to everyone, and some of the assumptions she makes about people based her analysis are false.

And I agree with you about protecting those concerns. The question is how.

For good or ill, and whether it was necessary or not (because it had not been used against women's groups), the Harperites repealed the hate speech section of the charter in 2013:

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/hate-speech-n...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Human_Rights_Commission_free_spee...

And some of those protections already exist. In fact, they were the foundation of Vancouver Rape Relief's ultimate victory in the courts:

https://thetyee.ca/News/2007/02/03/Nixon/

As for the spin at the end of the article that this is all about who has the right to determine who and who is not a woman, I think that is no more helpful than trying to force that confrontational point into the legal arena from the other side. It isn't the decision the court made, despite the claim that it is:

Boyle disputes that reading of the case. "The legal issue wasn't how people are classified in terms of gender. I don't think the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal has the right to decide what it means to women to be women -- that's a political issue. What all the courts have said is that Rape Relief is entitled to the protection of the Human Rights Code, just like anyone else."

I think there are groups on campuses which try to do that. Administrations have generally been more careful when it comes to undercutting academic freedom.

I think some campuses have been overzealous in shutting down debate for fear of violence. But this has almost exclusively happened in the case of right wing speakers. If there is a case of it happening WRT feminist gender analysis, I would appreciate hearing about it.

Quote:

As for the spin at the end of the article that this is all about who has the right to determine who and who is not a woman, I think that is no more helpful than trying to force that confrontational point into the legal arena from the other side. It isn't the decision the court made, despite the claim that it is

But doesn't C-16 -- effectively, if not explicitly -- address this with the authority of law?

Or what would it mean for the law to protect someone's "gender expression" that they're female while at the same time trying to remain agnostic about whether they're female?

Thanks.

Greer did wind up giving that speech in Cardiff, despite the protest. though it doesn't erase the concern over those who stoop to that tactic.

And frankly, I'd say the objection on both sides of this has as much to do with the philosophical difference as it does with any perceived threat.

Timebandit wrote:

What I'm mystified by is the application of "radical". I don't think it's radical at all to not throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water when we talk about gender.

In the case of feminism, "radical" is the descriptor for a specific category of feminist rather than a general term implying extremism. The definition isn't set in stone, but in the main it's against porn and the legalization of sex work, and gender is posited as an heirarchical social construct that oppresses women. And the oppression of women is biologically based, because of our role in reproduction. I call myself a "non-radical radical feminist" because I agree with the tenets of radical feminism, but I'm not a radical person in general. 

Timebandit wrote:

Nuance is not oppressive - it's the only way to have a conversation. Otherwise all we have is one side making an assertion and the other accepting it without critical thought. 

A lot of trans activism expects slavish devotion to everything they say, and even the mildest digression is decried as "transphobic." Currently, there's  a group of lesbian activists who have been no-platformed by The Left Forum 2017, a conference of socialists. Their topic was the funding of the transgender movement by giant pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, and how the corporately-controlled media is shutting down any discussion of alternatives to the mainstream narrative around gender non-conforming people. I think we can agree this has a whiff of conspiracy theory about it, eeevil Big Pharma and suchlike. But the Left Forum not only shut these women out of the forum, but issued a public apology for ever having listed it on their schedule in the first place.

Many women, including myself, have been accused of transphobia for stating that biology is real and questioning the current orthodoxy that medicalizes gender non-conforming people. As a pharmacist, I have been concerned about these fluffy articles in the media celebrating how children are realizing their "true selves" by transitioning, first blocking their puberty by taking Lupron, a hormone-blocking drug I use in my workplace to chemically castrate sex offenders. They follow up the Lupron with cross-sex hormones, and this process sterilizes them. And there's the surgeries, double mastectomies and sex reassignment surgeries, done on teens, when we know that the human brain continues to grow and develop, and people don't fully realize their personalities until they reach their mid to late twenties. But if you bring up how these practices are experimental at best, you are transphobic.

Sineed, I know the definition, I just resent the living shit out of having the term applied. 

Smith, I'm talking about nuance in a different sense than you are. However, I do have to say that having a different worldview is fine, but asserting claims of a biological nature that are unsupported by science deserve to be scrutinized. 

I don't like the term "tolerance", I prefer acceptance. However, we need to acknowledge that there isn't any black and white here, that a nuanced approach can foster acceptance and acknowledge difference at the same time. Which, it seems to me, most people manage to do - but before any progress can be made, the activists need to give it a shot.

I know I'm getting old, but this "cis" and "TERF" and "radical" business is certainly not encouraging me to have any kind of patience with the whole discussion, either.

Really appreciating this thread.  

Personally I am not in favour of Bill C-16 -  "gender identity" and "gender expression" are so ambiguous and ill-defined and I can't see a practical postive benefit to transpeople.  

The contrasting views on the nature and origin of gender are significant, and if the law gets it wrong there are some pretty negative outcomes.   As mentioned above, some radical feminists assert  gender is purely a socialized fictional construct.  The Jordan Petersons of the world assert it has a strong basis in biology, that sex = gender = gender identity = gender expression for 99% of people.    Perhaps looking for a middle ground we might say that both play a factor (as well as individual personality, and "free will").   We all agree that it would be better for everyone if we had more acceptance of people who deviate from gender norms or don't fit within them at all.   

But if one believes that gender has a basis in biology, that there tends to be differences in interests and ability between men and women, than it follows that those difference would show up in society at large -- women clustered in jobs that are typically more interesting to women or that women have more aptitude for, and visa-versa for men.   And so for the Jordan Petersons of the world, diversity/affirmative action programs are a solution to a non-existant problem (or in effect unjustly providing advantages to people who don't need them).

The rad-fem position that gender is socially constructed, presumably by men, as a means to oppress women, leads to the conclusion that the path to the liberation of women is to reject gender and provide remedies to biological women in society to counteract this historical disadvantage (and current oppression).

I don't see how there can be a meeting in the middle of these two positions.   The neccesary conclusions that come from accepting either position as a total explanation of gender are fundamentally opposing.

It's distressing how politicized speech and research are in these areas.   But similar to violence against women statistics, stats on sexual assault, stats on the wage gap, there are vested interests on all sides, and they are all fundraising, which carries with it a logic of its own.

Separate but related -- It seems to me that bill C-16 will eventually require a way to test the sincerity of someone's expressed gender identity, and this might not be something anybody wants or needs.

Quote:

I don't like the term "tolerance", I prefer acceptance. However, we need to acknowledge that there isn't any black and white here, that a nuanced approach can foster acceptance and acknowledge difference at the same time. Which, it seems to me, most people manage to do - but before any progress can be made, the activists need to give it a shot.

I do sometimes wonder whether trans-activists really expect that one day the world won't differentiate between a woman with a penis and a woman without one.

And then I recall that women (and men) are already differentiated by a whole lot of less significant characteristics -- "fat"women, "short" men, old, young, black, white, and literally dozens of others.  Legally, they should all enjoy the same protections by law, and in that regard they're all equal, but from a social point of view, blonde/thin/blue-eyed still enjoys a bit of a monopoly on the definition of beautiful, and tall/athletic/not-bald still has a lock on handsome.

As much as I'm also enjoying this thread, it does seem to want to keep circling around jobs, apartments and personal safety, even as trans-activists are worried about bookstores, music festivals, and "vagina" monologues.  It really doesn't seem to me that trans-activists demands are restricted to a job, a place to live, and not getting bashed -- things that I don't think any of us in this thread disagree with.