What's Trump up to now?

[Crni Vuk]

Did you actually read the post you were responding to, because the videos you posted don't seem to answer why adding an extra topic to an already existing hate-crime law, would make said law any more or less censorship than it already is.

If the Canadian Human Rights Act hasn't caused any trouble before, when it was about Sex, Race, Sexuality, ect., why would adding "Gender Identity" to it cause any trouble?

Bill C-16 isn't adding any new laws, its simply modifying an already existing law, designed to protect people from discrimination(Which means you can't advocate violence against certain groups, deny them service, ect.). If there wasn't constant complaint about the law being censorship when it said you can't discriminate against race or sex, why is it now censorship when it's about gender identity?

How have they been 'discriminated' under the old law that it warrants an modification? That's something I don't understand to be honest. Are transgenders opressed in Canada?

Here is the Bill:

This enactment amends the Canadian Human Rights Act to add gender identity and gender expression to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination.

The enactment also amends the Criminal Code to extend the protection against hate propaganda set out in that Act to any section of the public that is distinguished by gender identity or expression and to clearly set out that evidence that an offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on gender identity or expression constitutes an aggravating circumstance that a court must take into consideration when it imposes a sentence.​

What is hate propaganda by the way? Saying that Transgenders get teh same right as everyone else, is one thing. Saying that if you don't believe in Gender idenity to be real, the way how some transgenders describe it, it's suddenly a 'hate crime', is a bit to much in my opinion.

Let us say a biological male looking like this:

Comes to me and says, that I should refer to him as "she" or "Zhe" and I refuse it, does that mean I can be sued as hate crime or propaganda?

And regarding 'cencorship', you don't need cencorship. Get the correct people and they will cencor themself.

After University of Toronto psychology professor Jordan Peterson complained about what he called, "political correctness," having to use gender-neutral pronouns in class, and Bill C-16, students and professors alike spoke out. U of T students staged a "teach-in and rally" in order to "fight transphobia, intersexism, and nonbinary erasure in post-secondary education" 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."​

So much for that.

>>Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.<<
C. S. Lewis
English essayist & juvenile novelist (1898 - 1963)

 

[Jogre]

How have they been 'discriminated' under the old law that it warrants an modification? That's something I don't understand to be honest. Are transgenders opressed in Canada?

They haven't, this law will simply protect them from discrimination such as refusal of surface or incitement of violence against them.

Trans folk are at the moment, very vulnerable to violent attacks. Rates of attack against transgender people have been increasing steadily.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unlawfully_killed_transgender_people#2015
"Worldwide, as of 2009, one transgender person is murdered every three days"

Surely, if a group is being increasingly targeted, then they need some sort of legal protection against those who would incite violence against them.

What is hate propaganda by the way?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada#The_Criminal_Code_of_Canada
Sections 318, 319, and 320 of the Code forbid hate propaganda."Hate propaganda" means "any writing, sign or visible representation that advocates or promotes genocide or the communication of which by any person would constitute an offence under section 319."
Section 319 prescribes penalties from a fine to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years for anyone who incites hatred against any identifiable group.

So basically, by the sound of it, Hate Propaganda is inciting violence or hatred towards a certain group of people.

Saying that if you don't believe in Gender idenity to be real, the way how some transgenders describe it, it's suddenly a 'hate crime', is a bit to much in my opinion.

I don't think that simply disbelieving in a certain stance, or refusing to refer to someone by certain pronouns would legally constitute hate propoganda.

Unless you are actively going around encouraging people to harass or be violent towards trans folk, I highly doubt that it would count as a hate-crime.

I get why you are worried, that since lots of people are angered by incorrect use of pronouns that some may see it that way, but legally, I doubt you could possibly justify incorrect pronoun usage or refusal to acknowledge them as "Inciting Hatred"

After University of Toronto psychology professor Jordan Peterson complained about what he called, "political correctness," having to use gender-neutral pronouns in class, and Bill C-16, students and professors alike spoke out. U of T students staged a "teach-in and rally" in order to "fight transphobia, intersexism, and nonbinary erasure in post-secondary education" 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."

I read the articles you linked, and I think I get the picture of what happened here.

By the sound of it, a few students were receiving threats shortly after Peterson's comments, and since incitement is judged upon the impact it has, being responsible for students being threatened could result in a court-case.

However, if you read the article in "Ordered Peterson", there's actually a fairly strong case being made that Peterson isn't under any legal threat.

“The onus is on the university to prove that his refusal to use certain pronouns constitutes a violation of law,” Dr. Robinson said. “In the context of a university, we believe that academic freedom and free expression is a core foundational value. There would have to be serious illegal expression that would justify any limitation,”

So from what's being said here, it sounds very unlikely that Peterson's actions could be considered illegal.

 

[Crni Vuk]

They haven't, this law will simply protect them from discrimination such as refusal of surface or incitement of violence against them.

How? And in which way? And is this 'modificaion' really going to change that?

Why is there a special law required to protect transgenders for something (murder, viollent attacks) which isn't legal anyway under any normal law?

So basically, by the sound of it, Hate Propaganda is inciting violence or hatred towards a certain group of people.

And the current laws are not enough why?

I don't think that simply disbelieving in a certain stance, or refusing to refer to someone by certain pronouns would legally constitute hate propoganda.

Who knows? What if it does? the 'modification' is pretty badly worded on that matter you know.

New York, to my knowledge has already laws where business could pay a fine for purposfully 'missgendering' someone ... like as that was ever the issue.

But a serious question, what do you think should happen with a professor who is refusing to use those new pronouns?

------------------------
​

I mean, look *deep breath*. I get it. No I really do. Transgenders can face some serious harassment, viollence and all that. No doubts about it. And that is of course wrong. No one here would make the case that beating someone just beacuse of how he/she or what ever identifies is right. But how is this modification going to change that? Do you think some Neo-Nazi with a baseball bat, will now change his mind all of sudden do to this change? Oh, they modified the bill! I better go home and rethink my values and whole life now!

If the law couldn't prevent the viollence and attacks before, what makes you think that this modification will make it stop? Is that even the right way to adress the issue? And this is the question that Peterson asked in several of his videos and he also was attacked for that ... besides, was this purposfully misgendering such a huge issue to begin with? One of petersons point is that the motivation behind this modification has rather less to do with protection but to push a certain political agenda. And when you're looking at this here ... it really isn't hard to see where he is coming from:

And please! Before you say 'Did you actually read the post you were responding to (...)' again ... try to actually understand the argument made here and see the reaction of the people, which fight for C-16.

To me, this is just another example of 'there is a problem, so let us make up some/change words and it will go away!', like how they decided to get rid of some words here in school, going even so far to completely change the definition of the school where I am working. Why? Because the defintion has a bad reputation ... like as parents are stupid or something.

 

[Jogre]

Why is there a special law required to protect transgenders for something (murder, viollent attacks) which isn't legal anyway under any normal law?

Funnily enough, in that video you linked "Professor Jordan Peterson Swarmed by SJW Ideologues", one of the protesters made an interesting point.

It is illegal to fire someone or refuse to sell someone housing based on race, sex, sexuality, ect., but not on the basis of gender identity. This means that people can be denied service in places, or fired from there jobs, simply for being trans.

Surely, if people were protected from that sort of discrimination, by law, it would cause a lot of benefit to them in the long-run.

New York, to my knowledge has already laws where business could pay a fine for purposfully 'missgendering' someone ... like as that was ever the issue.

And I am fully against that.

However there is no guarantee this Bill C-16 will lead to punishment for pronoun usage. Sure it could be worded better, but I doubt pronoun usage is serious enough for the court to get involved. Hell, I bet most courts would dismiss it as a waste of time.

But a serious question, what do you think should happen with a professor who is refusing to use those new pronouns?

No legal consequences. That is so minor that the state shouldn't get involved.

I mean, I'd understand if people looked down on him for misusing pronouns, but he should be legally able to do so.

As far as I'm aware, Bill C-16 doesn't seem to have anything directly to say about pronoun usage, that's just what a bunch of people assumed from it.

Do you think some Neo-Nazi with a baseball bat, will now change his mind all of sudden do to this change? Oh, they modified the bill! I better go home and rethink my values and whole life now!

Well firstly, it's not just about violence, as mentioned above there are also issues with people being denied service, or fired from there jobs for being trans.

Secondly, if attacks done for discriminatory reasons were legally punished more, surely that would encourage people to not resort to violence, out of fear of a harsher sentence.

and see the reaction of the people, which fight for C-16.

From what I've seen of the video, most of the people fighting for the bill are making reasonable points about there struggles. I do not see how this is evidence against them.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Funnily enough, in that video you linked "Professor Jordan Peterson Swarmed by SJW Ideologues", one of the protesters made an interesting point.

It is illegal to fire someone or refuse to sell someone housing based on race, sex, sexuality, ect., but not on the basis of gender identity. This means that people can be denied service in places, or fired from there jobs, simply for being trans.

Surely, if people were protected from that sort of discrimination, by law, it would cause a lot of benefit to them in the long-run.

You still havn't described how the modification would protect transgender people from the discrimination that is happening now, like if someone decides not to employ a transgender, of course they don't right out say, well you're a dude in a dress! So get lost. Do you believe employees and landlords don't know about it or that they're stupid? So if someone gets denied housing beacuse of how he looks, well ... how do you force people to accept them? And honestly, I can see how some situations might be really akward in some places, if you have a guy with a beard runing around claiming to be a female. I am pretty confident, that not all of those people that claim to be 'trans-what-ever' actually are transgenders and not simply people that would actually require a psychologist, there are quite a few transgenders out there which feel that it goes to far and that this crowd of 'extremists' is not speaking for all of them - see the video I posted.

I mean it really depends on the case. Like honestly, if I saw some like those trangsender 'protesters' appearing in front of me and asking for a room, I would denny them a room as well if I saw how they leashed out at people in that crowd. And what happens if they drag it to the court and I get sued?

You know, we're talking here not about a discrimination of colour or ethnicity. This is touching on a topic that has very wide implications, and that is how more or less 99% of the popluation is identified either as male and female. And right now, you really have to ask your self if some ideas aren't geting out of hand right now - and this goes for a lot stuff that is coming from the radical/extreme left these days.

Because you can not make everything gender neutral, and this has nothing to do with discrimination that's simply a fact. A lot of cases are completely unlcear right now, which leads to situations like we see in female weight lifting where a transgender female whiped the floor with the other 'biological' female contestants. I mean ok, gender is a spectrum. But what is with situations where things are seperated. There are for example female only gyms. What if a biological male whoe identifes as female wants membership, gets denied and he sues? That sounds a bit ridiculous right? But consider where things have been some 5, 10 or 15 years ago. And a good friend of mine already said that it is 'possible' that people claiming to be otherkins might be true ... people with cat souls, yeah. I mean the kind of mental gymnastics that some do these days ...

You say, oh well the courts will dismiss all those cases. Well that's a lot of trust in my opinion. I mean just as a reminder, those are the people that we're talking about here, people which have no problem with the idea to 'silence' others all in the name of free speech of course.

 

[MutantScalper]

In Germany they do, or rather, they demand to call it like "policist*ess" or "policist_ess".

Hmm, that's interesting. There could be two different progressive schools of thinking. One that wants to go for 'unisex' -terms and get rid of all gender-aspects. And the other that wants to add even more of them. I'm not an expert on this issue so I'll have to look into this before I say anything about it.

 

[Hassknecht]

Hmm, that's interesting. There could be two different progressive schools of thinking. One that wants to go for 'unisex' -terms and get rid of all gender-aspects. And the other that wants to add even more of them. I'm not an expert on this issue so I'll have to look into this before I say anything about it.

Yeah, some also call for neutral terms like "Professx" instead of "Professor", because for some reason they think "professor" is masculine. Because they're idiots.

 

[Jogre]

PSA: Had a username change. Old name took a while to type in with the apostrophe and caps and everything. This one seems more convenient

You still havn't described how the modification would protect transgender people from the discrimination that is happening now, like if someone decides not to employ a transgender, of course they don't right out say, well you're a dude in a dress! So get lost. Do you believe employees and landlords don't know about it or that they're stupid? So if someone gets denied housing beacuse of how he looks, well ... how do you force people to accept them? And honestly, I can see how some situations might be really akward in some places, if you have a guy with a beard runing around claiming to be a female. I am pretty confident, that not all of those people that claim to be 'trans-what-ever' actually are transgenders and not simply people that would actually require a psychologist, there are quite a few transgenders out there which feel that it goes to far and that this crowd of 'extremists' is not speaking for all of them - see the video I posted.

Problem is, it is legally possible to deny service or fire someone simply for being Trans.

They don't even have to hide it, since it's not classed as discrimination.

I mean it really depends on the case. Like honestly, if I saw some like those trangsender 'protesters' appearing in front of me and asking for a room, I would denny them a room as well if I saw how they leashed out at people in that crowd. And what happens if they drag it to the court and I get sued?

If you think they are being aggresive, or outright rude to others, you have every right to deny them service or fire them, or whatever.

But that's not the point. One of the "SJWs" in that video you posted mentioned(Around 2:53 onwards) mentioned that it's legally possible for them to be denied service, or fired for there gender identity. That's a problem.

And right now, you really have to ask your self if some ideas aren't geting out of hand right now

Of course some on the left go too far, but if a vulnerable group wants legal protection against discrimination, I don't think that's too far.

A lot of cases are completely unlcear right now, which leads to situations like we see in female weight lifting where a transgender female whiped the floor with the other 'biological' female contestants. I mean ok, gender is a spectrum. But what is with situations where things are seperated. There are for example female only gyms. What if a biological male whoe identifes as female wants membership, gets denied and he sues? That sounds a bit ridiculous right?

Obviously there is some discussion needed to be had in issues of competitive sports. I would agree with you that sports should be about biological sex, and arguably, competitive sports are immune to discrimination laws(Since it's legally acceptable to separate men and women)

I mean just as a reminder, those are the people that we're talking about here, people which have no problem with the idea to 'silence' others all in the name of free speech of course.

There are extremists on every side. I trust most aren't like this.

Besides, IF people start being censored, and fined for using pronouns I will immediately oppose it. It hasn't started happening in provinces in which the law has already been updated, so I doubt it will happen if the law becomes national.

 

[Crni Vuk]

But that's not the point. One of the "SJWs" in that video you posted mentioned(Around 2:53 onwards) mentioned that it's legally possible for them to be denied service, or fired for there gender identity. That's a problem.

Or some of them, have been denied all of those things simply because they are weird? Society for the better or worse, has a few standards, and as much as I hate to say it but you can't expect to get away with everything and this has nothing to do with how you identify. To make a very hyperbole example, you can't expect to work naked as teacher for toddlers, and no one will care if you think that clothes are some kind of opression or something. I hope you get what I mean. If I am honest looking at some of the people ... yeah I wouldn't employ them either and I certainly wouldn't want them as room mates. I'm sexist now because I judge people by the looks?

In other words, some people might have been denied a job not due to their transgender stance, but becaus they are simply little shits, snowflakes,obnoxious you name it. And from there, it is very easy to blame everyone else, society, your boss what ever and if someone also tells you, hey! It's not your character and it's not even your boss! It's society! They are evil and they opress you and it's societes fault that you're not succesfull! Well that rings very nicely with some individuals. it's the idea that some feminists have, and a few other groups including BLM for example, you know everything is racist, everything is sexist and all of it has to be exposed and everyone is opressed.

That doesn't mean that discrimination doesn't exist or that we shouldn't fight it when ever possible. Hell my mothers and my own safety was one thretened by neo-nazis. But I will repeat my self here, you can not make people respect each other. No law ever, will do that.

Besides, IF people start being censored, and fined for using pronouns I will immediately oppose it. It hasn't started happening in provinces in which the law has already been updated, so I doubt it will happen if the law becomes national.

Here again, you still havn't named how it's adressing the issue. Just that explaining how Transgenders suffer from discrimination. But so do gays and many other minorities, like black people and also females in some cases. And with all the laws that we have to protect 'them' it still happens. So I am not sure if this modification will change a damn thing, or maybe making it even harder for some transgenders to actually get housing or jobs.

Have you ever worked in an environment where you have to walk on eggshells all the damn time? Not fun. I can tell you that.

 

[Jogre]

Or some of them, have been denied all of those things simply because they are weird? Society for the better or worse, has a few standards, and as much as I hate to say it but you can't expect to get away with everything and this has nothing to do with how you identify. To make a very hyperbole example, you can't expect to work naked as teacher for toddlers, and no one will care if you think that clothes are some kind of opression or something. I hope you get what I mean. If I am honest looking at some of the people ... yeah I wouldn't employ them either and I certainly wouldn't want them as room mates. I'm sexist now because I judge people by the looks?

In other words, some people might have been denied a job not due to their transgender stance, but becaus they are simply little shits, snowflakes,obnoxious you name it. And from there, it is very easy to blame everyone else, society, your boss what ever and if someone also tells you, hey! It's not your character and it's not even your boss! It's society! They are evil and they opress you and it's societes fault that you're not succesfull! Well that rings very nicely with some individuals. it's the idea that some feminists have, and a few other groups including BLM for example, you know everything is racist, everything is sexist and all of it has to be exposed and everyone is opressed.

IF you are fired, or denied service, or whatever because you are a bad person, fair enough.

If the employer or person offering is discriminating against them simply because of there gender identity, that's not fair enough.

Same way as it's ok to fire someone of an ethnic group IF they are being abusive or intolerant towards others, but not for simply being from a certain ethnic group.

Here again, you still havn't named how it's adressing the issue. Just that explaining how Transgenders suffer from discrimination. But so do gays and many other minorities, like black people and also females in some cases. And with all the laws that we have to protect 'them' it still happens. So I am not sure if this modification will change a damn thing, or maybe making it even harder for some transgenders to actually get housing or jobs.

If discrimination laws didn't work, why would anyone campaign for them to begin with?

Have you ever worked in an environment where you have to walk on eggshells all the damn time? Not fun. I can tell you that.

I don't think anyone will have to walk on Eggshells.

It would simply be a matter of "Don't take how they identify in to account when deciding whether or not to fire them or sell to them or whatever". Treat them how you would treat any other employee or customer, or whatever. That should be the default stance of everyone anyway.

 

[Deleted member 93956]

Okay, my two cents. Why don't those transexuals take a stance of humility? If the bus driver calls you "he", should you REALLY take it to heart? Maybe they just saw you as a man or a woman. Becouse you are a man or a woman then, right?

Also, the "depending how you ask" is very simple. At a personal level, you can say "Bob, I am affected by you calling me X, would you please call me Y on private?" And that's it. If you go HEY I'N TRANS FUCK YOUR INTEGRITY AND THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE then, you can fuck off. Like anybody else.

Granted, trans should most definitively be added to the discrimination list (along goldfish and dirt worms, why the fuck not). But changing the language to accommodate a 1%, or even just have to change social interaction and education to do so as well, is nothing that has ever been done for any other minority, and honestly? It shouldn't.

I'm imagining preschool, teaching genders to my kids. "You can be a girl, a boy or a -uh- :reads the manual: zshe!"

The thing is that they wouldn't need to be good people. Government-forced "sensibility" is the one of the worst things I can think of being in a democracy. By definition, their opinion at a democracy matters as much as those neonazis'. Yeah.

 

[BigGuyCIA]

This charade of being recreationally outraged by every small thing needs to die already.

 

[Crni Vuk]

IF you are fired, or denied service, or whatever because you are a bad person, fair enough.

If the employer or person offering is discriminating against them simply because of there gender identity, that's not fair enough.

Yeah and now you tell me how to tell the difference that a transgender was fired because of his shitty personality or because he was once a dude but now identifies as a female in a males body. People aren't stupid, of course they don't tell you, 'Hey! You're weird! Our company doesn't want weird! Get lost!'.

If discrimination laws didn't work, why would anyone campaign for them to begin with?

No clue. You tell me. I am not defending this modification. As Peterson said, all kinds of people have motivations, some are good, some are bad.

I don't think anyone will have to walk on Eggshells.

*Takes a deep breath* Oh boy ... how many companies have you worked for? How much experience do you have? I am child care worker and you can believe me, as a male in that profession, it's full of landmines. You have to really be carefull what you say, and to whom you say it, and even more so infront of parents. There is a reason why many males avoid this job, and the "It's a male who likes children?! PEDOPHILE!" parents are a part of that.

But a more recent exmaple is my room mate, who now quits his job, because he dared to speak about the shitty conditions. He worked for 10 years in some telecomunications company, he is now offered 30 000 euro if he leaves the company. And he most probaly will do that, because the issue for all the problems are the executives on the top, giving shitty guidelines. What do you think, how many people will speak up again after this incident?

I can tell you, that this egg-shell thing is a reality. It happens already now. And it's getting worse. Because people simply can't speak their damn minds without the fear of getting judged for every single word or opinion they have.

It would simply be a matter of "Don't take how they identify in to account when deciding whether or not to fire them or sell to them or whatever". Treat them how you would treat any other employee or customer, or whatever. That should be the default stance of everyone anyway.

LULZ!

Yep. And a law, modification, what-ever-new-speak will going to do just that. I am sure. See, this is the problem I have with the left these days. This idea that you could for some reason magically change cultural or behavioural issues or what ever. People are assholes to each other. Simply make a law against assholery! I am a leftist ... but I can tell you, things don't work like that. They never did. And they never will.

I experience this at work right now, ADHD? Doesn't exist anymore! Don't use it! Every children is now categorized by his 'educational needs', and some need more then others. The difference? None. We still have the ADHD ones runing around, but we pretend them not to be there. That way schools can become some kind of social inclusion, but you don't get more money or workers.

 

[Hassknecht]

We already have laws that forbid you to take any of these factors into account, at least in Germany.
The only way to make them harsher would be to make it illegal to ever fire a transgender person or a woman or a minority or whatever. I don't like anyone being fired because of their identity, but I don't like groups being above everything, either.

 

[DarkCorp]

The question is how to define something like Transgender, which by definition, is way too damned broad.

For example, the bathroom issue is going to be a problem. Even worse, allowing trans free access to both will actually cause other issues of repressions, as not discriminating one is essentially discriminating against another.

I can already see femi-nazis screaming, HOW DARE YOU LET A MAN IN OUR RESTROOMS

I think the issue is that they not only is the wording to this law modification vague, but the very definition of Trans is extremely broad. They are in such a hurry to codify new law without properly fleshing it out first.

 

[Jogre]

Yeah and now you tell me how to tell the difference that a transgender was fired because of his shitty personality or because he was once a dude but now identifies as a female in a males body. People aren't stupid, of course they don't tell you, 'Hey! You're weird! Our company doesn't want weird! Get lost!'.

Fair point.

But lets say the motive was entirely based on gender identity. Shouldn't they have some kind of legal protection against that? I mean sure, people will be dicks anyway, but surely it's better to have legal protection if a real case of discrimination does come up.

*Takes a deep breath* Oh boy ... how many companies have you worked for? How much experience do you have? I am child care worker and you can believe me, as a male in that profession, it's full of landmines. You have to really be carefull what you say, and to whom you say it, and even more so infront of parents. There is a reason why many males avoid this job, and the "It's a male who likes children?! PEDOPHILE!" parents are a part of that.

But a more recent exmaple is my room mate, who now quits his job, because he dared to speak about the shitty conditions. He worked for 10 years in some telecomunications company, he is now offered 30 000 euro if he leaves the company. And he most probaly will do that, because the issue for all the problems are the executives on the top, giving shitty guidelines. What do you think, how many people will speak up again after this incident?

I can tell you, that this egg-shell thing is a reality. It happens already now. And it's getting worse. Because people simply can't speak their damn minds without the fear of getting judged for every single word or opinion they have.

Sounds like those are more cultural eggshells than legal ones.

 

[Hassknecht]

But lets say the motive was entirely based on gender identity. Shouldn't they have some kind of legal protection against that?

Pretty sure there is already. I mean, doesn't the US have anti-discrimination laws? The problem is that actual discrimination is hard to prove.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Besides, it doesn't matter if the 'eggshells' people walk on are created by culture or law, we don't need any more of them. That's the point.

LIke I said, the only thing you can really do, is to allow everyone equal oportunigs, you will never create equal success for everyone - nor should we! - just make sure that there is safety net that is good enough to catch those that fall so they can try again.

The question is how to define something like Transgender, which by definition, is way too damned broad.

For example, the bathroom issue is going to be a problem. Even worse, allowing trans free access to both will actually cause other issues of repressions, as not discriminating one is essentially discriminating against another.

I can already see femi-nazis screaming, HOW DARE YOU LET A MAN IN OUR RESTROOMS

I think the issue is that they not only is the wording to this law modification vague, but the very definition of Trans is extremely broad. They are in such a hurry to codify new law without properly fleshing it out first.

Oh, you can already see how they will clash together ...

Transgeder-activist: "Male brain in female body! It's genes!"
Feminazi: "There are no male and female brains! Sex is a social construct!"

Ah! Can you imagine a feminist society? Peace, love and understanding guiding us all? What marvelous future that would be!
If you want to watch a documantary about it:

 

[Jogre]

Pretty sure there is already. I mean, doesn't the US have anti-discrimination laws? The problem is that actual discrimination is hard to prove.

That's the point though. There are already discrimination laws in place, just not for the protection of Trans or "Gender Non-Binary" people. Bill C-16 is a bill designed to amend that. Gender Identity isn't involved in the Canadian Human Rights Act, so therefore it is one of the few things you can legally discriminate against.

There is legal protection against discrimination based on Race, Sex, Sexuality, ect., But not on Gender Identity, which means someone can legally be fired simply for being Trans.

If you want to watch a documantary about it:

Consistent strawmanning, Slippery Slope Arguments galore, Assumes traditional masculinity is good for all men yet failing to explain why, Fails to understand that Police are specially trained for situations and are not representative of the general populace, Misconceptions about what's going on in other parts of the world, Conflates Authentic with Good, Assuming that a culture that functioned in a certain way is inferior because it doesn't correspond to your modern sensibilities, Conflating actions of extremists to actions of entire of the group,

Yeah, what a great, analytic critique of society. Definitely not some dude in his basement jacking off about how smart he is because he misunderstands others arguments.

 

[Deleted member 93956]

Using airhorns indoors and close to other's ears can cause temporal and even permanent deafness. It's on the label.