Trans Rights

[Jinentonix]

So you don't think "normal kids" should be treated with respect to who they are as people?

Or names they want to be called?

Okay then.

So from now on teachers should ignore the rights of any child and when they call them any name but their official birth name, they get in trouble. No more Jimmy or Jim for James. No more Ted for Theodore, no more Mike for Michael... it's all official birth names only.

Ever heard of 'etymology'? There's a natural linguistic progression that led to Jim being the shortform nickname for James and the same applies to the other names you mentioned. Even with John and Jack there's a good reason why they get interchanged. Two different languages on the same little landmass. John is medieval English while Jack is Celtic in origin. And there was a natural linguistic progression from John to Jack.
There's no linguistic progression when you're name is Bob and you insist on being called Wanda.

Also, names like Jim, Ted and Mike are the familiar versions of James, Theodore and Michael. If someone introduces themselves to you as "James", they will likely correct you if you call them Jimmy. But family and good friends will likely get away with it in more familiar moments.

 

[Serryah]

Ever heard of 'etymology'?

Absolutely. Love it; look up names all the time for various reasons.


Interesting you cut off the rest of the comment that continues on after the names thing, which means you missed the entire point.

If it was JUST names, you might have a point; but it's names AS WELL as gender being talked about for kids. Just so you know, this idea of the nick or short/other names for kids, whether trans or not, DID come up in the discussion of trans ID when Policy 713 was being an issue in NB, because when it comes to these things, those making it up tend to push the "official names" as well as "official gender", with "official" meaning those assigned at birth. And I'm sure you would think it's stupid - and it is - but it was a concern raised by people. Back to the point - notice you said NOTHING about pushing girls into the "girl colors and clothes" and boys into "boy colors and clothes"; so does that mean you agree with that thought process?

And let's put it a different way. Take away names like Jim and James and Michael and so on, to make it less confusing for you; what about kids with unisex names? Lesley, Alex, Angel, Jesse, Mandy, Bailey, Riley; not boy names, not girl names. You get a Jesse show up at a school in a dress, are you going to demand that someone yank their clothes off to genital inspect to make sure the gender on their ID matches the body parts? Because THAT is what is being proposed. Don't think so? You aren't paying attention then to what's going on in the states.

And you didn't answer the question, either.

"So you don't think "normal kids" should be treated with respect to who they are as people?" Your answer is likely no, because that's the ONLY answer you can give that doesn't make you out to be a bigger bigot than you are.

There's no linguistic progression when you're name is Bob and you insist on being called Wanda.

Because in that case, it's not linguistic progression, it's a name change suiting the person that they pick themselves. Are you saying people can't change their names if they want?

Also, names like Jim, Ted and Mike are the familiar versions of James, Theodore and Michael. If someone introduces themselves to you as "James", they will likely correct you if you call them Jimmy. But family and good friends will likely get away with it in more familiar moments.

Yeah, you ever on the other end of calling someone a name they don't want to be called? I get it often. And that's not just short form names, either, so not just Jim or Jimmy for James.

Point is, if someone tells you their name is X, then you fucking call them X because who the hell are you to say otherwise?

 

[petros]

Make believe.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Ever heard of 'etymology'? There's a natural linguistic progression that led to Jim being the shortform nickname for James and the same applies to the other names you mentioned. Even with John and Jack there's a good reason why they get interchanged. Two different languages on the same little landmass. John is medieval English while Jack is Celtic in origin. And there was a natural linguistic progression from John to Jack.
There's no linguistic progression when you're name is Bob and you insist on being called Wanda.

Also, names like Jim, Ted and Mike are the familiar versions of James, Theodore and Michael. If someone introduces themselves to you as "James", they will likely correct you if you call them Jimmy. But family and good friends will likely get away with it in more familiar moments.

What the fuck does "Jinentonix" descend from?

 

[petros]

What the fuck does "Jinentonix" descend from?

Arabic

 

[pgs]

What the fuck does "Jinentonix" descend from?

London Dry Gin .

 

[Serryah]

Here's the bill as it appears (as there are things NOT covered in the images above but are in the bill and no, they don't do ANYTHING to improve or 'better' the bill):

89(R) HB 3399 - Introduced version - Bill Text

So WHERE is this not stepping on someone's rights?

Because this is NOT and NEVER was about "protecting kids".

This is about trying to deny that Trans people can even EXIST.

Nor does it give a damn about the health care of Trans people; not even able to take proper meds? Forcing them to WEAN OFF? They're ADULTS, if they wish to transition, that should be THEIR choice, not the Government.

THIS is why we DON'T believe any of you when you say "It's about protecting kids!" Fuck you, no it's not.

 

[Taxslave2]

Hmmm a student of history I see .

Student of bullshitology would be more accurate.

 

[Taxslave2]

Absolutely. Love it; look up names all the time for various reasons.


Interesting you cut off the rest of the comment that continues on after the names thing, which means you missed the entire point.

If it was JUST names, you might have a point; but it's names AS WELL as gender being talked about for kids. Just so you know, this idea of the nick or short/other names for kids, whether trans or not, DID come up in the discussion of trans ID when Policy 713 was being an issue in NB, because when it comes to these things, those making it up tend to push the "official names" as well as "official gender", with "official" meaning those assigned at birth. And I'm sure you would think it's stupid - and it is - but it was a concern raised by people. Back to the point - notice you said NOTHING about pushing girls into the "girl colors and clothes" and boys into "boy colors and clothes"; so does that mean you agree with that thought process?

And let's put it a different way. Take away names like Jim and James and Michael and so on, to make it less confusing for you; what about kids with unisex names? Lesley, Alex, Angel, Jesse, Mandy, Bailey, Riley; not boy names, not girl names. You get a Jesse show up at a school in a dress, are you going to demand that someone yank their clothes off to genital inspect to make sure the gender on their ID matches the body parts? Because THAT is what is being proposed. Don't think so? You aren't paying attention then to what's going on in the states.

And you didn't answer the question, either.

"So you don't think "normal kids" should be treated with respect to who they are as people?" Your answer is likely no, because that's the ONLY answer you can give that doesn't make you out to be a bigger bigot than you are.



Because in that case, it's not linguistic progression, it's a name change suiting the person that they pick themselves. Are you saying people can't change their names if they want?



Yeah, you ever on the other end of calling someone a name they don't want to be called? I get it often. And that's not just short form names, either, so not just Jim or Jimmy for James.

Point is, if someone tells you their name is X, then you fucking call them X because who the hell are you to say otherwise?

That depends somewhat on their name. And not just being ignorant either. We had a guy in our fire department for a number of years of years came from somewhere in Eastern Europe. His first name and last name were almost identical, and most of us could not pronounce either one. We simply called him, V. That was actually his suggestion as it comes across clear in radio conversations.

 

[Taxslave2]

View attachment 27762



View attachment 27760


View attachment 27761


Here's the bill as it appears (as there are things NOT covered in the images above but are in the bill and no, they don't do ANYTHING to improve or 'better' the bill):

89(R) HB 3399 - Introduced version - Bill Text

So WHERE is this not stepping on someone's rights?

Because this is NOT and NEVER was about "protecting kids".

This is about trying to deny that Trans people can even EXIST.

Nor does it give a damn about the health care of Trans people; not even able to take proper meds? Forcing them to WEAN OFF? They're ADULTS, if they wish to transition, that should be THEIR choice, not the Government.

THIS is why we DON'T believe any of you when you say "It's about protecting kids!" Fuck you, no it's not.

OK. Not really following all of that. Too many otomy’s that I never heard of. But I think the gist of it is no gender changing for anyone? That would be a bit extreme. Was there also a requirement to be Christian? Or is that to be added later?

 

[petros]

View attachment 27762



View attachment 27760


View attachment 27761


Here's the bill as it appears (as there are things NOT covered in the images above but are in the bill and no, they don't do ANYTHING to improve or 'better' the bill):

89(R) HB 3399 - Introduced version - Bill Text

So WHERE is this not stepping on someone's rights?

Because this is NOT and NEVER was about "protecting kids".

This is about trying to deny that Trans people can even EXIST.

Nor does it give a damn about the health care of Trans people; not even able to take proper meds? Forcing them to WEAN OFF? They're ADULTS, if they wish to transition, that should be THEIR choice, not the Government.

THIS is why we DON'T believe any of you when you say "It's about protecting kids!" Fuck you, no it's not.

There isn't a right to have body parts popped off. Zero. None. Nada. Zilch. Zip zant doodley squat.

 

[Jinentonix]

What the fuck does "Jinentonix" descend from?

It's an homage to Rene Goscinny and Albert Uderzo as well as Douglas Adams. It's also just a screen name. Nobody IRL calls me Jinentonix.

 

[Taxslave2]

There isn't a right to have body parts popped off. Zero. None. Nada. Zilch. Zip zant doodley squat.

You do have the right to lop them off yourself, but expect a stay in the nuthouse afterward.
same as it is illegal to commit suicide. But only the failures ever get charged, or locked up.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

It's an homage to Rene Goscinny and Albert Uderzo as well as Douglas Adams. It's also just a screen name. Nobody IRL calls me Jinentonix.

I do. Good to meet you. I'm Ryan Soda.

 

[Serryah]

You do have the right to lop them off yourself,

Right now there's push in the states that no, you don't.

but expect a stay in the nuthouse afterward.

Why?

Do you demand everyone who "lops things off" to be in the nuthouse? So... all women who have reductions for either cosmetic or medical reasons should be in the nuthouse?

What about babies who are circumcised? That's not medically necessary all the time, either.

Penile enhancements?

Other plastics?

same as it is illegal to commit suicide. But only the failures ever get charged, or locked up.

It's not illegal to commit suicide in Canada.

Frequently Asked Questions - Centre for Suicide Prevention

What is suicide? Suicide is defined as intentional, self-inflicted death. How many people die by suicide in Canada each year? In 2012, the year with the latest figures available, 3926 Canadians died by suicide. 2972 were males and 954 were females. The suicide rate overall was 11.3 per 100,000...

www.suicideinfo.ca

Attempts/failures usually end up with someone being formed to psych, yes, but they don't get 'charged'.

 

[Serryah]

OK. Not really following all of that. Too many otomy’s that I never heard of. But I think the gist of it is no gender changing for anyone?

That's right. They amended "child" to say "person".

No change for anyone, child OR adult.

That would be a bit extreme. Was there also a requirement to be Christian? Or is that to be added later?

Who the hell knows.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

It's not illegal to commit suicide in Canada.

Thank you. I was quite surprised when Tax said it was.

You'd think I would know by now. . .

 

[Taxslave2]

Thank you. I was quite surprised when Tax said it was.

You'd think I would know by now. . .

It is illegal. Just hard to take a dead guy to court. I forget what they called it. Something about being a danger? Could be it is just BC too.

 

[Serryah]

It is illegal. Just hard to take a dead guy to court. I forget what they called it. Something about being a danger? Could be it is just BC too.

I refer you to the link from the CENTER FOR SUICIDE PREVENTION.

"Is suicide illegal in Canada?
No, but attempted suicide was not removed from our Criminal Code until 1972. However, counselling suicide – sometimes referred to as aiding and abetting suicide, still remains a criminal act."

Perhaps you mean the aiding and abetting of suicide, but the act itself, is NOT illegal.

Criminal Code

Federal laws of Canada

laws-lois.justice.gc.ca

"Suicide
Marginal note:Counselling or aiding suicide

• 241 (1) Everyone is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years who, whether suicide ensues or not,
  • (a) counsels a person to die by suicide or abets a person in dying by suicide; or
  • (b) aids a person to die by suicide.
• Marginal note:Exemption for medical assistance in dying
  (2) No medical practitioner or nurse practitioner commits an offence under paragraph (1)(b) if they provide a person with medical assistance in dying in accordance with section 241.2.
• Marginal note:Exemption for person aiding practitioner
  (3) No person is a party to an offence under paragraph (1)(b) if they do anything for the purpose of aiding a medical practitioner or nurse practitioner to provide a person with medical assistance in dying in accordance with section 241.2.
• Marginal note:Exemption for pharmacist
  (4) No pharmacist who dispenses a substance to a person other than a medical practitioner or nurse practitioner commits an offence under paragraph (1)(b) if the pharmacist dispenses the substance further to a prescription that is written by such a practitioner in providing medical assistance in dying in accordance with section 241.2.
• Marginal note:Exemption for person aiding patient
  (5) No person commits an offence under paragraph (1)(b) if they do anything, at another person’s explicit request, for the purpose of aiding that other person to self-administer a substance that has been prescribed for that other person as part of the provision of medical assistance in dying in accordance with section 241.2.
• Marginal note:Clarification
  (5.1) For greater certainty, no social worker, psychologist, psychiatrist, therapist, medical practitioner, nurse practitioner or other health care professional commits an offence if they provide information to a person on the lawful provision of medical assistance in dying.
• Marginal note:Reasonable but mistaken belief
  (6) For greater certainty, the exemption set out in any of subsections (2) to (5) applies even if the person invoking the exemption has a reasonable but mistaken belief about any fact that is an element of the exemption.
• Marginal noteefinitions
  (7) In this section, medical assistance in dying, medical practitioner, nurse practitioner and pharmacist have the same meanings as in section 241.1.

• R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 241
• R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 7
• 2016, c. 3, s. 3

Previous Version"

There is no mention of suicide itself being illegal in the Criminal Code.

 

[Taxslave2]

I refer you to the link from the CENTER FOR SUICIDE PREVENTION.

"Is suicide illegal in Canada?
No, but attempted suicide was not removed from our Criminal Code until 1972. However, counselling suicide – sometimes referred to as aiding and abetting suicide, still remains a criminal act."

Perhaps you mean the aiding and abetting of suicide, but the act itself, is NOT illegal.

Criminal Code

Federal laws of Canada

laws-lois.justice.gc.ca

"Suicide
Marginal note:Counselling or aiding suicide

• 241(1) Everyone is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years who, whether suicide ensues or not,
  • (a) counsels a person to die by suicide or abets a person in dying by suicide; or
  • (b) aids a person to die by suicide.
• Marginal note:Exemption for medical assistance in dying
  (2) No medical practitioner or nurse practitioner commits an offence under paragraph (1)(b) if they provide a person with medical assistance in dying in accordance with section 241.2.
• Marginal note:Exemption for person aiding practitioner
  (3) No person is a party to an offence under paragraph (1)(b) if they do anything for the purpose of aiding a medical practitioner or nurse practitioner to provide a person with medical assistance in dying in accordance with section 241.2.
• Marginal note:Exemption for pharmacist
  (4) No pharmacist who dispenses a substance to a person other than a medical practitioner or nurse practitioner commits an offence under paragraph (1)(b) if the pharmacist dispenses the substance further to a prescription that is written by such a practitioner in providing medical assistance in dying in accordance with section 241.2.
• Marginal note:Exemption for person aiding patient
  (5) No person commits an offence under paragraph (1)(b) if they do anything, at another person’s explicit request, for the purpose of aiding that other person to self-administer a substance that has been prescribed for that other person as part of the provision of medical assistance in dying in accordance with section 241.2.
• Marginal note:Clarification
  (5.1) For greater certainty, no social worker, psychologist, psychiatrist, therapist, medical practitioner, nurse practitioner or other health care professional commits an offence if they provide information to a person on the lawful provision of medical assistance in dying.
• Marginal note:Reasonable but mistaken belief
  (6) For greater certainty, the exemption set out in any of subsections (2) to (5) applies even if the person invoking the exemption has a reasonable but mistaken belief about any fact that is an element of the exemption.
• Marginal noteefinitions
  (7) In this section, medical assistance in dying, medical practitioner, nurse practitioner and pharmacist have the same meanings as in section 241.1.
• R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 241
• R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 7
• 2016, c. 3, s. 3

Previous Version"

There is no mention of suicide itself being illegal in the Criminal Code.

Did know it had ever been removed. It would have been around that time or slightly before, that it came up where I lived. I was I high school at the time anyway. Also MAID would have been illegal at that time. At least we have advanced from that time.