Justin Trudeau announces transgender rights legislation: 'We can and should do more'
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
We could get the whole country higher than fuk and if they care about issues like this they needs an increase in their meds. Apparently with heroin you prescribe it for life and if the user can cut back they will do it all by themselves.
Canada to Legalize Pharmaceutical-Grade Heroin – As Science Proves Ending the Drug War Works – The Free Thought Project
Canada to Legalize Pharmaceutical-Grade Heroin – As Science Proves Ending the Drug War Works – The Free Thought Project
Yes, you're exactly right Flossie. What a great step forward for progress. Now women throughout the Western world will get to see just how bad a men's public bathroom stinks. Unless you somehow think that transgender males have better aim.
I know I for one can't wait to use a women's public john just because I "feel" like it.
what actual people think, instead of the fed-to-you shiny flossy narrative:
Quick Poll - May 17, 2016
Do you agree that transgender Canadians need human rights protections under the Criminal Code?
Yes 1075 (46 %)
No 1257 (54 %)
CTV Ottawa | Poll Results
and hey kids, speaking of big brother feeding you horsesh!t:
You can be fined for not calling people ‘ze’ or ‘hir,’ if that’s the pronoun they demand that you use
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...f-thats-the-pronoun-they-demand-that-you-use/
fukk 'em I say.
Quick Poll - May 17, 2016
Do you agree that transgender Canadians need human rights protections under the Criminal Code?
Yes 1075 (46 %)
No 1257 (54 %)
CTV Ottawa | Poll Results
and hey kids, speaking of big brother feeding you horsesh!t:
You can be fined for not calling people ‘ze’ or ‘hir,’ if that’s the pronoun they demand that you use
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...f-thats-the-pronoun-they-demand-that-you-use/
fukk 'em I say.
Yes, a populist poll to justify whether or not to protect a minority group.
From CTV.
Is there anyone in there McFly?
From CTV.
Is there anyone in there McFly?
Last edited:
Will the Univ. of Toronto be forced to change their policy back?
University Of Toronto Gender-Neutral Bathrooms Reduced After Voyeurism Reports
University Of Toronto Gender-Neutral Bathrooms Reduced After Voyeurism Reports
Does trudOWe squat to pee? Can't think of any other reason he is so concerned about making it legal for men to use the ladies room.
So if I was the voyeur at the Univ. of Toronto they would have to change their policy back?
You're such an idiot.
Q&A: What the Trudeau government's transgender bill means for Calgary
The Liberal government introduced legislation Tuesday that would ban discrimination against transgender individuals, a major victory for LGBTQ and human-rights advocates.
Amelia Marie Newbert, director of community development at Pride Calgary and board member at the Trans Equality Society of Alberta, sat down with Postmedia’s Emma McIntosh to explain what Bill C-16 could mean for Calgarians.
Whenever legislation like this is introduced, people wonder whether it’s truly impactful or if it’s just symbolic. Does Bill C-16 represent a meaningful change?
To have it introduced by the (federal) government is a huge sign of the movement forward in tackling rights as they pertain to transgender individuals. I think it makes the steps it needs to. It introduces gender identity and expression to the Canada Human Rights and into the Criminal Code, and that’s an essential step.
That said, we’re cautiously optimistic that with government support, the bill will go through the House and receive support in the Senate. It will really just act as a jumping-off point. Then, once it’s passed, the real work begins.
The real work is going to be having federal organizations and areas that fall under federal jurisdiction implement policies and practices that align with legislation, and provide the access and opportunity and equality to transgender individuals.
How will this change anything in Calgary?
We’re in a really interesting position because we’ve actually just seen our Alberta Human Rights Act amended to include gender expression and gender identity. And what we’re seeing right now is Alberta start to put those policies and practices into place to align with that legislation. It’s going to take time, and that’s where the hard work really begins. We’re going to see that more on the federal level.
Beyond the recognition, the federal legislation only applies to areas within the federal jurisdiction. The provincial government is still going to play a large role in managing and developing supports, which is extremely important because the majority of what we face on a day-to-day basis is so heavily influenced by provincial jurisdiction.
What are the most pressing issues that will need to be addressed going forward?
Both provincially and federally, the access to identification still remains a substantial challenge, although there has been some progress made in this province.
Provincially, I think access to health care is extremely important. Equal access and opportunity and freedom from discrimination in the workplace is still a substantial hurdle for transgender people. The list could go on and on, but those are some of the key areas work needs to go on in.
There have been several attempts to get legislation like this passed before. Why do you think it’s taking so long?
I think we’re starting to see a fundamental shift in society as awareness and recognition of transgender and gender-diverse individuals starts to take a more evident place within society, within media and within our social context.
I think as that’s happening, the importance of that legislation is becoming reinforced with people. While the transgender community has certainly needed the support and needed this legislation for a while, it has taken the world a while to recognize and catch up.
Q&A: What the Trudeau government’s transgender bill means for Calgary | Calgary Herald
The Liberal government introduced legislation Tuesday that would ban discrimination against transgender individuals, a major victory for LGBTQ and human-rights advocates.
Amelia Marie Newbert, director of community development at Pride Calgary and board member at the Trans Equality Society of Alberta, sat down with Postmedia’s Emma McIntosh to explain what Bill C-16 could mean for Calgarians.
Whenever legislation like this is introduced, people wonder whether it’s truly impactful or if it’s just symbolic. Does Bill C-16 represent a meaningful change?
To have it introduced by the (federal) government is a huge sign of the movement forward in tackling rights as they pertain to transgender individuals. I think it makes the steps it needs to. It introduces gender identity and expression to the Canada Human Rights and into the Criminal Code, and that’s an essential step.
That said, we’re cautiously optimistic that with government support, the bill will go through the House and receive support in the Senate. It will really just act as a jumping-off point. Then, once it’s passed, the real work begins.
The real work is going to be having federal organizations and areas that fall under federal jurisdiction implement policies and practices that align with legislation, and provide the access and opportunity and equality to transgender individuals.
How will this change anything in Calgary?
We’re in a really interesting position because we’ve actually just seen our Alberta Human Rights Act amended to include gender expression and gender identity. And what we’re seeing right now is Alberta start to put those policies and practices into place to align with that legislation. It’s going to take time, and that’s where the hard work really begins. We’re going to see that more on the federal level.
Beyond the recognition, the federal legislation only applies to areas within the federal jurisdiction. The provincial government is still going to play a large role in managing and developing supports, which is extremely important because the majority of what we face on a day-to-day basis is so heavily influenced by provincial jurisdiction.
What are the most pressing issues that will need to be addressed going forward?
Both provincially and federally, the access to identification still remains a substantial challenge, although there has been some progress made in this province.
Provincially, I think access to health care is extremely important. Equal access and opportunity and freedom from discrimination in the workplace is still a substantial hurdle for transgender people. The list could go on and on, but those are some of the key areas work needs to go on in.
There have been several attempts to get legislation like this passed before. Why do you think it’s taking so long?
I think we’re starting to see a fundamental shift in society as awareness and recognition of transgender and gender-diverse individuals starts to take a more evident place within society, within media and within our social context.
I think as that’s happening, the importance of that legislation is becoming reinforced with people. While the transgender community has certainly needed the support and needed this legislation for a while, it has taken the world a while to recognize and catch up.
Q&A: What the Trudeau government’s transgender bill means for Calgary | Calgary Herald
Transgender Revolution Tramples Free Speech
In the U.K. and much of the western world, women and even transgenders themselves, are less able to express opposition to transgender ideology. The transgender lobby has flipped from supposed tolerance to an out-and-out intolerance for anyone in society that opposes them. The cases of think tank employee Maya Forstater and teacher Debbie Hayton prove this in remarkable fashion.
It would be ridiculous to suggest that Debbie Hayton has a hate-on for transgenders because the 51-year-old physics teacher is one herself. She transitioned in 2012 and for the past five years, has sat on the LGBT committee of the Trades Union Congress (TUC).
Now 12 colleagues on the committee want her out. Her crime? She attended a Fair Play for Women event and wore a T-shirt that read, “Trans women are men. Get over it!”
Not only do some refuse to get over it, they refuse that anyone could even say so.
The complaint was delivered to Frances O’Grady, general secretary of the TUC, a federation of unions that represents 5.5 million workers. The claim says the T-shirt had “gone beyond discourse, and the expression of alternative viewpoints, and is now propagating hate speech against the trans community.”
By this measure, “Trans women are men,” is acceptable but, “Get over it!” is hateful. The greatest affront to those who demand affirmation everywhere is being called to a change of mind and practice.
Nicolla Williams founded Fair Play for Women, an advocacy group where Hayton wore the T-shirt. Williams says, “When even trans people can get called transphobes, I hope people now understand how ludicrous and far-fetched these attacks have always been. The trans movement has been hijacked by gender extremists.”
Kristina Harrison would agree. The 54 year old has lived as a male-to-female transgender for more than 20 years, but acknowledges biological sex can’t be changed. She says other transgenders who share her views “are afraid to speak out because not only is there an extremely toxic debate on Twitter where they are being attacked from both sides. But also, within our community, the idea around gender identity is very intolerant of any dissent.”
Intolerance from the tolerant? You don’t say.
Harrison has been called a “Nazi facilitator” and “scum” for her views. But she cites Winston Churchill who said, “The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.”
Harrison made these statements at a tribunal on behalf of ousted employee Maya Forstater. The Centre for Global Development (CDG), a U.S. think tank with offices in London, England, refused to renew Forstater’s contract after her tweet that said, “male people are not women.” Harrison went to the courts to defend this “gender critical” philosophical view as deserving of protection under the Equality Act of 2010.
“The process of having surgery or hormone treatment cannot ultimately transform your sex,” Ms. Harrison told the tribunal. “Every cell in my body has male chromosomes. I have a prostate. These things cannot be completely deconstructed. It is not possible to be biologically female.” Her witness statement said that attempts to “legally coerce society” into treating males as females in all circumstances “is inevitably doomed to fail.”
Judge James Tayler disagreed in his judgment delivered on December 18, 2019: “I conclude from … the totality of the evidence, that [Forstater] is absolutist in her view of sex and it is a core component of her belief that she will refer to a person by the sex she considered appropriate even if it violates their dignity and/or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. The approach is not worthy of respect in a democratic society.”
In response, Forstater said, “This judgment removes women’s rights and the right to freedom of belief and speech. It gives judicial licence for women and men who speak up for objective truth and clear debate to be subject to aggression, bullying, no-platforming and economic punishment.”
Forstater also stated, “the shock and disbelief I feel at reading this judgment . . . will be shared by the vast majority of people who are familiar with my case.”
This included Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling. After she affirmed most goals of the LGBT lobby in a tweet, she added, “But force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real? #IStandWithMaya #ThisIsNotADrill.”
Rowling found out that the “intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment” that Judge Tayler referred to is more typically found on the other side of the argument. The derogatory term ‘TERF’ (trans-exclusionary radical feminists), which was tweeted by 21 candidates who ran the recent U.K. elections, was immediately smeared onto Rowling.
Blogger Jane Aldridge (@sea_of_shoes) tweeted, “TERFs really exhibit some of the most hateful, hideous, and deranged behavior I’ve ever seen, truly scum of the earth level. Congrats JK Rowling for joining them. What a horrible evil way to use your influence. I hate her and I hope something bad happens to her now.”
It’s an upside-down world when “male people are not women” is hateful but “I hate her” is not. No wonder, then, that the Scottish Government has proposed a Gender Recognition Act to let anyone aged 16 or over change genders by mere declaration. “No doctors, no surgery, no checks. Just sign a form,” Fair Play for Women explains. The transgender revolution marches on, with free speech and biological reality trampled underfoot.
fcpp.org/2020/01/10/transgender-revolution-tramples-free-speech/
In the U.K. and much of the western world, women and even transgenders themselves, are less able to express opposition to transgender ideology. The transgender lobby has flipped from supposed tolerance to an out-and-out intolerance for anyone in society that opposes them. The cases of think tank employee Maya Forstater and teacher Debbie Hayton prove this in remarkable fashion.
It would be ridiculous to suggest that Debbie Hayton has a hate-on for transgenders because the 51-year-old physics teacher is one herself. She transitioned in 2012 and for the past five years, has sat on the LGBT committee of the Trades Union Congress (TUC).
Now 12 colleagues on the committee want her out. Her crime? She attended a Fair Play for Women event and wore a T-shirt that read, “Trans women are men. Get over it!”
Not only do some refuse to get over it, they refuse that anyone could even say so.
The complaint was delivered to Frances O’Grady, general secretary of the TUC, a federation of unions that represents 5.5 million workers. The claim says the T-shirt had “gone beyond discourse, and the expression of alternative viewpoints, and is now propagating hate speech against the trans community.”
By this measure, “Trans women are men,” is acceptable but, “Get over it!” is hateful. The greatest affront to those who demand affirmation everywhere is being called to a change of mind and practice.
Nicolla Williams founded Fair Play for Women, an advocacy group where Hayton wore the T-shirt. Williams says, “When even trans people can get called transphobes, I hope people now understand how ludicrous and far-fetched these attacks have always been. The trans movement has been hijacked by gender extremists.”
Kristina Harrison would agree. The 54 year old has lived as a male-to-female transgender for more than 20 years, but acknowledges biological sex can’t be changed. She says other transgenders who share her views “are afraid to speak out because not only is there an extremely toxic debate on Twitter where they are being attacked from both sides. But also, within our community, the idea around gender identity is very intolerant of any dissent.”
Intolerance from the tolerant? You don’t say.
Harrison has been called a “Nazi facilitator” and “scum” for her views. But she cites Winston Churchill who said, “The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.”
Harrison made these statements at a tribunal on behalf of ousted employee Maya Forstater. The Centre for Global Development (CDG), a U.S. think tank with offices in London, England, refused to renew Forstater’s contract after her tweet that said, “male people are not women.” Harrison went to the courts to defend this “gender critical” philosophical view as deserving of protection under the Equality Act of 2010.
“The process of having surgery or hormone treatment cannot ultimately transform your sex,” Ms. Harrison told the tribunal. “Every cell in my body has male chromosomes. I have a prostate. These things cannot be completely deconstructed. It is not possible to be biologically female.” Her witness statement said that attempts to “legally coerce society” into treating males as females in all circumstances “is inevitably doomed to fail.”
Judge James Tayler disagreed in his judgment delivered on December 18, 2019: “I conclude from … the totality of the evidence, that [Forstater] is absolutist in her view of sex and it is a core component of her belief that she will refer to a person by the sex she considered appropriate even if it violates their dignity and/or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. The approach is not worthy of respect in a democratic society.”
In response, Forstater said, “This judgment removes women’s rights and the right to freedom of belief and speech. It gives judicial licence for women and men who speak up for objective truth and clear debate to be subject to aggression, bullying, no-platforming and economic punishment.”
Forstater also stated, “the shock and disbelief I feel at reading this judgment . . . will be shared by the vast majority of people who are familiar with my case.”
This included Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling. After she affirmed most goals of the LGBT lobby in a tweet, she added, “But force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real? #IStandWithMaya #ThisIsNotADrill.”
Rowling found out that the “intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment” that Judge Tayler referred to is more typically found on the other side of the argument. The derogatory term ‘TERF’ (trans-exclusionary radical feminists), which was tweeted by 21 candidates who ran the recent U.K. elections, was immediately smeared onto Rowling.
Blogger Jane Aldridge (@sea_of_shoes) tweeted, “TERFs really exhibit some of the most hateful, hideous, and deranged behavior I’ve ever seen, truly scum of the earth level. Congrats JK Rowling for joining them. What a horrible evil way to use your influence. I hate her and I hope something bad happens to her now.”
It’s an upside-down world when “male people are not women” is hateful but “I hate her” is not. No wonder, then, that the Scottish Government has proposed a Gender Recognition Act to let anyone aged 16 or over change genders by mere declaration. “No doctors, no surgery, no checks. Just sign a form,” Fair Play for Women explains. The transgender revolution marches on, with free speech and biological reality trampled underfoot.
fcpp.org/2020/01/10/transgender-revolution-tramples-free-speech/
Transgender Privilege: Why Must We All Be Forced to Bow to It?
The subject of this article is transgenderism, the advocacy for and encouragement of individuals changing genders. It is not about individuals who have engaged, to one degree or other, in changing genders. These are our follow citizens and fellow community members, who should have the same rights, and are due the same consideration, as all of our fellow citizens and community members.
Transgenderism is said to be a response to gender dysphoria, which the American Psychiatric Association defines as follows:
Psychiatric, psychological, and therapeutic professions like to identify official “disorders” that they can then treat. And, of course, there are some people in acute distress and dysfunction, who need treatment. But most people fall along a long continuum, with many grades of discomfort. Therefore, some caution should be taken in diagnosing and treating to ensure that people’s discomforts are not reified into syndromes, conditions, and illnesses by overenthusiastic professional and politically motivated activists. It was not long ago that psychologists and psychiatrists regarded homosexuality as a mental disease.
Another dysphoria coming into prominence is age dysphoria — discomfort with one’s chronological age. Age dysphoria has already shown up in a court petition for a change of birthday. A Dutch man in relatively youthful physical shape, confirmed by his doctor, was very unhappy with his chronological age of 69, and petitionedfor his birthday to be changed to 20 years younger so he would be more attractive to women. Bio-ethicist Joona Räsänen from the University of Oslo, in her article “A Moral Case for Legal Age Change” in The Journal of Medical Ethics, argues that there are three scenarios in which a person should be allowed to legally change his or her age:
One issue that has arisen in dysphoria and identity claims, is what is the obligation of the public, of other people, and governments to recognize these claims? In recent times transracialism has been rejected in highly publicized cases. Senator Warren has been taken to the woodshed by American Indians. Rachel Dolezal was forced to resign as president of the NAACP chapter.
But in regard to gender identity claims, there is great pressure for the public to call a transgender individual what that person wishes to be called, which might be a newly invented pronoun. Laws have been enacted that directly or indirectly threaten members of the public if they do not conform in their speech to transgender preferences. Canadian bill C-16 is explained by the Minister of Justice as follows:
Other observers claim that not using preferred pronouns would not rise to the level of a crime.
However, anyone familiar with the suppression of free speech by the Canadian Human Rights Commissions and Tribunals will have no confidence in the reasonable application of C-16. While the speech-suppressing Section 13 of Canadian National Human Rights Commission mandate was removed after a public controversy, the Provincial Human Rights Commissions maintain the tainted section, and continue to attack speech, for example the Alberta Human Rights Act, Section 3(1)b.
Not using preferred pronouns and names is clearly against the law in New York City. According to New York City Commission on Human Rights Legal Enforcement Guidance on Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Expression: Local Law No. 3 (2002); N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(23):
Also illegal in New York City is “2. Refusing To Allow People To Utilize Single-Gender Facilities and Programs Most Closely Aligned with Their Gender.”
Here we move from required speech to other required behavior. Once again, claims of gender must be honored, disregarding anyone else’s claims. At this point, we must address the relationship between biological sex and gender identity. The reality is that there is no such thing as transsexual change. Male genetic, structural, physiological, and muscular characteristics cannot be changed to female however many hormone treatments or however much plastic surgery is undertaken. Males can take on some superficial characteristics of females, but can never become biologically female. Some trans females have functioning penises and testicles, which is certainly not sexually female. Nor can biological females ever become males, although they can take on a greater appearance of being male, or at least being less female. So, when we introduce trans females into female spaces, we are in fact introducing biological males into those spaces. There are many women less than delighted at this prospect: “Under the pretext of inclusion, all these changes are removing from women the right to privacy, dignity and safety by allowing any man to enter women-only spaces such as toilets, showers, sports clubs, and women’ rape refuges: thus erasing women and their rights.”
All people have a right to try to live the way they want; that is how John Stuart Mill defined freedom. But Mill’s proviso was that your liberty could not negate others’ liberty. Shoving your way of life down other people’s throat is a violation of their liberty. The special privileges granted to gender identity do undermine the liberty of others.
The special privileges of trans females also extend to participation in female sports. Notwithstanding the physical advantages that biological males enjoy over biological females in sports, trans females have been welcomed in female sports, not by the female athletes, but by sports federations and governments. For example, “the IOC decided before the 2004 Athens Summer Games that athletes who had undergone sex reassignment surgery would be permitted to compete in all future Olympic Games, provided that they met certain criteria on duration of hormonal treatment or timing of surgery.” And in the latest 2019 news:
But, wait, the worst is yet to come. The American Academy of Pediatrics says that transgenderism should be “affirmed” in small children, even in their first years. The new guidelines from the AAP explicitly eliminate any role for age in the evaluation of the child.
People do not get to be something just by saying so. I can falsely say I am an astronaut, but I should not be able to force anyone to treat me as if I were an astronaut, to call me Astronaut X. I can say I am a professor, which is, in fact, true, but I cannot by force of law require people to call me professor. I could say I am black, but no one is obliged to accept me as black and address me in those terms, or to admit me into their exclusive black circle. “What particular privilege has this little agitation of the brain,” as David Hume put it, called identity that it must be sanctified in law, and everyone be forced to bow to it?
fcpp.org/2019/05/15/transgender-privilege-why-must-we-all-be-forced-to-bow-to-it/
The subject of this article is transgenderism, the advocacy for and encouragement of individuals changing genders. It is not about individuals who have engaged, to one degree or other, in changing genders. These are our follow citizens and fellow community members, who should have the same rights, and are due the same consideration, as all of our fellow citizens and community members.
Transgenderism is said to be a response to gender dysphoria, which the American Psychiatric Association defines as follows:
Gender dysphoria involves a conflict between a person’s physical or assigned gender and the gender with which he/she/they identify. People with gender dysphoria may be very uncomfortable with the gender they were assigned, sometimes described as being uncomfortable with their body (particularly developments during puberty) or being uncomfortable with the expected roles of their assigned gender.
The APA regards gender dysphoria as a mental disorder, discussing diagnosis and treatment. The APA guidelines on treatment are as follows:
Treatment options for gender dysphoria include counseling, cross-sex hormones, puberty suppression and gender reassignment surgery. Some adults may have a strong desire to be of a different gender and to be treated as a different gender without seeking medical treatment or altering their body. They may only want support to feel comfortable in their gender identity. Others may want more extensive treatment including hormone treatment and gender reassignment surgery leading to a transition to the opposite sex. Some may choose hormone treatment or surgery alone.
The discussion of gender dysphoria usually treats it as a unique case human discomfort, often recommending radical measures for correction. But perhaps gender dysphoria should be considered with the context of the wide range of dysphoria experienced by people, such as body dysphoria. For example, the Anxiety and Depression Association of America defines it as follows:
People who have body dysmorphic disorder (BDD) think about their real or perceived flaws for hours each day. They can’t control their negative thoughts and don’t believe people who tell them that they look fine. Their thoughts may cause severe emotional distress and interfere with their daily functioning. They may miss work or school, avoid social situations and isolate themselves, even from family and friends, because they fear others will notice their flaws.
The ADAA recognizes that BDD is just an extreme expression of a widely experienced discontent: “Most of us have something we don’t like about our appearance — a crooked nose, an uneven smile, or eyes that are too large or too small. And though we may fret about our imperfections, they don’t interfere with our daily lives.”
Psychiatric, psychological, and therapeutic professions like to identify official “disorders” that they can then treat. And, of course, there are some people in acute distress and dysfunction, who need treatment. But most people fall along a long continuum, with many grades of discomfort. Therefore, some caution should be taken in diagnosing and treating to ensure that people’s discomforts are not reified into syndromes, conditions, and illnesses by overenthusiastic professional and politically motivated activists. It was not long ago that psychologists and psychiatrists regarded homosexuality as a mental disease.
Another dysphoria coming into prominence is age dysphoria — discomfort with one’s chronological age. Age dysphoria has already shown up in a court petition for a change of birthday. A Dutch man in relatively youthful physical shape, confirmed by his doctor, was very unhappy with his chronological age of 69, and petitionedfor his birthday to be changed to 20 years younger so he would be more attractive to women. Bio-ethicist Joona Räsänen from the University of Oslo, in her article “A Moral Case for Legal Age Change” in The Journal of Medical Ethics, argues that there are three scenarios in which a person should be allowed to legally change his or her age:
When the person in question “genuinely feels his age differs significantly from his chronological age,” when “the person’s biological age is recognized to be significantly different from his chronological age,” and when “age change would likely prevent, stop, or reduce ageism” that “he would otherwise face.”
A final example, although I am sure there are more, is race dysphoria — discomfort about one’s race. Historically, some blacks would “pass” for white, thus gaining higher racial status. Today with the strong anti-white messages in academia and the mainstream media, some people are not happy being white. The basic premise of “social justice” academia today is that whites are all racist and oppress all people of color. It is thus no wonder that today some whites suffer from racial dysphoria. Take Senator Elizabeth Warren, who officially stated that she was Native American Indian, more specifically Cherokee, a declaration that aided her educational and political mobility. Another example is Rachel Dolezal, who was president of the Spokane chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Although her parents are white, she insists that “I identify as black.”
She said published accounts described her first as “transracial,” then “biracial,” then as “a black woman.” “I never corrected that,” she conceded, adding that “it’s more complex than being true or false in that particular instance.” [Emphasis added.]
Racial dysphoria thus joins age, body, and gender dysphoria as an example of discomfort with one’s condition, and identity as the legitimizing factor that justifies claiming to be something else.
One issue that has arisen in dysphoria and identity claims, is what is the obligation of the public, of other people, and governments to recognize these claims? In recent times transracialism has been rejected in highly publicized cases. Senator Warren has been taken to the woodshed by American Indians. Rachel Dolezal was forced to resign as president of the NAACP chapter.
Dolezal’s career as a civil rights activist in the Pacific Northwestcrumbled in the past few days. She resigned Monday as president of the Spokane, Washington, branch of the NAACP, lost her position as a part-time African studies instructor at a local university, was fired as a freelance newspaper columnist and is being investigated by city Ethics Commission over whether she lied about her race on her application when she landed an appointment to Spokane’s police oversight board.
Emile Ratelbrand had no better luck with his age dysphoria:
A Dutch district court refused his request on Monday, saying it did not find any reason in his arguments for a change in policy. The key reason why the court said no to Ratelband’s request is because aging comes with special rights and privileges, like a requirement to attend school, and a right to vote. If Mr. Ratelband’s request was allowed, those age requirements would become meaningless,” the court said in a written statement on its website.
In these cases, the identity claimed was imaginary and not in accord with the facts. But there is a question of whether identity claims even if factual must be validated by others. There are many individuals who hold appointments as “professor” in a higher education institution. Does that oblige members of the public to address them as “professor” or the government to legally require people to address them as professor? Clearly not, although some people may use the term of address as a courtesy. In the cases where identity claims do not accord with the facts, such as transracial identities, are other people obliged to accept the claimed identity, and the government obliged to enforce public acceptance of the identity? Clearly not. If people with body dysphoria claim to be physically hideous, are others and government laws obliged to validate that? Clearly not.
But in regard to gender identity claims, there is great pressure for the public to call a transgender individual what that person wishes to be called, which might be a newly invented pronoun. Laws have been enacted that directly or indirectly threaten members of the public if they do not conform in their speech to transgender preferences. Canadian bill C-16 is explained by the Minister of Justice as follows:
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.
Some observers see this bill as mandating identifying preferred pronouns, and penalizing as discrimination and hate speech any usage not dictated by transgender individuals and activists.
Other observers claim that not using preferred pronouns would not rise to the level of a crime.
However, anyone familiar with the suppression of free speech by the Canadian Human Rights Commissions and Tribunals will have no confidence in the reasonable application of C-16. While the speech-suppressing Section 13 of Canadian National Human Rights Commission mandate was removed after a public controversy, the Provincial Human Rights Commissions maintain the tainted section, and continue to attack speech, for example the Alberta Human Rights Act, Section 3(1)b.
Not using preferred pronouns and names is clearly against the law in New York City. According to New York City Commission on Human Rights Legal Enforcement Guidance on Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Expression: Local Law No. 3 (2002); N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(23):
1. Failing To Use the Name or Pronouns with Which a Person Self-Identifies
The NYCHRL requires employers and covered entities to use the name, pronouns, and title (e.g., Ms./Mrs./Mx.)15 with which a person self-identifies, regardless of the person’s sex assigned at birth, anatomy, gender, medical history, appearance, or the sex indicated on the person’s identification. All people, including employees, tenants, customers, and participants in programs, have the right to use and have others use their name and pronouns. [Emphasis in text added.]
Penalties for violation can lead to fines up to $250,000. This is a remarkable special privilege extended to people who identify as a different gender, which other citizens have not been granted. And the converse of speech being dictated is that free speech has been disallowed, all with legal sanction and penalties.
Also illegal in New York City is “2. Refusing To Allow People To Utilize Single-Gender Facilities and Programs Most Closely Aligned with Their Gender.”
Here we move from required speech to other required behavior. Once again, claims of gender must be honored, disregarding anyone else’s claims. At this point, we must address the relationship between biological sex and gender identity. The reality is that there is no such thing as transsexual change. Male genetic, structural, physiological, and muscular characteristics cannot be changed to female however many hormone treatments or however much plastic surgery is undertaken. Males can take on some superficial characteristics of females, but can never become biologically female. Some trans females have functioning penises and testicles, which is certainly not sexually female. Nor can biological females ever become males, although they can take on a greater appearance of being male, or at least being less female. So, when we introduce trans females into female spaces, we are in fact introducing biological males into those spaces. There are many women less than delighted at this prospect: “Under the pretext of inclusion, all these changes are removing from women the right to privacy, dignity and safety by allowing any man to enter women-only spaces such as toilets, showers, sports clubs, and women’ rape refuges: thus erasing women and their rights.”
All people have a right to try to live the way they want; that is how John Stuart Mill defined freedom. But Mill’s proviso was that your liberty could not negate others’ liberty. Shoving your way of life down other people’s throat is a violation of their liberty. The special privileges granted to gender identity do undermine the liberty of others.
The special privileges of trans females also extend to participation in female sports. Notwithstanding the physical advantages that biological males enjoy over biological females in sports, trans females have been welcomed in female sports, not by the female athletes, but by sports federations and governments. For example, “the IOC decided before the 2004 Athens Summer Games that athletes who had undergone sex reassignment surgery would be permitted to compete in all future Olympic Games, provided that they met certain criteria on duration of hormonal treatment or timing of surgery.” And in the latest 2019 news:
Every House Democrat but one [234] has co-sponsored a bill requiring schools to allow male athletes who identify as transgender girls to compete on female sports teams. Democrats’ Equality Act would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to make “sexual orientation and gender identity” protected characteristics under federal anti-discrimination law. Among other things, the bill would force public schools to expand female athletic teams to include biological males who identify as transgender girls.
This rule is already in force in some states, such as in Connecticut, where “two male runners have dominated girls’ high school track. A female competitor called the male runners’ advantage ‘demoralizing.’” These initiatives appear to raise identity over biological reality, and to value trans rights over women’s rights. This could legitimately be called intentional misogyny.
But, wait, the worst is yet to come. The American Academy of Pediatrics says that transgenderism should be “affirmed” in small children, even in their first years. The new guidelines from the AAP explicitly eliminate any role for age in the evaluation of the child.
According to the new guidelines, any child who wants to transition to the other sex should be “affirmed.” Regardless of age. If a five-year-old boy tells you that he is a girl, your job is to buy him a dress and change his name to Emily. Any other response is outdated and transphobic. The authors specifically reject any “watchful waiting” for prepubescent children.
Let small children decide, the AAP says, even with life-changing and irreversible procedures, ignoring what many studies have shown, and the advice of the American Psychiatric Association that “For many children the feelings do not continue into adolescence and adulthood.” Add to this the fact that peer pressure has been part of the massive upsurge in alleged “dysphoria,” and the seriousness of the disorder, at least for rapid onset dysphoria, is dubious, more a fad arising from social relations than a psychiatric illness. Are we confident that the American Academy of Pediatrics has been sufficiently prudent in its apparent enthusiasm for transgender sentiments in children? Why has a waiting policy been so vigorously rejected?
People do not get to be something just by saying so. I can falsely say I am an astronaut, but I should not be able to force anyone to treat me as if I were an astronaut, to call me Astronaut X. I can say I am a professor, which is, in fact, true, but I cannot by force of law require people to call me professor. I could say I am black, but no one is obliged to accept me as black and address me in those terms, or to admit me into their exclusive black circle. “What particular privilege has this little agitation of the brain,” as David Hume put it, called identity that it must be sanctified in law, and everyone be forced to bow to it?
fcpp.org/2019/05/15/transgender-privilege-why-must-we-all-be-forced-to-bow-to-it/
