[__ Science __ ] Male Lawmaker Claims He Is “Every Bit as Biologically Female” As a Woman

[Milk-Drops]

I'll be quoting from this information update from the Canadian government.

There are two laws being used in tandem. This first is called OHRC.


The second is BIll C-16.


And finally,

Thank you for providing this, this is mostly what I wanted to see because we can talk hypotheticals all day, but without referencing specific laws we can go anywhere.

We should recall that this is Canadian law and we were talking about US law originally with the 2 congress personnel and then about the election of Donald Trump. Canada and the US differ mainly on the stances on free speech. The US is one of the most protective when it comes to free speech and harassment laws, hate speech laws, and discrimination laws are very hard to enforce due to how US law demands that the injured party demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the hate crime, harassment, or discrimination took place.

There is law which can be used to compel compliance at the risk of criminal offence. All you have to do is prove the person is harassing you. I agree that harassment is a real thing that really happens. There really are hateful people acting out, and it is not acceptable. Harassed people do need to be protected. I don't think even the strongest opponents of compulsary use of preferred pronuns would agree with harassment.

Saying all you have to do is prove the person is harassing you is a large burden of proof. To date no one has been prosecuted under bill C-16 and the bill was ratified 7 years ago. Its no easy feat demonstrating harassment.

But, is it really harassment that I may choose not to participate in your ideals about yourself?

As I mentioned before, you seem to want to make a protection for trans and gender non conforming people about you. The situation would have to be you finding a trans person, declaring to them you will not use their pronouns, purposely call attention to you not using their pronouns, and repeated behavior.

That would fall under harassment in that situation. If you did it in passing or by accident it wouldn't be harassment. Harassment usually demands that you are doing a behavior on purpose or a grand gesture where you call attention to your behavior so its known that its because of a person's identity. Jordan Peterson who got his first notoriety in online political spaces was a large opponent to the bill and was not charged with anything related to harassment. You are even using some of his talking points verbatim. This is not a knock on Peterson because I remember when he started getting attention and I watched his youtube channel and several of his lectures. I fell away when he started becoming more of a political talking head. The man is clearly intelligent, but he was wrong about Bill C-16 and many called him out for it. He ended up losing his professorship not due to harassment, but due to his misrepresentation of the bill itself and causing multiple protests at the University of Toronto.

I mean, if you come to me in a friendly way, I might choose to participate out of care for you, especially since the way a person wants to be identified isn't a moral issue.

But, I don't want to be compelled to. You can see this happening in the Jordan Peterson video that propelled him into the spotlight, where he's arguing with all those young people at a university. Even staunch advocates for lgbt protections expressed some embarassment for how the students behaved, shouting Jordan down and getting in to personal attacks.

But, in one particilar part, One of the kids asks if someone politely requested him to use their preferred pronouns, would he, and he replied, "I'd consider it, though it'd depend on the manner in which it was asked" and the kid immediately shouted back, "So, no!?!?" Becasue Jordan did not conform immedately, without reservation, the kid concluded that he was being stubborn. The comment was framed as a question, but in his mind he was thinking of it as an ultimatum; if you don't comply, you're bad.

I think this is an area where the harassment can work in the opposite direction. Sometimes these nonconforming people are dressed in a way the brings confusion, like a woman dressed like a man and then getting upset when someone uses a male pronoun for her.

I had a feeling when you were using Dr. Peterson's arguments this would go this way. As I already mentioned I'm not hating on the man. Some context for the video is that Dr. Peterson misunderstood the bill because he is not compelled to do anything unless he puts himself into a situation where he would call attention to the person. His argument is so far in the abstract that it requires a perfect storm of situations to happen to get to a point where Peterson would get accused of legal harassment.

Lets also remember that this video is of a protest with young college students. Demonstrations are a very bad place to have thoughtful dialogue due to emotions running high and large groups egging each other on. Its basically chaos. Not to mention Peterson is talking to young kids who don't have much power on their own to do anything to him.

Peterson comes out looking good because he is older, well spoken, and kept a level head. The college students were amped up and full of intention, but don't have the nuance or experience to fully argue their point, nor are in the proper headspace to be receptive.

And, then there's people who sometimes want to be called he and sometimes want to be called she, and then at times some other thing. If you're not familiar with the outrage some people express at being misgendered, sometimes from the first interaction, you can try a search for it on youtube, as there are many examples. If the offender doesn't immediately apologize for the mistake, the nonconformist gets offended and then it becomes a domination game where, if you don't apologize, then you could be cited for harassment.

I'm very well aware of sjw cringe compilations. I remember when those videos got a lot of attention on the youtube algorithm from 2014 to 2017. Its similar to other cringe compilations where the humor is we are seeing videos specifically of people (usually young people) being cartoonish. Karens became the big ones after that. Left wing freak out vids and right wing freak out vids. Any demographic is going to have jerks.

The main takeaway is that no has been prosecuted under c-16. Probably because its very expensive to sue someone, let alone sue someone for harassment. Unless your case is very solid lawyers won't waste their time unless you throw a lot of money at them.

I mean, consider this quote from the article:

The obvious implication here is that choosing not to adhere to a person's demands about what they should be called could amount to incitement of genocide. I mean, rationally, no of course it is not, but when so much of the discussion is based on the way a person feels about themselves, it is not a streth for emotional people to argue that they are victims of genocide. It would be foolish of them, but the damage is already done when other people identify with those feelings and themselves start promoting the genocide argument. The word evokes big feelings.

You don't win court cases on feelings. You need to demonstrate that harassment took place. Even in the court of public opinion the person getting "harassed" has to be somewhat noteworthy.

For example, Dave Chapele made some trans jokes and it upset some people. It didn't hurt his career, his specials on Netflix were very sucessful. Its like I said in an earlier post the only people who can cancle you are your audience. Trans people were a very small part of Chapel's audience. It didn't matter.

There was a huge kerfuffle over the years because of J.K. Rowlings comments on trans, to the point that abc news had to release a statement assuring the world that J.K. would not be arrested for her comments. Because, that many people were calling for her to be arrested, with abc itself needing to retract some of their comments about her, because they'd hopped on the outrage bandwagon.

ABC was clarifying that even though many were offended by what Rowling said, it wasn't illegal. She still ended up causing a lot of damage to her own fanbase because she kept doubling down and eventually may have actually gotten into legal trouble recently for spreading misinformation about an olympic athlete based on rumors. She still tweets, but she hasn't had anything happen to her as far as we know now.

So, yeah, the trans community has suffered a lot over the decades and that is not right, but now they are going the opposite way.

No one has been proecuted under the law you cited thought. Its been around for 7 years.

 

[Uncle J]

In discussions like this, I can't help but wonder how often it actually comes up in real life.

How often do you come across a trans person?

Of those times, how often are you aware that they're trans?

Of the times where you knowingly encounter a trans person, how often do you have to decide how to address them?

And of those times, how often are you actually forced to address them in any specific way?

The main situations I can think of that meet all of those criteria are at work, where maybe you have a trans co-worker and your employer has a policy about referring to trans workers by their preferred names and pronouns. But situations are between you and your employer, and if you don't like their policy you're free to go work somewhere else. Free market and all....

And really, I think it would help if we all understood that we don't have to express our views and opinions on everyone else's lives and decisions. I have some strong opinions about religion, but I don't immediately say them every time I meet a religious person. I may disagree with their lives, beliefs, and/or choices, but I can still treat them politely and with respect.

So that's the bigger question here.....is there a reason some folks can't just be polite and treat trans people with respect?

 

[Tim Broom]

The main situations I can think of that meet all of those criteria are at work, where maybe you have a trans co-worker and your employer has a policy about referring to trans workers by their preferred names and pronouns. But situations are between you and your employer, and if you don't like their policy you're free to go work somewhere else. Free market and all....

Whether it's criminal, or in the case of your example with the employer who fires the employee, civil, the underlying lesson is still consistent; there will be punishment for those who do not participate in supporting the personal views that trans people hold about themselves.

 

[Uncle J]

Whether it's criminal, or in the case of your example with the employer who fires the employee, civil, the underlying lesson is still consistent; there will be punishment for those who do not participate in supporting the personal views that trans people hold about themselves.

Not really. The employee who refuses to be polite to his coworkers isn't being fired for not supporting them, but for being rude to them.

I have co-workers who are Christians, and no one ever demands that I support their beliefs. However, if I treat them rudely (e.g., by referring to them in ways they don't like) there will be consequences. The difference between those two is important.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Whether it's criminal, or in the case of your example with the employer who fires the employee, civil, the underlying lesson is still consistent; there will be punishment for those who do not participate in supporting the personal views that trans people hold about themselves.

Just like how racists and sexists are punished. You live in a multicultural society, you have to navigate. You don't have to agree with anyone, but you must be civil.

 

[Barbarian]

Its not as easy to make ftm trans people to look scary, so they are not reported on as much.

At some point, if people get tiresome, I ask them how many drag queens have been caught molesting children compared to pastors of churches.

 

[Barbarian]

Whether it's criminal, or in the case of your example with the employer who fires the employee, civil, the underlying lesson is still consistent; there will be punishment for those who do not participate in supporting the personal views that trans people hold about themselves.

You can disagree with people, but you are limited in what you can do to them over such disagreements. If you can't be civil, be very careful. Golden Rule applies here; if you'd feel oppressed if you couldn't wear a cross, then you should have the sense to not object to others openly displaying their beliefs.

And there's a huge difference between openly displaying your beliefs, and telling others that they are (going to hell, racists, homophobes, etc. ). Keep that in mind.

 

[KV-44-v1]

We literally have a president right now who has mad his political career by being a bully and ridiculing his opponents.

That is all the small side. Your view of trump is pigeonholed.
I can make YOU look angry too, by qouting various words from random posts of yours.
If you believe thats all there is to Trump, that's easily refutable.

 

[KV-44-v1]

a

 

[KV-44-v1]

by referring to them in ways they don't like)

If you refer to them as their true, genetic gender, as opposed to their madeup one, that is as rude as telling a flat earther the earth is a globe.
They may dislike it, and even react, but that doesnt mean its rude. Best to stay grounded in reality.

 

[WIP]

In discussions like this, I can't help but wonder how often it actually comes up in real life.

How often do you come across a trans person?

Of those times, how often are you aware that they're trans?

Of the times where you knowingly encounter a trans person, how often do you have to decide how to address them?

And of those times, how often are you actually forced to address them in any specific way?

The main situations I can think of that meet all of those criteria are at work, where maybe you have a trans co-worker and your employer has a policy about referring to trans workers by their preferred names and pronouns. But situations are between you and your employer, and if you don't like their policy you're free to go work somewhere else. Free market and all....

And really, I think it would help if we all understood that we don't have to express our views and opinions on everyone else's lives and decisions. I have some strong opinions about religion, but I don't immediately say them every time I meet a religious person. I may disagree with their lives, beliefs, and/or choices, but I can still treat them politely and with respect.

So that's the bigger question here.....is there a reason some folks can't just be polite and treat trans people with respect?

Not very often. According to a recent gallop poll conducted in March 2024, just a little under 8% of all Americans identify as LGBTQ+. What percentage of them make up transexuals? So, the odds of even knowing a trans person are very low.

That said, I live in a small rural community in central Minnesota, and I grew up in a small town in northern Minnesota with a high school graduating class 34. Surprisingly, I know of at least 3 classmates that were gay. I didn't know it at the time but learned about it later. Two of them have since passed and the other is a friend on Facebook.

One of my daughter's close male friends is a professing gay as well and in fact was in her wedding party as her bridal attendant. When I met him, I did not know he was gay, and he never brought it up. It was my daughter that informed me of this. I just treat him as I do anyone else I meet - with respect. As it says in Proverbs 25:21-22, it is best to treat even our enemies with kindness and dignity for in so doing we may lead them to the Lord.

With me respect isn't earned. The most respect you'll ever get from me is when we first meet. After that, it's up to you how much of my respect you keep and likewise I expect the other way around also holds true.

I can disagree or not support someone's ideologies or views but that does not mean I cannot respect them, the person and treat them with dignity.

I'm reminded of the story of the woman the scribes and Pharisees were intent to stone for prostitution, John 8:2-12. Even according to Jewish law, she was supposed to be stoned and yet Jesus spoke to her with respect and dignity. Is that not how we too are to treat others?

 

[Uncle J]

If you refer to them as their true, genetic gender, as opposed to their madeup one, that is as rude as telling a flat earther the earth is a globe.
They may dislike it, and even react, but that doesnt mean its rude. Best to stay grounded in reality.

But why do you feel the need to do that?

Basically, why is it even any of your business?

 

[Uncle J]

Not very often. According to a recent gallop poll conducted in March 2024, just a little under 8% of all Americans identify as LGBTQ+. What percentage of them make up transexuals? So, the odds of even knowing a trans person are very low.

That said, I live in a small rural community in central Minnesota, and I grew up in a small town in northern Minnesota with a high school graduating class 34. Surprisingly, I know of at least 3 classmates that were gay. I didn't know it at the time but learned about it later. Two of them have since passed and the other is a friend on Facebook.

One of my daughter's close male friends is a professing gay as well and in fact was in her wedding party as her bridal attendant. When I met him, I did not know he was gay, and he never brought it up. It was my daughter that informed me of this. I just treat him as I do anyone else I meet - with respect. As it says in Proverbs 25:21-22, it is best to treat even our enemies with kindness and dignity for in so doing we may lead them to the Lord.

With me respect isn't earned. The most respect you'll ever get from me is when we first meet. After that, it's up to you how much of my respect you keep and likewise I expect the other way around also holds true.

I can disagree or not support someone's ideologies or views but that does not mean I cannot respect them, the person and treat them with dignity.

I'm reminded of the story of the woman the scribes and Pharisees were intent to stone for prostitution, John 8:2-12. Even according to Jewish law, she was supposed to be stoned and yet Jesus spoke to her with respect and dignity. Is that not how we too are to treat others?

If I could give your post a "winner" rating, I would. Very well put!

 

[Milk-Drops]

That is all the small side. Your view of trump is pigeonholed.
I can make YOU look angry too, by qouting various words from random posts of yours.
If you believe thats all there is to Trump, that's easily refutable.

That is not my entire view of Trump, but a part of what I observed of his campaign. My position is not that Trump is a meanie.

 

[Milk-Drops]

If you refer to them as their true, genetic gender, as opposed to their madeup one, that is as rude as telling a flat earther the earth is a globe.
They may dislike it, and even react, but that doesnt mean its rude. Best to stay grounded in reality.

Unless you demand birth certificates and genital inspections of everyone you meet, you are not likely to even know you are talking to a trans person. For instance, this article is about another Congresswoman call8ng attention to a transperson as a statement to congress.Mace is the one that made this everyone's business.

 

[Christ_empowered]

I do wonder ? sometimes how and why all things trans and watered down gender theory became hot button issues.

I seem to recall reading that there are fewer ftm than mtf because the male gender role is more restrictive so there’s less breathing room. Something like that, anyway.

I’m just…not particularly fond of the mental health industry in general especially the medical model of mental illness. Seems to be a massive failure…

And one sees that in the solutions offered for gender distress. My understanding is that the suicide rate remains high even with all the treatment imaginable. But then again…

Loop ? back into the medical model of mental illness and that’s the same outcome. Schizophrenia? Take these miracle pills ?. Bipolar I? Look at these shiny pills ?! And then….

Disability rates for severe mental illness are higher now than 60 years ago. Lifespan for people with severe mental illnesses is about 15 years lower than peers. Talking treatments are often equally ineffective and researchers are just recently examining the negative effects talking treatments can have on many people.

I dunno ?‍ on a personal note ? I’m a gay but not a gender non conforming gay. Thing is…

I was a gender non conforming gay and it was crazy making. I skimmed an abstract once about C-PTSD in the gender nonconforming gay male sample and it made sense…

A sort of low level nonstop trauma from simply being unable to fit in. But…

What’s a viable solution?

I dunno ? I’m generally respectful of people and their rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness…

But I find myself having a bit of disdain for the helping professions and increasing mental health awareness etc that’s taking over the media.

Sorry ? to ramble on and on….

Life is often cruel and we all need answers and many of us long for solutions to problems that beset us but….

I find myself increasingly frustrated with the medical model of mental illness and the damage that it causes many people while claiming to help…

 

[Barbarian]

That is all the small side. Your view of trump is pigeonholed.

We've had presidents in the past whose personal lives were despicably corrupt. Trump wasn't the first and won't be the last. Some of them were actually competent. Bill Clinton, for example.

But generally, their lack of personal discipline caused them to fail as president. Trump gets a second chance now. Pray that he does better this time.

 

[Tim Broom]

You can disagree with people, but you are limited in what you can do to them over such disagreements.

I think the assumption here is at the center of the disagreement, i.e. that refusing to use the pronouns a person wants for him/herself, is "doing to them" some offensive thing.

Here is a slightly different example, for comparison. Let us say that someone wants me to call him Mr., a fairly common title in polite society. BUT, the abbreviation, "Mr." literally means master. That is the full word for which the abbreviation stands. But, I only have one master, that is, my creator.

I do not want to use that title for any one else. Yet, this tends to make those people very angry. They say it is a matter of respect and that they deserve the title because they are the authority, or because of some position they hold, or some opinion they have about their sense of place in the social order.

Though they have this exalted opinion about themselves, I do not feel that I must play along with it just to make them happy, even if my refusal hurts the feelings they hold about themselves.

I should not be compelled to use language which I do not want to use, simply for the sake of ensuring that other people maintain their various personal opinions about themselves.

Getting back to the pronouns issue, is not inherently rude to refuse to participate in the various words people want to use about themselves. But, it can be expressed in a rude way. I just think it is unfair to use those examples of rudeness on the part of some people as de facto evidence that all people who reject the compulsion to participate are rude.

Language always changes over time, so I don't have a problem with attempting to incorporate language which is more amiable to a particular group of people; it's nice to consider other people's feelings.

But, no one wants to be compelled to be cooperative, including those people who do the compelling.

 

[Tim Broom]

You don't have to agree with anyone, but you must be civil.

Right, except in the sentence before that you suggested anyone who doesn't participate is akin to a racist and/or sexist.

Just like how racists and sexists are punished.

It comes across like you want to sound reasonable, that no one is being forced to agree, yet if you don't, you get these bad-person labels.

 

[Tim Broom]

I do wonder ? sometimes how and why all things trans and watered down gender theory became hot button issues.

In the Christian world, mostly because it's an outward appearance issue specific to some people so that the criticizers can feel better about themselves, i.e. "You're eating with unwashed hands, so you're a worse person than me!"

If you look at Jesus' teachings, he was far more concerned with with things like greed, self-righteousness, and fear. In Luke 17, he talks about what the world will be like immediately before his return, and refers to the days of Noah and Sodom. What's surprising is that in his list of their problems, there is nothing about sexual immorality.

He says they were eating and drinking, planting and building, buying and selling, and marrying and giving in marriage. According to Jesus, those were the problems which caused God to destroy those places (note: It's not that sexual perversion didn't happen in Sodom, but rather that the more important, underlying problem wasn't sexual in nature).

This is quite similar to the parable about the wedding feast, where the invited guests all make excuses for not coming to the party; one just bought a new field, one just got married, and the other just bought new farm animals.

The lesson in both cases is that what God really hates is complacency. These people started caring more about the cares of the world than what God wanted, and as a result everything they did became perverted. You could also cross ref this with the parable of the sower, where the thorns are described as the "cares of this world" which choke the seed.

Very few people want to examine their lives to the point that they honestly confront their complacency, and all those normal, day to day activities. Like, going to my job; is that really what God wants me to do? Buying this new piece of property, or going to that school, or marrying that person; are those the things God wants me to do? Am I being greedy, or self-righteous?

It's easier to pick at problems in others than to address the problems in ourselves so, much like the Pharisees of their day, Christians today pick at the faults they think they see in others, like sexual preferences. Anything outside of missionary hetero is seen as unwashed hands.

Personally, I think there is some truth in the criticisms of the lgbtq community and their attitude toward religion in general, but the Christian world is in no position to accurately address those problems when they are not dealing with their own problems, first.

If the love of money really is the root of all evil, then it makes sense for Christians to start there.