Bill C16 passes! Rights for Transgender Expression and Identity in Canada!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cherry5
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I do have compassion for those who have gender confusion. I occasionally work directly with public school students who suffer from this, and treat them the same as everyone else.
I’m aware of the scientific meanings of cis and trans. I think you summarize the semantic issue very well here:
“Biological vs. imagined gender.”
The disorder is real. And the American public is coerced to accept that the delusion is real as well. Not just for the sufferer but for everyone. That is what I object to.
Thanks!
The evidence shows the younger a gender dysphoric child is socially transitioned the more likely they are to transition physically. Mentioning that evidenced-based conclusion may one day be deemed hate speech and may land someone in a ‘human rights’ tribunal. It already happened to Canadians republishing the controversial Danish cartoons and criticizing Islam.
 
ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI
ON THE OCCASION OF CHRISTMAS GREETINGS
TO THE ROMAN CURIA
w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2012/december/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20121221_auguri-curia.html
The Chief Rabbi of France, Gilles Bernheim, has shown in a very detailed and profoundly moving study that** the attack we are currently experiencing on the true structure of the family**, made up of father, mother, and child, goes much deeper. While up to now we regarded a false understanding of the nature of human freedom as one cause of the crisis of the family, it is now becoming clear that the very notion of being – of what being human really means – is being called into question. He quotes the famous saying of Simone de Beauvoir: “one is not born a woman, one becomes so” (on ne naît pas femme, on le devient). These words lay the foundation for what is put forward today under the term “gender” as a new philosophy of sexuality. According to this philosophy, sex is no longer a given element of nature, that man has to accept and personally make sense of: it is a social role that we choose for ourselves, while in the past it was chosen for us by society. The profound falsehood of this theory and of the anthropological revolution contained within it is obvious. People dispute the idea that they have a nature, given by their bodily identity, that serves as a defining element of the human being. They deny their nature and decide that it is not something previously given to them, but that they make it for themselves. According to the biblical creation account, being created by God as male and female pertains to the essence of the human creature. **This duality is an essential aspect of what being human is all about, as ordained by God. This very duality as something previously given is what is now disputed. The words of the creation account: “male and female he created them” **(Gen 1:27) no longer apply. No, what applies now is this: it was not God who created them male and female – hitherto society did this, now we decide for ourselves. Man and woman as created realities, as the nature of the human being, no longer exist. Man calls his nature into question. From now on he is merely spirit and will. The manipulation of nature, which we deplore today where our environment is concerned, now becomes man’s fundamental choice where he himself is concerned. From now on there is only the abstract human being, who chooses for himself what his nature is to be. Man and woman in their created state as complementary versions of what it means to be human are disputed. But if there is no pre-ordained duality of man and woman in creation, then neither is the family any longer a reality established by creation. Likewise, the child has lost the place he had occupied hitherto and the dignity pertaining to him. Bernheim shows that now, perforce, from being a subject of rights, the child has become an object to which people have a right and which they have a right to obtain. When the freedom to be creative becomes the freedom to create oneself, then necessarily the Maker himself is denied and ultimately man too is stripped of his dignity as a creature of God, as the image of God at the core of his being. The defence of the family is about man himself. And it becomes clear that when God is denied, human dignity also disappears. Whoever defends God is defending man.
 
Pope calls gender theory a ‘global war’ against the family
cruxnow.com/global-church/2016/10/01/pope-calls-gender-theory-global-war-family/
Pope Francis said on Saturday that there’s a global war trying to destroy marriage, an institution which he described as God’s most beautiful creation.
“A great enemy of marriage today is the theory of gender,” Francis told a group of religious men and women and pastoral agents in Georgia.
“Today, there is a global war trying to destroy marriage… they don’t destroy it with weapons, but with ideas. It’s certain ideological ways of thinking that are destroying it…we have to defend ourselves from ideological colonization,” he said.
 
I agree. This is wonderful.
To lump gender confused individuals in with those who have experienced discrimination and violence because of the color of their skin or their nationality or their poverty is a travesty of the worst kind. It irreparably harms the cause of true social justice.
 
To lump gender confused individuals in with those who have experienced discrimination and violence because of the color of their skin or their nationality or their poverty is a travesty of the worst kind. It irreparably harms the cause of true social justice.
Are you trying tosay transgender people have not experienced discrimination?
 
Are you trying tosay transgender people have not experienced discrimination?
People of color aren’t suffering from a delusion about their skin color. The “transgender” individual is delusional. That said, no one with mental illness should be treated unfairly. But neither should they be enabled and encouraged that their delusion, with concomitant surgical alteration, is healthy.
 
People of color aren’t suffering from a delusion about their skin color. The “transgender” individual is delusional. That said, no one with mental illness should be treated unfairly. But neither should they be enabled and encouraged that their delusion, with concomitant surgical alteration, is healthy.
Read the bold and there you get at the point I’m making in regards to discrimination. There are genuine hate crimes towards transgender people and laws protecting them from unjust acts are to applauded.
Do some of the ideas now considered discrimination not fall under discrimination, yes, but that doesn’t mean that real discrimination doesn’t still happen.
 
The evidence shows the younger a gender dysphoric child is socially transitioned the more likely they are to transition physically. Mentioning that evidenced-based conclusion may one day be deemed hate speech and may land someone in a ‘human rights’ tribunal. It already happened to Canadians republishing the controversial Danish cartoons and criticizing Islam.
Actually, there’s already been a case of a trans-gendered man wanting to join an all women’s gym, and winning his case at the Ontario Human Rights tribunal.

p.s. The man who owned the gym was as liberal as they come, but he still had to dish out money to this trans-gendered man.

theglobeandmail.com/news/national/gym-owner-hit-with-rights-complaint-over-gender/article714291/
 
Read the bold and there you get at the point I’m making in regards to discrimination. There are genuine hate crimes towards transgender people and laws protecting them from unjust acts are to applauded.
Do some of the ideas now considered discrimination not fall under discrimination, yes, but that doesn’t mean that real discrimination doesn’t still happen.
The law is too general (and discriminatory), and if you’ve been reading any of the examples I’ve posted you would know that under said law, anyone claiming to be trans-gendered, even if not fully transitioned in the sex he/she identifies with, can use a woman’s/man’s locker room and/or showers/bathrooms.

Therefore, if a trans-gendered person were denied access to an all woman’s/man’s gym, prior to being fully transitioned, this would be regarded as a hate crime (as it already was according to provincial laws).
 
The law is too general (and discriminatory), and if you’ve been reading any of the examples I’ve posted you would know that under said law, anyone claiming to be trans-gendered, even if not fully transitioned in the sex he/she identifies with, can use a woman’s/man’s locker room and/or showers/bathrooms.

Therefore, if a trans-gendered person were denied access to an all woman’s/man’s gym, prior to being fully transitioned, this would be regarded as a hate crime (as it already was according to provincial laws).
And it’s because of thins like that I voiced concern over the new law earlier in this thread. Applaud what is good, decry what is bad.
 
And it’s because of thins like that I voiced concern over the new law earlier in this thread. Applaud what is good, decry what is bad.
I am not going to applaud a law that tramples on the rights of others.
 
Are you trying tosay transgender people have not experienced discrimination?
My answer is “no”, I am not saying that, but with the following qualification:

A “transgendered person”, and those who identify with them, believe they are discriminated against simply because, for example, in the case of a “transwoman”, he/she is not considered by everybody to be a real woman, or, to use the prevalent terminology, he/she doesn’t have the same status as a “ciswoman”. In fact I’m sure that my use of “he/she” rather than simply “she” would be considered discrimination, if not outright “hate”. I reject the idea that failing to buy into the prevailing ideology on gender is “discrimination” or “hate”. I do understand that trans people, especially men identifying as women, are at a greater risk of harassment and violence. That is clearly wrong, and measures need to taken to protect “trans” people from that. But I think to make an equivalence between a “transwoman” not being able to use the ladies’ room, and what blacks went through here for 300 years, is simply perverse.
 
The law is too general (and discriminatory), and if you’ve been reading any of the examples I’ve posted you would know that under said law, anyone claiming to be trans-gendered, even if not fully transitioned in the sex he/she identifies with, can use a woman’s/man’s locker room and/or showers/bathrooms.

Therefore, if a trans-gendered person were denied access to an all woman’s/man’s gym, prior to being fully transitioned, this would be regarded as a hate crime (as it already was according to provincial laws).
And I’m sure that the women in that locker room are just thrilled at watching a man strip naked in front of them while claiming that he’s just like them. Not to mention the little girls who get to share the experience of being ogled by a ‘transgendered’ pervert.

Sorry, but there have already been too many examples of exactly that sort of thing happening in other locales for me to believe it won’t happen here.
 
My answer is “no”, I am not saying that, but with the following qualification:

A “transgendered person”, and those who identify with them, believe they are discriminated against simply because, for example, in the case of a “transwoman”, he/she is not considered by everybody to be a real woman, or, to use the prevalent terminology, he/she doesn’t have the same status as a “ciswoman”. In fact I’m sure that my use of “he/she” rather than simply “she” would be considered discrimination, if not outright “hate”. I reject the idea that failing to buy into the prevailing ideology on gender is “discrimination” or “hate”. I do understand that trans people, especially men identifying as women, are at a greater risk of harassment and violence. That is clearly wrong, and measures need to taken to protect “trans” people from that. But I think to make an equivalence between a “transwoman” not being able to use the ladies’ room, and what blacks went through here for 300 years, is simply perverse.
I can respect that. Thanks for clarifying.
 
My answer is “no”, I am not saying that, but with the following qualification:

A “transgendered person”, and those who identify with them, believe they are discriminated against simply because, for example, in the case of a “transwoman”, he/she is not considered by everybody to be a real woman, or, to use the prevalent terminology, he/she doesn’t have the same status as a “ciswoman”. In fact I’m sure that my use of “he/she” rather than simply “she” would be considered discrimination, if not outright “hate”. I reject the idea that failing to buy into the prevailing ideology on gender is “discrimination” or “hate”. I do understand that trans people, especially men identifying as women, are at a greater risk of harassment and violence. That is clearly wrong, and measures need to taken to protect “trans” people from that. But I think to make an equivalence between a “transwoman” not being able to use the ladies’ room, and what blacks went through here for 300 years, is simply perverse.
Excellent response.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top