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

[Cherry5]

Can we not all agree that’s it’s wrong to treat anyone with contempt/hate no matter who they are,.

This is refreshing to hear Josie and very Christian.

but notwithstanding this, the law which was passed to “protect” Transgendered individuals is far-reaching and actually endangers and tramples on the rights of many others???

I really don’t think this is that hard to grasp.

I would not be so fast to jump to these conclusions, there is no evidence of this, A similar bill was passed in the province of Ontario in 2013 as was in all provinces in Canada subsequently. Bill C-16 was the Federal Human rights code and the last to be passed in Canada.

Ontario is about the most populated province in Canada and there is no reason to believe your apprehensions have been realized.

Transgender people are not out to increase their numbers, they are not interested in bothering anyone, they just want to be treated and accepted like human beings, to celebrate who they really are, to know what it feels like to be true to themselves. To date it has predominantly been Cis gendered (non-transgender) people who have physically abused Transgender people perhaps these regulations will protect Transgender people a bit better.

 

[josie_L]

This is refreshing to hear Josie and very Christian.

Well, of course, I don’t want to hate anyone, but what in this bill constitutes “hate”? Can you define for me what would be considered a hate crime and/or speech?

For example, if I as a gym owner of an all female gym facility refused a man who has not fully transitioned into the sex he believes he is, would I then be prosecuted for a hate crime, despite my wanting to protect the modesty and/or sensibilities of the other females members?

Because such a case exists and the gym owner in question was sent a summons to the Ontario Human Rights court for not giving an affirmative response to a transgendered woman (not even transitioned yet) over the phone! Suffice it to say, he lost, and had to had to hand over money to the individual he had offended.

 

[JimG]

Just because one feels like the opposite sex does not mean that one IS the opposite sex. If a man feels like he should be a woman, but his body structure is male, his genitalia are male, and he has an XY chromosome in every cell of his body, he is male. Nothing will change that. Feelings are variable, but the body is male or female, and one cannot change into the other, not even through surgery.

Recently a woman who transitioned into a man complained on ‘his’ blog that he was beginning to get menstrual periods again. Which only goes to prove, he is a woman, not a man.

 

[Jeanne_S]

Just because one feels like the opposite sex does not mean that one IS the opposite sex. If a man feels like he should be a woman, but his body structure is male, his genitalia are male, and he has an XY chromosome in every cell of his body, he is male. Nothing will change that. Feelings are variable, but the body is male or female, and one cannot change into the other, not even through surgery.

Recently a woman who transitioned into a man complained on ‘his’ blog that he was beginning to get menstrual periods again. Which only goes to prove, he is a woman, not a man.

Not to mention the fact that many of these females transition to males all the while maintaining their female organs so they are able to become pregnant, breastfeed their babies under the guise of being male.

 

[JimG]

Not to mention the fact that many of these females transition to males all the while maintaining their female organs so they are able to become pregnant, breastfeed their babies under the guise of being male.

Yes, I was surprised to learn that many transgenders who have surgery do not have fully transitional surgery: they wish to keep their options open.

 

[Jeanne_S]

Yes, I was surprised to learn that many transgenders who have surgery do not have fully transitional surgery: they wish to keep their options open.

That appears to be the case.

 

[Cherry5]

Well, of course, I don’t want to hate anyone, but what in this bill constitutes “hate”? Can you define for me what would be considered a hate crime and/or speech?

For example, if I as a gym owner of an all female gym facility refused a man who has not fully transitioned into the sex he believes he is, would I then be prosecuted for a hate crime, despite my wanting to protect the modesty and/or sensibilities of the other females members?

Because such a case exists and the gym owner in question was sent a summons to the Ontario Human Rights court for not giving an affirmative response to a transgendered woman (not even transitioned yet) over the phone! Suffice it to say, he lost, and had to had to hand over money to the individual he had offended.

Hello Josie, I find it interesting that you have come to the rescue of a nudist club and its owner on a Catholic forum! I was unable to get information about the owner paying off the offended party but will assume that you have verified this. However by no means does this seem to be a case of extortion.
Here is a link to some of the details:
torontoist.com/2017/06/body-blitz-spa-told-unequivocally-trans-women-women/
Here is what has been reported:

1. The advertised policy of the club was that they were Transgender and LGBT inclusive
2. The Transgender person was being invited by her partner (no evidence that the transgender person pushed this request)
3. The Club was informed up front that the “friend” was transgender and checked with the club three times to ensure the club was trans friendly.
4. The client offered the option of her friend being clothed.
5. The owner called one hour before the appointment to cancel.
   Do you see anything wrong with how the owner dealt with the situation?

Your concern about conflicting rights has been debated at length during the hearings for bill C-16 as well as other courts and they came to the conclusion that this was not grounds to restrict transgender people. This is a contentious issue and I do not have the time to debate it.
A lot has to do with perception of each individual rather than any real threat. Just being uncomfortable with another’s presence is probably going to be difficult grounds for exclusion.

Yes, there will be a period of adjustments and debates while boundaries are sorted out, however by no means is this going to be a major disruption of society as seems to be your concern.

Just a couple of points of note here – most transgender people want to blend in as “female” and hence would be very reluctant to expose their genitals, they do not appreciate it when their genitals are discussed either, as is frequently done so in these forums.
If one is comfortable with being in the nude knowing there could be lesbians around, a transgender person probably can be accommodated?
My apologies I have never understood or felt comfortable with the whole nude thing, not passing judgement, just how I feel.
I am now going to step away from this thread for some time as I have many chores to address and perhaps hide from the barrage of angry response this post may generate.

 

[josie_L]

Hello Josie, I find it interesting that you have come to the rescue of a nudist club and its owner on a Catholic forum!

Whoever mistook a gym for a nudist club, honestly, Cherry, I’m wiping tears of laughter, metaphorically speaking, off my face.

But to get back to business, I already posted the case in question on this thread, so here’s another link:

ST. CATHARINES - Fitness club owner John Fulton is upset he’s saddled with major legal costs, even though an Ontario human rights complaint against him was dropped.

“Not only did I not get my day in court, I was bad-mouthed,” said Fulton, owner of Downtown Health Club for Women and Fulton Fitness.

“They put me through hell for three years and at the 11th hour, they dropped it,” he

said. “There really was no resolution . and my costs with this are huge.”

Fulton declined to reveal how much he has to pay, but said it’s a large amount. In

an earlier story, his costs were estimated to be as much as $100,000.

The complaint against John Fulton and his women’s-only gym on James St. was filed by a pre-operative transgender woman in 2006.

Fulton has said out of concern for the rights of his other clients, he hesitated to accept a membership application from the complainant, Lisa MacDonald, who wanted to use washrooms in the women’s change room.

wellandtribune.ca/2009/11/10/fitness-club-owner-angered-by-outcome-in-human-rights-case-of-transgendered-woman

Your concern about conflicting rights has been debated at length during the hearings for bill C-16 as well as other courts and they came to the conclusion that this was not grounds to restrict transgender people. This is a contentious issue and I do not have the time to debate it.

A lot has to do with perception of each individual rather than any real threat. Just being uncomfortable with another’s presence is probably going to be difficult grounds for exclusion.

Odd, that you say you don’t have time to debate while debating the very subject matter on a debating forum, with a thread you yourself posted!!!

Moreover, any person with a modicum of insight can foresee problems with the bill in question because it is vague in terms of what constitutes hate crime/speech and who is necessarily protected by this bill. As such the lack of definitive definitions/boundaries are going to cause limitations on the rights of others, especially women/girls:

On Thursday the Senate voted to adopt Bill C-16 – colloquially known as the “Transgender Bill.”

I voted in favour of Bill C-16 because it is obvious that in a just society transgendered individuals should enjoy the same protections as everyone else.

However, I have serious concerns about the drafting of Canada’s new “transgender” law and fear that it will not create rights for the transgendered as much as it will take away rights from women and girls.

Importantly, Bill C-16 does not provide explicit protections for the transgendered. Instead, it creates protections for “gender identity” and “gender expression”: vague concepts with no precise legal definitions.

During hearings at the Senate’s Legal and Constitutional Affairs committee, the Minister of Justice, Jody Wilson Raybould declined to provide a definition for “gender expression.”

But I can. Gender expression is an individual’s choice of clothing, hairstyle and makeup. It is a person’s appearance, look, and countenance.

As absurd as it may be to elevate fashion choices to the same level of legal protection as race, religion or creed, the problem with Bill C-16 is even worse than that.

By amending the Criminal Code and Human Rights Act to include the words “gender expression” as protected grounds (as opposed to “transgender” as protected grounds) Bill C-16 effectively redefines what it means to be a woman from something biological to something defined by external appearance.

What an extraordinary diminishment for women who have struggled for centuries to unshackle ourselves from a value system that apportions our worth based on our physical appeal and sexual allure.

But with the passage of Bill C-16, a woman’s status in Canada is no longer based on her biology or chromosomes – it is based on whether or not she “expresses” herself as female.

It is guaranteed that it will be only a short matter of time before C-16 triggers litigation that will place a financial and legal burden on women who will need to prove that biological women (and transitioned transgendered women) have a right to women’s only safe spaces and the right to sex-segregated activities.

torontosun.com/2017/06/17/the-big-problem-with-canadas-transgender-rights-bill

Yes, there will be a period of adjustments and debates while boundaries are sorted out, however by no means is this going to be a major disruption of society as seems to be your concern.

Yes, it is a concern to a good many people, because the boundaries should already be in place before a law like this is imposed. Sorry, but it’s a callous regard for the rest of society. And I’ve already posted more than a few examples to prove my point.

Just a couple of points of note here – most transgender people want to blend in as “female” and hence would be very reluctant to expose their genitals, they do not appreciate it when their genitals are discussed either, as is frequently done so in these forums.

Oh, forgive me, I’m not fluent in trans-gendered speak!! Oh, for goodness sake, the very nature of the subject requires that we speak of “genitals” as that is the cause of the issue at hand, i.e., were it not for the fact that men who are not fully transitioned wanted access to all woman’s facilities, you and I would not be having this discussion.

.

 

[josie_L]

I’m not trying to be insensitive but for you to attempt to limit my ability to argue my point, by pointing out the fact that it hurts the feelings of trans-gendered people is what we are worried about, i.e., will this be constituted as hate speech? We shall wait and see