Bill C 16 What say you?

264 posts / 0 new
Last post
quizzical
Bill C 16 What say you?

 to discuss this Bill

quizzical
quizzical
6079_Smith_W

Thanks for starting the thread. I think it is important to sort out how that law is going to be applied (specifically regarding services to women and safe spafes) but I don't see there is any way it could be worded differently than it is.

What are we talking about if not discrimination based on gender identity and expression? Someone might not agree with the definition, or might not see gender as something we should be protecting, but I'd say most of us understand what it means to be discriminated against because of it.

Also, it doesn't just protect transpeople. Gender expression includes non-trans people who are discriminated against for not conforming to society's gender stereotypes.

And to say that people are protected from discrimination does not force others to accept those models and ideas. People are protected based on religion and politics, but we are still free to believe religion is nonsense. People are protected based on sex, but people are free to hold the belief that certain things are for men or women only.

So while I get that C-16 goes against the concept of gender some feminists have, I don't see how it is a threat to that.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
And to say that people are protected from discrimination does not force others to accept those models and ideas. People are protected based on religion and politics, but we are still free to believe religion is nonsense.

Perhaps we've just had differences of religious belief longer than we've had differences of opinion about gender, and we've had to learn to get along, but I think that for the most part, a Christian can probably abide having a Jewish neighbour who doesn't believe that Jesus was the son of God, and probably even an atheist neighbour who doesn't believe that there even IS a God.  It doesn't seem to be a zero sum game, nor does there seem to be a pressing need to all agree on the "ONE TRUE" God, so long as we're all allowed to believe for ourselves what we want to believe for ourselves.  I know religion is still a huge source of global discord, but on an individual level, I think most of don't care *that* badly what someone else thinks, so long as it doesn't directly interfere with what we, individually, think.

This same sort of "live and let live" approach doesn't seem to apply to gender politics.  If it did then radical feminists could feel free to believe that women have vaginas, and trans-women could feel free to believe that a vagina isn't a necessary condition for womanhood, and everyone could similarly be happy so long as they were free to believe as they believe.

Is it that religion (mostly) happens in a personal context and gender (mostly) happens in the public context?  Is it that religious beliefs are primarily non-materialist beliefs, but gender beliefs aren't?  We seem mostly OK with the idea of many different Gods (including none at all) but at the same time need ONE and only ONE definition of men, women, sex and gender.

I'm ruminating on it, but I don't really know. 

Sineed

This is my problem with Bill C-16:

OPINION: Bill C-16 is flawed in ways most Canadians have not considered

http://www.nationalobserver.com/2016/10/25/opinion/opinion-bill-c-16-fla...

Women's spaces — including homeless shelters, transition houses, washrooms, and change rooms — exist to offer women protection from men. It isn't men who fear that women might enter their locker rooms and flash, harass, assault, abuse, photograph, or kill them… This reality is often left unaddressed in conversations around gender identity. This reality is sex-based, not identity-based. Men cannot identify their way out of the oppressor class so easily, neither can women simply choose to identify their way out of vulnerability to male violence...As unpopular as this fact has become, a man or boy who wishes to identify as a woman or girl, perhaps taking on stereotypically feminine body language, hairstyles, and clothing, is still male. He still has male sex organs, which means girls and women will continue to see him as a threat and feel uncomfortable with his presence in, say, change rooms. Is it now the responsibility of women and girls to leave their own spaces if they feel unsafe? Are teenage girls obligated to overcome material reality lest they be accused of bigotry? Is the onus on women to suddenly forget everything they know and have experienced with regard to sexual violence, sexual harassment, and the male gaze simply because one individual wishes to have access to the female change room? Because one boy claims he "feels like a girl on the inside?" And what does that mean, anyway?

Regardless of how a person gender identifies, their biological sex remains immutable. The longest-term study of transpeople found that transwomen displayed the same level of violence as non-trans males, or much higher than women. But this bill will make it an act of hatred or discrimination for women to define their own spaces.

I personally don't feel a need for women-only spaces, but I'm a straight woman who doesn't generally feel threatened by men. I never wanted to go to MichFest, preferring mixed-gender folk festivals back when I was a festival-goer. And I share a lockerroom with a transwoman. But I support women who do want to define their own spaces and exclude men. Male and female are biological categories that cannot be escaped through wishful thinking.

6079_Smith_W

Public toilets and change rooms are just that - public. And given that there are currently only two options I think the best workable option is for trans people to use the spaces they prefer for the basic function of going to the bathroom. I also look forward to a time when there are enough inclusive services so that it isn't a problem (there are already several schools in our region which have three bathroom options), but until we get there people have to be able to pee and change.

And the notion that people might commit assault, or make sexual advances - if this is not a concern with gays and lesbians why should we make that assumption about trans people?

As for shelters, and other services to victimized women, if an organization ran into a situation where that was a problem, and they felt they were being forced to accept someone they saw as a threat to their clients I would agree with you, but I don't see how this rights legislation does that.

I can think of a number of cases where people thought that new legislation was going to erode people's rights and cause major problems. People raised those concerns about hate crimes legislation in the 80s, the firearms registry and child pornography laws in the 90s, and with marriage equality.

Those warnings were baseless then, and I see no reason why it should be any different with this law. Like all protections, these ones are not absolute; they are balanced out against other rights. Nor are they applied in an absolute way, but (usually, anyway) in a way that makes sense.

 

 

6079_Smith_W

Another good article that touches on some of the points of conflict and concern, and how the best solution might be different on a case by case basis:

http://www.newstatesman.com/2016/11/whats-missing-transgender-debate-any...

Sineed

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Another good article that touches on some of the points of conflict and concern, and how the best solution might be different on a case by case basis:

http://www.newstatesman.com/2016/11/whats-missing-transgender-debate-any...

From the article:

...The University of Toronto last year rolled back some of its gender-neutral bathrooms in halls of residence after two female students reported being filmed in the showers; in Toronto in 2014, serial rapist Christopher Hambrook was convicted of entering women’s refuges under the name Jessica and assaulting two vulnerable women; and in 2013, transwoman prisoner Paris Green was moved out of Cornton Vale women’s prison near Stirling after having sexual relationships with female inmates. (Green still had full male genitalia.)

Bill C 16 privileges self-identity over biological reality, and in that reality, men are massively more violent than women. Men commit most murders, and make up 99 percent of rapists. And transwomen exhibit the same level of violence as non-trans men.

http://womanmeanssomething.com/violencedatabase/

Our view is not that transwomen are a danger to women but that predatory males have and will continue to perpetrate sexual violence against women where there are greater opportunities. Legislation like Bill C-16 will grant greater increased opportunity.

quizzical

6079_Smith_W wrote:
Public toilets and change rooms are just that - public.

no they're not. they're not like open public spaces where anyone can go. they have limits on who goes in by way of gender controls.

And given that there are currently only two options I think the best workable option is for trans people to use the spaces they prefer for the basic function of going to the bathroom.

you think women should just shut up and let those who 'prefer' to use woman's spaces do so!!! coming from someone who's never been attacked in a bathroom.

...also look forward to a time when there are enough inclusive services so that it isn't a problem (there are already several schools in our region which have three bathroom options), but until we get there people have to be able to pee and change.

there will be no incentive to get there until many women and girls have been attacked in what's supposed to be a safe space for them. so we're again supposed to bear the brunt of what men prefer.

And the notion that people might commit assault, or make sexual advances - if this is not a concern with gays and lesbians why should we make that assumption about trans people?

it's not about transpeople. it's about those pretending to be in order to access victims.

As for shelters, and other services to victimized women, if an organization ran into a situation where that was a problem, and they felt they were being forced to accept someone they saw as a threat to their clients I would agree with you, but I don't see how this rights legislation does that.

​what do you mean you don't see it? wilful blinders?

I can think of a number of cases where people thought that new legislation was going to erode people's rights and cause major problems. People raised those concerns about hate crimes legislation in the 80s, the firearms registry and child pornography laws in the 90s, and with marriage equality.

oh for ffs try lumping us in to put us down. get a grip.

 

6079_Smith_W

So because there are individual predators we should continue to allow people to suffer systemic discrimination and attack and not let them go to the bathroom safely? (and this includes not just transpeople, but non-trans men and women targetted for non-stereotypical gender expression)

Again, the philosophical difference about gender aside (which is to some degree valid IMO), that kind of discrimination doesn't sound that much different than shopkeepers and cops who think it is okay to profile based on race or social status because some people steal things.

Sineed wrote:

Bill C 16 privileges self-identity over biological reality, and in that reality, men are massively more violent than women. Men commit most murders, and make up 99 percent of rapists. And transwomen exhibit the same level of violence as non-trans men.

There was a comment in the other thread mentioning privilege. Rights legislation isn't about affording privilege, because it isn't a privilege to be murdered, attacked, raped, refused work, a place to live, or safe access to a toilet. Rights legislation is about protection from discrimination, and recognizing discrimination in the commission of crimes. I don't think we would assume non-white people or women have more privilege because they are more often in need of rights protection.

And sex is already recognized as a prohibited ground for discrimination, so C-16 does not raise gender expression and identity above it. It gives it equal recognition. The question we are wrestling with here, and in these articles, is how those protections are balanced off against one another. Part of the reason I posted that article is because while it recognizes men as being responsible for violence, it also recognizes transpeople as among the victims.

And I did look for that statistic on transwomen being just as violent as men. Sorry if I missed it. What is the source?

 

6079_Smith_W

Cross posted with you quizzical.

I am serious. There are plenty of examples of people thinking legislation will do something when in fact it does not. There is no reason to expect that the outcome of the Kimberly Nixon case wouldn't be exactly the same even with the changes made by C-16.

quizzical

6079_Smith_W wrote:
So because there are individual predators we should continue to allow people to suffer systemic discrimination and attack and not let them go to the bathroom safely? (and this includes not just transpeople, but non-trans men and women targetted for non-stereotypical gender expression)

so your solution is to not let women and girls go to the bathroom safely?

Again, the philosophical difference about gender aside (which is to some degree valid IMO), that kind of discrimination doesn't sound that much different than shopkeepers and cops who think it is okay to profile based on race or social status because some people steal things.

again with the demeaning talk trying to put us in our place.

And sex is already recognized as a prohibited ground for discrimination, so C-16 does not raise gender expression and identity above it. It gives it equal recognition. The question we are wrestling with here, and in these articles, is how those protections are balanced off against one another.

so it's up to women and girls to do the balancing then at our own personal safety expense?!!!!!

what's the deference between "sex" and gender at this level then if there's no difference?

what is "sex" then if not gender?

6079_Smith_W

It is not that there is no difference, but that both are afforded protection against discrimination, same as national origin, race, and matters of conscience. And gender identity and expression are not given priority over sex.

quizzical

6079_Smith_W wrote:

It is not that there is no difference, but that both are afforded protection against discrimination, same as national origin, race, and matters of conscience. And gender identity and expression are not given priority over sex.

how about you describe the difference between sex and gender in this instance?

6079_Smith_W

Sex is your physical characteristics - genetic, hormonal, and so on. Female, male, or intersex.

Gender identity is where you identify along the gender spectrum. as masculine, feminine, or somewhere in between.

Gender expression is is how you present to the rest of the world, and how others perceive you. It is not the same as identity.

For example, a school trying to enforce that girls should wear dresses or that boys should have short hair are examples of discrimination based on gender expression, because they are enforcement of gender stereotypes. Not saying those dress codes would be actionable under rights legislation, but they are examples of discrimination based on expression.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
there are already several schools in our region which have three bathroom options

At Ryerson there's a large sign in men's washrooms that basically says "This is a Men's washroom.  Anyone who identifies as male, or a trans-person, may use this washroom".  There's also a single-occupancy washroom for each set of men's/women's washrooms.  Curiously, I notice a lot of people using that one.  I doubt if any of them identify as trans, but I guess they like not having to urinate beside someone or whatever. 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..i admit that i don't fully understand the gender transitions and it's implications. nor do i believe anyone else does. certainly not the government who's approach is to deal with this on the cheap. yes we need to protect rights and protections from attack but we also need real space to explore the implications of transition. we can not just hand over the keys to women's inner sanctoms to men who perceive themselves as female. we can not ignore women’s realities of past and ongoing oppression. so society/governance must pony up to provide that space. we have plenty of money for war and tax breaks after all. lets take a little from those sources.   

Sineed

6079_Smith_W wrote:

So because there are individual predators we should continue to allow people to suffer systemic discrimination and attack and not let them go to the bathroom safely? (and this includes not just transpeople, but non-trans men and women targetted for non-stereotypical gender expression)

Again, the philosophical difference about gender aside (which is to some degree valid IMO), that kind of discrimination doesn't sound that much different than shopkeepers and cops who think it is okay to profile based on race or social status because some people steal things.

The trouble with this argument is it suggests that if gender non-conforming men say that they don't want to go to the bathroom with other men because they fear for their safety, they are victims of bigotry, and require legislative protection. But when women say they don't want men in their bathroom because they fear for their safety, they are bigots. 

This is how gender is a hierarchy, and how the fears of men are taken more seriously because they are the dominant sex caste. Men are massively more violent than women, and it's a trait linked to sex, not gender identity. This is not to say that all men are rapists and murderers - just that some are, and women have a right to women-only spaces as a consequence of this gendered pattern of violence. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:

There was a comment in the other thread mentioning privilege. Rights legislation isn't about affording privilege, because it isn't a privilege to be murdered, attacked, raped, refused work, a place to live, or safe access to a toilet.

Most of the oft-cited statistics on crime against trans people actually are false. 

One in twelve trans people is murdered in their lifetime–one in eight trans women of color.

You’ve heard this statistic, right?  It comes up in just about any argument in which trans people want to talk about their experience of oppression.  It’s a horrifying statistic.

It’s also completely, demonstrably untrue–and its propagation has pernicious racist, sexist, and classist effects.  Strap yourselves in, kiddos, ’cause we’re going on a ride to Statisticsville, population YOU...

The National Transgender Day of Remembrance has documented just 15 cases of trans people being murdered in the United States last year.  However, many people believe that most of the murders of transgender people may be misreported as violence against gay or lesbian people.  According to our best statistics, 30 people were murdered because of their sexual orientation or identity last year.

Now, let’s assume that every one of those murders was of a trans person, and that furthermore, the actual rate is double due to underreporting–that sixty trans people are killed every year, just for being trans, out of the 500,000 out trans people in the United States.  That’s an annual rate of 12 per 100,000.  Even using these statistics that have been weighted heavily toward indicating a higher murder rate, it would take an out trans lifespan of about 700 years for the 1 in 12 rate to be true.  We’re talking about an exaggeration of the statistics that, in the very least, represents trans activists and their allies blindly quoting a statistic that is overestimating the actual murder rate by ten times.  Even with the most generous readings possible of available statistics, the maximum chance a trans person has of being murdered in the United States is less than 1 in 100....

Let’s talk about another group in America: black males.  Black males in the United States have a lifespan of 70.8 years.  Recent crime statistics show that nearly half of murder victims–5416 in 2011–were black males.  With around 19 million black males in the United States, this means that 1 in 3500 black males in the United States will be murdered this year alone, if we stay on par with 2011.  Over a lifespan of 70.8 years, this would mean that black males born today, assuming murder numbers and population stayed constant, have a…carry the 1…let’s see here.

Oh yes, about a 1 in 49 chance of being murdered in the United States.  Over twice the rate that trans people are murdered.

When trans activists claim that they’re being murdered at a rate of 1 in 12, they’re trying to claim the gold medal in the Oppression Olympics just by making up their own statistics.  In so doing, they’re leapfrogging their own oppression over groups of people whose murder rates are actually substantially higher than theirs.  For example, black women, while not murdered at the same rates as black men, are still significantly more likely to be murdered in their lifetimes than trans women.  Prostitutes, as a class, are significantly more likely to be murdered than trans women, when we’re using statistics that have any basis in reality.

But by using this 1 in 12 figure, what trans activists do is proclaim that they are being oppressed all out of proportion with other groups.  It’s a statistic meant to be alarming, meant to make people think that trans oppression is especially bad, that it is much, much worse than oppression of many other oppressed classes.  These made-up statistics, so easily debunked, should be something people are ashamed to repeat–except that they’re not.  You can see this statistic all over the internet, and every time it’s used, remind yourself that you’re seeing activists exploiting murders and making up hundreds of crimes that never happened just so that they can have immediate attention paid to their oppression, rather than the oppression of others being murdered at higher actual rates.

https://culturallyboundgender.wordpress.com/2013/04/27/one-in-twelve/

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Rights legislation is about protection from discrimination, and recognizing discrimination in the commission of crimes. I don't think we would assume non-white people or women have more privilege because they are more often in need of rights protection.

And sex is already recognized as a prohibited ground for discrimination, so C-16 does not raise gender expression and identity above it. It gives it equal recognition. The question we are wrestling with here, and in these articles, is how those protections are balanced off against one another. Part of the reason I posted that article is because while it recognizes men as being responsible for violence, it also recognizes transpeople as among the victims.

The actual effect of such laws is to help people gain access to opposite sex-only spaces, thus privileging gender identity over sex.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

And I did look for that statistic on transwomen being just as violent as men. Sorry if I missed it. What is the source?

Sorry, I did originally have that in one of my posts, and I accidently edited it out. Anyway, here it is:

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885

Here, we assessed mortality, psychiatric morbidity, and psychosocial integration expressed in criminal behaviour after sex reassignment in transsexual persons, in a total population cohort study with long-term follow-up information obtained from Swedish registers. The cohort was compared with randomly selected population controls matched for age and gender. We adjusted for premorbid differences regarding psychiatric morbidity and immigrant status. This study design sheds new light on transsexual persons' health after sex reassignment...

...regarding any crime, male-to-females had a significantly increased risk for crime compared to female controls (aHR 6.6; 95% CI 4.1–10.8) but not compared to males (aHR 0.8; 95% CI 0.5–1.2). This indicates that they retained a male pattern regarding criminality. The same was true regarding violent crime. 

 

 

Misfit Misfit's picture

Thank you Sineed.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Lifesitenews.com. Lianne Lawrence. Tues. May 16, 2017. "Feminist Criticizes Transgender Bill. If you were Born a Female You are Doomed." This is a must read article for everybody. Hilla Kerner and Meghan Murphy address some very serious issues with this bill which are alarming. One.  Biologically born women lose the right to organize collectively as women  as a distinct minority group.  Two.   Biologically born women lose their voice.  They lose their right to express them selves through their own unique lens. Three. An entire feminist analysis, a "radical feminist lense"  about our own history and our own story will be erased  with this legislation.  It can be considered a hate crime for biologically born women to express themselves and to uniquely identify themselves as is specific and unique minority group with our own history and our own issues that are unique to us. This is an anti-feminist piece of legislation. Hilla Kerner and Meghan Murphy were only allotted five minutes each to present their case for all biologically born women at the Senate Standing Committee for Bill C-16. And...no  pro biologically born feminists were ever consulted  for their input into the original drafting of this bill which was voted on by Parliament.  There are no amendments in this legislation which protect the rights of biologically porn women. This is an anti-feminist piece of legislation which  silences us from uniquely identifying ourselves, collectively organizing, and it erases our history. This bill legislates and normalizes mysogynistic stereotypes  men have about women. This bill legislates into effect an external cultural appropriation of our own unique identity as women by men.  

6079_Smith_W

Thanks for the link to the study.

There is nothing in the C-16 amendments about access to toilets or women-only spaces; I am not aware of any rulings regarding toilets. In fact the only ruling I am aware of regarding women-only spaces is the Supreme Court of Canada's finding in the Kimberly  Nixon case, which took transgender issues into account and still found in favour of Vancouver Rape Relief.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimberly_Nixon_Rape_Relief_Case

To say that the legislation sets gender above sex is not true; to say that it is the effect of the legislation is  to help people get access to opposite sex spaces is baseless because it is happening quite independent of C-16.

And given that the second part of C-16 concerns the very real issue of discrimination as an aggravating factor in crime, it is a callous interpretation, IMO, even if I agree that toilet access is a complex issue that needs to be dealt with.

These were issues we as a society had to deal with before the federal legislation (and in fact bathroom reform has happened independent of provincial rights codes), and we will still have to deal with it if C-16 becomes law.

quizzical

it sure as hell does set identity above sex. it fkn protects identity above sex.

6079_Smith_W

Quizzical, you asked upthread what I meant about unsubstantiated warnings regarding earlier legislation that never came to pass.

This is what I am talking about.

The warnings that child porn laws mean the cops are going to raid art galleries and garden stores and invade homes to rifle through family albums for bathtub baby pics.

That cops are going to use firearms legislation to get access to people's property and bust them for things they can't get a warrant for.

That if you allow same sex couples to marry then you will eventually let people marry their pets.

And already on transgendered issues, the warning that we will go to jail if we don't memorize 31 different pronouns.

These are all horror-story warnings I read and heard that have not materialized, even though in some case it has been decades.

There is one case I am aware of. After hate crimes law was brought in in the early 80s Calgary police raided the U of Calgary and seized Nazi books from their reference library (books which could not be removed from the library). As soon as it hit the press and they realized how stupid the move was they put those books back.

So these things have a way of working themselves out.

Is the bathroom issue contentious? For some, sure. But so far it has all taken place independent of human rights law. And so far the only ruling that was based on that legislation found in favour of women-only spaces.

 

Misfit Misfit's picture

Smith, re post #22. In the Nixon case, it was the Supreme Court of BC which made the ruling. Nixon tried to appeal it to the Supreme Court of Canada, and the SCC would not hear the appeal, so for Nixon, it is the B.C. Supreme Court ruling which stands.

6079_Smith_W

Thanks for the correction. Though the fact they would not hear it says something.

Would the case have been different if it had concerned a client and not a prospective worker? I don't know, but there is no reason to believe even that would have meant violating a safe space rather than making sure services are provided for transpeople.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Smith, most, possibly all provincial human rights acts have specific clauses in them which upholds the rights of women's shelters to discriminate on the basis of sex.  But now with this Bill C-16, biologically born women lose their righ to organize as women. Hilla Kerner during her five minute allotment they entitled her to speak at the Senate Hearings into Bill C16 said that the entire second wave of feminism emerged by women organizing and sharing their stories in groups and outlining existing problems they shared in common and then discussing ways to overcome those barriers. They would organize as a collective of women and fight for those changes. We have issues that are unique to us. We have our own unique history as a marginalized group. However, we cannot throw a festival for ourselves and restrict access to only other biologically born women. Try telling any other minority group in Canada that they cannot throw a festival for themselves. We lose the right to define who we are as a marginalized group. We are a distinct marginalized group and yet under this legislation we lose our own status as the standard by which we now define womanhood. . We are biologically born women, but now men who feel like they are women become the new standard.  I guess we fit in as "other" or secondary category women. I don't feel feminine. I merely have a vagina and a uterus and mammary glands. Oh well. I'll just go into the other category of womanhood because this legislation doesn't define me as being a woman. When feminist women are excluded from the collaboration process of this legislation because our voice is obviously considered irrelevant, this is the kind of result you end up with. You end up with politicians and men who feel like they are women redefining what it legally means to be a woman in Canada. And in doing so the politicians and men who feel like they are women erased our identity. They also erased our rights to collectively organize as women and they have made us vulnerable to hate crime accusations for speaking up against this. Bill C-16 takes away our right to voice our concerns and complaints about any of this.

6079_Smith_W

She and others have said that the law will pose that threat, I agree. It has not been demonstrated to be true. There are plenty of examples of groups being allowed to discriminate to a degree in order to protect themselves.

If the concern is access to toilets C-16 won't pose any threat that wasn't allegedly there already with protection based on sex. But we haven't seen men using that part of the code to barge into women's bathrooms.

And it actually says nothing about changing any definitions or preventing the right to organize, or hate crimes. It doesn't even stop people from thinking gender is dangerous nonsense any more than it prevents people from thinking religion is dangerous nonsense, and being quite vocal about it.

It simply says that you cannot discriminate against someone based on their gender identity and expression, and that if you commit a crime against someone that may be considered an aggravating factor.

The focus here seems to be on what men are doing, and I agree with some of those concerns, even if I don't buy the connection being made with C-16.  But the other side is that the two people closest to me who have suffered this kind of discrimination (in one case violent attack) are both women. XX, non-trans women. A number of the trans people I know are FTM, and really, this law protects everyone. So the threat that some feminists see here notwithstanding, do they not see this as valid grounds for protection? And if they do, how would they protect people from discrimination and attack if not by using those words, difficult as they might be?

 

Misfit Misfit's picture

Smith. From my reading on this subject, absolutely no one is arguing against rights and protections for trans people. These feminists are arguing that biologically born women are losing their voice, their own right to define who is a woman, and their rights to collectively organize without the intrusion of trans-women into their spaces when they don't want them there. Radical feminists were never consulted for input into the drafting of this piece of legislation. This legislation makes it even easier for trans-women to threaten feminists with hate speech lawsuits for speaking up against their demands.

6079_Smith_W

I know no one is explicitly saying that; there is just no acknowledgment that these laws (because they already exist provincially) do afford those protections. Nor is there any discussion of how to protect people if the term "gender identity and expression" is seen as a threat.

 

Misfit Misfit's picture

There are no amendments to the legislation allowing say biologically born women to organize a festival and allows access to only biologically born women. It does not allow biologically born women to form a group called say biologically born women for the protection of abortion services in Canada. And provincial Human Rights clauses which allow crisis shelters the right to discriminate never have extended to collective organizing like this. And it is collective gatherings like this that are targeted by lobbying trans-women. The Vancouver Women's Library is a prime example of trans-women lobbying and harassment. And NO it is not all trans-women either. There is a strong and vocal minority who are specifically targeting radical feminists and women's organizations and services. And yes, the Kimberley Nixon lawsuit against the Vancouver Rape Relief Women's Shelter was a prime form of legal harassment that she dragged on for years in the courts. Time, money, and resources had to go to fighting this legal battle when they lacked the financial resources to do so. Hilla Kerner said on CBC's The Current on Monday that other women's shelters do not have the financial resources to fight these kinds of legal battles. They have no other recourse but to cave into the demands of these trans-women. And Smith, this financial reality could be one major reason why many other women's shelters across Canada capitulated and now allow trans-women access. One year ago last February, a radical feminist was invited to be a guest speaker at the U of Regina. Trans-women lobbyists forced the U of R to shut the discussion down claiming that radical feminist theory on trans-women constitutes hate speech. Now with the wording in Bill C-16 any radical feminist discussion on trans issues, trans-inclusion and biologically women only spaces under this law can constitute hate speech. Radical feminist theory will never homogenize with trans-women ideology. The trans-women solution is to forcefully bully, harass, and shut down all radical feminist voice which they do not agree with. Radical feminists have no specific protections under this law. No radical feminists were consulted in the drafting of this law for how the law will impact them and the organizations which they involve themselves in. Smith, this is very serious. Biologically born women have their own history, their own issues which are specific to them only, their own language and words, their own identity which is separate and distinct as a specific marginalized group in society. They need their own clauses in this bill which exempts them from the hate speech provisions in this bill. Biologically born women need a clause in the bill which allows them to turn trans-women away when they are not welcome. Biologically born women need to be formally defined as a distinct marginalized group with the right to collectively organize as a distinct group.

6079_Smith_W

Not to undermine Vancouver Rape Relief's stand; let me restate that I support their right to self determination. But...

The Ontario Coalition of Rape Crisis Centres has come out in support of C-16. Are you saying you think they only wrote this because they don't have the money to fight what some allege is a threat, and that this statement is a lie?

http://www.sexualassaultsupport.ca/OCRCC-Supports-C16

quizzical

misfit i agree with what you say here:

Biologically born women need to be formally defined as a distinct marginalized group with the right to collectively organize as a distinct group.

​i read smith's link to the ON Coalition's statement what they say underscores even more why. when they focus on trans women rates of violence of  20% experience physical or sexual violence and negelect to state the stats of 1 of 3 born women experience sexual assault vastly out number the stats for trans women there's a problem with their focus.

and i would bet verbal threats and harassment because we are women stats vastly out number the 34% experienced by transwomen.

just why are their stats more important than biological women's? i've a few theories.

Misfit Misfit's picture

I don't know. I said it could be. I do know that Hilla Kerner did say on the Current on Monday that other relief shelters for women across Canada do not have the financial stamina to fight legal battles like the Vancouver Rape Relief Women's Shelter had to fight. And I do not believe from what she said  that Vancouver Rape Relief could financially do it again. 

Misfit Misfit's picture

Quiz, perhaps male socialized entitlement.

Misfit Misfit's picture

quiz, on the Current on Monday, Anna Maria Tremonti interviewed a trans activist who quoted those very same statistics that you posted. No one argues that trans men and women face threats of violence. Their violence is real and so are the suicide issues which are a real concern. However, the way these trans women present their violence stats is very narcissistic and self-absorbed in delivery and intent. And he presented his stats knowing full well that there is a MMIW Inquiry taking place as we speak. Boko Harem just released more female child sex slaves in Nigeria in exchange for POW fighters. Women and children are sold into the sex slave trade against their will all around the world and it is an international crisis of epic proportions. Hilla says repeatedly that yes trans women face violence but their issues are DIFFERENT. They have their own unique needs and issues which are specific to them. Their histories and issues are not the same. Yes they need resources and they deserve to have resources. But that does not mean that they necessarily belong in biological women's shelters. I am not a radical feminist, and I am not transphobic. I also know that if I were attacked by a male and had to use the services of a women's centre, I would not feel comfortable opening up to a person who was born a male and lived his life with all the socialized entitlements that a man feels he has and started transitioning at 42 years of age. I also would not personally want to be locked up long term in a prison cell with a trans woman who biologically is still a male. These issues are very serious and they need to be discussed.

6079_Smith_W

I do apologize for the rudeness, but why are you putting your energy into fighting other victims over who is more hard done by? I can't imagine anyone being assaulted or murdered characterized as narcissistic.

Does this really help your cause? Like a lot of things, this is not a zero-sum game.

 

Misfit Misfit's picture

Smith, your statement from the Ontario coalition of relief centres did say that relief workers are one giant monolithic group who share one common view on this matter. There are a wide variety of issues and views on all these issues. Megan Murphy did say that she gets many feminists from other trans inclusive Relief centres who tell her that secretly they support her views but are afraid to speak up and say that they really think. So yes, I do believe that there is more suppressed divisiveness within the movement than what appears on the surface. The magnitude of this divisiveness is unknown, but it is alarming that some feminist women are afraid of expressing their views and concerns openly, but this the living reality that some feminist women now face.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Smith, just like the guest on the Current, some trans women present their stats in a manner which tries to portray their violence issues as being more severe than what women face. The challenges put forward by Sineed and quiz to these stats that they quote highlights exactly what you are claiming that I am somehow doing. They use their stats to try to undermine the pervasiveness of violence against biological women and children that their rates of violence far exceeds the rates of violence that women and children face. They are doing exactly what you have wrongly accused me of doing. But this speaks to a very real fear and concern that a rape crisis worker twenty-five years ago expressed to me. She said that her fear and the overriding fear of her close associates at the time was that trans women who were raised as men would push the other women's issues and needs to the sidelines and make their own needs front and centre. This is a direct result of socialized male entitlement. So yes, you have a trans woman activist on the radio making the claim that their rates of violence are way higher. This is another way of saying that their threats of violence is more severe than that experienced by others who are not trans. I have not undermined their rates of violence and I have not trivialized the very real threats that they face. Not all trans women behave like this either. There is a small yet vocal minority of trans activists who are behaving in a problematic fashion. And you keep twisting what I and others write that by saying that radical feminists have issues and concerns that need to be addressed and amendments need to be put into place to protect everyone's rights that you take it to the extreme that I and these feminist advocates are opposed to trans people having rights. They have to say over and over again that yes they face violence and yes they need special protections and you keep twisting it that we are against them having rights. I'm not debating you anymore on this. You twist too much around.

quizzical

6079_Smith_W wrote:
I do apologize for the rudeness, but why are you putting your energy into fighting other victims over who is more hard done by? I can't imagine anyone being assaulted or murdered characterized as narcissistic.

Does this really help your cause? Like a lot of things, this is not a zero-sum game.

so much wrong with this statement of yours were do i begin?

1st - no you aren`t really apolgizing for being rude. your remarks go well beyond rude.

2nd - 'hard done by' way to trivialize the systemic oppression and violence women are subjected to.

3rd - there`s sfa wrong with indicating born women are the target of  violence more than transgendered. what fkn world is it when women are being told to stfu about violence against us?

4th - 'your cause' another trivializing remark. human rights can hardly be portrayed as some ~cause~

 

 

6079_Smith_W

You are right that I wasn't really apologizing for what I said, though I do feel awkward having to be the one to point out, in this forum, that it is not okay to characterize victims of sexual assault like that.

And drawing C-16 into this is not my cause. I don't support it. If some here oppose that law as it stands, but support gender rights protection, well how do you square that?

 

 

 

quizzical

how were they characterized smith?

and i don't understand your last sentence....?

6079_Smith_W

Sorry, and I cross edited a bit.

Characterizing victims of assault as narcissistic. I realize this is a really hot issue on both sides. I am just saying that undermining other victims doesn't help anyone other than the perpetrators of violence.

And if I sound like I think opponents of C-16 don't care about protecting people on issues of gender, sorry. That isn't my intent. But I am asking how you would propose protecting us (because again, this affects EVERYONE, from TG people to those with a different haircut) without using that language, as imperfect and challenging as it is.

 

quizzical

so you're ok with transwomen undermining born women's victimization though?

what language? i can hardly keep up with your edits

i think misfit summed it up nicely in my quote of hers from above.

Biologically born women need to be formally defined as a distinct marginalized group with the right to collectively organize as a distinct group

Misfit Misfit's picture

I didn't characterize victims of sexual assault as being narcissistic. I clearly said that some of these transwomen activists who portray transwomen assault as being more prevalent and more serious and significant than violence against women and childre are behaving in a narcissistic fashion when they do so.  Then I mentioned that these remarks are being made at the same time that are nation is facing an inquiry into MMIW and Boko Harem is releasing kidnapped child sec slaves in exchange for POW soldiers. The violence trans men and women face deeply upsets and concerns me. So do the high suicide rates of young trans people who have to live in fear and struggle to fit in. I strongly supported Bill C16 until I discovered the specific flaws in the wording and how these flaws could be used to undermine the spaces and free speech of women who may wish to express themselves and distinguish themselves from trans women if they need to. I support amendments to the legislation so that everyone benefits.

Misfit Misfit's picture

I also think that Smith is deliberately mischaracterizing what I am saying.

Mobo2000

I'm not in support of bill C-16, but I'm still learning and thinking it though, and I appreciate this thread (and it's precursor).  

Smith:   Regarding your question at the end of post 43, can we turn it around?   How will C-16 or the addition of "gender indentity and gender expression" reduce violence against transpeople?   I get that it will allow activists an easier time getting funding for support services/shelters, but if the goal is to reduce violence against or protect transpeople, how does this bill accomplish it?   

I can see a transperson successfully prosecuting a landlord for refusing them an apartment,  perhaps  a university for refusing them access to a women's only scholarship or physical space on campus.   But I don't see how this stops bullying, sexual assault or gendered violence against transpeople at all.

 

 

6079_Smith_W

Quizzical, no I am not in favour of people undermining women's victimization. This conversation started out regarding an attack on a women's library which I completely condemn. I have repeatedly pointed out that I support women's shelters' right to control who has access. Several years ago there was an attempt here to remove Meghan from Rabble's contributors. I argued against that too, although I largely disagree with Murphy on trans issues.

But it is a fair question to ask how people in these communities attacking each other is going to help solve any of these problems.

Mobo, it makes a difference because it includes it as an aggravating factor in the commission of crimes, the same as attacks based on orientation, sex, or race. Does it make a difference? I don't know if it does so explicitly, but it does punish perpetrators for it, and it makes those acts of violence less invisible, and points out that they are based on discrimination, not just random.

So in the long run I would say it does help change systemic discrimination and violence. Look at anti-bullying campaigns that specifically call out homophobia and gender-based violence in schools through kids wearing pink. Again, no different than raising those issues regarding women, non-white people, immigrants and others who are targetted.

6079_Smith_W

FYI, here is the full text of C-16. Again, it adds four words to the Canadian Human Rights Act, and four words to the Criminal Code. It removes nothing.

http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-16/third-reading

quizzical

to determine what's gender identity or expression in law suit land is a bit of problem imv.

who the fk is going to determine?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
If some here oppose that law as it stands, but support gender rights protection, well how do you square that?

By making the limits of the Bill clear in the language of the Bill?

If the *real* problem is and always was access to employment, paid public/government services and residence, why not just say so?  Not just for trans-people or the gender-fluid, but for all protected groups?  Isn't that the original intent of this legislation, anyway?

And then it's written down, right there, for all to see.  I don't think the problem is that the Bill protects people in ways that radical feminists (or others, or myself) don't want.  It's that the Bill doesn't seem to recognize any boundaries to the term "discrimination", nor try to provide a materialist description of what, specifically, that term means and doesn't mean.

Pages