Bill C 16 What say you?

264 posts / 0 new
Last post
Misfit Misfit's picture

Here is a chicken little 'the sky is falling' article as Smith likes to put it.

 

My question is, when there is a conflict of rights, whose rights trump the others?"  Perhaps this could be addressed in the legislation.

feministcurrent.com. Tara Prema, July 21, 2016, "Conflict on Campus: UVic Women's Centre becomes 'Third Space'" 

6079_Smith_W

Actually my chicken little warning was about things like this being forced by the law. This had nothing to do with rights legislation. I have  repeatedly said how I feel about violating safe spaces, and this whole war.

And no need to apologize about Regina, there are plenty enough examples that show deplatforming is a real thing, and we all miss stuff now and then. Not too far upthread you corrected me, so it is all good.

 

Misfit Misfit's picture

I was sure it was a radical feminist. I remember thinking that I would have liked to hear what she had to say. I am very much interested in Palestinian rights as well.

Misfit Misfit's picture

I still think that there may have been an incident at the U of R.

6079_Smith_W

I don't question that. Just saying it is good to bring up information, and there is no need to apologize. I think we all recognize the issues we are talking about are valid ones.

 

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

So in terms of the term "deplatformed" -- was "The Vagina Monologues" deplatformed, as we understand that word?

And did it have something to do with that stage production arguing against employment for trans-women, or apartments for trans-women?

Since that's the real fight, why else would it be deplatformed??

Sineed

University of Guelph student union apologizes for playing "transphobic" Lou Reed song.

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2017/05/22/university-student-union-tak...

The university’s Central Student Association apologized via social media for playing Lou Reed’s 1972 hit at a campus event.

“It’s come to our attention that the playlist we had . . . on Thursday contained a song with transphobic lyrics,” the student association said in a May 12 Facebook post that has since been deleted.

“We now know the lyrics to this song are hurtful to our friends in the trans community and we’d like to unreservedly apologize for this error in judgement (sic).”

Apparently, the line, "Plucked her eyebrows along the way...shaved her legs and then he was a she" is transphobic because it implies that transwomen were once men instead of being women all along.

And here's another story, about a teenage boy who hasn't transitioned at all, but claims to be a girl, and now wins track meets competing as a girl.

http://www.theday.com/article/20170530/SPORT03/170539907

Instead, the day belonged to Cromwell's Andraya Yearwood, a freshman who won both the 100 and the 200.

Yearwood is a transgender athlete who competed for Cromwell as a girl for the first time on April 5, winning both sprints in a tri-meet against Portland and Old Saybrook. The Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference “defers to the determination of the student and his or her local school regarding gender identification,” according to a Hartford Courant story about Yearwood earlier in the year.

“It feels really good. I'm really happy to win both titles,” Yearwood said after her performance in the Class M meet. “I kind of expected it. I've always gotten first, so I expected it to some extent. … I'm really proud of it.”

Allowing men to compete as women will mean the end of women's sports.

6079_Smith_W

Breitbart was all over that one too. Be sure to read the comments. Apparently feminists are also to blame.

http://www.breitbart.com/sports/2017/04/11/state-modern-sports-boy-ident...

I already posted an article about a trans teen who was forced, against his will, to compete with girls in Texas. That was before we started this thread which was supposed to be about C-16.

We still on that, or is this a wacko trans free-for-all now?

As for Lou Reed, funny that no one got on him about "I Wanna Be Black". But then, I guess everyone who was with it enough to even know about the song understood that the butt of that joke was really fucked up middle class college students.

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
this thread which was supposed to be about C-16.

We still on that, or is this a wacko trans free-for-all now?

It can't be both??

Sorry to be glib.  But as I'm sure I might have hinted, I think the issues with C-16 have nothing to do with trans-people holding a job, renting an apartment or not being assaulted.  Nobody is suggesting that a transperson should be unemployable.

All that's left is those other issues.  Like someone saying "vagina" on stage and not saying "or, penis" too.

6079_Smith_W

If we want to get technical, what do these issues have to do with at all, since even the one case that seems to be at the centre of this wasn't resolved on a point of gender rights, but rather one of freedom of association?

Not to say there aren't concerns, so far as the law is concerned, with the possible exception of the bathroom issue it remains chicken little, so far as I can see.

As someone more educated than me in this stuff pointed out in that article I cited, much of this is not a legal issue; It is a political one.

And I just mentioned it because we started this thread because we didn't want to be going off on tangents.

 

Sineed

Mr.Magoo wrote:
But as I'm sure I might have hinted, I think the issues with C-16 have nothing to do with trans-people holding a job, renting an apartment or not being assaulted.

Let's see what the trans people are saying. From yesterday's Globe and Mail:

Protecting transgender people means protecting our pronouns

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/protecting-transgender-people-me...

Bill C-16, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code (gender identity or expression), has cleared the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee and will shortly come to a vote. Along the way, opponents have argued that including pronoun protections is a threat to “free speech.” Recently, professor Bruce Pardy suggested to the Senate that the Bill be amended to exclude any protection for gender pronouns.

Pronouns might seem like a small price to pay for greater consensus. They aren’t. The removal of pronoun protection will kneecap the Bill. 

 

 

Pondering

What's wrong with adding a definition for legal status as a trans person that goes beyond a simple claim to be the opposite sex that can be changed from one minute to the next?

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Of course then anyone who wanted to harass by deliberately using the wrong gender pronoun could say,  "sorry I didn't think they met the legal definition and they refused to show me their government authorized documentation proving that they meet the standard in law."

6079_Smith_W

Though how else are we going to stop those shifty trans people from doing that on a daily basis and confusing everyone. Just like those who can't make their minds up about who or what they want to sleep with, or might decide they want to marry their pets. We really should consider exceptions in those laws to prevent that kind of crisis, no?

I do understand why people might be a bit reticent about bargaining away their rights, even if it is based on others' nonsense. It is too bad that it gives those scare tactics more weight than they really deserve.

These protections against discrimination have existed in some provinces, including Ontario, for some time. And that province's human rights commission has already said what their policy is regarding pronouns. C-16 is just the federal government playing catchup.

Kind of odd that they haven't rounded up all those free speech victims who are resisting transgender hegemony and sent them off to prison camps yet, eh?

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

I understand why pronouns are important to people and I think it's pathetic that sticking to the old pronouns is a hill some people want to die on. It's just basic courtesy, it does no harm to you to acknowledge the preference. I find some of them a little weird, but it's not worth an argument.

The concern I have is keeping the balance between protecting the rights of trans people and not losing sight of the fact that there are some experiences that, intersectionally, trans women and women do not share - just as white women and women of colour may have differing experiences of discrimination. They may intersect and even overlap, but we need to be free to acknowledge them where they do not.

6079_Smith_W

Yup. I agree with you there, TB. Not a hill to die on. But serious, as it is for people who don't want to be called cis.

Part of my objection here aside from assumptions about the law is in the characterization of people. Not exactly the same, but in the old days it was bigots complaining why women couldn't make up their minds about competing in "men's work" and still wanting to have children and have time at home (of course those bigots are still around , they were just more openly vocal about it when women were first challenging sex stereotypes.

Plus it distracts from the real questions of safe spaces and speech, and intersectional rights, about which a lot of us agree.

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Though how else are we going to stop those shifty trans people from doing that on a daily basis and confusing everyone. Just like those who can't make their minds up about who or what they want to sleep with, or might decide they want to marry their pets. We really should consider exceptions in those laws to prevent that kind of crisis, no?

I do understand why people might be a bit reticent about bargaining away their rights, even if it is based on others' nonsense. It is too bad that it gives those scare tactics more weight than they really deserve.

These protections against discrimination have existed in some provinces, including Ontario, for some time. And that province's human rights commission has already said what their policy is regarding pronouns. C-16 is just the federal government playing catchup.

Kind of odd that they haven't rounded up all those free speech victims who are resisting transgender hegemony and sent them off to prison camps yet, eh?

I couldn't care less about pronouns. Has anyone here claimed that as an issue? I am concerned about protecting women's spaces and I don't want to be disappeared as a person who was assigned female at birth and suffered descrimination as a result of that. Are you claiming that C-16 is all about the use of pronouns and nothing else?

Are you saying it would have no impact on cases such as the Vancouver Rape Crisis Centre had with a trans woman who wanted to counsel women who were raped?

6079_Smith_W

Go back and read upthread. That case was settled, taking transgender status into account, based on protecting Vancouver Rape Relief's right to freedom of association. So no, there is no indication it would have any impact.

Besides, protection from discrimination based on gender is already in the provincial code.

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Yup. I agree with you there, TB. Not a hill to die on. But serious, as it is for people who don't want to be called cis.

Part of my objection here aside from assumptions about the law is in the characterization of people. Not exactly the same, but in the old days it was bigots complaining why women couldn't make up their minds about competing in "men's work" and still wanting to have children and have time at home (of course those bigots are still around , they were just more openly vocal about it when women were first challenging sex stereotypes.

Plus it distracts from the real questions of safe spaces and speech, and intersectional rights, about which a lot of us agree.

I'm not sure what you are saying here. Do you think there is something wrong with women who refuse to be identified as "cis"? You seem to be saying it's wrong to impose the gender binary on people but imposing "cis" is no big deal.

I'm also wondering if you differenciate between trans women and a man in a dress. There is a huge difference. There are now people who consider themselves gender fluid and want to drift between the two at will. That's fine. Gender can be fluid. Sex cannot. Gender is something I would like to see disappear entirely. Sex never will.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I'm not sure what you are saying here. Do you think there is something wrong with women who refuse to be identified as "cis"? You seem to be saying it's wrong to impose the gender binary on people but imposing "cis" is no big deal.

What does it mean, though, to "impose" "cis"?

I don't self-identify as a "cis" male for the same reason that I don't identify as being "two-legged" or "homeothermic".  But if someone else wants to call me "cis" then I can't really expect to stop them (and in fact I would even suggest there are times when it's just easier to say than "non-trans" or similar).

But that's my attitude toward pronouns, too.  To put it simply, I don't care if someone wants to call themself "zir" or "ze" or "a wolfkin" or "Mordok of the Dothraki" or "Nkechi Amare Diallo".  It's when *I* am coerced to play along that I push back.

Sorry to be so blunt, but at a certain point, it really feels like people wanting to masturbate using MY hand.

6079_Smith_W

I just said this:

Yup. I agree with you there, TB. Not a hill to die on. But serious, as it is for people who don't want to be called cis.

Does that statement sound like I think there is something wrong with people who refuse to be identified as cis? In fact, I have already made it clear a couple of times what I think about using that term.

And Magoo. Nice way to spin a simple courtesy. We have been around this mulberry bush a few times, and really, I think we are a long way from anyone being stopped from being as rude as they want to be. How might we frame that impulse in graphic sexual terms, if that is how we are inclined to see things?

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Does that statement sound like I think there is something wrong with people who refuse to be identified as cis?

No.  And as I said, I don't even care if someone else wants to identify me as "cis".  It's only an issue if I have to participat in that.  I expect we probably agree!

Quote:
How might we frame that impulse in graphic sexual terms, if that is how we are inclined to see things?

How about "I support your right to rub one out, but please use your own hand"?

In other words, I support your right to identify as whatever you wish to, and I also support my right to reject any demands and expectations that I'll do the same.  Could that work?  Or do we need to all agree on such matters?

6079_Smith_W

Actually I was thinking more along the lines of in other words, what's with this obsession with sexualizing everything about people just because they aren't straight or cis or male?

Kinda like those guys who get their back up thinking every gay man must be coming on to them.

Sorry man, I know you have used that metaphor a couple of times, and I am sure it seems clever. But really, it's just needlessly icky, and reflects more on you than the people you are talking about.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Sorry man, I know you have used that metaphor a couple of times, and I am sure it seems clever. But really, it's just needlessly icky, and reflects more on you than the people you are talking about.

TBH, I borrowed it from my wife -- with her permission -- and I use it to suggest that I don't really want to have to be a part of something that should be personal and private to someone else. 

That it's not is the needlessly icky part.

6079_Smith_W

I don't care what genius came up with it. It is really ignorant.

If anyone thinks the precious right to insult others is under threat, or the most important thing here they clearly aren't spending enough time on social media. I assure you it is alive and well.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I don't care what genius came up with it. It is really ignorant.

No, I don't think it is.

I think it's a good and succinct way of describing being coerced into gratifiying someone else.  Sorry if, in this post-HBO world, it's too graphic.

But I'm open to what other babblers, in addition to you, think.

6079_Smith_W

Nobody is asking you to jerk them off, Magoo.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Settle down, guys.

Look, I don't adopt the cis thing, but I know what is meant by it and for the sake of productive conversation I will go along with it. I think the big difference between that and insisting on certain non-standard pronouns is that I am not oppressed and it's pretty clear that I am what I appear to be - a middle-aged woman who is, according to her teens, deeply uncool and a long way from hip. I'm hoping there's some forgiveness for that (but I'm not holding my breath).

I mean, really, what is there to gain over arguing about whether or not you refer to me as cis? I don't think anyone's going to make me refer to myself as cis (so that isn't likely a problem for Magoo, either). Even if I thought the terminology was self-indulgent, I wouldn't take it as far as being a wank. Anyway, here we are still talking about pronouns and descriptors...

6079_Smith_W

Okay, I hear you, but that did make me smile. I wonder what kind of reaction I'd get if I asked someone to settle down over comments like that.

I'd love to get past it, and not be talking about this pronoun freakout; I am with you there TB. But these  comments keep coming. And yes, even if "cis" was a term I was inclined to use (it is not a word I use) I wouldn't use it in here because I know some find it insulting. I don't assume that anyone here is imposing their ideology on me. It is just common decency and respect. And if someone really can't find it in themselves to do that, just call someone by their name, say "that person" or "hey you".

Anything is better than this martyr act we hear from some about going to jail for it.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Okay, I hear you, but that did make me smile. I wonder what kind of reaction I'd get if I asked someone to settle down over comments like that.

Ha! I didn't even think about it. Too used to breaking up sibling spats, it's becoming automatic!

I sometimes wonder if we fight so vociferously about the little things so we can avoid the big fights.

6079_Smith_W

I don't know about avoiding, but I am pretty sure the lack of trust from those big fights poisons a lot of these situations where people should be trying to understand each other and at least not work against one another.

So yeah, it probably is to some degree a case of not seeing the forest for the trees.

 

 

Sineed

Are there big fights on babble anymore? I'm back after having not been here much over the past few years, and it seems like a toned-down place, the epic fights of old a distant memory. I imagine the rise of social media has a lot to do with it. The people who want to be assholes online are all at Twitter, for instance.

I mean, this topic is one of the hottest potatoes going, yet this thread has been thoroughly civil.

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

What does it mean, though, to "impose" "cis"?

I don't self-identify as a "cis" male for the same reason that I don't identify as being "two-legged" or "homeothermic".  But if someone else wants to call me "cis" then I can't really expect to stop them (and in fact I would even suggest there are times when it's just easier to say than "non-trans" or similar).

I do identify as being two-legged, I don't identify as being cis. I wasn't born with a gender. In my view gender is a social construct. There is no more proof of gender being a condition of birth than there is of a soul being a condition of birth.  How other people want to be identified is their business. I would never disrespect a trans person by using the wrong pronoun and it is generally very obvious which pronoun they prefer even when they prefer something ambiguous. If trans people want to refer to people in general as "cis" I don't have a problem with that either. "I" personally don't want to be referred to as "cis" nor will I use the word because I don't believe that people are born with a gender.

Smith, I am generally very forgetful of who said what or what their personal position is on a particular issue because I usualy focus on the content of a post rather than who wrote it. I don't even care if someone changes position from one day to the next. All that usually matters is what the particular post expresses. I even forget fights with people. I will remember if I have a very long and drawn out disagreement with someone. I will remember if someone attacks me a lot.  I remember the general quality of someone's posts, for example, Lagatta. I even remember she's an ecofeminist. Other than that it's water under the bridge for me.

Pondering

Timebandit wrote:
Look, I don't adopt the cis thing, but I know what is meant by it and for the sake of productive conversation I will go along with it. I think the big difference between that and insisting on certain non-standard pronouns is that I am not oppressed and it's pretty clear that I am what I appear to be - a middle-aged woman who is, according to her teens, deeply uncool and a long way from hip.

As I recall you're a woman. Are you saying that women aren't oppressed anymore?

quizzical

not from anything i've ever read from TB

Pondering

quizzical wrote:
not from anything i've ever read from TB

That's what I thought which is why I asked. Many people including some of the men here do not agree that women are oppressed. Timebandit did just say that she is not oppressed.

quizzical

i take her comment as personal at this point in time according to her own perceptions of oppression.

 

 

6079_Smith_W

I didn't read anyone here saying that they don't think women experience oppression. To say that one is not oppressed on a certain issue is not saying that one does not experience oppression.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Pondering wrote:

Timebandit wrote:
Look, I don't adopt the cis thing, but I know what is meant by it and for the sake of productive conversation I will go along with it. I think the big difference between that and insisting on certain non-standard pronouns is that I am not oppressed and it's pretty clear that I am what I appear to be - a middle-aged woman who is, according to her teens, deeply uncool and a long way from hip.

As I recall you're a woman. Are you saying that women aren't oppressed anymore?

We all have different varieties of oppression and privilege.

I'm not oppressed when it comes to someone using my preferred pronouns - so it's a good idea, I think, to remember that and extend the same courtesy to others who have difficulty with that by respecting their preference.

It was not a comment on women overall, and I'm not sure why you read it that way.

I also think I pointed out in my post that I am female - "middle-aged woman" is a dead giveaway. ;)

Pondering

Timebandit wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Timebandit wrote:
Look, I don't adopt the cis thing, but I know what is meant by it and for the sake of productive conversation I will go along with it. I think the big difference between that and insisting on certain non-standard pronouns is that I am not oppressed and it's pretty clear that I am what I appear to be - a middle-aged woman who is, according to her teens, deeply uncool and a long way from hip.

As I recall you're a woman. Are you saying that women aren't oppressed anymore?

We all have different varieties of oppression and privilege.

I'm not oppressed when it comes to someone using my preferred pronouns - so it's a good idea, I think, to remember that and extend the same courtesy to others who have difficulty with that by respecting their preference.

It was not a comment on women overall, and I'm not sure why you read it that way.

I also think I pointed out in my post that I am female - "middle-aged woman" is a dead giveaway. ;)

Yeah, that middle-aged woman part was a dead giveaway. The statement seemed global rather than specific to pronouns to me which didn't seem to be in keeping with what I remember of you. So, just wanted that clarified.

I absolutely agree on pronouns. Even those that are difficult to use such as "z", or "they". It shouldn't be that difficult to get used to for the few people who would want it to be used for them. Such people usually stand out anyway so it shouldn't be difficult to remember.

On the other hand, I'm not sure the use of pronouns should be regulated by law. I'm female, if someone referred to me by male pronouns it would be weird but whatever. I can understand that a trans woman could experience that as aggression and insult but I'm not sure that makes it hate speech. I would still agree that institutions should use the pronouns an individual prefers yet should gender neutral pronouns be legally binding and if so which ones? What if one person prefers "they" and the other prefers "ze"?

I don't entirely understand the implications of C -16. What are the likely ramifications of it? Does it even have anything to do with pronoun use? I did try googling it but it doesn't really expand on what it would mean in practice. I don't know if there is cause for alarm or not.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I do identify as being two-legged, I don't identify as being cis.

Just to clarify, I also believe myself to be two-legged.  But if someone were to say "Tell me a little about yourself", I wouldn't lead with "Well, for starters, I was born with two legs, like the vast majority of humans...."

It's true that some people aren't born with two legs like we were, but if they self-identify as "one legged" or "no legged", I don't feel any need to self-identify as "two legged" so they feel less alone or whatever.

Quote:
I can understand that a trans woman could experience that as aggression and insult but I'm not sure that makes it hate speech.

I would agree that if a transwoman is standing in front of you in a dress, heels and pearls, referring to her as "he" would be a plainly deliberate insult.

But if that same person, in a dress, heels and pearls says "Oh, I'm gender-bifurcated, and I use the pronouns 'zhwee' and 'zhwirr'", I'm sorry to report, they'll probably notice me rolling my eyes so hard that I tear something.

 

Sineed

pondering wrote:
I don't entirely understand the implications of C -16. What are the likely ramifications of it?

I'm not sure either. It codifes into law "gender identity" and "gender expression" without defining those terms, so it either may be completely toothless and symbolic, or open to interpretation by individual judges. 

6079_Smith_W

Actually the terms are defined well enough for the purpose of the legislation, which is discrimination. And there are clauses pointing out what constitutes discrimination, and what is a valid exception.

Gender identity is how people identify themselves. Gender expression is how they present to, and are seen by others.

It doesn't mean anyone is forced to agree with it. You can think religion is nonsense and you can say so publicly. But you can't refuse a seat in a restaurant to someone because of their beliefs. That is not toothless, nor is it undefinable. Likewise if someone assaults a person because they don't look like what they think a man or woman should look like that is potentially an aggravating factor in a crime. That is not toothless or obscure.

It also doesn't mean they are absolute. A few months ago you posted an article about someone in Nova Scotia who claimed gender discrimination in what was more likely a case of harrassment. That complaint never got a hearing.

I agree that we don't know exactly what every tribunal is going to do (and most of these cases, even when there is a valid complaint, never even make it to tribunal, because the point is resolution, not punishment). But those who apply the law are generally neither blind nor stupid, and in cases where there is a mistake, like the Kimberly Nixon case, it generally gets fixed.

So the fact these legal terms don't comply with some people's philosophical and political definitions of them isn't actually relevant. Again, these legal processes don't settle those political questions. That would be impossible, and it is not the point.

In any case, I may have posted this before, but here is how Ontario defines these things:

http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/gender-identity-and-gender-expression-brochure

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

First off, C-16 passed the Senate with flying colours.

Wonder what it would mean to this case, though:

Trans community speaks out against Body Blitz women-only spa

Quote:
On June 9, Weronika Rogula posted on Facebook that she would no longer visit Body Blitz because they had cancelled her trans friend’s appointment due to the spa’s “no male genitals” rule. The post sparked a social media outcry, and led Body Blitz to respond two days later via Facebook, stating that “because we are a bathing-suit-optional environment, our current policy is to ensure all clients are comfortable in an environment with nudity, including minors” and that they are hiring a “civil rights professional over the summer to help us with a clear and fair policy.”

Sineed

I wonder also, Magoo. From Cheri DiNovo's page:

Body Blitz Spa in violation of Ontario Human Rights Code: DiNovo

TORONTO – Parkdale – High Park MPP and NDP critic for LGBTQ issues, Cheri DiNovo blasted Toronto’s Body Blitz Spa for its blatant transphobia and violation of the Ontario Human Rights Code.

“Remember lesbians and gays banned from change rooms of health clubs? This is the same thing,” said DiNovo, who has been to Body Blitz many times.

Toby’s Law, which DiNovo authored, enshrined ‘gender identity’ and ‘gender expression’ to the Ontario Human Rights Code.  Trans rights are explicitly protected under the OHRC.

“Not providing service to trans women is not only transphobic, it is against the law,” said DiNovo.

“Trans women are women and trans rights are human rights.”

The Body Blitz Spa has said that transwomen are welcome if they've had bottom surgery. It follows that by DiNovo's reasoning, women are bigots if we want to be naked in a space without penises.

More about DiNovo and her views on same-sex gatherings:

File this one under “unintended consequences” for Lesbians, Gays, and Women’s Rights advocates living in Ontario. MPP Cheri DiNovo announced Friday that bill C-389, “Toby’s Act”, the 2012 bill she sponsored which intended to protect the rights of transgender persons, actually makes all same-sex gatherings illegal in the province. This will come as some surprise to many lesbians and gays who often exercise their rights to assemble freely in meetings, conferences, and social groups with other same-sex persons.  In addition, DiNovo claims the right of Ontarian women to assemble in any same-sex gatherings: whether they be reproductive rights orgs, Islamic faith gatherings, or lesbian support groups- has been eliminated by her bill. She has appealed to the Ontario Human Rights Council to back up her legal position.

DiNovo made her announcement in response to male complaints surrounding a small group of feminists holding a female-only meeting in a Toronto art gallery. DiNovo characterized same-sex meetings as “reprehensible” and vowed to use Toby’s Act to eliminate and prosecute current and future same-sex gatherings of women or lesbians in the province. “I’m hoping that now under Toby’s law, this will be considered illegal.”

The activists have been all over Body Blitz Spa, claiming that women not wanting to be naked in the presence of males is a violation of transwomens' basic human rights. Says a transwoman writing for the CBC:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/trans-women-spa-1.4164893

The case of Body Blitz Spa in Toronto reportedly denying access to a trans woman is a good reminder that laws don't necessarily shift public opinion. And the lingering, fallacious opinion among many seems to be that trans women, somehow, pose a threat to other women....

The spa issued a statement in response to the controversy, noting that as "a single-sex facility with full-nudity, we are not like other facilities." It added: "We recognize that this is an important discussion for single-sex facilities to have and we will seek to find a satisfactory resolution."

Some observers are of the opinion that that "satisfactory resolution" should be to continue to deny access to trans women. They note that some cis women — that is, women who were born biologically female — can be triggered by the sight of male genitalia; that the presence of trans women will compromise their safe spaces.

This view ignores the fact that trans women are still women. To view them as dangerous or intimidating because of their bodies is to reduce them to little more than their genitals. It is to blame them for violence perpetrated by males.

Transwomen are males. As I previously mentioned, the largest study of transpeople found that transwomen exhibit the same level of violence as non-trans men, or much higher than women. And yet we are bigots if we don't believe that feeling like a woman inside somehow cancels out male biology and a lifetime of male privilege.

6079_Smith_W

I think the short answer is it won't mean anything more than Ontario's law already does.

quizzical

wtf is wrong with DiNova's brain?

and if it weren't for you Sineed and a few others here I would believe all Ontarians are 2 slices short of a loaf. as it is i believe most are.

Sineed

Another recent decision, dated May 25, 2017. It's kinda long, so tl;dr: BC Corrections was trying to get a complaint by a transwoman dismissed. BC Corrections failed to provide enough proof, and the transwoman's complaint against them is moving forwards.

http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/shareddocs/decisions/2017/may/115_Lovado_v_BC_Min...

Ms. Lovado complains that Corrections Branch discriminated against her on the basis of sex primarily by housing her in a men's jail when she should have been housed in a women's jail. She also makes various allegations about mistreatment during the course of her incarceration....On or about February 5, 2016, Ms. Lovado was released from custody and placed on probation. Corrections Branch says that upon release, Ms. Lovado asked to be identified as a male, declined to wear a wig, prosthetic breasts, or female clothing. Ms. Lovado denies this, saying that she lived in the community as a female. Corrections Branch provides no information in its application except one note by Ms. Lovado’s Probation Officer in her client log saying that Ms. Lovado had asked to be identified as male.

So if a man says he is a woman, an extremely high burden of proof is legally required to assert that he is not. But if the same man says, no, I am actually a man, this is not sufficient information. 

A separate e-mail dated April 26, 2016 from the Deputy Warden to the Assistant Deputy Warden noted that on intake, Ms. Lovado refused to be skin frisked by a male. The Deputy Warden says in that e-mail that he attended the change room and “explained that as he [sic] had all the ‘equipment’ of a male that he [sic] would need to be frisked by a male." 

Male person insists that only female hands touch his [sic] body.

Ms. Lovado was placed in single cell segregation at the Pretrial Centre. On April 27, 2016 – two days after her remand – Ms. Lovado filed an inmate complaint form requesting a transfer to a female inmate population on the basis that she is transgender and identifies as female.  On April 28, 2016, the Deputy Warden sent an e-mail to staff at the Pretrial Centre advising that Ms. Lovado would be receiving a package from Alouette Centre containing female underwear and a list of cosmetics available from the canteen...On May 5, 2016 Ms. Lovado filed a special request seeking to be referred to by female pronouns, to be placed on the “female Alouette Centre diet", to be provided with bras and female undergarments, and to be given access to make-up from the canteen at Alouette Centre....Ms. Lovado also filed a further complaint requesting a wig, breast prosthesis, and a job within the correctional centre.

Male person provided with women's underwear at his [sic] request.

More on this dude:

Man with "awful criminal record" smirks as he is allowed into women's prison.

https://purplesagefem.wordpress.com/2015/11/07/man-with-awful-criminal-r...

Jaris Bailey Lovado is in prison for robbery, possession of stolen property, obstruction and fraud. While being arrested, he bashed his head into the side of the cruiser and kicked the door and windows, then wrapped a seatbelt around his head several times in an attempt to strangle himself. In another incident, police pulled him over and he attempted to escape by speeding away and switching the license plate on his stolen vehicle. He told the police officers his name was “Roy Lovedoll” but was unable to spell it.

quizzical

no doubt he was welcomed with open at the women's prison....and feels loved and cared for.

and this Sineed is an important observation.

So if a man says he is a woman, an extremely high burden of proof is legally required to assert that he is not. But if the same man says, no, I am actually a man, this is not sufficient information.

he did not declare himself a female until his 2nd stint in jail for this crime spree and was in a male female relationship throughout the spree.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

The Body Blitz brouhaha gets me wondering:  if a human with a penis whips that penis out at a bus stop, is that a problem because?:

a)  it's not a problem; that's an archaic and prudish law that should be repealed immediately

b) it shouldn't really be a problem, but you can't just say "hello, here's some penis", so this could take some time

c) it's only a problem if the penis-haver has a "male brain"

d) nobody should have to see a penis when they don't wish to

e) penises are strongly correlated with violent acts

Pages