GAG demands Vancouver Women’s Library ban books

160 posts / 0 new
Last post
6079_Smith_W

I don't understand her meaning. It sounds to me like she thinks all transwomen have the same idea of "blessed womanhood". I don't know if that means an unrealistic ideal, but it seems pretty far fetched to me to assume everyone is going to have the same idea. I know it doesn't apply to a good friend of mine who came close to suicide, not looking for some idealized and unrealistic image of gender.

And I get that she is talking about shame, but in the first place, not everyone feels that way about their bodies, and I'd say many trans people have their own experience with shame.

But  yes, I do find it weird that she'd use such a negative image as her idea of what makes born women different than trans women.

(edit)

Look, I am not trying to put down Greer. She is an important thinker and activist. And she is entitled to her opinion about transgenderism. But some of her assumptions around it aren't exactly on the ball.

quizzical

she is not talking about shame. imv she is talking about the realities coming with a vagina.

stating vagina realities is not stating shame nor is it negative. it just is. you don't have a vagina so i guess you don't get it.

 imv as well "blessed womanhood" is her words for the stereotype forced upon women by most everyone including some women not a 'trans' imposition specifically. again i could be wrong. i've not read anything else of hers. so definitely no kinda of in the know.

6079_Smith_W

Well I might not, but those of us with men's bodies know a little bit about "big, hairy and smelly" too. 

Oh, and floppy.

But again, I am not trying to take her and her ideas apart; just holding some things she has said up as an example of how wide the misunderstanding and assumptions are on both sides about this issue. In particular the fact she sees it as a threat.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
i don't see it -your dong and balls analogy- as essentialism.

I'm not looking for a showdown here or anything.  But I'm suggesting that if someone's PENIS is somehow, magically a FEMALE penis just because that someone self-identifies as female, that's essentialism.  They're basically saying that they're a female, so therefore their penis can only reasonably (and essentially) also be female.

I'm not trying to recruit allies here, but I think we don't likely disagree, really.

Timebandit

That's stretching the idea of gender essentialism further than I would. 

The male vs female brain bit is salient, though. The current state of the science is that there are, statistically, some differences between male and female brains. However, there are two caveats. The first is that there's an incredible amount of variation in individuals, creating a great deal of overlap, and certainly no black and white "this is a man brain" or "this is a woman brain" rules to differentiate. More like statistical tendencies that may or may not play out individually.

The second is that we don't know why Those statistical differences exist. Could be a level of biological sexual dimorphism. But given what we're observing about neuroplasticity, it could be social conditioning that shapes brain function. So we are back to the old nature vs nurture argument. 

Ultimately, I am not ready to acquiesce to the biological argument wholly until there's more concrete evidence to base it on. 

6079_Smith_W

Timebandit wrote:

But given what we're observing about neuroplasticity, it could be social conditioning that shapes brain function. So we are back to the old nature vs nurture argument.

Yup. I actually agree that gender is largely a social construct. But I'd add "so what". Pretty much everything about human identity is a construct, including culture and belief systems. But we recognize them as valid.

With gender I know there is the question of whether it is an inherently oppressive dynamic. I don't see that there is a clear answer any more than than there is about institutions like the family.

And it is kind of a moot point IMO, because obviously people do gravitate toward gender archetypes, some more than others. That is not going back in the bottle, in fact I question whether it is really the problem, or whether it is how mainstream society tries to impose them on people based on their sex.

 

quizzical

smith- the threat is re-enforcing stereotypes we want gone for both genders.

with all the porn mags depiciting vaginas as flowers for all da mens out there you should be able to get where she is coming from with depicting how vagina reality is. not negative and not shameful.

magoo from what i get from essentialism now i  get it. it's more in dwelling hard wiring with outward  expression not a redefinition of body parts.

redefining body parts  in the manner you've exampled is just delusion imv.

6079_Smith_W

Well if that was how she meant it (and smelly does not sound like a neutral word to me, or even an accurate one; it sounds like something from a massengil ad) it still shows some false assumptions about how she believes transgendered people think.

But clearly we aren't going to agree on that one.

And yes, societal enforcement of gender stereotypes is something we should resist. But does that mean those gender archetypes are themselves a bad thing? I don't think that is necessarily true. The bottom line I think is that people should be free to take them or leave them as they want.

Timebandit

Sure, but to bring this merry-go-round full circle, essentialism is a problem within the conflicts between trans activists and feminists who feel that subverting enforced gender stereotypes is integral to emancipation. 

Part of the argument for gender dysphoria relies on the idea that one has a male or female brain regardless of what other sexual characteristics one may have. And that in turn relies heavily on gender essentialism.

bearing in mind that neither trans activism and feminism are monolithic and that there are a wide array of opinions and positions on this, it is a particular sticking point and something of a stalemate. I'm not especially hopeful that there will be much movement on that any time soon. 

6079_Smith_W

No, there never is going to be one single way of looking at it, and I'd be happy for a stalemate. It is a better alternative than trashing libraries.

Timebandit

yeah, I'm getting out of patience with the whole thing. 

MegB

Hi folks,

I just wanted to pop in to say this is one of the more interesting discussions I've read lately.  Keep on going!

quizzical

6079_Smith_W wrote:
...I do find it weird that she'd use such a negative image as her idea of what makes born women different than trans women.(edit)

​i've been thinking more on this comment. i think you are really focusing on negative imagery from your point of view not from a lived experience with a vagina.  it's growth and development -which rarely is a blessed event- forge us into who we become as women.

why would you expect us or Greer to deliniate something trivial but positive as to what makes us different? and to extend this why would anyone expect a women delinate anything at anytime?

we do not have to defend who we are and why we are.

Look, I am not trying to put down Greer. She is an important thinker and activist. And she is entitled to her opinion about transgenderism. But some of her assumptions around it aren't exactly on the ball.

​i think you need to give an example here on what you think her assumptions aren't on the ball about?

6079_Smith_W

I already did.

For one, the assumption that most transgender people have the same idea of womanhood, and her assumption that it is based on a stereotype. In the first place it is not true, and it is as absurd as assuming all women think the same.

Actually the interview following that article is worth watching for a number of reasons, including the section toward the end where she talks about attempts to stop her from speaking on campus, and she rightly points out that it is important for people to be able to express unpopular opinions.

In that, I agree with her, even in some circumstances those opinions amount to what others consider discrimination.

Timebandit

I  can't say I agree with Greer on everything, but the point I'm taking from her phraseology is that being female is not all about being pretty and sexy. Some of it's downright messy and let's face it, the reproductive part of womanhood is a good place to start.

She may be assuming trans people are holding to a stereotype, but let's take a look at, say, Caitlin Jenner. How much of the waxing philosophical on her transformation had anything to do with the messy parts of female bodies and female lives?

I get that for a lot of transwomen, the adoption of aspects of stereotypical femininity is a way of reinforcing the persona and to be accepted as female. I can totally understand it on a personal level. However, the highly made up, coiffed and waxed and in high heels manifestation of woman, trans or cis, is more performative than anything else. (Think about drag queens - and no, I'm not equating them to trans women at all! - who are men who perform femininity while remaining clearly men.)

It's a stereotype that has always relied on women being embarrassed about being smelly or hairy or not good enough because our lipstick and hair is untidy. There are a lot of feminists who have spent their lives fighting it and who have a concern that adopting that kind of presentation takes us a step back. I think that's some of what Greer was getting at, ineffectively, whether you agree with her stance on it or not.

PS - Hi, Meg!

6079_Smith_W

Yup. I figured that might have been where she was going too. And to a point I am also sympathetic that she sees it as a defense of women so I do cut some slack, though, no I don't agree (at least on the stereotype accusation).

It isn't all Priscilla Queen of the Desert and He-Man, even factoring in people who have a more heavily-gendered style. And I expect most understand a thing or two about bodies being difficult and dirty. For one thing, they have a higher incidence of urinary and bowel problems than the rest of us, just because of that bathroom minefield.

I have about half a dozen trans people (that I am aware of) among my friends and acquaintances. Not one of them is anything like those stereotypes, or even what anyone would consider overt in their gender. They are just regular people, and  you wouldn't turn your head to look at any of them. In fact all of my friends who might be said to reflect those heavy masculine and feminine stereotypes are non-trans. To assume that la Cage aux Folles is the norm for trans people is no different than assuming those stereotypes about those of us who are not trans, except that we don't get attitude about it. I get that there is a war over gender, and I get that it is a serious thing that for many has caused a lot of misery, but how is it that trans people are the lightning rod and non-trans women and men get a pass on it?

(edit)

To answer that rhetorical question, I do realize the difference hangs on the question of gender identity, but the fact remains that the rest of us are free to express our gender as freely and as "stereotypically" as we want and not get hassled for it. That is why I think the stereotype in this case is really just in her mind. And in saying that I am not expecting anyone to give ground on essentialism. I am just saying it is a point of discrimination.

quizzical

smith you say "really just in her mind"

are you sure you want to say this?

by inference you are telling all women who understand and have experienced the stereotypes imosed upon us 'it's just in our minds'

6079_Smith_W

That she would make that assumption about how trans people think? Yes. That is what I am saying.

It is not a comment on how women experience stereotypes and gender hegemony. I am not questioning that. I'm not even questioning the truth of some of the other things she said about women's unique experience of their bodies. Just how she makes presumptions about others.

quizzical

you admit she's a thinker.

why would you question her extrapolation of lived experience?

have you thought your experience might be a minority one in the scheme of things?

and this thread stands as testimony to the the seige women are under currently  because of transactivists who are telling us who we are and how we shoud be.

 

6079_Smith_W

I don't question her lived experience, and I have said a couple of times I consider her an important feminist thinker and activist. In particular I like that she has at times said and done things that are out there (and I guess that paradoxically also includes statements like this where I think she is wrong). I think anyone trying to silence her is as off-base as these library attackers.

But she doesn't know what she is talking about when she makes assumptions about trans people just playing into stereotypes, and not having a realistic understanding of the challenges of bodies (and that is what she is implying, even if she is in part right about the distinct nature of women and men's bodies).

I don't put her statements in the same category as that attack obviously, but it is also a misunderstanding of others' reality just like those who object to certain gender analysis so much that they want books taken off shelves, or refuse to recognize why some people do not want to be labelled as"cis" anything.

Timebandit

Okay, so I think you are misunderstanding me, Smith.

I do not for one minute equate transwomen with drag queens. They are totally different.

Drag queens are not women, they are men. What they do is perform femininity while remaining men. They put on a persona and take her off when they leave the stage, for the most part. They don't think they're women.

Drag may have been a safe space for transwomen at one time, but that's not, nor has it ever been, the reality of most men who do drag.

Transwomen identify as female, a whole other kettle of fish.

What I'm talking about are the Caitlin Jenners of the world who gush about getting to wear pretty underwear and spike heels. That kind of public face added to the small subset of transwomen who argue that talking about biologically female functions like menstruation and pregnancy is exclusionary is what Greer is pushing back at. CJ gets held up as a hero, but I can't help thinking of transwomen who can't afford the massive amount of cosmetic surgery she's done on top of her reassignment surgeries. It's inescapable that the aesthetic that she promotes is problematic in both trans women and non-trans women. IOW, they're luxury choices that are not necessarily feminist choices.

I think that's part of what rankles as well - that choosing the super high heels and sexy dresses are choices, but the demand that they be accepted as FEMINIST choices is something that irritates, no matter where it comes from. Yes, it can be empowering to the individual, but you're not really moving any feminist agenda forward and I'm not giving you a cookie for feeling positive about it.

6079_Smith_W

I don't think you were saying that TB, and I wasn't talking about transvestite men or women. I was talking about more subtle examples of non-trans people being able to express a range of gender expression without being hassled in the same way.

But ultimately I was talking about her saying "most" transpeople have an idea of womanhood which is a stereotype. I think that is a false assumption. What is in the media is one thing, but I don't see people I know doing that.

(edit)

The lipstick and sexy attire? Likewise, if that is someone's thing, fine. But if it is in many ways a false stereotype that is used against women, it is also a stereotype that is used against trans women, because it is not the whole reality. But they get blamed for it in a way others do not.

 

 

Timebandit

Perhaps. I'll admit to being a lipstick devotee - in fact, I was nearly driven out of the first feminist gathering I ever attended, back in the mid-1980s, for showing up with my bouffed up hair and red lipstick. (I've dropped the bouffed hair, but I still lurve red lipstick!) So I'm not necessarily advocating against such displays, if you like them. Just that when I pick up my red lipstick on the way out the door, I'm not making a bold, feminist statement.

So my (very tangential point) is a bit larger than the trans issue, but somewhat connected. Empowering choices aren't always feminist, and they don't need to be.

This is not to say I don't understand that it's the price of safety and acceptance for transwomen - I do. Sometimes it's a coping mechanism for women who aren't trans as well. I know there's a huge difference in how stereotypically feminine women vs more androgynous women are treated. It's a spectrum. And I also accept that the public discourse and the everyday life are two different things. Not every transwoman is a trans activist but they do, of course, drive the discourse.

quizzical

Timebandit wrote:
...Just that when I pick up my red lipstick on the way out the door, I'm not making a bold, feminist statement.

So my (very tangential point) is a bit larger than the trans issue, but somewhat connected. Empowering choices aren't always feminist, and they don't need to be.

​while out on this tangential limb i like your comment "they don't need to be".  i believe feminists should take a closer look at the empowering needs of women as being "feminist". lip stick in the cosmetology world is recognized as the single most inexpensive purchase a woman can make which empowers/bolsters self-esteem.

yup the lower self esteem or sense of dis-empowerment without it could be traced to accepting imposed stereotypes. but does it matter if it gives you what you need to complete your public self?

i've been saying something near this for years about the cosmetic nail industry and to the feminists against it. as master nail technician/therapist i've found nails for some are cosmetic and esteem empowering and for others a medical remedy on multiple levels. by far the largest cliental i have are those seeking a solution for nail biting, nail/cuticle picking, nail plicaturing, in-growing or thickening.

moving tangential lines further to essentialism i've had women come in to get their nails done with their little lap dogs. the little female dogs love blingy nails and their nails painted and avidly take part in watching the process. the little male sleep through the whole appointment

Not every transwoman is a trans activist but they do, of course, drive the discourse.

i think this is an important observation.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Who's been around babble long enough to remember The Great Thong Wars?  :)

6079_Smith_W

Not me. Opening salvo in the croc wars?

And on TB's point, probably the biggest indication of privilege is those of us who don't have our every action noticed and held up as an example of how we represent our community. It really is only the straight white guys who don't have to constantly watch themselves in that department, or even think about it.

Kinda sucks that everyone else pretty much has to always consider that, even among allies, especially when it comes to matters of personal freedom and appearance.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
It really is only the straight white guys who don't have to constantly watch themselves in that department, or even think about it.

Unless we run around in a "NO FEAR" tank top and use Axe body spray.

I'm not saying this in any kind of sympathy with those guys, but that's going to be noticed and commented upon and its deeper meanings analyzed.

6079_Smith_W

Yeah, but no one is going to spin a single incident of yahooism into a belief about all men.

But you'll find endless tales about "all feminists" allegedly thinking this and doing that, based on something one person maybe did one time, or worse, TV.

 

Timebandit

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Who's been around babble long enough to remember The Great Thong Wars?  :)

oh, yes...

Sineed

6079_Smith_W wrote:

But ultimately I was talking about her saying "most" transpeople have an idea of womanhood which is a stereotype. I think that is a false assumption.

If gender really is separated from biological sex such that "gender isn't what's between your legs, it's what's between your ears," then what is gender identity based on, and if gender identity has nothing to do with biological sex, how is it not based on stereotypes?

If it is cissexist to say that a woman is, according to Oxford, "an adult human female," then what is the appropriately inclusive definition of a woman?

Sineed

Timebandit wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Who's been around babble long enough to remember The Great Thong Wars?  :)

oh, yes...

Australian readers might wonder why Canadians find casual summer footwear so contentious.

6079_Smith_W

I don't know the answer to that Sineed, but I think the solution is not to insist one or the other is absolute truth, because I think they both are, depending on the person and the context. Not necessarily compromise, but detente. Not trashing libraries. Not trying to remove other peoples' rights protection. Not violating safe spaces. Not trying to shut people up if they refuse to use the right terminology. Not assuming people are faking, or abusers, or traitors, or Nazis.

It is imperfect solution that probably won't satisfy anyone who takes a hard line on these issues. But in a practical sense I don't see either side is going to win.

As I said above, I do think that a lot of gender (though not all) is a construct and conditioning. But that is no different than a lot of things which we consider valid, like culture and belief systems. And we don't find gender expression threatening in the same way as gender identity, so that is not a hard line either.

But your good points notwithstanding, until we have a better solution we have to also deal with the very real issue of people who feel that dysphoria and don't feel their identity fits their bodies. Because whatever it is I don't buy that it is not a real thing.

(edit)

And when I was a kid we called them thongs too, long before underwear makers started skimping on the material.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

I just mean that we all have a brain, and we don't know that much about the brain, so while I personally don't believe in the idea of a "lady brain" or a "female brain", I can't prove there could be no such thing, either.  It's actually a debate that predated "trans-rights" by decades.

But some trans-women believe that their penis is "a woman's penis" or a "female penis", or in some cases an "enlarged clitoris".  It just seems to me that by the time your DONG and BALLS are somehow "female", that's a bit different from suggesting your brain (or your pancreas, or your stomach, or any other thing we all have) is female, and it sort of suggests that maybe essentialism has gone a bit far.

Next up:  I'm a MAN, so this is MANstruation!

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that a penis, or menstruation, have to have the final say on defining anyone's place in society.  But it's a bit funny to suggest that a penis is really a clitoris because that somehow "squares the circle" and then to expect everyone to nod piously and say "Yes, you're a woman, so that MUST be a clitoris.  There's no other explanation for what it is".

Magoo, I'm not sure if you're acting out of innocent lack of awareness or you're just doing passive-aggressive trolling, but can I ask you to at least consider not posting in this thread for awhile and just reading what people are saying?            

What you're doing with your posts here doesn't sound as if you are working from a standpoint of respect to the communities involved in this.  

​And those who are don't have to justify themselves and what they say to those of us who aren't comparably oppressed.

 

quizzical

Ken Burch wrote:
 ​And those who are don't have to justify themselves and what they say to those of us who aren't comparably oppressed.

i think in this you're wrong. if you're going to start calling a penis a clitoris there needs to be a discussion. or an outright refusal to accept such bs.

i have no problem with magoo's posts and given the topic forum  this is in i don't think you should be weighing and telling him anything.

Timebandit

Thanks, Ken, I think your intentions are good, but I think we can handle Magoo in this thread. His examples are absurd, but I also think that is part of this conversation - where is the line? To what extent do we say "okay, cool" and where do we say "sorry, I just can't get behind that one"?

quizzical

6079_Smith_W wrote:
It is imperfect solution that probably won't satisfy anyone who takes a hard line on these issues. But in a practical sense I don't see either side is going to win./quote]

"either side"

imv there is no sides to win.

women do not have to bear the brunt of stigmatizing this as our fault. it's bs.

6079_Smith_W

I agree. And I haven't said that "women" are to blame. The trans community is also not to blame for what a small group of people did to that library.

But there are some people taking this further than the obvious difference of opinion, to the level of discrimination, lies and attack. Unlike the men who resort to that (and there are plenty) those who do it from a feminist and trans perspective are coming from a place of resisting oppression, so it is complicated.

I am asking how fair that is, and what it accomplishes. After all, I am sure those library trashers justify their action by saying they are under threat and defending their community too. I don't buy that even if they can point to things they claim make it okay.

BTW, The Current has a piece this morning on women's groups who believe C-16 undermines women's rights. I will be listening to it.

quizzical

sorry i didn't hear the Current Smith. how was it?

not so complicated. i believe. purely simple.

 

6079_Smith_W

You can check it out on their website: 

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-may-22-2017-1.4124248...

Some of it I thought was good. There were parts of both interviews that made me cringe, both in the questions and the answers. Again, I wish discussions like this would focus on trying to get to the best solutions that will address concerns, not trying to pin people down on who is right and who is wrong. 

And so far as the proposed law is concerned, I agree it is really simple. It only adds four words to existing legislation. Yet again, they go down the path of pretending it is really complicated because there is a difference in definition. And what something means in philosophical terms is not necessarily the same as what it means in legal terms.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Again, I wish discussions like this would focus on trying to get to the best solutions that will address concerns, not trying to pin people down on who is right and who is wrong.

I'm not trying to argumentative here, but by "concerns", do you mean materialist things like being able to hold a job, rent an apartment, or even have a safe and acceptable washroom to use?

Because I think that for at least some, the concerns aren't especially materialist at all, and are in fact closer to "who's right" -- about the very basic definition of "woman" (and to a much, much lesser degree, "man").

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

I know this isn't the official "trans stuff" thread, but this just popped up, and it's kind of interesting.

quizzical

Mr. Magoo wrote:
Quote:
Again, I wish discussions like this would focus on trying to get to the best solutions that will address concerns, not trying to pin people down on who is right and who is wrong.

I'm not trying to argumentative here, but by "concerns", do you mean materialist things like being able to hold a job, rent an apartment, or even have a safe and acceptable washroom to use?

​there hould be no discrimination allowed for housing jobs etc.

i guess on the washroom concern "acceptable" is the key term.  accepable to whom? imv build a third one. or actually a 4th one we already have a 3rd one.

Because I think that for at least some, the concerns aren't especially materialist at all, and are in fact closer to "who's right" -- about the very basic definition of "woman" (and to a much, much lesser degree, "man").

and you're right about the basic definition. and there is only 1 right answer. the biological one. 

quizzical

6079_Smith_W wrote:
You can check it out on their website: 

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-may-22-2017-1.4124248...

thanks i will listen tomorrow if i get the chance.

Some of it I thought was good. There were parts of both interviews that made me cringe, both in the questions and the answers. Again, I wish discussions like this would focus on trying to get to the best solutions that will address concerns, not trying to pin people down on who is right and who is wrong. 

what do you perceive as the 'best solutions'?

And so far as the proposed law is concerned, I agree it is really simple. It only adds four words to existing legislation. Yet again, they go down the path of pretending it is really complicated because there is a difference in definition. And what something means in philosophical terms is not necessarily the same as what it means in legal terms.

i wasn't talking re proposed law being simple with 4 words added. it should be scrapped. even simpler.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
i guess on the washroom concern "acceptable" is the key term.  accepable to whom?

I'm not suggesting that trans voices should be the only ones at the table to discuss this, but I was speaking in the context of their concerns.  Washrooms would be a materialist concern for a trans-person.  Women wearing pink hats to protest Trump is not a materialist concern for a trans-person.

Quote:
and you're right about the basic definition. and there is only 1 right answer. the biological one.

That one has some problems too.

I don't have a problem referring to Chelsea Manning as "she".  And I do have some problems referring to someone as "xe", or referring to someone's basic body parts by a make-believe name.  But I don't disagree with Smith that there should be some kind of middle ground here.

The only thing is, this "middle ground" will only be acceptable to the middle of the bell curve.  The 95% who form the "hump", but not the 2.5% and 2.5% who make up the wee little pointy bits on either side.  Radical trans-activists aren't going to settle, and radical feminists aren't going to settle either.  And so here we are.

6079_Smith_W

I mean focusing on the legal protections, and applying them in a way that causes the least harm. The definitions cannot be resolved, and will remain a point of disagreement, so it is kind of irrelevant.

Also, leaving trying to force others to agree to definitions they clearly are not going to, and not silencing or ostracizing them because they do not agree.

I mean, given that Vancouver Rape Relief fought a battle on this issue I can see why they have concerns. I don't think definitions are really the question, but rather how the law is applied when there is a conflict. And given that there are plenty of examples where rights are applied in an intersectional way, it remains to be seen whether those concerns are valid. But I don't see that attacking the fundamental principle of transgender rights protection is a good course to take.

 

quizzical

what intersectioal way would this be? women being forced to accept an unknown quantity into our private and safe spaces?

and why do you question whether VRR would be the ony ones with a concern?

and whose attacking transgenders fundamental human rights?

 

6079_Smith_W

Yes. That is one of the intersectional problems we are talking about, and I already said how I feel about that specific instance. Organizations have be able to make that kind of judgment call (particularly when if concerns potential workers), and I don't see that recognizing transgender rights protection is a threat to that. In the first place some sex-specific hiring is not a breach (in spassalons and clothing stores). And given the very good argument that some women seeking services may feel threatened there is every reason to believe that the right to that decision will continue to be upheld (as it already has been).

I did not say Vancouver Rape Relief was the only organization concerned; I know there are others, and Jordan Peterson also spoke against C-16.  But there are plenty of similar organizations which do not share that concern.

And the changes made by C-16 - adding "gender expression" and "gender identity" - are about as fundamental as it gets. Like I said, there may be philosophical differences of opinion about what those terms mean, but in a sense of rights it is pretty simple. And opposing it does constitute an unnecessary attack.

 

quizzical

i'm all for your own personal gender identity beliefs. your body your choice.

i do not accept gender expression as a valid point of reference to determine gender identity.

Sineed

If we want to discuss bill C 16, maybe another thread should be started. (I'm kind of busy these days and don't have a lot of mental energy for these things.) But I would participate. 

quizzical

Pages