Author Topic: Gender Culture  (Read 56196 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12477
Re: Gender Culture
« Reply #1395 on: November 05, 2019, 05:42:04 am »
It's not a bad analogy, it's a very apt analogy.   When it comes to gun laws, we're in the process of deciding to what degree the potential of a small handful of dangerous individuals merit restricting the rights of a much larger group.   In the case of giving trans women access to single-sex spaces intended to provide safety for female people, no comparable discussion has occurred.

No, we gave broad rights protection to a class of people, much different than amending gun ownership laws to address a perceived threat of increased murders in cities.  And the number of gun murders is far more central to the question of gun rights than a single freakshow bad actor is to trans rights.  You won't find an equivalent of Yaniv as the key actor in a pro/anti guns rights discussion.

You could flip it around and say "why didn't they consider the implications when they allowed people to own handguns" also.

Nobody tries to or should try to or COULD try to imagine accurately what all the impacts of our laws are.  They probably imagined same sex marriage when they enshrined the rights of 'groups' in the charter of rights, but they didn't imagine the impact on cake makers, spas and health clubs either.  I'm not trying to be trite, but these are the mechanics of law.


Quote

For example, our friend Yaniv, aside from attempting to coerce vulnerable women to handle xer genitals, also has a well-documented and disturbing history of predatory interaction with girls 15 and under.  Despite that, current Canadian law gives xer the right to walk into the girls' changing room in any public pool or gym in the country.  A convicted sex offender could do the same, as far as I can tell.  To me it doesn't seem like any consideration has been given to the possibility that dangerous individuals could (and will) exploit this.


Can't male sex offenders walk into a locker room with young men also ?  Can't female sex offenders walk into a locker room with young women ?

And more importantly - aren't we in the process of figuring all of this out ?  We live in a society where nudism is illegal in a public place, so it's hard for me to imagine enforcing a law where young girls have to gaze on an erect **** in a washroom.

And a society where a single **** gay murder set gay rights back for years, so don't underestimate the force of reactionism.

And - again - I'm not a stakeholder in this.  I am getting pulled into it because the freakshow bad actor came into my media space...

Quote
You and I are having a dialogue.  We as a country certainly aren't.   The few like Murphy who are willing to publicly challenge gender ideology or voice concerns about its impact on the safety of women and girls are demonized and deplatformed. Murphy was likened to a white supremacist or Holocaust denier by our national broadcaster, banned from Twitter, her website is regularly targeted by cyber-attacks, and she was once again deplatformed this weekend because SFU campus security rated the risk of violence from trans-activists as "11 out of 10".  People who attended Murphy's talk in Toronto were threatened with violence and needed police protection just to get into the building. People are demanding Vickery Bowles' resignation for just allowing Murphy's event to proceed. Toronto city councilors are now talking about changing TPL's policies to prevent a similar talk from occurring in the future. 

This isn't what a dialogue looks like.   It's closer to a pogrom than a dialogue.

Because she denies that trans women are women, which is the third rail.  Get a better spokesperson I guess.
 
Quote
I highly doubt your interpretation of C-16 is accurate.   I don't think that guaranteeing each individual's right to gender expression  outlaws discussion of whether trans women are women.  The law may say that they are (although I am not sure it actually does) but expressing disagreement with a law isn't illegal.  And disagreeing that trans women are women doesn't restrict anyone's right to gender expression.

It does not outlaw such discussion.  Only pure 'hate speech' is against the law.  If we are looking for a definition of 'discrimination' though, as per what the Toronto Public Library explicitly disallows, we can use that as an example.

Quote
I also doubt your interpretation of discrimination, in this context, is accurate.  If the TPL were refusing members of some group admission to Murphy's talk, or to any other program or service, that would be discrimination.  But nobody was refused admission to the event based on gender identity or any other group characteristic.

 -k

Fine - you tell me how speech can discriminate against LGBT, against black people, against religions then.  How about 'Judaism is a fake religion' ? Or LGBT people are actually mentally ill - they aren't really gay they need therapy.  Like that ?   How can it not be discriminatory to deny that trans women are women ?  If it's not then what is C16 even for ?

And, no, refusing admission to a talk on discrimination isn't discrimination.