Ok but what does it serve to talk chiefly, or maybe even only about someone who is abusing the system as though this person is representative of trans people ? Of course the system can be abused, and fake claims can be filed. The Pride parade in Toronto was persecuted in the early days because of homosexual **** murders in Toronto.
I don't think this is anything like an analogy but many people did use pedophelia as a reason to disallow gay rights.
Is that how we design policy? By focusing on what could go right and ignoring what could go wrong? The mainstream thought in gun control debates is now apparently that we need to take handguns away from hundreds of thousands of responsible gun owners because a few dozen young men in Toronto won't stop shooting each other.
Our gun laws go to considerable effort to try to ensure that people who might be mentally unstable or criminally inclined can't get a firearms license. You mention
****... organizations that place young people in the care of adults, like Boy Scouts and foster child placement and school boards, try to make sure that the adults are trustworthy. Policies in those two areas, and many others, spend a lot of time considering what could go wrong and trying to figure out
In the case of enshrining gender self-ID into Canadian law, no thought seems to have been given to what could go wrong. Perhaps Jordan Peterson deserves a hearty
****-you for that, for making the public debate around C-16 focus on fake pronouns rather than serious efforts to discuss the potential ramifications of the bill. But regardless of why there was so little serious discussion of C-16, nobody seems to have paid much attention to voices like Murphy, who were trying to point out the ramifications for women and girls.
Ok, well I am glad the system worked. I am basing my knowledge on a radio report I heard so sorry if I got something wrong.
Extortion ? Of course not.
Okay, that's good. Coverage of the ruling seems to be giving people the impression that Yaniv only lost because of the racism aspect of this.
I don't know. I think people are trying to be maximally accommodating maybe. Do you think it's possible that we, as a society, are working through these things now ?
I don't think "we" are "working through these things". I think that women have been told what is expected of them, and that anybody who objects is branded as a heretic of some kind. "Working through these things" would imply that there is some sort of dialogue going on.
Jeez... it's 27 damn minutes. Do I really have to ? Look I'm a straight male, don't I get a pass on this ?
You're willing to listen to 42 minutes of Canadaland podcast explaining why Meghan Murphy is a terrible person, but you can't spend 27 minutes to listen to what Murphy herself says? That says a lot.
I mean when I post on these topics I can get told to shut up about it, and I have admitted mistakes and really have tried to stick to basics.
I won't criticize you for being a man and expressing an opinion. But it doesn't seem to me like you've made much effort to learn about other aspects of this issue, especially ones that challenge your cheerful preconceptions.
The only thing I resent is the media circus, especially when RW media suddenly discovers feminism so they can beat down trans women.
That cuts both ways, though. Okay, the right-wing is willing to listen to feminists when it comes to criticisms of the impact of gender ideology and trans activism on women. But how come progressives are completely deaf when feminists talk about these things?
I am very tired... if you insist I listen then I will out of respect for you but not now...
I am not going to tell you what to do. If you wish to continue getting your information about Murphy from hearsay, I can't stop you. I would bet that 95% of the protesters at TPL have never read or heard a single word from Murphy, and are there protesting because somebody told them that she's transphobic.
I think that for many people (and perhaps you might be among them, you can decide that for yourself) clinging to the belief that Murphy is some kind of villain is easier than listening to her and risking discovering that there might be aspects of this that they haven't considered.
My understanding is that Murphy has made discriminatory comments in the past, and the Canadaland discussion panel - someone indicated that that alone should be enough to disqualify you from renting a room given their policy...
Vickery Bowles, the Toronto Public Library head librarian, responded to that claim during her
struggle-session with Carol Off, which I linked to in my previous post. That claim is false. The library actually has a high bar in determining what whose speech they won't allow, just as they would have a high bar in determining whether to remove a book from their collections. Your podcast expert got it wrong.
There is a very high bar for establishing what is hate speech in this country. It is established in the Criminal Code of Canada, and that bar is very high to allow free speech to flourish.
We use the same principles in making decisions about room bookings as we do for our collections, Carol. We have a broad diversity of information and ideas and perspectives that are represented in all the books in our collections, and some of those ideas and perspectives people would find hurtful and painful.
But we're not going to remove those books from our collection. And we are not going to eliminate programs from our branches that are controversial. And we're not going to shut down room bookings because the speaker in the room booking has controversial ideas.
-Vickery BowlesAlso, I wasn't able to find that episode of your podcast, but I'd bet dollars to donuts that they can't actually cite any specific instance of Murphy actually saying anything discriminatory beyond her opinions regarding the need for sex-specific protections for biologically female human beings. Much like how the "hate speech" she's accused of is just saying that male people aren't women.
-k