Problematic Stuff

[pErvinalia]

When people choose to use identity politics to discriminate or persecute others, it's necessary for the government to use identities to help counter that uncivil behaviour.

What is your position on the gender issues?

What issues specifically?

How many genders should be formally recognized by governments?

No idea. I doubt that a specific number is very helpful, nor likely to be accurate. It seems to me to make sense to acknowledge that gender isn't binary, nor is it necessarily related to what's between your legs.

[Brian Peacock]

The politically trans aren't happy just living as their chosen gender, they want you to acknowledge their new gender by calling them 'she' or whatever.

There have been trans people forever. Most would just live as the gender they chose, and you wouldn't know it (unless you were screwing them).

If you are looking to be different, don't be upset when everyone treats you different.

Why throw in this special group called 'the political trans'? Aren't you being just as political? Aren't you just one of those political gays/straights? There have been gay people forever. Mostly they used to just live a quiet gay life while pretending not to be queer to avoid rocking the social boat, and you wouldn't even know it (unless you were screwing them). Why do you find those who don't do this in relation to their transgenderism unacceptable? Why do you categorise the transgendered as 'looking to be different', as if their personal identity is only about them seeking attention, about them being needy or demanding, about their failings of character, about their denials of nature and science, about their presumed unacceptability? Are gay people 'looking to be different' too (and so what if they are?)? If the problem, as you see it, is really the 'difference' of the transgendered, and that, by their personal acknowledgement of what and who they are and what and who they want to be, they place themselves outside the bounds of some accepted and acceptable norm, then who's really the one with issues here?

[pErvinalia]

It's because he's a conservative with no empathic system to allow him to put himself in another's shoes. It's why he accused Ani of being a "white knight" earlier. Simplistic conservative minded people like Cunt can't comprehend that lefties actually care about others, not for selfish reasons, but for altruistic reasons.

[L'Emmerdeur]

It is the law. Bill C-16 includes it in the Human Rights legislation. I don't understand how you can't see law as 'enforcing compliance'...

How has it enforced compliance? Can you cite the language in Bill C-16 that specifically enforces pronoun usage? Has anybody been prosecuted for not using a particular pronoun? I know that there have been overblown rants and unsupported claims from some individuals regarding what they view as potential effects of the bill, but beyond that hot air, nothing. Perhaps you're aware of something that I'm not.

Are you really going to pretend that this ONE law cannot be enforced?

Instead of answering a pertinent question that goes to the heart of your assertion, you just ask a question of your own. That's not an effective response, and leads to the conclusion that you don't have any substantive basis for your assertion.

I'm not pretending the provisions of Bill C-16 cannot be enforced, and nothing I've said implies that it cannot be enforced. The relevant question you've avoided answering is: Can you cite the language in Bill C-16 that specifically enforces pronoun usage?

This has been Canadian law for over a year now. Has it lead to even one case of a person being charged with violating it by using a particular pronoun?

I don't understand...isn't everything in the Human Rights legislation enforced (selectively and amusingly) by that government office?

If they aren't enforcing, what the heck are we paying them for?

You've failed to provide evidence that enforcing the provisions of Bill C-16 would entail prosecuting anybody for using a particular pronoun. Nor have you provided a cogent interpretation of the law that would lead anybody to believe that your assertion about Bill C-16 has any relation to reality. Given the publication of informed legal opinion that directly contradicts your assertion, it's hardly surprising that its being on the books has not lead to such prosecutions.

I still see no reason the government should be allowed to inquire as to what genitals you have, or who you do with them (criminal actions aside)

The facts on the ground show that governments regularly involve themselves in such matters. Given this, I think that it is incumbent upon government to acknowledge the reality that exists, rather than constraining its citizens by dictating that they must conform to an unrealistic paradigm.

Speaking of 'unrealistic paradigm', how about giving us an idea of how many genders we will have to recognize in Canada, under this shiny new legislation. I can't find it anywhere, so it seems to be as many as are declared, but that can't be right...

Can it?

I have no evidence that the Canadian government has decided to force its citizens to recognize an indefinite number of genders. What it has done is extend protection of its anti-discrimination laws in regard to transgender people. Does the fact that the Canadian government acknowledges the validity of transgender identity cause you distress? Does it offend you in some way?

[Brian Peacock]

It's because he's a conservative with no empathic system to allow him to put himself in another's shoes. It's why he accused Ani of being a "white knight" earlier. Simplistic conservative minded people like Cunt can't comprehend that lefties actually care about others, not for selfish reasons, but for altruistic reasons.

I don't know about that. I was thinking about Cunt's post above during my morning constitutional, and decided that part of the issue here is the application of categorical thinking to something which is far more nuanced and finely graded.

If, for example, one holds the view that there are only two gender categories of humans, male and female, then the transgendered obviously will appear to transgress or disrupt the process of categorisation - as if they exist outside of a system of normative distinction and inside a vague, grey, fuzzy, unbounded, ill-defined set. The only thing left then is to define the transgendered by what they are not rather than by what they are. Thinking about the categories of male and female as fixed and defined entirely by the arrangement of a person's reproductive organs is useful as a general rule, but it clearly makes things difficult or some when thinking about the transgendered and/or relating to them.

While people can exist in a number of categories simultaneously (age, gender, skin tone, occupation, income level, taste in music, religion, the geographical location of their ancestors, relationship status, nationality, political leanings, cheese or bacon, etc etc etc), there is a common tendency to over-estimate the similarities between items in the same category as well as to over-estimate the differences between items in different categories, for example: all men are equal in terms of their gender category but not in terms of their nationality, or income, or politics etc. Problems arise in people's thinking when something like gender identity falls outside of, or contravenes, a rigidly defined, bounded category, and often people are lambasted, criticised, and blamed for (quite literally) 'not fitting in' to the categorical systems of others.

Fixating on the arrangement of people's reproductive apparatus offers a physical distinction which demarcates a clear line between discrete sets--"Women don't have penises!"--but it doesn't work with the transgendered, not least because it reduces everyone down to belonging to two, and only two categories - which is to say, as a categorisation it doesn't account for the whole person, for who we are and what we want to be, for our thoughts about ourseleves, for our relationship with our bodies, for our relationships with family, friends, colleagues, and society at large, for our ethics, judgements, and actions, and the countless other things which make us who we are. For some, all of this other stuff is superfluous because the answer to the "Lingam or Yoni?" question supposedly renders all other considerations irrelevant. In reducing everything to a matter of anatomical detail something else is cast aside, something which we all know already - that how we think about ourselves has an significant impact on who we are, and how we think about others has an impact on our relationship with them. The common complaint about gender pronouns and college-campus washrooms etc often seems to boil down to the insistence that "You people have no right to think about yourself in that way or to ask me not to think about you in this way!"

Perhaps conservatives are more rigid in their categorisations, or just more doggedly certain, and perhaps they're more perturbed or confused when they encounter something which challenges or defies their attempts to categorise it - but that kind of failing is not the preserve of conservatives alone. In fact, to dismiss, decry, or disavow something on the basis of 'Conservatism' could just be another example of under-estimating the differences inside a category and over-estimating the differences between categories.

[Forty Two]

But women DON'T have penises...

Transgender women can certainly have penises.

That's one view of it, which depends on one's definition of sex, gender, and whether being "transgender" means that one is actually the sex or gender to which the transition is claimed.

If we were to accept that sex is biological and gender is something a person identifies as and can change/trans to (and can even be non-binary and change back and forth), then I would say it's very easy to argue that women don't have penis and transgender women aren't biologically women.

That's a non-sequitur. The conclusion that they aren't biologically women doesn't flow from the arguments. As Brian(?) said, what's the basis for thinking that gender resides in the genitals? There's a whole other suite of biological features/systems that it could reside in.

Biological doesn't mean that it's solely dependent on the genitals.

And, I said that sex is biological, I did not say that gender was.

Part of the difficulty in this discussion is the mixing of arguments. Often, it is said that sex and gender are different. Gender is what people mentally identify as. Sex is biological. If one accepts that (and not everyone does), then women (sex) don't have penises because biologically, they are sexually female. Gender is what a person identifies as, so if a person says that they are woman even though they are biologically female, then they are gender woman in their mind. However, it would not be incorrect to still call them biologically female (sex).

And, the tangential point is that these disucssions can be had, and different opinions can be held, without pathologizing it into a phobia or considering it hate speech, or suggesting that it dehumanizes anyone.

[Cunt]

The politically trans aren't happy just living as their chosen gender, they want you to acknowledge their new gender by calling them 'she' or whatever.

There have been trans people forever. Most would just live as the gender they chose, and you wouldn't know it (unless you were screwing them).

If you are looking to be different, don't be upset when everyone treats you different.

Why throw in this special group called 'the political trans'?

To distinguish between those who are trans, and those who are politically trans.

You DO understand the difference, so I'm not sure what you are asking...

Aren't you being just as political?

Is this a political discussion?
So you and I are BOTH being political, it seems.

Aren't you just one of those political gays/straights? There have been gay people forever. Mostly they used to just live a quiet gay life while pretending not to be queer to avoid rocking the social boat, and you wouldn't even know it (unless you were screwing them). Why do you find those who don't do this in relation to their transgenderism unacceptable?

I don't at all find it unacceptable.

However, when someone is trying to start a political discussion, and wants to create new laws and new customs for everyone, they have invited public discussion.

I haven't seen any of these discussions which make me want to change anything. Still like my solution from the 80's - the government shouldn't be allowed to ask gender, or who you are fucking (which would have rendered the 'gay marriage' question moot)

Why do you categorise the transgendered as 'looking to be different', as if their personal identity is only about them seeking attention, about them being needy or demanding, about their failings of character, about their denials of nature and science, about their presumed unacceptability?

I categorize the politically trans that way, but also, if someone wants to look different (punk rock style, non-passing trans, huge muscles, hugely overweight) then they shouldn't be surprised when people treat them differently. If I had a kid who was one of those things, I would definitely tell them the value of blending in, and the cost they might incur by being different.

Are gay people 'looking to be different' too (and so what if they are?)? If the problem, as you see it, is really the 'difference' of the transgendered, and that, by their personal acknowledgement of what and who they are and what and who they want to be, they place themselves outside the bounds of some accepted and acceptable norm, then who's really the one with issues here?

Gay people aren't 'looking to be different', but if they flaunt their sexuality, they will (and SHOULD) be treated differently. I would treat them like someone who flaunts their sexuality.

I saw a funny bumper sticker once, which may enlighten you further to my position here...it said:
"I don't mind straight people, as long as they act gay in public'.

It seems to be a rip on how people don't like gays acting gay in public. I get it, haw haw. Very good!

I also noticed that people usually don't act straight in public, either. I am a 'PDA' guy, and hold hands, kiss and other stuff freely. Because of this, I see how often it is considered unacceptable. If my partner were a woman, man or trans person, I would feel it was inappropriate to kiss in certain contexts.

That bumpersticker kind of misses the point that EVERYONE acts like they aren't having sex, when in public. Gays do this, too. Especially the quiet majority. The ones who parade around their sexuality are reviled whether straight or gay.

We all kind of keep our sex lives out of the public eye, and this 'gender' notion, especially where people are inventing new ones and defining them, is basically waving your weird sex life around.

Who needs to know, other than those you have an intimate relationship with?

I have no evidence that the Canadian government has decided to force its citizens to recognize an indefinite number of genders. What it has done is extend protection of its anti-discrimination laws in regard to transgender people. Does the fact that the Canadian government acknowledges the validity of transgender identity cause you distress? Does it offend you in some way?

Right. They just made the law to protect trans people, but never to enforce it in any way. It's just written in law for...um...

Something other than use as a law, so you propose.

The law protects discrimination based on gender expression. I choose to interpret that as protection for me, expressing gender (by using 'he' or 'she') the way I wish to. So when I call our PM 'Ms. Trudeau', it is protected. When I call you 'Mr.', or 'Ms', it is protected.

When the first case goes through the human rights tribunal, you might hear about it. Much of the way they are used is to just bully people into comlpiance, so there really won't be much record of that kind of behaviour.

Go try to have a discussion about this on a Canadian university campus. Ask all the questions, use pronouns deliberately wrong (say, by only using one for everyone, regardless of their preference) and see how it goes. Make sure you go over both sides, because if you only say the accepted things, you won't learn about what kind of opposition you would face.

I know people get sanctioned in secret. One tenured prof just got fired for speaking freely (though it may have been his speaking on another matter...the university is trying to keep things in the dark). How many prof's do you think just shut up when they were told, rather than taking a stand?

Why put it in law, if not to be used as law? Can you answer me that?

Part of the difficulty in this discussion is the mixing of arguments. Often, it is said that sex and gender are different. Gender is what people mentally identify as.

Not only. It is also (and I think this is critical) what people mentally categorize others as.

Forty Two, whatever pronouns you choose to have others use for you, I'll still use them the way I have been - as a quick categorization method of your apparent sex.

[L'Emmerdeur]

I have no evidence that the Canadian government has decided to force its citizens to recognize an indefinite number of genders. What it has done is extend protection of its anti-discrimination laws in regard to transgender people. Does the fact that the Canadian government acknowledges the validity of transgender identity cause you distress? Does it offend you in some way?

Right. They just made the law to protect trans people, but never to enforce it in any way. It's just written in law for...um...

You have yet to show that your assertion about the law has any relation to reality. Cite the wording that supports your interpretation, and there will be something to discuss.

Something other than use as a law, so you propose.

You may gain some satisfaction from your misrepresentation of my position, but it's not particularly effective.

The law protects discrimination based on gender expression. I choose to interpret that as protection for me, expressing gender (by using 'he' or 'she') the way I wish to. So when I call our PM 'Ms. Trudeau', it is protected. When I call you 'Mr.', or 'Ms', it is protected.

Your interpretation of the law carries no weight.

When the first case goes through the human rights tribunal, you might hear about it. Much of the way they are used is to just bully people into comlpiance, so there really won't be much record of that kind of behaviour.

Go try to have a discussion about this on a Canadian university campus. Ask all the questions, use pronouns deliberately wrong (say, by only using one for everyone, regardless of their preference) and see how it goes. Make sure you go over both sides, because if you only say the accepted things, you won't learn about what kind of opposition you would face.

I know people get sanctioned in secret. One tenured prof just got fired for speaking freely (though it may have been his speaking on another matter...the university is trying to keep things in the dark). How many prof's do you think just shut up when they were told, rather than taking a stand?

Why put it in law, if not to be used as law? Can you answer me that?

For somebody who rarely bothers to provide answers to pertinent questions, you're certainly ready with queries of your own.

I expect the law to be enforced in a way consistent with its text. Nothing in that text suggests it will be used to prosecute people merely for using a particular pronoun, and apparently no such prosecutions have been pursued despite the law being on the books for over a year now.

[Cunt]

I have no evidence that the Canadian government has decided to force its citizens to recognize an indefinite number of genders. What it has done is extend protection of its anti-discrimination laws in regard to transgender people. Does the fact that the Canadian government acknowledges the validity of transgender identity cause you distress? Does it offend you in some way?

Right. They just made the law to protect trans people, but never to enforce it in any way. It's just written in law for...um...

You have yet to show that your assertion about the law has any relation to reality. Cite the wording that supports your interpretation, and there will be something to discuss.

Something other than use as a law, so you propose.

You may gain some satisfaction from your misrepresentation of my position, but it's not particularly effective.

The law protects discrimination based on gender expression. I choose to interpret that as protection for me, expressing gender (by using 'he' or 'she') the way I wish to. So when I call our PM 'Ms. Trudeau', it is protected. When I call you 'Mr.', or 'Ms', it is protected.

Your interpretation of the law carries no weight.

When the first case goes through the human rights tribunal, you might hear about it. Much of the way they are used is to just bully people into comlpiance, so there really won't be much record of that kind of behaviour.

Go try to have a discussion about this on a Canadian university campus. Ask all the questions, use pronouns deliberately wrong (say, by only using one for everyone, regardless of their preference) and see how it goes. Make sure you go over both sides, because if you only say the accepted things, you won't learn about what kind of opposition you would face.

I know people get sanctioned in secret. One tenured prof just got fired for speaking freely (though it may have been his speaking on another matter...the university is trying to keep things in the dark). How many prof's do you think just shut up when they were told, rather than taking a stand?

Why put it in law, if not to be used as law? Can you answer me that?

For somebody who rarely bothers to provide answers to pertinent questions, you're certainly ready with queries of your own.

I expect the law to be enforced in a way consistent with its text. Nothing in that text suggests it will be used to prosecute people merely for using a particular pronoun, and apparently no such prosecutions have been pursued despite the law being on the books for over a year now.

A professor just got fired for speaking freely in Canada. Do you know how many agreed to curb their problematic words, thereby avoiding getting fired?

Do you understand that these laws are often used in a subtle way?

They can award cash to complaintants based on their decisions. They base those decisions on the written human rights rules.

But that is only the PUBLIC use. There are plenty of agreements which are accompanied by gag orders. How would you ever hear of those?

[laklak]

I don't like laws that are passed and we're told "don't worry, we won't enforce them". If history is any guide then yes, you will enforce them, that's what laws are fucking for.

Last night I'm banging through channels and landed on "Judgment at Nuremberg". Wow, I haven't seen it in decades and had forgotten what a powerful film it was. Spencer Tracy, Bert Lancaster, Richard Widmark, Marlene Deitrich, Maximilian Schell, even Captain James T. Kirk. One particularly apropos scene was Bert Lancaster, as the Nazi judge, when he finally breaks down and tells the truth. He says that laws were passed, but everyone knew they wouldn't be enforced. They were only passed because there was a crisis, no civilized German would ever enforce them. But then they were enforced, on a limited basis. Everyone said well, it's only temporary, once this crisis has passed we won't need these laws. But we all know the result.

If you have nothing to do and have three hours to spare, watch it. It is just as relevant now as it was in 1961, if not more so. What was so shocking to me, and shocking is the best description, was how reasonable and rational the various points of view were, from the die hard Nazi patriots to the Allied generals worrying about the Soviets and trying to gain the support of the German people (during the film the Soviets blockade Berlin and the airlift begins). Each of their positions, when they explained them, sounded both reasonable and rational.

The law is a blunt object, and it will be used as such.

[Cunt]

Whenever I hear people talking about 'them', I think they are in denial about a group they are a part of.

Of course, I do it myself, too. I try to correct it to 'us', but it isn't easy.

Most of the posters on this forum would have behaved like most of the German populace, if they were in that place and time. Most of them will also think they are exceptional, and would resist.

[laklak]

That's the scariest part of it. Slippery slope arguments aren't fashionable, but what happened in Germany in the 30s is a perfect example. Oh that can't happen here. Yes it fucking can.

[Brian Peacock]

Not unless they turn off the internet and blame it on the Mexicans.

[Seabass]

"Can"? It IS happening here. This administration is ethnically cleansing the US of as many brown people as it can get away with. They're also trying to take an important civil right away from women.

It's happened here many times in the past, too. Jap internment, slavery, genocide of natives, etc...

[Cunt]

This administration is ethnically cleansing the US of as many brown people as it can get away with. They're also trying to take an important civil right away from women.

Ethnic cleansing! Wow! Which enthicity?

Are you trying to equate rejecting illegal immigration with 'ethnically cleansing'?

Because that would make me ignore your point. Maybe you have something else.

As to taking the 'important civil right', I have a firm stance on the right to abortion, which has been corrupted by my not living in, or understanding the US system.

I was immediately alarmed when I heard Trump was taking funding away from Planned Parenthood.

Then I learned that that organization made sizeable donations to one political party. Cut their fucking funding. It has nothing to do with abortion rights, but with a political cash-game.

It's happened here many times in the past, too. Jap internment, slavery, genocide of natives, etc...

Ethnic cleansing is a dirty mistake we could make again and again...honestly it scares me how easy I see people dividing into non-communicating camps.

Similar to my opinion about sex (governments should not have the right to ask) I think it would be great if governments had the same barrier to asking race. Probably impractical, but I'm wishing here, not trying to vote on policy.