Harris, Peterson and the evils and spread of Postmodernism

[Saint Frankenstein]

@Nous @Saint Frankenstein

I'm not "trans-phobic", I'm poorly-written-laws-phobic. It's not what I'll do, it's how people WILL take advantage of poorly crafted laws.

I'm also concerned about how this law ignores science. Why not say that the race you "identify with" is also a personal choice? E.g. "Well I might not look black to you, but I identify as black and I'm applying for an affirmative action benefit".

If you think that people won't do that sort of stuff, that's incredibly naive.

You are just repeating "bathroom panic" b.s. that right-wing transphobes have been spouting about trans people. There's no evidence of this actually happening. Why should trans people be punished over some fear-based hypothetical. Get over yourself.

Gender identity is not a choice but it is personal and cannot be detected using physical means, as gender identity is psychological. Unless you want to run brain scans on people? Understand now?

 

[icehorse]

Is that what you do--use your gender to break laws and get unfair advantage?

I DID answer that question. It's not about what I would or would not do (of course I wouldn't BTW), it's about what people in general WILL do.

So you oppose all hate crime laws and all anti-discrimination laws? Or do you just oppose including transgender people in them?

I'm suspicious of such laws, but if it seems to me that they are well constructed, I would support them. But, for example, any law that includes the word "Islamophobia" is an example of a poorly worded law. And I'm absolutely against poorly worded laws. And, I have absolutely nothing against gender-fluid people. It's not about that.

How many cases do you know where people who are not transgendered have used anti-discrimination and hate crime laws wrongfully or for unfair advantage?

I don't know of any, but it doesn't matter. People WILL take advantage of any law they can. For example, a nefarious straight person could use the law in his favor by claiming a different gender identity for which no tests can be applied. As this law is written, ANYONE can claim ANY gender, and there no criteria are necessary to support their claim. AND, they can change their claim as often as they want to.

 

[icehorse]

You are just repeating "bathroom panic" b.s. that right-wing transphobes have been spouting about trans people. There's no evidence of this actually happening. Why should trans people be punished over some fear-based hypothetical. Get over yourself.

Gender identity is not a choice but it is personal and cannot be detected using physical means, as gender identity is psychological. Unless you want to run brain scans on people? Understand now?

You keep asserting that I'm anti-gender-fluid, which I am not.

As I said in the previous post, this law allows bad guys to make gender claims willy-nilly and their claims canot be contested. Let's say that for some reason being gender-fluid also means scrupulous honesty. This law allows straight people to game the system.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

You keep asserting that I'm anti-gender-fluid, which I am not.

As I said in the previous post, this law allows bad guys to make gender claims willy-nilly and their claims canot be contested. Let's say that for some reason being gender-fluid also means scrupulous honesty. This law allows straight people to game the system.

Blah, blah, blah. You're just repeating fear-mongering crap. There's no evidence of that actually happening. "It may happen..." Is not an argument.

 

[icehorse]

Blah, blah, blah. You're just repeating fear-mongering crap. There's no evidence of that actually happening. "It may happen..." Is not an argument.

My advice to you would be, never go to law school, you won't like it.

Laws are SUPPOSED to be written to cover eventualities. It's hard for me to believe I have to explain this. This law allows for all sorts of abuse, and you can take it to the bank that such abuse will occur. That's the nature of criminals, to find ways to game the system.

 

[Nous]

I DID answer that question. It's not about what I would or would not do (of course I wouldn't BTW), it's about what people in general WILL do.

Why do you believe that transgender people are so criminal and unethical?

And I'm absolutely against poorly worded laws.

I asked you to quote what you claim is "poorly written" about the law that you are referring to in the thread.

Tell us what words you would use to prohibit discrimination and hate crimes perpetrated on the basis of gender identity or expression.

I don't know of any, but it doesn't matter.

It certainly does matter! You are claiming that people will somehow wrongfully assert laws that are intended to protect transgender people from discrimination and hate crimes, and that's why you oppose the law. Your ideas have no basis in reality.

How about if someone claimed that laws that prohibit sex discrimination are being abused and cause all kinds of problems? Would you want an example of that happening?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

My advice to you would be, never go to law school, you won't like it.

Laws are SUPPOSED to be written to cover eventualities. It's hard for me to believe I have to explain this. This law allows for all sorts of abuse, and you can take it to the bank that such abuse will occur. That's the nature of criminals, to find ways to game the system.

The problem is that no one makes that argument except for transphobes. You really think a male perv will pretend to be a woman just to go to the women's room? Or that this will become such a great problem that the law will have to be scrapped? I've heard of no such issues where such laws have been passed. You're basically saying that trans people shouldn't be protected because of what "might" happen, even though it doesn't really happen. There's a stronger case for banning alcohol.

By the way, It's "transgender/transsexual" or "trans" for short. "Gender fluid" is under the trans umbrella. I'm a transsexual man but not gender fluid, for instance.

 

[icehorse]

@Nous @Saint Frankenstein

I would ask you both to review what I've written. I am not suspicious of "trans" people (or whatever umbrella term I'm supposed to use).

I'm suspicious of criminals who WILL take advantage of poorly crafted laws.

And I believe I've already answered "why" the law is poorly written. It allows the nefarious to assume a gender identity in order to game the system.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

@Nous @Saint Frankenstein

I would ask you both to review what I've written. I am not suspicious of "trans" people (or whatever umbrella term I'm supposed to use).

I'm suspicious of criminals who WILL take advantage of poorly crafted laws.

And I believe I've already answered "why" the law is poorly written. It allows the nefarious to assume a gender identity in order to game the system.

I read what you said and I reject it for the reasons I gave in my post above.

 

[Nous]

And I believe I've already answered "why" the law is poorly written.

You haven't quoted a single word from the law that is "poorly written". You've stated a bunch of absurd falsehoods about the law.

It allows the nefarious to assume a gender identity in order to game the system.

Laws that prohibit hate crimes and discrimination on the basis of gender identity or expression do nothing more "to game the system" than laws that prohibit hate crimes and discrimination on the basis of sex.

 

[icehorse]

You haven't quoted a single word from the law that is "poorly written". You've stated a bunch of absurd falsehoods about the law.

I quoted the definition from the Canadian DOJ. That definition is used in other laws. That definition allows for criminals to abuse the law.

Laws that prohibit hate crimes and discrimination on the basis of gender identity or expression do nothing more "to game the system" than laws that prohibit hate crimes and discrimination on the basis of sex.

It depends on how they're written.

 

[Nous]

I quoted the definition from the Canadian DOJ. That definition is used in other laws. That definition allows for criminals to abuse the law.

What you quoted from Canada's DOJ about Gender Identity has no effect on the law. What you quoted from the DOJ sounds like something gotten out of a first-year psychology textbook.

It depends on how they're written.

State a law that prohibits hate crimes and discrimination on the basis of gender identity or expression that you approve of.

 

[icehorse]

What you quoted from Canada's DOJ about Gender Identity has no effect on the law. What you quoted from the DOJ sounds like something gotten out of a first-year psychology textbook.

State a law that prohibits hate crimes and discrimination on the basis of gender identity or expression that you approve of.

I don't care what it sounds like to you, it's what's on the books! And it DOES have an impact on the law, it's a definition that's used in other places.

As for stating a "good" law, why is that incumbent on me? I never claimed to have a better law, I'm not a lawyer who specializes in gender discrimination. But that doesn't mean that I can't apply logic to a law I read.

 

[Nous]

I don't care what it sounds like to you, it's what's on the books! And it DOES have an impact on the law, it's a definition that's used in other places.

I just don't think I've known anyone who was a resistant as you to reading and understanding a law that you're spewing so much idiocy about. Again, C-16 does nothing but add the phrase "gender identity or expression" in these 4 places in Canada's Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code:

1 Section 2 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is replaced by the following:

Purpose

2 The purpose of this Act is to extend the laws in Canada to give effect, within the purview of matters coming within the legislative authority of Parliament, to the principle that all individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs accommodated, consistent with their duties and obligations as members of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.

1996, c. 14, s. 2; 2012, c. 1, s. 138(E)

2 Subsection 3(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:

Prohibited grounds of discrimination

3 (1) For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.

R.‍S.‍, c. C-46

Criminal Code

2014, c. 31, s. 12

3 Subsection 318(4) of the Criminal Code is replaced by the following:

Definition of identifiable group

(4) In this section, identifiable group means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or mental or physical disability.

1995, c. 22, s. 6

4 Subparagraph 718.‍2(a)‍(i) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(i) evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression, or on any other similar factor,​

C-16 (42-1) - Royal Assent - An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code - Parliament of Canada

As for stating a "good" law, why is that incumbent on me? I never claimed to have a better law,

So apparently you oppose every law that includes "gender identity or expression" as a prohibited basis for perpetrating hate crimes and discrimination. Every law I've ever seen that is intended to include transgender persons uses that phrase.

And you want people to believe that you are not promoting transphobic junk here?

But that doesn't mean that I can't apply logic to a law I read.

You haven't applied logic yet.

 

[icehorse]

@Nous did you read the link I offered many posts back from the Canadian Dept. of Justice? That document defines how gender identity will be determined in Canada. That definition of gender identity is used in C-16, correct?

 

[Nous]

@Nous did you read the link I offered many posts back from the Canadian Dept. of Justice? That document defines how gender identity will be determined in Canada. That definition of gender identity is used in C-16, correct?

That's what gender identity is. What problem do you have with that? What problem do you have with including "gender identity or expression" as a prohibited basis for hate crimes and discrimination in public accommodations?

As the DOJ website says:

Q. How would this Bill change the law?

A. This Bill would make three changes to the law.

It would amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination on the grounds of gender identity and gender expression. This amendment would give explicit protection to transgender and gender-diverse persons from discrimination in areas such as employment opportunities and access to goods and services.

The Bill would also amend the Criminal Code in two ways: it would prohibit hate propaganda against groups that are identifiable based on gender identity or gender expression. This amendment concerns extremist literature or information that aims to incite hatred against a particular group and that is far outside what Canadian society will tolerate.

The Bill would also amend the Criminal Code to clarify that sentencing for a criminal offence may be greater if the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice, or hate based on gender identity or gender expression.

Q. Will “gender identity” and “gender expression” be defined in the Bill?

A. In order to ensure that the law would be as inclusive as possible, the terms “gender identity” and “gender expression” are not defined in the Bill. With very few exceptions, grounds of discrimination are not defined in legislation but are left to courts, tribunals, and commissions to interpret and explain, based on their detailed experience with particular cases.

Definitions of the terms “gender identity” and “gender expression” have already been given by the Ontario Human Rights Commission, for example. The Commission has provided helpful discussion and examples that can offer good practical guidance. The Canadian Human Rights Commission will provide similar guidance on the meaning of these terms in the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Q. Why are these amendments necessary?

A. Currently the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code do not provide explicit protection for transgender and gender-diverse persons. While a number of these types of cases have been successfully argued in the past under the Canadian Human Rights Act, the government believes that it is time for Parliament to affirm the rights of transgender and other gender-diverse persons in clear language. The law should be clear and explicit: transgender and other gender-diverse persons have a right to live free from discrimination, hate propaganda, and hate crime.

Q. Would this Bill create special rights for transgender persons?

A. No. The Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code already protect everyone from discrimination, hate propaganda, and hate crime based on several grounds, including race, religion, sex, age, and disability. “Gender identity” and “gender expression” would be added to the existing list of grounds to ensure that there is explicit protection.

Q. Would these amendments allow people with male anatomical characteristics full access to women’s and girls’ washrooms and change rooms?

A. Transgender persons have a right to be treated according to their deeply-felt gender identity. In many situations, that includes the right of a person who lives as a woman to use women’s facilities, even if she has some male anatomical characteristics. These amendments will codify that right. Transgendered and other gender-diverse Canadians already use gender-appropriate bathrooms and pose no greater threat than anyone else in doing so; they simply want to use the washroom or change room that corresponds with their lived identity.​

Questions and Answers

 

[icehorse]

@Nous - Hey, we're starting to communicate a bit! As far as that Q&A goes, it makes sense. How about adding these Q's to the list:

Q. Would these amendments allow people to game the system e.g. to take advantage of gender-specific grants or subsidies, or to avoid gender specific obligations?

Q. Would these amendments mandate specific language, e.g. between employers and employees?

And so on.

 

[Nous]

@Nous - Hey, we're starting to communicate a bit! As far as that Q&A goes, it makes sense. How about adding these Q's to the list:

Q. Would these amendments allow people to game the system e.g. to take advantage of gender-specific grants or subsidies, or to avoid gender specific obligations?

Name these "gender-specific grants or subsidies" and "gender-specific obligations". The US apparently doesn't have any gender-specific grants, subsidies or obligations.

Q. Would these amendments mandate specific language, e.g. between employers and employees?

Already answered. See my first post.

 

[icehorse]

Name these "gender-specific grants or subsidies" and "gender-specific obligations". The US apparently doesn't have any gender-specific grants, subsidies or obligations.

Examples might be: special programs for women who own small businesses, or perhaps being called in a military draft, or perhaps certain occupations, title IX programs...

Already answered. See my first post.

In terms of requiring language, and as I said earlier, Peterson's lawyers advised him that he better get in line with the language requirements or he might be arrested. So I'm going to say that those Canadian lawyers know more about it than anyone here on RF.

 

[Nous]

Name these "gender-specific grants or subsidies" and "gender-specific obligations". The US apparently doesn't have any gender-specific grants, subsidies or obligations.

Examples might be: special programs for women who own small businesses, or perhaps being called in a military draft, or perhaps certain occupations, title IX programs...

Oh, you mean sex-specific stuff. Why doesn't prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex "game the system" in the way that you fear?

In terms of requiring language, and as I said earlier, Peterson's lawyers advised him that he better get in line with the language requirements or he might be arrested. So I'm going to say that those Canadian lawyers know more about it than anyone here on RF.

So you think something you recall hearing someone say on a podcast about something someone else said is so much reliable than what the Canadian Bar Association has quoted from the Supreme Court.

Try not to be too anti-intellectual.