Harris, Peterson and the evils and spread of Postmodernism

[icehorse]

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?

I'm trying to understand your argument here, without the snark you've been hurling at me. Can you restate this question? thanks.

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.

It's not a recollection, I can point you to the podcast and the moment. As I understand it, the supreme court made a broad answer, and as you well know, cases will come up that test the limits of broad answers.

And seriously, I'm having this discussion with you in good faith. We've had a few lapses in understanding each other, but I see no need for your snark. There is a general principle that when you grant some people rights, you put a burden on others. Such measures as C-16 can backfire. I'm am not at all trans-phobic, I'm all for general human rights, and just because I make a claim that you don't understand, it's no reason for you to unleash your fire hose of snark.

 

[Nous]

I'm trying to understand your argument here, without the snark you've been hurling at me. Can you restate this question? thanks.

You indicated that including “gender identity or expression” as a prohibited bases for committing hate crimes and discrimination will “game the system” by allowing “people . . .to take advantage of gender-specific grants or subsidies or to avoid gender-specific obligations.” When I asked you to name these “gender-specific” grants, subsidies or obligations, you were only able to name sex-specific differences in programs and laws (“special programs for women who own small businesses, or perhaps being called in a military draft”). If sex discrimination did not exist in the SBA programs or in the draft, then your baseless complaints and fears about transgender people “gaming the system” by “taking advantage” of these forms of sex discrimination would evaporate. Right?

Obviously, including transgender people in hate crime and public accommodation laws does not change the forms of sex discrimination in government programs and laws. Your real complaint about transgender people “gaming the system” and “taking advantage” of sex discrimination in programs and laws is that transgender women “are not really women,” i.e., it's a version of that bigoted bromide about “men in dresses” going into restrooms designated for women. Your objection is that "men in dresses" will get a SBA loan reserved for women or will avoid the draft. It's confused and offensive transphobic crap.

It's not a recollection, I can point you to the podcast and the moment. As I understand it, the supreme court made a broad answer, and as you well know, cases will come up that test the limits of broad answers.

The Supreme Court has spoken as to the effect of C-16 on freedom of expression, yet you maintain your ridiculous hysteria due to some anonymous third-person hearsay you heard on a podcast. It's mind-boggling. Try to lift yourself out of the quicksand of idiotic ideas. Obviously including "gender identity or expression" as an identifiable group in C-16 creates no greater infringement on freedom of expression than inclusion of "sex" as a prohibited basis in the law.

 

[icehorse]

Your real complaint about transgender people “gaming the system” and “taking advantage” of sex discrimination in programs and laws is that transgender women “are not really women,” i.e., it's a version of that bigoted bromide about “men in dresses” going into restrooms designated for women.

I have really tried to have a civil debate with you, but here you go again putting words in my mouth and/or ascribing to me motives that I do not have. Tactics like this tend to be used by people who know they don't have a good argument. Is that the case here, or are you choosing to be rude for some other reason?

Back to the actual debate...

In an attempt to clarify the situation. let's take every trans person out of the discussion. For now let's make the claim that 0% of trans people ever do anything illegal. I'm NOT accusing trans people (or gender fluid or whatever the label is), of anything nefarious. Got that much? Should I slow down for you?

With that as a given, the problem here is that this definition of gender identity allows straight people to game the system. I have not once stated or intended any disparaging of any trans / gender fluid person. Not once. Never. Got it?

To be clear, it's that the definition allows ANYONE to game the system.

==

As for the supreme court, name one aspect of the constitution that is no longer put to the legal test by some new wrinkle. None exist. All laws are subject to being tested and pushed to their limits. Most law these days revolves around exploring the limits of what's already been established and in some cases attempting to reverse what's already been established. Correct? I'd ask you not to - once again - misquote me. Just respond to this specific claim about the nature of our legal system.

 

[Nous]

I'm NOT accusing trans people (or gender fluid or whatever the label is), of anything nefarious.

So your complaint and fear is that:

men in dresses will take the SBA loans away from women and will not perform their duty when they're drafted.

Does your complaint and fear about men "gaming the system" and "taking advantage" of those grants and programs reserved for women, and avoiding military duty that women are not obligated to do have any basis in reality? Do you know of a single instance of such deceptions? The Canadian Human Rights Commission says that "Transgendered and other gender-diverse Canadians already use gender-appropriate bathrooms and pose no greater threat than anyone else in doing so". Is there any rational reason to believe that men in dresses pose some kind of threat or will "game the system"?

If you're really worried about men in dresses "gaming the system" in the ways you claim, why not just advocate for non-discrimination among the sexes in the provision of SBA loans and the draft? That way transgendered people can be protected by the hate crime and anti-discrimination laws, and men in dresses cannot avail themselves of the advantages that women receive.

As for the supreme court, name one aspect of the constitution that is no longer put to the legal test by some new wrinkle.

What sort of "new wrinkle" are you imagining with respect to the Supreme Court's opinion on hate crimes and freedom of expression?

Generally speaking, in both the US and Canada, when the Supreme Court issues an opinion on statutory construction, lower courts follow it.

 

[icehorse]

@Nous it seems to me we're stalled here, it seems we've been talking past each other. uncle.

 

[Nous]

@Nous it seems to me we're stalled here, it seems we've been talking past each other. uncle.

I responded directly to your posts, and you have responded to mine. You obviously hold the ridiculous idea that including "gender identity or expression" as an identifiable group in Canada's hate crime and anti-discrimination laws will harm women. You claim that transgendered people will not do anything "nefarious," therefore you are obviously implying that "men in dresses" will take advantage of the various forms of sex discrimination such as by stealing SBA loans intended for "real women".

It's exactly as @Saint Frankenstein said, you're promoting a form of "bathroom panic".

 

[icehorse]

I responded directly to your posts, and you have responded to mine. You obviously hold the ridiculous idea that including "gender identity or expression" as an identifiable group in Canada's hate crime and anti-discrimination laws will harm women. You claim that transgendered people will not do anything "nefarious," therefore you are obviously implying that "men in dresses" will take advantage of the various forms of sex discrimination such as by stealing SBA loans intended for "real women".

It's exactly as @Saint Frankenstein said, you're promoting a form of "bathroom panic".

And it strikes me that you're hoping that poorly crafted laws won't be misapplied. I sincerely hope you're correct.

 

[Nous]

And it strikes me that you're hoping that poorly crafted laws won't be misapplied.

You haven't given any rational reason to conclude that C-16 was in any way "poorly crafted," or that there is any realistic fear that it will be "misapplied" to "men in dresses"

 

[icehorse]

You haven't given any rational reason to conclude that C-16 was in any way "poorly crafted," or that there is any realistic fear that it will be "misapplied" to "men in dresses"

Once again, the definition of gender identity that C-16 relies upon is easy pickings for anyone who wants to change their gender identity - even temporarily - to game the system. It seems your argument is that no one would do that. That strikes me as naive. (And, BTW, such a gamer wouldn't even have to bother wearing a dress )

 

[Nous]

Once again, the definition of gender identity that C-16 relies upon is easy pickings for anyone who wants to change their gender identity - even temporarily - to game the system.

Do your fears and complaints have any basis in reality whatsoever? Lots of cities and counties in the US and a number of US states have laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender identity or expression:
List of cities and counties in the United States offering an LGBT non-discrimination ordinance - Wikipedia And the EEOC has held that employment discrimination on the basis of gender identity or expression is a form of illegal sex discrimination. Can you name a single instance where these laws have been abused by "men in dresses" or whatever you're imagining?

Race, sexual orientation and religion are other protected bases in anti-discrimination laws where there are no objective means for determining whether a person is what s/he says. Why don't you fear and complain about people "gaming the system" and abusing the laws on these grounds like you do for gender identity or expression?

 

[icehorse]

Do your fears and complaints have any basis in reality whatsoever? Lots of cities and counties in the US and a number of US states have laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender identity or expression:
List of cities and counties in the United States offering an LGBT non-discrimination ordinance - Wikipedia And the EEOC has held that employment discrimination on the basis of gender identity or expression is a form of illegal sex discrimination. Can you name a single instance where these laws have been abused by "men in dresses" or whatever you're imagining?

Race, sexual orientation and religion are other protected bases in anti-discrimination laws where there are no objective means for determining whether a person is what s/he says. Why don't you fear and complain about people "gaming the system" and abusing the laws on these grounds like you do for gender identity or expression?

I really think you're comparing apples to oranges. First off:

- you can't really "game" your race.
- religions are "supposed" to be treated equally.

As opposed to gender, for which there are many existing laws that attempt to protect females. It galls me to have to say what I'm about to say, but it strikes me that you're fond of putting words in my mouth so:

Of COURSE I agree that misogyny is a real problem. Of course I think that most of the legal initiatives designed to protect women or level the gender playing field have good intentions. So - for example - if the small business agency has some initiative to make it easier for women entrepreneurs, awesome! If title IX is doing good work leveling the playing field for girls in sport, fantastic!

And - for the Nth friggin time - despite what you and @Saint Frankenstein continue to accuse me of - I'm not transphobic or any such related phobia. I'm not concerned that the truly gender-rare (whatever the blanket term is), are out to game the system. I'm concerned that criminals are relentless, that every law ultimately gets tested, and that Canada's definition of gender identity is RIPE for misuse.

 

[Nous]

I really think you're comparing apples to oranges. First off:

- you can't really "game" your race.
- religions are "supposed" to be treated equally.

Just let me know if you become able to assimilate the information that, like "gender identity," there are no objective ways to determine a person's race, religion or sexual orientation.

You haven't explained why you don't have the same hysteria about inclusion of these categories in anti-discrimination and hate crime laws.

And you haven't been able to show that your fears about "men in dresses" "gaming the system" and "taking advantage of" women's legal privileges have any basis in reality whatsoever. As noted, "gender identity or expression" is already included in a variety of state, municipal and county laws in the US.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

With that as a given, the problem here is that this definition of gender identity allows straight people to game the system. I have not once stated or intended any disparaging of any trans / gender fluid person. Not once. Never. Got it?

Gender identity is a different issue from sexual orientation. A "straight person" is someone who is sexually attracted to the opposite sex, and has no bearing on if they have transitioned to another sex or not, or have adopted gender traits of the opposite sex.
And you also have to be able to provide documentation. A straight cis-male just can't go fill out an application for a women's small business loan and expect it to be granted as he has no documentation of having gender dysphoria or having any intentions of living as a female, and he certainly won't have any "F"s on his documents, not even a letter from a therapist stating what he is going through.
It's really no different of a concern that cis-men will dress up in women's clothing to peek some looks in the women's restroom and locker room. Which is about as big of a concern as sexual abuse and assault if we allow homosexuals to mingle with those poor and unsuspecting heterosexuals.
And, of course, the guy in your OP did bark up a tree of hopeful martyrdom, but lo and behold nothing came of his "bad *** breaking the law oh my god the system's gonna come for me" idiocy.

 

[icehorse]

Just let me know if you become able to assimilate the information that, like "gender identity," there are no objective ways to determine a person's race, religion or sexual orientation.

Well I would guess that we could use DNA analysis to determine race. And as I said earlier, I don't think bringing religion into this discussion is appropriate, because we *should not* have bias in the law based on religion (although many religious folks advocate for such bias). But we DO have many initiatives in place to level the field, making it easier for women to compete more equally across all domains.

I'm not sure I understand why you're bringing sexual orientation into the conversation? For example, I would guess that title IX applies equally to straight girls and gay girls, correct?

So the reason I think this issue is unique is because of gender specific laws.

 

[icehorse]

A straight cis-male just can't go fill out an application for a women's small business loan and expect it to be granted as he has no documentation of having gender dysphoria or having any intentions of living as a female, and he certainly won't have any "F"s on his documents, not even a letter from a therapist stating what he is going through.

Well to me this is a great example of how I think this Canadian definition is problematic! As far as I read the definition, a "straight cis-male" (sic), COULD in fact go fill out such an application, as long as they claim the appropriate gender identity. AND no proof will be required. AND, they could change their mind as to their gender identity, the very next day.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Well to me this is a great example of how I think this Canadian definition is problematic! As far as I read the definition, a "straight cis-male" (sic), COULD in fact go fill out such an application, as long as they claim the appropriate gender identity. AND no proof will be required. AND, they could change their mind as to their gender identity, the very next day.

That won't be happening though. If a guy comes in, wearing male clothes, acting like a guy, looking and acting like a guy, and has nothing to indicate he is being treated for gender dysphoria, has no legal documentation of having a female sex/gender, it's not going to happen. And past the legalities, there are also the social stigmas. As a guy, would you really want to pretend to be female for the afternoon to try to get a loan? Just what would your friends think? What would the rumor mill churn out at the pub? What if your boss saw you?
And, BTW, "straight cis-male" is a correct term that is spelled correctly, thus no (sic) is needed after it.

 

[icehorse]

That won't be happening though. If a guy comes in, wearing male clothes, acting like a guy, looking and acting like a guy, and has nothing to indicate he is being treated for gender dysphoria, has no legal documentation of having a female sex/gender, it's not going to happen. And past the legalities, there are also the social stigmas. As a guy, would you really want to pretend to be female for the afternoon to try to get a loan? Just what would your friends think? What would the rumor mill churn out at the pub? What if your boss saw you?
And, BTW, "straight cis-male" is a correct term that is spelled correctly, thus no (sic) is needed after it.

But the law says a guy could walk in wearing male clothes and get that loan, no docs necessary.

I believe your understanding of this law - while very common-sensical - is wrong. Which is why I think it's a bad law.

As for "cis-male", I don't accept it, it feels like a politicized term... time for a separate debate?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

But the law says a guy could walk in wearing male clothes and get that loan, no docs necessary.

I don't think you realize you can't just walk in, sign the doted line saying you are female, but the other 99.999999% of your life is lived as male. It doesn't work like that.

I believe your understanding of this law - while very common-sensical - is wrong.

The guy you are taking this from also said he would be breaking the law over his understanding, but yet he apparently didn't understand it himself because his interpretation has faced wide criticism, and because he wasn't even fired from his position despite his predictions of pending doom for himself.

As for "cis-male", I don't accept it,

It doesn't matter if you accept it or not. It is a valid term, understood, a part of regular discourse, and necessary in such a discussion to discern from cis-female and trans-female.

 

[icehorse]

I don't think you realize you can't just walk in, sign the doted line saying you are female, but the other 99.999999% of your life is lived as male. It doesn't work like that.

I believe that your understanding used to be correct, but it might not be in the future. The definition and the law are pretty concise. I think it's easy to argue that your understanding - which again, seems like how it "should" be - is now simply wrong.

@Shadow Wolf - please understand, I'm agreeing with you that the way you're describing things, is how it should be. All I'm saying is that because of a poorly defined law, it is NO LONGER that way.

As for Peterson, let's say he was wrong on a different point. As you well know, that doesn't make him wrong on this point. I've read the definition and the law. My conclusion is that such gaming of the system is now possible. Yes, I first heard the concern from Peterson, but I looked into it myself.

As for valid terms, I'd be happy to join you in a separate thread.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

@Shadow Wolf - please understand, I'm agreeing with you that the way you're describing things, is how it should be. All I'm saying is that because of a poorly defined law, it is NO LONGER that way.

I'm not going based on how it "should be," I'm going on how it is, removed from the anti-trans rhetoric that many spew as "concerns" over the bill, and based on what non-biased sources are saying about it.
If you would like, I'll grab a few randomly selected articles from Google and explain how their positions don't work and are nothing more than anti-trans garbage.

As for Peterson, let's say he was wrong on a different point. As you well know, that doesn't make him wrong on this point. I've read the definition and the law. My conclusion is that such gaming of the system is now possible. Yes, I first heard the concern from Peterson, but I looked into it myself.

Peterson's interpretation has been widely criticized, and even he himself failed to accurately predict how the law would effect him for being an *******. Other people's concerns I've read, they don't match reality but their incorrect views of gender dysphoria, people who are transsexual rather than the larger umbrella term of transgender, and how a transition works. They way some of these people write, you'd think a guy could put on a dress, sport a beard, and get into any female only area or event he wants. That isn't going to happen, and I've found nothing in the Canadian law to suggest it can.
Really, it seems as unfounded as the American version of "don't let them in the bathrooms or perverts are going to dress as women to peek, grope, and rape." Sure, it probably can technically happen, but it just isn't happening.
And I'm sure Canada does have fraud laws to punish Bill if he signs the doted line for a female-small-business loan as Cindy, gets the loan, and starts/runs the business as Bill.

As for valid terms, I'd be happy to join you in a separate thread.

It's like discussing a Clinton. We can't really say "Clinton" without context, because it could be referring to Bill or Hillary, making it necessary to break from contemporary conventions of how we refer to politicians.
In a discussion involving gender dysphoria, it thus becomes necessary to use terms like "trans" and "cis" to clarify ourselves and make it known what we are saying.