Something new about the Trans rights movement

Black people generally want to be regarded as equal to white people and deserving the same rights as white people. They don't generally want to be regarded AS white people. The idea there is to get rid of racial discrimination, not keep in in place and let people declare they are transracial and entitled to the rights of the other race. And "rights of the other race" (I personally don't think different races should have different rights, but that's not the point) would include not just racist things against black people, but also segregation or discrimination in favour of black people, such as lower test score requirements or reparations. I think people would be quite upset if reparations were given a green light and all black people were to receive some money, and then a bunch of white people declared themselves black.

Demanding to be regarded as an identity society doesn't regard you as is something different than asking to be treated equally and have the same rights despite differences in identity. The "Cultural Appropriation" issue also comes into play here, as do social conventions on saying certain words, access to segregated scholarships, etc.

 

We're not talking about all that other stuff right now. Let's try to focus on this one CONCEPT please.

You wrote: "What sets this movement apart as different is that they are being asked to be regarded as an identity that society does not see them as being."

My comment was to bring up that at one time black people in American were not considered to be "full value". So, at that time, "society did not see them as being a WHOLE person."

The details are irrelevant. The issue was the same. A group of people who self-identified as a collective group wanted to change that and the people of that time did not agree with it because "society does not see them as being." The issue didn't have to be black were demanding to become white. Black people were asking to be treated equal.

So you can't argue from the position that the transgender movement is vastly different based on a point that is not unique, therefore it does NOT set this argument part. It's the same CONCEPT.

 

It is just one example of how our society has different resources, rules, and places for men and for women. Women only gyms are another example. Scholarships for women are another example. Sports segregation is another. Men's only lodges was one running in the opposite direction, and women's rights movement have successfully minimized or ended many more that used to deny women many of the rights men had. There are many examples both in history and today of gender segregation, gender double standards, etc in society. Transexuals cross that divide without dismantling it, unlike the civil rights movements for gays, blacks, women, etc.

And I don't know what you mean by saying that's not how domestic violence centres work, but the most definitely are far more barriers for men than for women in accessing any such help. Most exclude men entirely, and those who do serve men usually do so to a lesser extent than they serve women. This is a basic Men's Rights issue that I'm surprised you are not aware of.

One example, by a woman studying this: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1226&context=honors

 

That is an unfair statement. I never said that I was unaware of men's basic rights relative to admittance in domestic violence shelters and I think the fact that I actually said "That's not how domestic violence centers work" should have been a strong clue to your conclusion wasn't accurate.

I will look at the link later. I'm rather tired at the moment.

 

You are misunderstanding the meaning I meant by what you are quoting.

Trans women are what society would regard as men, except they want society to instead regard them as women. That women or men are discriminated against in society is a different point.

Black people generally did not want to be regarded as white people. They wanted the black racial identity to have the same rights as the white racial identity. Those of them who may have wanted to be regarded AS white, would actually not be doing any good towards ending racism.

No, it wasn't.

No, it is not.

A parrallel issue between trans and black rights here would be regarding trans people being denied employment because they are trans (as cited by the other poster above), and this discrimination not being outlawed.

 

True. I should not have presumed that.

No. It led me to that presumption. I spoke of shelters for abused people excluding men, and you responded by saying "that's not how domestic violence centres work". That led me to think you disagreed that men are often (or usually) excluded.

Me too. Perhaps that has led us to both write less clearly than we would like.

Anyway, I was using such resources as just one example to illustrate that our society has gender segregation in it and there are different rights accessible by men and by women. Unless you disagree with that, we may be embarking on a sidetrack.

The point is that we've got two clear identities here, male and female (and maybe more than just the two), and trans folk are asking society to regard them as an identity that society otherwise wouldn't regard them as, which comes with a change to more than just pronouns that are to be used, but all of the gender segregation differences that exist in society. And all without dismantling any said gender segregation differences.

 

This isn't saying "Men deserve the same rights as women, so I should be allowed to..."

This is saying "I am a woman, and women can do this, so I am allowed to..."

 

You are right and I why that would lead you to that conclusion. What I was trying to convey is that domestic violence centers are usually community based businesses that are classified as non-profit. The way non-profits work is slightly different because their financial backing comes from donors with an interest in whatever services they are offering in their community.

For this reason, the donors make the decisions about how the money is used in service to the program. And, the way they get money from donors is to apply for grants. A grant is basically a company or board or some type of social movement investor that says, "I will give you money for X." So, the non-profit has to use the donation for that stated purpose. It's NOT a blanket statement for their overall program unless it's specifically a grant for overhead (personnel) salaries and office equipment, rental space, etc..

What this means is the NFP can use the money but only apply it what it was designated for. Let's say the grant was specially given for:

All women in the shelter can purpose three outfits, coats, shoes and boots for themselves and their children.
25 women and their children to have mental health services.
50 children to have the books and tutoring they need while their family is in a shelter.
75 participants can get legal representation in court.

The people running the DV Center have to keep accounting records and receipts to show how that money was spent.

Along comes a transgender saying that she's been a victim of domestic violence and need some help.

IF the Board of Directors over that DV Center has NOT designated it to be a program for transgendered people, the person would legally have to be denied a bed and supportive services.

IF that is not a stipulation, and they have a bed available, the transgender would be approved.

And about one of your earlier comments something about only women can get these services and men are left out. That's not accurate. It may be true that there are MORE DV centers for women but there are DV centers for me. And, ironically men using those services actually get more support than females dv victims.

 

Also please note I didn't at any point in this discussion say that we SHOULDN'T go along with people who want to transition genders. I just pointed out that this is something additional and different than the the other social rights movements. And this conflicts with some movements within feminism. My personal opinion is that we should minimize gender segregation, and then transitioning between genders becomes moot to society.

 

What I said was that there are shelters for abused people (and not just in your country whichever that is) that help women and exclude men. That there are some that do help men is beside that point. The point was made to illustrate a case of gender segregation within society. But that said, it is my understanding that men face far more barriers in getting such help, both socially and administratively. The link I posted above is one of many that come up when doing a simple google on this question.

 

Oh, but it is your business. Trans people have convinced academia and many lawmaker that they (the transes) alonr get to decide what their gender is, no matter how obvious their genitalia, body shape, and capacity to lactate, ovulate, conceive or ejaculate semen say they are male or female. You think semen and milk are mere social construsts? Matters of opinion?

This is already an absurd imposition on every one else, but it gets worse. In too many places, you must not only respect the claimed identity, but you more and more must stand by passively as your children are indoctrinated at school in this nonsense. Think you have freedom of thought? Not for long unless you resist.

Are you familiar with the madness in Canada? That's very close to home.

Yes, it is decidedly your business. Don't turn away. They'll make it a crime to misgender a person ere long.

 

So are all you guys calling for elimination of gender "segregation" cool with 14 year old girls and 14 year old boys showering together in a public school efter P.E.? You would have just one shower area so that everyone is treated equally?

If you are cool with that, then you don't have daughters, are naive, or an idiot.

 

Now YOU are just in DENIAL of YOUR own words!

Your comments in BLUE above are COMMENTARY on what you said RED above.

The POINT that YOU are MISSING is that DISCRIMINATING AGAINST transgender people in those areas in RED above is the ONLY issue here.

REMOVE that DISCRIMINATION and that will SETTLE the matter as far as EQUAL RIGHTS for transgender people are concerned.

In the UK a THIRD of all EMPLOYERS will NOT hire a transgender person.

https://www.crosslandsolicitors.com/site/hr-hub/transgender-discrimination-in-UK-workplaces

A MAJORITY of people in the UK agree that transpeople are DISCRIMINATED against.

https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en...ransgender-people-face-discrimination-britain

DISCRIMINATION against transpeople is the PROBLEM!

The OP has CONSISTENTLY FAILED to substantiate that there is anything ELSE that needs to be addressed!

In order to REMOVE the DISCRIMINATION against transpeople society needs to REMOVE the asinine STEREOTYPES that are a MENTAL barrier when it comes to ACCEPTING that NOT everyone is on one or another end of a BINARY polarity.

SCIENCE has established that there is a genetic SPECTRUM where different genes can ALTER the brain so that is does NOT align with the physical body.


FACTS matter!

 

I live in Canada, and I can tell you that a lot of what you may be hearing, is not true or is very misleading and exaggerated.

I often hear Americans say false things about Canada and I wonder why they think it.

Yes, we had a bit of a kurfufle over the Ontario Human Rights tribunal regarding trans rights and what Jordan Peterson was calling compelled speech, but you won't be thrown into jail for misgendering somebody. In fact, very few Canadians have even heard of this issue, and those who have usually learn about it online rather in their daily lives.

 

LoL, Its not a crime to call a feminist 'Miss' or 'Mrs' and refuse to call her 'Ms', and the feminist movement has been working on that honorifics title issue since the 1950's

 

This happens to all people.

 

Another big case of Americans getting Canada wrong, was when many of them went around telling everyone that Canada has Shariah Courts.

No, we don't.

As somebody who works in the Ontario law community, I know exactly what happened in that case. In Ontario, we have mandatory mediation, which means you have to go to a mediator prior to your trial, to attempt to settle the case. The mediator can be anyone mutually chosen by the opposing parties to the law suit. Two Muslims chose an expert in Shariah as their mediator.

They were at no time bound by the mediator's opinion. And if they came to a settlement it would still have to be approved by the very secular Ontario court. If the agreed upon settlement violated Ontario law then it would not be allowed.

This was somehow twisted into "OMG! Canada has Shariah Law Now!! Muslims are taking over!!!"

 

Forgive me, but it is hard to believe that the majority of Canadians will not have heard of this stor. Canadians seem exceptionally well informed. Or did the news networks not cover the story?

And it certainly sounds like compelled speech he was fighting against.


"I don't think any legal expert would say using an inappropriate pronoun, while not something that respects the human rights of trans people, would ever result in a criminal conviction," said Kyle Kirkup, a law professor with the University of Ottawa who specialises in gender identity and sexuality law.

But Dr Peterson could face sanction under Ontario's human rights code, which extended protection to trans people in 2012.

Penalties range from fines and damages to mandatory anti-discrimination training.

Not now, it isn't. Not here. And I didn't say it was.

Hopefully we won't follow Ontario's psycho example.

Calling an unmarried woman "Ms." is logical. It's quite different from calling a woman "sir" just because she doesn't know what she is. Which you are welcome to do voluntarily. I won't do it myself no matter what hard, cylindrical shaped object she straps on in in the depths of her dysphoria.

You throw in with these mentally unsound people and their defenders at your own peril.

 

Who here made the claim that Canada has Sharia law now? Not I. Nice deflection

Now ...

Tell us about this:

“Would it cover the accidental misuse of a pronoun? I would say it’s very unlikely,” Cossman says. “Would it cover a situation where an individual repeatedly, consistently refuses to use a person’s chosen pronoun? It might.”

If someone refused to use a preferred pronoun — and it was determined to constitute discrimination or harassment — could that potentially result in jail time?
If someone refused to use a preferred pronoun — and it was determined to constitute discrimination or harassment — could that potentially result in jail time?

It is possible, Brown says, through a process that would start with a complaint and progress to a proceeding before a human rights tribunal. If the tribunal rules that harassment or discrimination took place, there would typically be an order for monetary and non-monetary remedies. A non-monetary remedy may include sensitivity training, issuing an apology, or even a publication ban, he says.



https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/features/canadas-gender-identity-rights-bill-c-16-explained

Even if incarceration never occurs, and "mere" sensitivity training is ordered, it's madness. And Canadians actually deserve the worst for they lie down and take it up the butt for fear of the law calling them transphobic.

I didn't make up any of the foregoing and it didn't come from Breitbart.

It would be nice if you liberals would stand up for your freedoms. As it is, you are making me ill.

 

Only a few news networks covered the story. Primarily CBC, on which Peterson was invited (many times over the years) to speak. He often has interesting things to say.

But the typical Canadian? No. Most didn't notice. It isn't as draconian as you may imagine here.

That is if it is found he was harassing the person. "Misgendering" somebody once or twice isn't going to land you in any hot water. Harassing them and constantly shouting at them that they are a boy when they think they are a girl, etc, can get you in hot water.

But we had Peterson go on national television and state right to the camera that he won't call a boy a girl. He didn't go to jail. The police never got involved. Very few people here cared at all.

Misgendering somebody in Ontario has never landed anybody in jail. It hasn't actually happened. Peterson was arguing that it could conceivably happen under very particular circumstances. Circumstances that require harasment.

 

No, not you. Not anyone in this particular thread. I was making the point that Americans rarely know what is happening in Canada, and often they spread false news about Canada. These are two examples. Sharia Courts haven't taken over Ontario. Refusing to call a girl a boy hasn't resulted in anybody going to jail in Ontario.

Yes, it might. If they are harassing that person. Are you just saying "him" instead of her occasionally, or are you following them around shouting "YOU'RE A DUDE!" at them? Context matters.

Only if they were given a court order and refused to obey it, then they could be in contempt of court, and that goes for ANY court order, stemming from this or anything else. The proper course is to appeal it if you think it is wrong.

Even if incarceration never occurs, and "mere" sensitivity training is ordered, it's madness. And Canadians actually deserve the worst for they lie down and take it up the butt for fear of the law calling them transphobic.

I didn't make up any of the foregoing and it didn't come from Breitbart.

I'm quite comfortable, thank you. And I do stand up for my freedoms when they are attacked. This was cause for a few raised eyebrows, but that's about it. It has blown over and nobody has been hauled of to jail for merely refusing to comply with requested pronoun use.

 

I think Canadians are pretty well informed regarding the USA. Americans are often incredibly misinformed about Canada, as well as about other countries around the world.

That is bound to happen given their relative sizes and footprint on the world stage and in media.

Just as an offhand example, I bet 90% or more of Canadians know the US had an election last year that replaced Trump with Biden. I bet less than 20% of Americans are aware there is currently a Federal election underway in Canada, and I bet less than 2% of Americans can name any Candian politician running for the office other than the sitting Prime Minister, Trudeau.

Americans have a very self-centred and self-contructed view of the international world, to the point that it is shocking how many of them can't even point out the USA on a world map.

 

Oh, I know you are.

 

Hold it ... what you are describing there would constitute disorderly conduct in the states, for example,

"(4) abuses or threatens a person in a public place in an obviously offensive manner."

What should not be an offense is refusing to honor a trans person's choice of gender because it is not aligned with their sex at birth.

You say context matters, and of course it does. What should worry you is any trend to regulate the mere content of speech. Harassment is different.

I'll try to find it later, but there's a video of this crusty old guy in a shop that says "sir" to this huge dude dressed like a woman. The trans person (if that's what she genuinely is, and I always question that) is offended and starts protesting that he's a woman, not a "Sir." The store owner had a sign outside that says "If you're born with a penis, you're not a woman," though it's phrased more crudely than that.

There are people born with two sex organs and they get to choose, of course, but the store owner should have the right to an opinion. It doesn't mean he can discriminate in hiring or serving, and of course kindness counts, but he ought to be able inder the law to have an opinion, even if it offends someone. Even if it offends everyone.

Isn't it better to let the people at the street level regulate this kind of thing, politely protesting, taking their business elsewhere, etc. than having some commission of bureaucrats controlling your speech?

On edit, Here's the video I mentioned:

https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com...-sign-gets-told-youre-nuts-youre-not-a-woman/

 

So....it's not a "mental illness" but a "GENETIC DEFECT"....thanks for clearing it up.