First baby born without a gender in Canada

*rubs eyes* I don't want to seem like a bigot, but this really bothers me. I've always been of the belief that we are what we are, whether we "like" it or not. If you have an X and Y chromosome your a man. If you have two X chromosomes your a woman. You can dress up however you want and hack off or add whatever body parts you feel like, but its only cosmetic touches. It doesn't change what you truly are.

Trying to force their transgender beliefs on a newborn child should be illegal. Its like trying to dictate its sexuality at birth. Its wrong.
 
This child was not born without a gender. It was arbitrarily boxed into the 'non-gender' category by its fruitcake parents.
 
vincent1989 said:
The furore around bill c16 is one very good example. I'm not a big fan of telling people what they can't say and the implications that has for freedom of speech but when you begin to tell people what they must say, well that's something else entirely.
Click to expand...


The bill is intended to protect individuals from discrimination within the sphere of federal jurisdiction and from being the targets of hate propaganda,[4] as a consequence of their gender identity or their gender expression. The bill adds “gender identity or expression” to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act and the list of characteristics of identifiable groups protected from hate propaganda in the Criminal Code. It also adds that evidence that an offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on a person’s gender identity or expression constitutes an aggravating circumstance for a court to consider when imposing a criminal sentence.[5]
Click to expand...

The law amends the Canadian Human Rights Act by adding "gender identity or expression" as a prohibited ground of discrimination.[6] That makes it illegal to deny services, employment, accommodation and similar benefits to individuals based on their gender identity or gender expression within a federal regulated industry.
Click to expand...

It's about bringing gender expression and identity into the same realm as racism and sexism. How does that have anything to do with telling people what they must say?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Act_to_amend_the_Canadian_Human_Rights_Act_and_the_Criminal_Code
 
Craig1981 said:
*rubs eyes* I don't want to seem like a bigot, but this really bothers me. I've always been of the belief that we are what we are, whether we "like" it or not. If you have an X and Y chromosome your a man. If you have two X chromosomes your a woman. You can dress up however you want and hack off or add whatever body parts you feel like, but its only cosmetic touches. It doesn't change what you truly are.
Click to expand...

Belief is just belief. It doesn't mean anything. The true test is evidence, testing a hypothesis against reality. Yours is an approximation, not something that is always true. It's not as straightforward as sex chromosome type absolutely being the be all and end all of sex. Even without modern medical procedures, it's still not that straightforward because genes are plans for things rather than the things themselves. Genotype is not phenotype. Biological sex is set during foetal development by hormones, not genes. There are people whose sex naturally doesn't match the simple genes=sex definition. How, for example, would you classify someone who has XY chromosomes but normal female external genitalia and normal female secondary sexual characteristics (breasts, etc)? That happens. We don't even know how often it happens. Probably not often, but we know for certain it happens. Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome.

As for genetics being the be all and end all and physiology not mattering at all, I think that doesn't hold up to the test against reality at all well. Imagine, for example, I had my left foot cut off after some horrible accident. I'd still have the genes for making a left foot, obviously. So if my genes are what I am and that can't be changed, my left foot couldn't be cut off or would regrow. But it can and it wouldn't. A gene can cause a physiological problem. For example, there's some evidence that some congenital heart defects have a genetic cause. If the heart defect is repaired by surgery, does the heart defect still exist even though it no longer exists?

The idea that genes are everything and that physiology can't be changed medically fails the test against reality - it's a testable hypothesis that has been proven false and therefore should be discarded.

Trying to force their transgender beliefs on a newborn child should be illegal. Its like trying to dictate its sexuality at birth. Its wrong.
Click to expand...

I agree with that...but is that what they're doing? They're not applying gender to the child. That's not the same thing as changing the child's gender.

Also, sex and gender aren't the same thing. So X and Y chromosomes are doubly wrong as a means of determining gender.
 
Amp34 said:
It's about bringing gender expression and identity into the same realm as racism and sexism. How does that have anything to do with telling people what they must say?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Act_to_amend_the_Canadian_Human_Rights_Act_and_the_Criminal_Code
Click to expand...

Because it's so ambiguous, i demand you call me "Master" from now on, i clearly identify as a privileged white male and you should have known what my pronoun was.

It's ridiculous infringement upon peoples ability to converse, discourse doesn't need to be a minefield.
 
StriderX said:
Because it's so ambiguous, i demand you call me "Master" from now on, i clearly identify as a privileged white male and you should have known what my pronoun was.

It's ridiculous infringement upon peoples ability to converse, discourse doesn't need to be a minefield.
Click to expand...

No it's not:

If passed, the bill would also add gender identity and gender expression to the Criminal Code in two ways:

  1. Section 718.2 is about what principles should be taken into consideration when a court imposes a sentence.
Section 718.2(a) is about how a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances.
Section 718.2(a)(i) speaks about offences where evidence shows that action was motivated by bias, prejudice, or hate based on social groups. This list already includes race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, and sexual orientation.

2. Section 318 is about hate propaganda.

Subsection 318(4) adds gender identity and gender expression to the definition of an identifiable group for the purposes of “advocating genocide.” This legislation would protect transgender and gender non-binary peoples from being a targeted group in an act of genocide.
Click to expand...

It's about making hate speech illegal (with very specific terms for what hate speech is) and stopping prejudice and selective attitudes. I.e. In the same way you can't discriminate against someone because they are black, you can't discriminate against someone that is trans - in federally regulated industries (such as schools). It also provides for requests to change gender on records of that person (for example university enrolment information).

It has nothing to do with not knowing what someone's pronoun was, any more than not knowing someone's name will not get you in trouble.

Don't just take my word for it, heres the Canadian Bar Associations take on it (they only represent 36,000 lawyers):

For those compelled to speak and act in truth, however unpopular, truth is included in those defences. Nothing in the section compels the use or avoidance of particular words in public as long as they are not used in their most extreme manifestations with the intention of promoting the level of abhorrence, delegitimization and rejection that produces feelings of hatred against identifiable groups.

Those concerned that they could be criminalized for their repugnant or offensive ideas fail to understand a crucial distinction in the law.
Click to expand...

Significantly more in the link - http://www.cba.org/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=be34d5a4-8850-40a0-beea-432eeb762d7f

Jordan Petersons claims (which is likely where your claim originated) are misguided and demonstratably incorrect.
 
Last edited:
The trouble with the west is that is actively promoting unconventional behaviour, a boy brought up as genderless is much more likely to identify as a girl than one brought up conventionally primarily due to its confused upbringing and its parents behaviour towards it (either being neutral or forcing their desire upon it).

I'm all for protecting those who (as adults) choose to change sex or whatever but why encourage it and force it on children from birth? what's wrong with treating them as their biological sex and letting them change later should they choose?
 
Does it have a penis? Or does it have a vagina? Just because it has either of these items doesn't necessarily mean you can't bring it up as the most 'whole person he/she can be' ******* retards.**** you.
 
Your idea of gender identity and what is "identifiable" aren't the same as everyone else's idea of it.

SUMMARY



This enactment amends the Canadian Human Rights Act to add gender identity and gender expression to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination.



The enactment also amends the Criminal Code to extend the protection against hate propaganda set out in that Act to any section of the public that is distinguished by gender identity or expression and to clearly set out that evidence that an offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on gender identity or expression constitutes an aggravating circumstance that a court must take into consideration when it imposes a sentence.





Available on the Parliament of Canada Web Site at the following address:
http://www.parl.gc.ca







64-65-66 ELIZABETH II

CHAPTER 13
An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code
[Assented to 19th June, 2017]





Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:



R.‍S.‍, c. H-6



Canadian Human Rights Act



1998, c. 9, s. 9; 2012, c. 1, s. 137(E)



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,




Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons
Click to expand...

It is clearly a blanket (which is obviously fine considering the others) clause, when we haven't even defined what gender is in a solid manner. My personal opinion is that there's a solid range between male and female, along with non-binary concluding outwith this range, i'm probably wrong, but i don't care.
 
If you disagree with anything then you're a bigot, lol its really that simple.
Shame on anyone for disagreeing this!

Welcome lefties to a taste of what's to come. Lets see how much you love this country in 40+ years time when you won't be able to make any difference what so ever.
 
Freefaller said:
Sometimes I wish I was still living several decades ago.
Click to expand...

Heh! Sometimes all this craziness of the world I feel I've been in a coma for the last two decades and woken up today with all this madness.


Evosparki said:
If you disagree with anything then you're a bigot, lol its really that simple.
Shame on anyone for disagreeing this!

Welcome lefties to a taste of what's to come. Lets see how much you love this country in 40+ years time when you won't be able to make any difference what so ever.
Click to expand...

40 years? Try the next 5...
 
V F said:
40 years? Try the next 5...
Click to expand...
True, true.

From my own umm... wisdom as someone in their 30's, it may take a couple of decades for anyone to REALLY notice any difference.In my teens I was brain washed at school to think how great the construction of the euro tunnel and globalism and the currency swap from the pound to the euro would be great and things.
 
Last edited:
StriderX said:
Your idea of gender identity and what is "identifiable" aren't the same as everyone else's idea of it.



It is clearly a blanket (which is obviously fine considering the others) clause, when we haven't even defined what gender is in a solid manner. My personal opinion is that there's a solid range between male and female, along with non-binary concluding outwith this range, i'm probably wrong, but i don't care.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean there. Are you expecting a list of genders?

There doesn't need to be a defined definion of what gender is, in the same way that there is no definitive definition of race, because there can't be. If there was then it would contradict the point of the law.

There's a simple way to not get caught by the bill. Don't discriminate against someone because they want to be called xyz (in certain situations) and don't preach genocide against people that don't want to fit standard gender definitions.
 
What counts as discrimination and how trigger happy is the government going to be to appear like it's doing justice?

I'm entirely sure that a case will come forward to show exactly how this will be abused, thankfully it doesn't matter with respect to the internet as the likes of Verizon and Time Warner are about to own the bloody thing, good riddance.
 
StriderX said:
What counts as discrimination and how trigger happy is the government going to be to appear like it's doing justice?

I'm entirely sure that a case will come forward to show exactly how this will be abused, thankfully it doesn't matter with respect to the internet as the likes of Verizon and Time Warner are about to own the bloody thing, good riddance.
Click to expand...

Again there is no way of writing a definitive list of what is considered discrimination. That wouldn't be up to the government, rather the jury of peers that will be drafted to decide if discrimination occurred, following arguments from both sides.

I take it you're against all anti discrimination laws then? The arguments you have provided are also equally relevant to all the protected groups prior to C16. It just adds to the list after all - not providing a special case for trans over other minority groups.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom