Justin Trudeau Pushes Bill C-16 through Parliament making it illegal to state there are Only 2 Genders. Thoughts?

[Anonymous]

As a mark of leftist SJW regression, a new bill has been pushed forward in Canada. A place where there were already 7 officially recognised genders now making it illegal to teach or state that there are only 2 genders.

Bill C-16 states that claiming that there are just 2 genders is now a form of hate speach and biologists are scientists are to refrain from stating that just 2 genders exist. Individuals are now free to be known by their preferred "pronouns" for people who do not want to apply themselves into conformed gender identities. An Article very similar to this has already passed in New York City https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/05/17/you-can-be-fined-for-not-calling-people-ze-or-hir-if-thats-the-pronoun-they-demand-that-you-use/?utm_term=.942ad43e76cf

https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/civil-rights/301661-this-canadian-prof-defied-sjw-on-gender-pronouns-and-has-a

Updates

+1 y

www.youtube.com/watch

Updates

+1 y

https://youtu.be/FOJmnkEv-5I

Scientists aren't allowed to teach biology

[Nyx_85]

Way to go with the propaganda videos. Rebel Media? Great choice there! Totally unbiased and well informed...

They are actually amending the human rights act and criminal code to include 'gender identity and expression'.

This is the actual bill if you care to take a look:
www.parl.ca/.../third-reading

"This enactment amends the Canadian Human Rights Act to add gender identity and gender expression to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination.
he 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."
https://openparliament.ca/bills/42-1/C-16/

All they did was include something in an act that was already in effect for many years.

Nowhere does it say it will be illegal to state there are only two genders. It is mainly to prevent hate crimes and discrimination of trans people in the workplace, schools and regarding services, etc

"The bill first became the subject of debate when Jordan Peterson, a psychology professor at the University of Toronto, argued that the bill would limit free expression. He believes the bill would force him to use such pronouns as ‘ze,’ ‘xe,’ or the singular ‘they.’
“I was being asked, as everyone is, to use a certain set of words that I think are the constructions of people that have a political ideology that I don’t believe in and I also regard as dangerous,” he told Steve Paikin on The Agenda.
Basque (president of the Canadian Bar Association) disputes this: he says nothing in the Criminal Code section of the bill will compel the use or the avoidance of particular words, as long as the speaker’s intent is not to promote hatred against identifiable groups."
tvo.org/.../everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-transgender-rights-bill

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unBwktYoMA4

[rjroy3]

No one is unbiased. So making that an ideal is moot. The best you can hope for is people being upfront about where their bias lies and being open with their sources. Preferably pulling from sources of differing biases as well. You can disregard whatever media you want, but don't lie to yourself and assume wherever you get your trusted information is unbiased. Because I promise you they are biased just as anyone else.

[Nyx_85]

@rjroy3 Oh good grief...

Do you need a ladder for your horse or can you manage to get on from the ground?

News medias are supposed to report on the news. What is happening. They are supposed to offer reliable and correct information, cite sources, and not state their opinions on the matter. Yes a lot of news today is NOT like that. I never said nobody is totally unbiased. But REAL news is SUPPOSED to be.

[rjroy3]

Name one unbiased news source today

[rjroy3]

Also. I don't see how stating you should be honest about bias is me being on a high horse lol. Literally just said you should have the same standard for everyone, which is the opposite of superiority. Your response was very arrogant in its own right : P

[Nyx_85]

@rjroy3 TODAY there was probably no 100% unbiased news sources however Canadian media is considerably less biased than American. We don't have things like Fox and so forth. But Rebel Media is very biased and is known for spreading propaganda. I've heard them state a number of things before that were blatantly wrong or just complete opinion and nothing else. They like stating what they 'think' about things a lot. It's more social commentary than an actual news media. I thought this was fairly well known.

You came in here with comments like "Because I promise you they are biased just as anyone else." In what world was this ever about me? I'm not a reporter. I didn't write any of those articles nor make a video on this. I was not a source. Therefore whether or not I am personally biased about anything has nothing to do with this. My opinions are not even a factor in the matter.

You came here trying to teach and I'm sorry but that just made you come off as very pretentious.

[Nyx_85]

UGH I thought you said "YOU are just as biased as anyone else". I wasn't wearing my glasses... I thought you were just picking on me for no reason and being a snob. And I thought you were really odd too because I was like "What do I have to do with this?" Damn it. Sorry.

[Nyx_85]

I also read that and responded really quickly. Been rushing around a lot and running on not a lot of sleep. Should remember to put my glasses on and read when I'm not busy or tired next time. That's bad me.

[Nyx_85]

And yeeeah I know I copy and pasted your comment. I still didn't notice the 'THEY' when I did that Seriously! Omg. Goodnight.

[Jager66]

actually Rebel media is very reputable, they are openly conservative and this is VERY ethical of them to be clear about. Unlike say the CBC, BBC, CNN and pretty much all other mainstream media who pretends to be unbiased but are in reality 100% Liberal.

And yes it is illegal, watch the senate hearing where they talk about the Human rights tribunals and how the law is enforced.. It is VERY clear that it is illegal, it's all just spin, lies and propaganda to hide their agenda behind being "rational and moderate" when in reality it is not at all rational or moderate.

[VictoriousSausage]

@Jager66 Ah, you see, there's a difference between biased media and how well they agree with you, there are things the BBC have said that i'm not so happy with, but to call them unbiased would be slander, the BBC is over one hundred years old, they've been delivering news here in the UK and abroad for all that time, and in all that time about 5 of the storied were accused of minor bias infringements. If you're having to list off all these different news channels, all these different sources that you say are wrong, then it might be your views that are so out of whack with the rest of the world. (you're free to have these views, but you shouldn't whip up hate with them, and you shouldn't force them on others)

[rjroy3]

@VictoriousSausage

You flipped "bias" and "unbiased".

What Jager and my own point was is that absolutely no one and no network is unbiased. Everyone has a bias one way or the other and to admit what your bias is really the only way to attempt being objective. Rather than lying about your bias by saying you're in the middle, when you're really not. Most commonly this is seen by liberal networks, which is what Jager is pointing out.

You can't claim to be moderate when all your stances are Liberal. You can't claim to be moderate when all your stances are Conservative. Now you can be a moderate liberal or moderate conservative, but that is still a bias moreso in either direction. The unbiased moderate doesn't exist. You can only be upfront about your bias and do your best to prevent facts without aldulterating them with your world view.

[VictoriousSausage]

@rjroy3 The BBC has never stated it was Liberal, it's never stated any political sway, which means, by definition, it's the most likely to be unbiased

[rjroy3]

@VictoriousSausage

Again.

Unbiased sources do not exist. You can do your best to be objective, but that can only be done when you're upfront about your bias. Until you do so, then you're not being objective.
Everyone has a bias. No one and no news source is unbiased. That does not exist.

[rjroy3]

@VictoriousSausage

Merely not stating your bias doesn't make you unbiased. Infact it's a sign of deception, because they're not being upfront about where they stand.

[VictoriousSausage]

@rjroy3 why force them to be then, honestly, i believe most of the time the BBC and several other news sources tell the truth, sometimes they don't cover everything, but i've seen more bias from the far left and far right than anything else recently, while they whip up fears thinking the centre on non-declared news services are somehow biased, when often it really doesn't matter as long as they're telling the truth. we know the BBC tells the truth, it doesn't always cover everything, because it's an international news service, and it attempts to get everyone's voices heard, i'd rather hear my views trounced time and again so i'd know where i sit in society rather than have someone pander to me and tell me i'm right because they believe what i believe. you will always find those who disagree with you, and as a Liberal, a Democrat and a man in support of one day a single, global government, i know people are going to challenge that, and that's good.

[rjroy3]

@VictoriousSausage

No one is forcing them nor suggesting force.

The point of the matter is Truth. Truth matters. So claiming the BBC for example is somehow unbiased or in the middle based solely on the fact they don't openly declare their bias is just not true. They're very much biased. I'm not saying they can't be trusted, but they do have a bias and if you can't admit to that then that's a problem. Because having a bias leads to holes in your thinking and what you deem important to cover. Which is why every news source misses something.

The BBC doesn't cover everything because of their bias. Not because there's "so much" news in the world. They're a massive network and they could cover any story in the world if they wanted to. It's because of their bias certain stories don't get covered. That aside. The BBC is also very left leaning. So your statement " i'd rather hear my views trounced time and again" falls on deaf ears lol. Because the BBC is in line with your views.

[Nyx_85]

@Jager66 Have you read many of their articles/ watched their videos or is it just that you buy into their ideals? Well obviously you'll find them reputable if you believe in their message.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-rebel/

rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fake_news#The_Rebel_Media

www.financialpost.com/.../jonathan-kay-the-weirdest-thing-about-ezra-levant-is-he-still-thinks-hes-right&pubdate=2015-03-11&t=ezra-levant

"Ezra Levant ordered to pay $25,000 for libel"
thetyee.ca/.../

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ezra_Levant#Libel_cases

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfY3x8M9alo

If you want to believe they are reputable then go ahead. That's your choice.

[rjroy3]

Out of curiosity. Which media sources do you find reputable?

[Nyx_85]

@rjroy3 CBC is somewhat left leaning though their reporting is graded as highly factual.
mediabiasfactcheck.com/.../

National Post is more right leaning though also has highly factual reporting.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/national-post/

Most sources tend to lean at least a tad right or left in the spin they put on things but as long as they have the facts it's more about just picking multiple different sources and comparing. I look for more center based sources (slightly right or left is ok as long as they are factual) and try my best to stay away from opinion pieces and just go with the details being reported. Fact A. Fact B. And so forth. When, where, and how.

As far as American sources Associated Press isn't bad.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/associated-press/

or Pew Research
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/pew-research/

Reuters is one of the least biased and is rated as very high in factual reporting.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com

[Nyx_85]

@rjroy3 Washington Post is rated as having highly factual reporting yet is not very objective. The article the OP posted was an opinion piece by Eugene Volokh who does "The Volokh Conspiracy". He also posted a YouTube video with some dude ranting on. And then Gad Saad ranting on about how this bill will somehow wipe away his personhood as a male which is a slippery slope fallacy. He also says it's vague. It's really not THAT vague. It's pretty much taking all the rights we have in the original bill regarding regular gender (male/female), sexual orientation, race, colour, age, mental or physical disability etc and adding transgender to the mix. It was never said that gender will be erased or that anyone will be getting in legal trouble for misgendering. As long as the misgendering isn't followed by a death treat or advocating genocide. Certainly there will be no punishment for accidentally misgendering. There is nothing is the bill that states what he or Peterson are claiming.

[VictoriousSausage]

@rjroy3 it really isn't, the BBC does have a bias, but one bias, not on the political spectrum, but on location, it covers more to do with Britain than any other country, because it's the BBC, i've seen it many a time, people from the left call the BBC biased to the right and people from the right say the BBC is too left wing, my political stance is Centre -left, in-line with the UK Lib Dems mostly, much like a lot of other people in the UK, (given surveys on political views in the UK to find the country's official stance). i see the BBC as slightly right wing in places, which must mean they sit dead centre,, which makes sense because that gives them the best coverage. but if the BBC is too biased to you, tell me what isn't in your eyes?

[Nyx_85]

Rebel Media is banned in conferences because they are not a legitimate news source. Ezra Levant was opening stated that he is not a journalist. He does not have the credentials. Nor do his employees. Rebel Media is classified as social commentary. They do not adhere to the same guidelines as regular news sources and media here. Therefore they do not get the same rights and privileges.

[Nyx_85]

*openly stated

[Nyx_85]

*has openly stated. Sorry.

[rjroy3]

@VictoriousSausage

I never claimed the BBC is TOO biased for me. I'm merely saying they have a bias, because everyone does. That's what you're fundamentally missing. I've said it multiple times already. No one is unbiased. The best you can hope for is people upfront about their bias and doing their best to be objective, while offering true information. So there is minimum spin (based on their bias) and all the facts they give are true.

What you've been saying is the the BBC is 100% unbiased, without a slight lean in either direction. All i'm saying is that conclusion you've made is wrong, because no one is unbiased. They may only have a slight bias, but it's still a bias. It was never about them being too biased. Just accepting that they have one.

[rjroy3]

@Nyx_85

Eh, in regards to the c-16 the concern is how certain laws have been read in the past and what this bill would allow the government to do in the way that it is written. The concerns Jordan Peterson brought up are valid, because things can go south with this bill pretty quickly. That aside.

I respect your take in regards to gathering news information. *two thumbs up*

[Nyx_85]

@rjroy3 Regarding Peterson's concerns only time will tell. His concern is free speech. Well as a Canadian I have never seen anyone get in trouble for making racist or sexist comments. Gender and race are two things protected against discrimination in this bill. His position as a professor makes it a different matter for him. Though even after warning letters about his refusal to use preferred pronouns after the updated bill passed in October 2016 he hasn't lost his position at U of T.
"Peterson speculated that these warnings letters were leading up to formal disciplinary action against him, but in December the university assured him that he would retain his professorship, and in January 2017 he returned to teach his psychology class at the University of Toronto."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Peterson

[rjroy3]

Canada doesn't have Freedom of Speech as a protected right. That's why one of the letters to Peterson was the school telling him the discussions he was having in his class may in fact be illegal. So no Freedom of Speech is not his concern, because they already don't have that. His concern is his country heading down a dark path and taking the same steps that lead to the former Soviet Union. He's had multiple talks/interviews where he voiced that concern. The Dean of the School appears to agree with Peterson and even thanked him regarding this discussion. His job being taken because of the schools choice was never a concern. I'm sure it crossed his mind, because of the huge backlash from a portion of the public, student body and some fellow colleagues. But he's been voicing the problem of C-16 is giving the Provincial and National Government the power to jail people based solely on his speech regarding gender pronouns. Pre bill C-16 they couldn't do anything. Now they just might.

[rjroy3]

Also, Bill C-16 doesn't outright say it, but it's in the Ontario Human Rights code which he is forced to follow by law. C-16 alongside the Human Rights code is what he's been talking about.

[Nyx_85]

@rjroy3

"Fundamental Freedoms

Marginal note:Fundamental freedoms

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.

laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-15.html

[Nyx_85]

@rjroy3 Americans don't have absolute freedom of speech either. There are limitations. Such as hate speech for one.

www.uscourts.gov/.../what-does

[Nyx_85]

@rjroy3 Though it's interesting that you've taken an interest in our politics. A lot of Americans still think it snows here year round.

[rjroy3]

Lol. Yes, free speech is absolute in America. So let's get that out of the way first.

Tho some people feel it isn't or shouldn't be absolute. "Hate speech" doesn't exist. There is only speech. There are hateful statements you can say and you can label those hateful words, but regardless of the label that speech is protected. The First Amendment is an amendment for Freedom of thought. Now this does not extend to a "Call to Action", such as actively inciting violence. If you tell someone to kick someone elses ass and they end up doing it you can be arrested not for the speech, but the action of inciting violence. If you shout Fire in a movie theater that is a call to action, which is not merely speech. "Hate speech" is just a new phrase made up for the purpose of demonizing the "wrong" opinions. Under the law and constitution there is no sub category for "hate speech" as you put it.

Do all the Google research on that one as you like.

[rjroy3]

I don't even like Huffington post as a source and they reported on Canada not having freedom of speech.

https://m.huffpost.com/ca/entry/2324999

They cite legal code and examples

[rjroy3]

Those aside.

I can't blame people for thinking that lol. When we think North we think cold. We have states that seem to be in perpetual snow so it's not a stretch to think "Canada = Cold" lol

[Nyx_85]

@rjroy3
https://www.freewarehof.org/speech.html

"Freedom of speech does not include the right:

To incite actions that would harm others (e. g., “[S]hout[ing] ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.”).
Schenck v. United States, 249 U. S. 47 (1919).
To make or distribute obscene materials.
Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476 (1957).
To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest.
United States v. O’Brien, 391 U. S. 367 (1968).
To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration.
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U. S. 260 (1988).
Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event.
Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U. S. 675 (1986).
Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event.
Morse v. Frederick, __ U. S. __ (2007)."

"However, despite the absolute language used, Constitutional courts have historically not considered that freedom of speech is absolute."
www.newcivilisation.com/.../

[Nyx_85]

@rjroy3 Do correct me if I'm wrong but that doesn't seem very 'absolute' to me.

A lot of people here know that freedom of speech doesn't mean being able to say whatever you damn well want. i. e "Kill all the blank". If the intention is to incite an action of violence (whether or not the act of violence occurs) you can be charged with a hate crime. However most of us have no issue with avoiding this. And most of us don't sue each other over a silly comment or a label on a bottle of beer.

[rjroy3]

Did you actually read the cases you gave?
I picked one at random:

"To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration.
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U. S. 260 (1988)".

The specifics of the case is that former students of a highschool made the claim their First Amendment right was being violated, when the teacher in charge of editing the final submission (common job in any publication, whether a school paper, class or business) removed part of the story or didn't post some stories.

The Supreme Court rightfully so ruled that wasn't a breach on their First Amendment right and it wasn't. They were free to speak it. Their story just wasn't getting published to an entire school audience, because teachers felt some of the content wasn't justified to share or for younger students to read.

If I look into those others I don't doubt it'll be similar outcomes.

[Nyx_85]

@rjroy3 "First Amendment rights of students in the public schools are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings, and must be applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment. A school need not tolerate student speech that is inconsistent with its basic educational mission, even though the government could not censor similar speech outside the school."
supreme.justia.com/.../case.html

Ok. So in places, such as schools, the rules aren't exactly the same.

[rjroy3]

You keep saying it's not absolute when the only examples you've given are actions.
You won't get hit with a hate crime if no one acted on your Call to Action IF there is no reasonable suspicion of intent to commit a crime. Sort of like if someone sarcastically said something crazy that no one took seriously. There's no intent there and they aren't really calling to incite an act. It's only if there was reasonable suspicion of a Call to Action and people not listening because that's crazy. Then the individual can get hit with a hate crime, because of the action. A Call to Action doesn't require someone to act on it for it to still be considered a stand alone action that's not protected under the First Amendment.

It's not the speech. It's the action.

[rjroy3]

That specific case also had a girl talking about a personal experience and naming names. The teacher edited out names to protect individuals reputation. The students still tried to use that as an example to say First Amendment violation. This case example was definitely not an example of Freedom of Speech not being absolute.

[Nyx_85]

@rjroy3 ""The categories of speech that fall outside of its protection are obscenity, child pornography, defamation, incitement to violence and true threats of violence," he explains. "Even in those categories, there are tests that have to be met in order for the speech to be illegal. Beyond that, we are free to speak."
news.psu.edu/.../probing-question-are-there-limits-freedom-speech

[Nyx_85]

"Some Canadians are asking why police seem slow to label recent offensive acts targeting Jews and Muslims as “hate crimes,” but one expert explains that the issue is complicated because there is no definition of a "hate crime" in the Criminal Code."
www.ctvnews.ca/.../...te-crime-in-canada-1.3307395

[Nyx_85]

^^ Sorry I assumed we had some sort of hate crime law here. I guess not.

[Nyx_85]

I mean a law with a broader definition.

[rjroy3]

My apologizes. Are we referring to Canadian or U. S. law right now? I've been talking about in the United States for the past several comments.

[Nyx_85]

@rjroy3 But in Canada it's pretty much the same as what you are saying. Whether or not an offense is a 'hate crime' is up to the judge.

[Nyx_85]

@rjroy3 Both. No I just included the Canadian example because we were talking about free speech in Canada before and I mentioned hate crimes but it appears I was incorrect on my definition of what constitutes a hate crime.

I could ask my uncle. He's a criminal court judge and ex crown prosecutor. He would know. My aunt is also a law professor.

[rjroy3]

They would know more about the Canadian legislation yes *nods*.

Just wanted to clarify where we were. The responses are getting choppy and parceled out. I wanted to stay on point in a more focused manner. My main overarching point was 1. Freedom of Speech is not a protected right the same way it is in the U. S. 2. Bill C-16 coupled with the Human Rights Code is what makes C-16 dangerous in regards to what is considered "hate speech" and increases the opportunity for jailing someone merely for not respecting the gender someone chooses that morning. 3. The United State Freedom of Speech is in fact absolute. The only examples of someone getting punished after saying something was not a punishment of the words, but the action. Which is why I delved into Call to Action and Intent to commit an act.

[rjroy3]

There are even state laws in a few states that actually violate the constitution, because they punish "Blasphemy". When Blasphemy is just speech and therefore protected under the constitution.

[Nyx_85]

@rjroy3 "The only examples of someone getting punished after saying something was not a punishment of the words, but the action. "

Unless you threaten the president though right?

thehill.com/.../306709-ohio-man-charged-with-threatening-trumps-life-on-twitter

mashable.com/.../#_tF4etXQssqH

Or you are these people:

www.usatoday.com/.../

Or this kid:
www.businessinsider.com/teen-arrested-for-tweeting-about-mass-homicide-over-zimmerman-2013-7

Of course he was only charged with disorderly conduct because he didn't have any weapons to carry out an attack. However, they should have added an extra charge for his terrible grammar.

[Nyx_85]

@rjroy3 Or if you make antisemitic remarks and threaten to carry out mass shootings.

www.mlive.com/.../...eets_threats_of_mass_sho.html

"Montana authorities can re-file the intimidation charge -- a 10-year felony -- if Lenio violates terms of the agreement. Lenio won't be prosecuted if he stays out of trouble, according to records."
www.mlive.com/.../..._dismissed_against_michi.html

[Nyx_85]

@rjroy3 I guess you and I just have different ideas of what absolute means.

Cheers?

[Nyx_85]

@rjroy3

[Nyx_85]

@rjroy3 "There are even state laws in a few states that actually violate the constitution, because they punish "Blasphemy". When Blasphemy is just speech and therefore protected under the constitution."

So how do they get away with it?

[rjroy3]

1. Threatening harm is an action.
All threats against the President are taken seriously and are investigated.
The Racial threat at the party was still an action. You're threatening someones safety.

2. That tweet offered up reasonable suspicion of intent

3. I'm not trying to be condescending at all, but I'm pretty sure this will come across as such regardless.
Do you have a grasp of what constitutes merely speech vs an action as far as speech is concerned? If you shout at a cop, I'm going to kill you" or just point a loaded gun at an officer, both are threats and both are actions. Threatening someone's safety is an action. Threatening to commit a crime is an action. A Call to action is an action. Harassment, even when just verbal is an action and is subject to legal ramifications under certain circumstances because of the actions.

[Nyx_85]

@rjroy3 No I'm aware. Just not what I thought you meant sorry.

[Nyx_85]

@rjroy3 When you said action I thought you meant a violent physical crime had occurred. I read you wrong.

[Nyx_85]

@rjroy3 My point was that free speech being absolute should mean you can say whatever you want with zero consequences. i. e there would be no exceptions:

en.wikipedia.org/.../United_States_free_speech_exceptions

[rjroy3]

Wholeheartedly disagree. We need to have protections in society and the reality is that there are always always always consequences whether they be legal authority or social response to what was said. Most people have the belief you should be able to do whatever you want to do as long as you're not hurting anyone.

That's where unprotected speech falls. Hurting others. Instigating fear, harming reputation, causing losses, risking safety. It's damaging to society and dangerous.

[Nyx_85]

@rjroy3 "We need to have protections in society and the reality is that there are always always always consequences whether they be legal authority or social response to what was said. Most people have the belief you should be able to do whatever you want to do as long as you're not hurting anyone.

That's where unprotected speech falls. Hurting others. Instigating fear, harming reputation, causing losses, risking safety. It's damaging to society and dangerous."

No I agree with that. I just meant that's what I thought absolute meant.

[rjroy3]

Perhaps a better way to say it, is Freedom of Speech is absolute in terms of expression (sharing thoughts and feelings). So as to clearly define speech is regarding expression, while not protecting Calls to action and so on.

[Nyx_85]

@rjroy3 Ok that makes sense.

[Kiwedin]

Guys... There 2 sexes, but gender is regarded more as a spectrum. That's what I was taught in my psychology, sociology, and anthropology courses in my first year of college, that's what is the scientific consensus. Sex refers to biological differences, gender relates to behaviour and identity and are not consistent across all cultures due to the fact that they are socially constructed.
www.med.monash.edu.au/gendermed/sexandgender.html

[rjroy3]

Science isn't based on consensus. It's based on what is true. Sex is your biology. Gender is the state of being someone of a particular biology, which is usually looked at from the perspective of social norms and what is most common of a particular gender in that culture. You don't make up your gender, but how a gender is perceived is the actual "social construct". That's why societal ideals differ across cultures. You don't choose your gender and just because postmodern individuals got together in a circle jerk to come to a consensus doesn't make it truth.

[Kiwedin]

@rjroy3 What exactly isn't true here? You literally just repeated what I said in a different form.

[rjroy3]

The concept of gender being a spectrum is untrue.

[Kiwedin]

@rjroy3 Says who? You?

[rjroy3]

Says scientists who've researched gender being determined by natural born biology. Such as the researchers in this study:

journals.aace.com/.../EP14351.RA

[Asker]

@rjroy3 scientists have tried fighting the bill. Dr Jordan Peterson failed to make a change to the motion as a biologist and will be compelled to teach. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o01ebidd1IU and Gaad https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOJmnkEv-5I&t=439s

[Kiwedin]

@rjroy3 "Although the mechanisms remain to be determined, there is strong support in the literature for a biologic basis of gender identity." They're talking about biological *basis*, that in no way means that gender is biological. I agree, it does have a basis, women's and men's brains are different, but it doesn't determine gender identity. Truth be told, scientists don't have a clue, so if we don't know, why are you guys acting like this is a sure thing?

[rjroy3]

I suppose the hiccup is when one side claims that a biological female can wake up one day claiming to be a man and that the rest of society should treat her as such. Those same people are also pushing for social changes based off that delusion.

I guess a more valuable question is How many genders do you personally feel there are and how do you define them?

[rjroy3]

@asker

Yea, it's honestly a damn shame. He needs to get out in my opinion. Canada is heading down a dark road.

[Kiwedin]

@rjroy3 Did you not hear the part where the consensus is that gender is a spectrum with one side being male and the other female? You can't ask me to "name the genders" because you can't name something that exists on a spectrum. Think of it has the political left and right, not everyone is completely one or the other, most people exist somewhere in the middle, maybe leaning to one side more.
It's not also not something people just "wake up" feeling one day, it's a lifelong feeling, whether they decide to express that outwardly is entirely up to them. I agree that it's difficult to understand, I don't even completely understand it myself, but someone else identifying as another gender is also something I don't care about. If that makes them feel more comfortable and if it helps them be themselves, then why the fuck not? It doesn't directly affect anyone's lives but their own, so I don't see the issue.

[rjroy3]

So where does "Cat" fall on the gender spectrum?
On a scale from Girl to Guy, "Cat" would be leaning left?
Can a Guy be a GUY Guy? Or is there only Guy? Is Arnold Swarzeneggar more Guy than Sylvester Stallone?

[Kiwedin]

@rjroy3 Now you're just being dumb.

[rjroy3]

I'm broaching an absurd topic and attempting to find the logic in it, with someone who clings to the view they hold because "That's what I was taught in my psychology, sociology, and anthropology course in my first year". Versus coming to said conclusions through conscious thought and studied dissenting voices to the view that which was taught.

There are scientists who hold to this day that gender isn't a spectrum, but is based on your sex and all of the nuances in who you are is irrelevant of your gender but rather is something special about you as an individual irrespective of your gender. But since a particular group of scientists got their view on paper and into your classroom you hold that gender is a spectrum and anyone who says otherwise is wrong because "that's what is the scientific consensus".

That's why I opened with science isn't based on consensus. Because there are other views out there, but you only respect one while justifying it by saying "scientific consensus".

[rjroy3]

Science is about finding truth. Not about finding consensus. So just having a justification of scientific consensus for the purposes of disregarding other views is at it's core unscientific. Einstein's views went against the scientific consensus of his day. Had society regarded scientific consensus more valuable than finding truth we would never have come this far as a species.

[Omega_brie]

@rjroy3

You do get to choose your gender though, it's just that you have to do it before puberty if you're a natural male. And it will render you infertile/sterile.

[rjroy3]

@Omega_brie kk

[DaniaMQ]

Wtf... but there ARE only 2 genders!!! One is with chromosome XX (girls) and the other XY (guys) Is it that hard to understand? That's not hate, that's a fact. He obviously hates hearing facts. Originally there's 2 genders ONLY, now what you decide to make yourself up as then that's your own choice but its not another gender. And that doesn't mean in hating.

[Asker]

Yes. It's funny but sad but Facebook has 71 gender options to choose from now

[BlueCoyote]

You don't understand the term "gender". THAT'S a fact.
gender
ˈdʒɛndə
"the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to SOCIAL and CULTURAL differences rather than biological ones)".
The term has nothing to do with biology, it was created sociology. Is that so hard to understand?

Get off your smartassy high horse. You don't know jack about this topic. If you talk about chromosomes and biological differences, the correct term to use is "sex". That's why official forms always ask "What SEX are you?" and NOT "what gender are you?".

Sex = male/female (biology)
Gender = How the two sexes are perceived in any given society (e. g. "men wear suits, women wear dresses" etc.)
It's really not that hard.

[DaniaMQ]

@BlueCoyote lol dont get all angry Mr, I didn't really say anything in order to get off my "high horse". Second thing is, even if we made the meaning of gender and sex be the same, most people know what I'm talking about here, and the asker probably meant that too. I've never known that gender is another term. "It's really not that hard." well, for me it is since, like I said before, I never knew the real meaning. no need to get all heated up about it, pfft.
AND "the state of being male or female" isn't that the same? Male OR female. You basically gave 2 options and not more.

[DaniaMQ]

@Asker 71? WTH. Wow.

[DaniaMQ]

@BlueCoyote just saw a MyTake that had a picture in it, look at the first image that appears. First question in it.

www.girlsaskguys.com/.../a47153-why-i-don-t-ask-about-my-partner-date-s-sexual-history

they asked what's your *GENDER* male OR female. Thats the options it had.

[BlueCoyote]

I don't know what you're trying to say by that. It doesn't make you less wrong just because there's more people who don't understand what the word gender means.

[DaniaMQ]

@BlueCoyote exactly. So don't lash out at me telling me "Get off your smartassy high horse. You don't know jack about this topic" as if I'm some stupid person that acts as if she knows everything but she doesn't.

[DaniaMQ]

If I dont know it then great, thanks for informing me. But there's some better ways to talk with others about the topic rather than making them feel as if they are stupid for what they think.

[BlueCoyote]

You're right. I apologize.

[DaniaMQ]

@BlueCoyote thank you. Apology accepted :)

[slatyb]

Wrong, some people are XXY or XYY. Like everything else biological, it's complicated.

[BlueCoyote]

@slatyb That's sex, not gender.

[DaniaMQ]

@slatyb those are rare conditions tho. I'm talking about the normal, most common thing. Which is XX or XY

[slatyb]

The first thing you should do is stop thinking of people as "normal" and "abnormal". Abnormal should mean "physically unwell". There's infinite variation -- masculine people with XX chromosomes, feminine people with XY chromosomes. And they are all ok. There's only "familiar/comfortable for me" and "unfamiliar/uncomfortable to me".

[DaniaMQ]

I in no way meant that they are abnormal. @slatyb I said thats more uncommon. That does not mean that they are not ok.

[lord_chilled]

@BlueCoyote gender = sex. The end

[Whycantijustcomment]

@lord_chilled But that's the problem. "Sex" is your anatomical definition of what parts you have. But we've let "gender" turn into "what do you like to have sex with?" Hence the 71 bullshit possibilities. Just have to stop asking for gender and start asking for their sex.

[lord_chilled]

@Whycantijustcomment true

[Listening5]

Its not hate, you are free to express your opinion and I agree

[DaniaMQ]

@Listening5 exactly and glad you agree 😊

[slatyb]

@Whycantijustcomment the true answer is that you don't have to ask anything. It's really none of your business what is under someone's clothes.

[Whycantijustcomment]

@slatyb then tell that shit to the affirmative action loving government that wants to make sure women are hired as often as men. If the government stops caring, we will stop caring.

[Elarra]

No matter what people say or do, biologically speaking, there's only two genders.

[Asker]

biologists can't teach that anymore if they're Canadian. It's classed as hate speach

[lumos]

Biologically speaking sex and gender are not the same (gender is more about identity whereas sex is a combination of your chromosomes/what you have between your legs). There are more than two genders (people can identify non-binary or wherever they want on the spectrum) and also more than two sexes, because of the fact that intersex is also a thing.
Intersex people possess any of several variations in sex characteristics including chromosomes, gonads, sex hormones, or genitals that, according to the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, "do not fit the typical definitions for male or female bodies".
So biologically speaking you couldn't really be more wrong.

[lumos]

people can identify as*

[DontStepOnTheCat]

but now you can go to jail for not playing their stupid word game.

[Elarra]

@DontStepOnTheCat Not in the USA

[Listening5]

True but now they have a bunch, dont know where it came from

[mrmeseeks]

Trudeau hasn't seen the bill yet it still has to go back to the house of Commons and then back up to the Senate and then finally up to the Governor General. All it is is an addition to Canada's human rights. "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". It only makes hate speech against gender identity, expression illegal, it doesn't make it illegal to say there's only 2 genders that would contradict the right to free speech and expression.

[Himig_Ng_Pag-ibig]

I don't know not familiar with this but I read the full text of the bill
www.parl.ca/.../first-reading
bdp.parl.ca/.../bills_ls.asp

Did not say anything about ''making it illegal to teach or state that there are only 2 genders... Bill C-16 states that claiming that there are just 2 genders is now a form of hate speech and biologists are scientists are to refrain from stating that just 2 genders exist''

[Jager66]

it's not in the bill, it's in the statement from the human rights tribunal where they state how it will be enforced. They make it very clear that it is against the law. The whole thing is a bunch of spin and propaganda to make a radical human rights violating bill appear to be moderate and rational. Unless you watch some of the senate hearings on it you won't see anything but the smoke and mirrors.

[Bananaman177]

pics.me.me/...-how-its-possible-to-be-18085625.png

2static.fjcdn.com/.../...is+you_409ad9_5851394.jpg

s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/.../...bcb7be2b70.jpg

www.godlikeproductions.com/.../66ddba8ded.jpg

[ObscuredBeyond]

There are terrorists on the loose. The Asian gangs are now scared to do business. Not because of the law, but because the Somalis are relentless in devouring and destroying everything in their path. Vancouver has always had gang conflict. All the Islamic nations brought in without proper vetting just to satisfy Justin's worldview have made it a war zone. But... the war on biology matters more. Mental disorders need to be defended at all costs. Never mind the T in LGBT negates the logic used to justify the other three, and particularly renders the B meaningless.

[Z-100]

I think this is great. In the end questions such as "are there two genders?" is so incredibly trivial and pointless, there's no point even discussing it. If people want to say "there are more than 2 genders", then let them.

Focusing on it and giving it more time than it needs is stupid when there's far more serious problems such as poverty, war and crime in the world.

So now that people can express their gender without fear of consequences, this is great for everyone (except the transphobes of course) and we can move on to more urgent issues that require more time and attention.

[Jager66]

the issue is that it is now illegal to say there are only 2 genders. This is a HUGE violation of the most important human right of free speech. It's not in the bill though, it's in the statement from the human rights tribunal talking about how it will be enforced.

[Z-100]

@Jager66 Are you serious? There's war, there's poverty, there's crime, there's terrorism, there's all sorts of bullshit out there and you're worried about a harmless amendment to free speech? Grow up. The world doesn't revolve around you. If you want to have free speech so you can say your bigoted statements, go live in the Middle East or some place where they allow that.

There's far more pressing issues to worry about than some stupid gender issue. This gender issue isn't going to do squat to humanity, people have already forgotten about it. Do you even realize how petty you sound?

If people like you put all their effort into solving poverty and crime and other more important issues, instead of worrying about some pointless gender issue, we'd have made some more progress by now. Come on.

[RedThread]

Dude from all the research I've done, the bill just extends civil rights to more people. You can no longer discriminate against those who identify outside the gender binary. That's it. We have laws like that in the US pertaining to race and many other groups. It doesn't mean you can't have an opinion. It just means you can't deny service or actively harass others.

Why is that such a bad thing?

Again it does not criminalize those who think differently. It just extends rights to more groups of people. I don't understand the outrage..

[dakota2281]

Next on the list, pedofile rights?

[DodgersGM]

@dakota2281 Slippery slope much?

[FakeName123]

Direct quote:

"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."

This literally means that this law prevents you from having an opinion as it is directly considered hatespeech and discrimination the moment you criticise those things by the sheer definition.

[RedThread]

@FakeName123 Bill C-16 does three things.

First – It adds the words “gender identity or expression” to the Canadian Human Rights Code. This will prevent the federal government and businesses within federal jurisdiction – like banks – from discriminating on the basis of gender identity and gender expression.

The second thing that the Bill does is add the words “gender identity or expression” to two sections of the Criminal Code. It will add the words “gender identity and expression” to section 318(4) of the Code, which defines an identifiable group for the purposes of “advocating genocide” and “the public incitement of hatred” It joins colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation or mental or physical disability. So to sum it up, unless you're advocating genocide then you're in good shape.

[RedThread]

@FakeName123 Finally, Bill C-16 also adds “gender identity and expression” to section 718.2(a)(i) of the Criminal Code dealing with sentencing for hate crimes. The provision provides that evidence that an offence is motivated by bias, prejudice or hate can be taken into account by courts in sentencing. The list already includes race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation or any other similar factor.

So what does this mean for pronoun misuse? Well, refusing to use a person’s self identified pronoun is not going to be considered advocating genocide – unless the refusal to use the pronouns was accompanied by actually advocating genocide against trans and gender non-binary folks.

[RedThread]

@dakota2281 so you're likening trans and gender non-binary folks to pedophiles? On what grounds do you make that statement and how are they related?

Slippery slope fallacy, indeed.

[lord_chilled]

Slippery slope is not a fallacy my friend.
Its a very real thing.
We are accepting more and more perversions as normal. Soon well be desensitized to more extreme ones.
I mean how far along are we , when were accepting people who identify as ponies and furries as "normal" ?
Just have the balls to say they are crazy and deranged

[RedThread]

@lord_chilled https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/Slippery slope one of many reasons why Slippery slope arguments are considered fallacious.

[RedThread]

@lord_chilled sorry https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

[FakeName123]

So you casually ignore that it is also added to the Canadian Human Rights act?

Read discriminatory practices: laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/.../page-1.html#h-3

[RedThread]

@FakeName123 I mentioned the human rights code. Again I read what you sent me. I don't see what you're seeing.

[FakeName123]

So you don't see any issues with the original law to begin with which effectively strips away the freedom of choice of entrepeneurs and such?

Nor do you see any problem that Bill C-16 adds something non-tangible to the list of potential cases? Becasue unlike age, ethnicity, etc. - gender identity is simply not clear-cut. You don't see any room for abuse here?

[RedThread]

@FakeName123 businesses already can't discriminate in the hiring process and they can't deny service based on race, creed, sexual orientation, etc. We already have laws against discrimination in the USA and Canada. All this does is extend that to trans and non-binary people. That's it dude. If you see no problem with the others I don't know why you'd see a problem with this.

What type of abuse do you see here?

[FakeName123]

I never said that I don't have a problem with that. But even so - unlike age, ethnicity and such, gender idendity isn't tangible. Not to mention that there is an absolute consensus about it to begin with.

But even so - the abuse is quite easily, because said gender identity isn't tangible. You can pretty much change that on a whim and as it suits you best. Your gender identity today would be more benefical as a female? "hurr, I identify as a female".

You really do not see how that's ridiculous?

[RedThread]

@FakeName123 so you're worried about those who take advantage of the system? How do you suppose people would do that?

[dakota2281]

if I remember right trans and all this stuff was considered an illness in the mind. at least pedobears have a true feeling and not just sticking a bumplug in their bum and adding head band with ears then saying this is who I am. well then your not a human and don't deserve human rights... regressive leftists much? praise kek!

[dakota2281]

let me also say that im not angenst puting a bumplug with a tail and such I'd find it fun and playful 😉😉😉 but that's all it is... play... it's not an identity. you can't just throw fake ears and tail and be like oh I'm a new thing I'm different bleh bleh bleh.

[lord_chilled]

@dakota2281 exactly. Thats retarded.
And while i agree with you, we shouldn't be promoting pedobears feelings. They are monsters, nothing cute and cuddly about them

[dakota2281]

but there's something cute and cuddly about someone idintifing them self as a sexual fetish?

[lord_chilled]

@dakota2281 not really. Weird and strange.
But i admit, it does look a bit non threatening

[dakota2281]

extremes start with small steps.

[lord_chilled]

@dakota2281 very true

[Asker]

@rjroy3 scientists have tried fighting the bill. Dr Jordan Peterson failed to make a change to the motion as a biologist and will be compelled to teach. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o01ebidd1IU and Gaad https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOJmnkEv-5I&t=439s

[RedThread]

There are plenty of articles I've read that the professor is overreacting about stuff that's not even in the bill. Again I've read the bill and what he's concerned about just isn't in there.

[lord_chilled]

Professor seems to be completely logical. The lady seemed to be very dismissive which is common for people on that there libtard juice

[RedThread]

@lord_chilled it would be great if he had a point and if he argued against something actually in the bill.

[lord_chilled]

Lol so they are both argueing about something not in the bill?

[RedThread]

I literally read the bill and copy and pasted the sections of it and what it entails in comments. Nothing in there states that people can't have an opinion. As long as you're not advocating genocide or inciting a riot then you're totally fine saying anything you want just like you can about other things covered by civil rights.

[lord_chilled]

I think it can be easily taken out of context, like for example someone could tell me he identifies as a dinosaur or whatnot and i might laugh out loud and say they dont exist anymore, and they may make out not existing to be advocating genocide.

[RedThread]

@lord_chilled nah laws aren't that flimsy. It would be like nazi marches advocating death.

[lord_chilled]

Yeah sometimes i look at liberals and thats what i see.
I wouldn't count on it.

[lord_chilled]

Besides, who the hell came up with 71 genders?
I mean we all know there's th two real genders, they can have one with both, on where they switch bodies but not minds, one where they switch sexual attraction or whatnot, one which is neither,,,, etc but how do you get 71?
Im sure they gotta be pulling shit out of their asses. there's no other way😂😂😂

[RedThread]

@lord_chilled please there's no need to overreact. Also dinosaurs don't fall under the list of protections so you could advocate genocide all you want in that case.

[RedThread]

@lord_chilled there's two biological genders sure generally not counting intersex people who are born with combinations of both. Nobody is confused on what biological gender is. Biology and expression are totally different things. Just like gender roles have been shaped by the rise and fall of different cultures, gender expression has as well. It doesn't influence my life with how someone identifies as long as they aren't hurting anyone.

[lord_chilled]

No i think it does need to be stopped now before things get out of hand. This is already crossing the line of the ridiculous

[RedThread]

@lord_chilled why is it ridiculous and how does it negatively effect your life?

[lord_chilled]

Because there are actually important issues that needs to be addressed, and instead, politicians like justin are drawing away attention with issues like this and wasting everyones time.
there's no such thing as gender expression.
Yiu express yourself as a person, not a gender. You just identify as a gender.
If people are gonna think we can express gender then there will be a lot more than 71 because everyone expresses themselves differently

[RedThread]

@lord_chilled these issues are important for people who experience them. I'm sure some issues you think are important I'd probably scoff at and vice versa. Who decides what's important for everyone?

[lord_chilled]

Really gender expression?
Please, people who have problems with this need help from psychologists and some counselling. You dont need a law to be comfortable in your skin. there's a lot more important things than this

[RedThread]

@lord_chilled you need a law to protect you from getting kicked out of a rented apartment or a job simply for identifying as another gender. Most states still allow that. People lose their homes and can't start families if they wanted to adopt simply for being trans or gender non-binary. This is separated from the fact that many people think they must be perverts on the prowl to attack everyone's children. Trans individuals are murdered at much higher rates than the average population as well. I consider it a serious issue when my fellow citizens aren't treated with the same dignity as I am but that's just me.

Actually, psychologists think the best medicine for trans people is to transition. This is backed up by trusted medical websites. People are generally happiest when you treat them the same way they treat you unless they person happens to be a shit human being.

[RedThread]

@lord_chilled also ignoring a particular issue because you feel others are more important is a logical fallacy. It's called the fallacy of relative privation.

www.jeneric-designs.ca/.../FRP.png

[lord_chilled]

Okay, but i tought this wasn't about trans people. i tought trans people already had equal rights. This looked like something else alltogether.

[RedThread]

@lord_chilled trans and gender non-binary folks.

[lord_chilled]

See mam all this thing about non binary genders and all is kind of where i draw the line.
I think we shouldn't accept all the things they claim they are. I think they just need some psychological help

[FakeName123]

"laws aren't that flimsy"

Ahahahahahahahah. Laws are the most vague bullcrap there is. Gosh. Good thing I didn't keep arguing. I would have seriously getting annoyed by so much naiviety.

[RedThread]

@FakeName123 I meant those laws specifically. They are clear that advocating genocide I'd the limit. I apologize to you for the poor word usage.

[JohnDoe3000]

It won't make it illegal to say there are only 2 genders. It's basically an amendment to Canada's version of the Civil Rights Act, expanding it to transgender people (so they can't get fired for being transgender, for example). But I probably won't convinve you anyway since you've already decided what you want to believe.

[Viperkiss]

Exactly. Nothing like people going off half-cocked over something that won't effect them in any way.

[mrmeseeks]

I just brought up almost the same point. XD

[DontStepOnTheCat]

the bill makes it hate speech to say there are only 2 genders and you can go to jail.

[mrmeseeks]

it does not, "The amendment would make it a criminal offence to spread HATE PROPAGANDA based on gender identity or gender expression, and would also make it a criminal offence to advocate GENOCIDE because of gender identity or gender expression."

[DontStepOnTheCat]

@mrmeseeks eh I listened to a pretty good break down of how it could be applied by Canadian lawyers. I'm going to trust them over you.

[mrmeseeks]

@DontStepOnTheCat

Then whoever gave you a "break down" on how it could be used obviously knows nothing about Canadian Law, this is exactly what was said by parliament at the last hearing of Bill C-16 it covers everything. https://openparliament.ca/bills/42-1/C-16/

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

Oh look, the text of the bill is on the Internet:
www.parl.ca/.../third-reading

Sure doesn't sound like what you're talking about...

[Nyx_85]

If only people knew how to fact check eh? I think were were like 4 of us here that actually did that that.

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

@Nyx_85 Yeah, it's a huge problem.

[lilliank]

there are two genders, what are we the only species that has more? and they get another option they don't have to choose male or female. if they don't want to conform then why do they need a label?

[Asker]

currently Canada recognises
male
female
transabled
intersexed
twospirited
can't remember the rest, justin said he plans to include the third official gender of germany "x gender" into the official concensus too. facebook has 71 gender options

[lilliank]

I know that. but I don't see the uproar in it. and Facebook wants everyone to use it. they would put dinosaur if it pleased the masses. 😂😂

[DaniaMQ]

"they would put dinosaur if it pleased the masses. " true that 😂😂

[lilliank]

dude right 😂😂😂😂

[James78]

Kindergarten Cop explained it:
Boys have a penis. Girl's have a vagina.

Regardless of what you 'feel' like, you are born one or the other with very rare exception (mutation, inbreeding, etc). You may choose to live as something in between, or a combination of the two, but you were born with specific reproductive equipment that falls into one of those categories.

[Marinite]

"you were born with specific reproductive equipment that falls into one of those categories."

This does not apply to everyone, nor is "but that's rare!" an excuse not to acknowledge it. Sometimes doctors have to bite their tongue, turn to the parents and say "We can't do anything more for your baby. Choose a gender and hope it doesn't disagree with them." That is a medical reality.

[Prettygurl12]

*Upcaps pen*

Well, guess Canada is no longer on the list of countries to visit.

[Asker]

i wonder how many genders Canada will be happy with. currently 7 but they will soon have 8

[Listening5]

So we go from 2 to 8?

[Asker]

@Listening5 yeah and it'll be compulsory to be taught to students starting from age 5 in Canadian public school

[Listening5]

Whos running this whole show?
Im still surprised

[DJZest]

A very lovely joke. I would love to have tea with you; enjoying a slive of cake in a fancy garden.

[TadCurious]

I would think a much more pressing issue for Mr. Trudeau would be ensuring that his country spend at least 2% of Canadian GDP toward defense in order to meet its obligations as a NATO member. But I guess he can't be bothered knowing he has the U. S. to protect his country and mandating the politically correct gender pronouns is a priority.

[DontStepOnTheCat]

you guys can't afford 2% even without that you're in a worse financial situation than the united states. also you guys are about to have a huge housing crisis the same way the united states did in 2008 but a lot lot worse.

[Phoenix98]

I told everyone Justin Trudeau would fuck Canada up just like his other family members did.

No one wants to listen though *shrugs*

Justin Trudeau will end up being Canada's destruction, hell in family almost completely destroyed it before when a Trudeau was in office before.

[AleDeEurope]

Hence why Canada sucks nowadays... but they voted for that, so deal with it.

media.giphy.com/media/aBZxV4ecOUZMc/200.gif

[dakota2281]

what's next? pedo rights? serial killer rights? cannibal rights?

[FakeName123]

Beastiality is first:

"Long-time homosexual activist Frank Kameny’s claim to fame is successfully manipulating the American Psychiatric Association into declassifying homosexuality as a mental disorder, and today the Smithsonian honoree is now busily advocating bestiality "as long as the animal doesn’t mind."

www.lifesitenews.com/.../prominent-homosexual-activist-says-bestiality-ok-as-long-as-the-animal-does

[Waffles731]

I'm going to point out that bestiality is legal in several states, most of them hardcore conservative states. In Alabama they only outlawed it in 2014, yeah, conservatives were perfectly fine with fucking animals, but god forbid you marry a person of the same sex

[Waffles731]

@kickme I'm just going to ignore like everything you say, I did block you for a reason

[FakeName123]

@Waffles731

There is a difference between "not being made illegal decades ago" and "supporting it to become socially acceptable".

[Waffles731]

@FakeName123 when they still look for ways around letting gay people, marry, a nd getting up in arms about gay marriage but not caring about the fact its legal to fuck horses and matry cousins.
No there really isn't a difference

[Waffles731]

@OlderAndWiser
If you wonder why I have a hard time with the idea that conservatives arwnt prone to this, its because I see people like this kickme guy every time I go online

[FakeName123]

@Waffles731

It's not an issue, because there isn't a group advocating for beastiality and it is (still) generally frowned upon. So stop strawmanning. It's pathetic.

[Waffles731]

@FakeName123 its not strawmanning when no one cares that its legal but hate the idea of gay marriage.

[FakeName123]

@Waffles731

"You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack."

-> https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

You are welcome.

[Waffles731]

@FakeName123 I didn't misrepresent

[Waffles731]

@FakeName123 the fact is that there ar eplenty of people who protest gay marriage but just dont care that beastality in their state is legal.
That is not misrepresenting that is a fact

[FakeName123]

@Waffles731

Then explain me how one is relevant to the other. Explain me how it is relevant to the argument. Explain me how there are groups of people who want to make beastiality socially acceptable.

If you can't, your entire point and argument is moot.

[Waffles731]

@FakeName123 its legal in thise states, that's the state saying its socially acceptable

[FakeName123]

@Waffles731

So whats legal is instantly social acceptable? Aka the state tells you what is socially acceptable? Aka gay-couples weren't at all socially accepted 5 years ago and now due to legal marriage are fully socially accepted?

Are you really that limited in your understanding?

[kickme]

@FakeName123 don't use logic to argue with a liberal. It never works

[I-am-a-nobody]

@FakeName123
Anyone with half a mind knows that you're right and understands what you're talking about.
Unfortunately, that's requirement is just too high for the ultra liberal.

[lord_chilled]

Is he retarded?
Did he skip biology?

[Toreno]

"Fuck biology, what matters is what you think, how you identify yourself", they say.
Just a bunch of retards.

[Asker]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4njVOcIK-o

[lord_chilled]

Is there no right wing in canada? Did no one oppose the bill? A country's government can't be this stupid..

[DontStepOnTheCat]

Jordan Peterson gave a very good argument against c-16 to the congress or whatever they are called in Canada.

[lord_chilled]

@DontStepOnTheCat i see

[Anonymous]

Given that you started your question off by unironically using the phrase "SJW" and then linked to some Youtube drama lords, the only thing I'm concerned about is my Youtube recommended section being tainted by having viewed this tripe.

[Whycantijustcomment]

That's fine you fucking weirdos. I will now teach there are three.
1) biologically male
2) biologically female
3) biologically confused

[AcidicAnthrax]

Fucking love it!

[Whycantijustcomment]

The problem is that all these institutions want to know what you are but say "gender" instead of "sex." Probably because some whiney as Christians whined about seeing "sex" on a form. We'll fuck that shit. We just want to know if you have male plumbing or female plumbing. We don't care if your weird ass is sexually attracted to butterflies.

[AcidicAnthrax]

I fucking love you man holy shit, you made my shitty day a little bit better thank you.

[Whycantijustcomment]

@AcidicAnthrax glad you enjoyed it

[somedamnnhippie]

As a member of the LGBTQ+ community, I completely agree. As someone who is bigender, I would feel completely discouraged to be put down for my gender identity.

[AcidicAnthrax]

What the fuck is a bigender?

[AcidicAnthrax]

Guys calm down. I had a legit question. And @kickme come on now that's not right. Now @DontStepOnTheCat I completely agree. Ya either got a penis or you dont. Your either male or female.

[Waffles731]

@kickme okay. That crossed a HUGE line, a 46 year old Who in all likely good is more like a 70 year old man asking a 17 year old whether or not they fuck goats? I am actually tagging an admin and reporting you because either you have no decency or more likely you are getting off on this
@xHoneyxBeex

[Mexicoman101]

Nope. Normally I have no problem with people identifying how they eant, but to you somedamnnhippie, there are only two genders. The Canadians have decided to make this a free speech issue.

[somedamnnhippie]

@Mexicoman101 I don't know if I misread the question or not, but I likely did. I'm saying that I agree that more than 2 genders should be taught in schools.

[somedamnnhippie]

@AcidicAnthrax Bigender is identifying as two genders on the scale rather than one.

[AcidicAnthrax]

So your confused on what sex you are?

[somedamnnhippie]

@AcidicAnthrax Nope. I'm bigender. I know what I am.

[Mexicoman101]

I don't really give a shit about whether they teach that in schools, but leave people who disagree with the new gender narrative alone. The fact that Canadians have decided to punish and nuzzle people for saying there are only two genders infuriates me and now I will always say to Canadans that there are only two genders out of direct nonviolent defiance.

[Waffles731]

www.parl.ca/.../third-reading
it appears that after reading the bill you have been lied to

[Anonymous]

Typical right wing reactionary bullshit spread and believed by people who couldn't fact check to save their lives.

It's an anti discrimination bill. Not at all what you claim. It does not make stating there are two genders a hate crime, you idiot.

[Jackblue]

www.theblaze.com/.../
Perhaps you might have to do a bit more than state that there are two genders, but you are still putting people in jail for opposition to transgender behavior.

[Opinion Owner]

@Jackblue

[Opinion Owner]

Yes, you actually have to discriminate against them. It's an anti discrimination bill. That's the point.

Only bigots worry that they can't practice their bigotry anymore. But there's a surprising high number of those bigots on GAG even if they aren't Canadian and aren't affected by this bill.

[Blitzkrieger]

The western left wing are such authoritarian shitbags that fascism seems like a bunch of hippies.

[meatballs21]

Someone else's gender identity being recognized does not affect your existing binary identity if you have one.

[Pepperbox23]

There ARE only 2 genders. I don't know what crazy asses came up with all of the other ones. Gosh, such idiots in this world

[VictoriousSausage]

ish, it's sort of more like quantum computing, you can have a value of one or zero, and so many in between those two numbers, and to be honest, if and when we find aliens, it's quite likely they'd have genders we wouldn't even be able to comprehend, after all, it's just a role assigned by nature, why not take it and make it our own?

[Pepperbox23]

@VictoriousSausage Putting too much thought into this. We either have a penis or a vagina, simple as that

[VictoriousSausage]

that's biology, but Gender has become more to do with identity today, so yes you're right to say there are two biological genders, but even that number would change when people start experimenting

[Pepperbox23]

@VictoriousSausage liberals are insane, creating or wanting to create new genders. I get wanting freedom and whatever, but they are just completely insane

[VictoriousSausage]

you want freedom, you want all colours of it then, see, there's nothing wrong with going your own way on this, identity is subjective to you as an individual, you don't have to fit in, you can stand out! sure in the US it's a bit more difficult because people seem more judgmental there, but i dream of a society where everyone is just accepting of everyone, no matter their choice, and actually celebrates the fact that they choose that over sticking with the social order.

[madhatters4]

i personally don't care. if someone wants to determine their own gender that's on them ti really doesn't impact me

[Lumberman53]

if someone wants to claim they're some imaginary gender they have the right to do so because freedom of private lives and freedom of speech but we should have the right to say you're not said gender

[madhatters4]

@Lumberman53 why does it matter? why do you or i need to tell someone what their gender is? can't we live our lives without caring what someone else considers themselves to be?

[Lumberman53]

I'm not saying that they shouldn't be allowed to claim they're said gender but if someone comes up to you and goes around saying I'm whatever imaginary gender I should have the right to respond to them and say no that's not real I have the right to an opinion if they want to keep insisting they're whatever gender fine but leave me out of it

[Lumberman53]

because if you go around telling me I'm whatever gender I don't have to agree

[madhatters4]

@Lumberman53 sure you don't have to agree but why do you need to say something in return.

if someone says "i'm a horse" can't you just say, 'uh ok' and walk away

[Lumberman53]

If someone tells me that I'm a horse they should be allowed to tell me or anyone else that but of they're allowed to voice their opinion to me or anyone else should be allowed to say otherwise. I can understand why you say they should walk away but people should be able to debate each other of course I'm not saying that I'm going to make it my goal to everyone who claims to be transgender that they're such and such gender but if they say something to me then I might respond

[madhatters4]

@Lumberman53 it's just a non-issue for me. if someone thinks they are something. feels they are something then that's good for them. i don't really see why i need to tell them anything otherwise. my feeling is if it doesn't negatively impact my life or the lives of others then people can call themselves whatever tehy want

[Lumberman53]

True they have the right to call themselves what they want I agree but still freedom of speech goes both ways, if you don't care to say anything you don't have to of course

[madhatters4]

@Lumberman53 well the freedom of speech thing is tricky. freedom of speech is in effect so long as you don't infringe on another person's life, liberty and pursuit of happines (in the USA). so (similar to hate speech which is illegal) if a government determines that you are infringing on someone's rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness i guess that may be where this legislation is sort of intended

[Lumberman53]

That makes sense I suppose but my simply stating a disagreement is that really infringing on someone's life you're not harassing them or forcing them to stop just politely and respectfully stating a disagreement if disagreeing with them politely is hate speech then everything would be hate speech.

[madhatters4]

@Lumberman53 i understand

[rjroy3]

I hope Jordan Peterson peaces out and maintains his business from an online basis. Truedeau solidified his place as the King of Cucks.

[JimRSmith]

Some day soon, the pendulum will swing back, and sweep all these tosspots away...

[jaydtre]

I get it that's there's a difference between sex and gender, but why do all these extra genders even matter? Keep the shit simple and identify as male or female. It sounds like people are pulling these names straight out of their asses.

[lord_chilled]

Thats because they are

[Anonymous]

There's also a bill (don't recall whether already passed or still coming) stating that prison inmates must be housed according to their self-identified gender, and the government must pay for sex changes for them if they want.
Thanks a lot Justin.

[DodgersGM]

Big fuckin' deal. Educated people already knew that there are more than two rigid genders.

[lord_chilled]

there's only two genders. There are gay people, trans peope, but it doesn't change your gender. Your either a man ir a woman. There is no cuch thing as intersex or whatever.
Dont believe everything liberals say

[Jager66]

it's not about gender science.. it's about the human right to free speech. This bill is akin to making it illegal to say the earth is flat, for example.

[lord_chilled]

@Jager66 in this case, more like making it illegal to say that the earth is round

[Jager66]

@lord_chilled lol ya

[DodgersGM]

@lord_chilled Are you actually claiming that Intersex people don't exist?

[lord_chilled]

Intersex is a condition. Its not separate gender. Intersex people can think of theselves as male or female, or neither, but its not a "new" gender

[DontStepOnTheCat]

that shit actually passed. Canada is bat shit crazy. Glad I live in America where we voted for trump. enough of this horse shit.

[StrawberryKitty]

Nooo why Justin? Why?
You only got elected because of your pretty face!

[TrollG0D]

Trudeau is a disgrace to the male gender and only won the elections because he's a nice cuck to women.

[disgustingweebtrash]

*BEFORE HEARING THIS*

Canada was a British colony, rule Britannia.

*AFTER HEARING THIS*

yeah, Canada was a french colony

[Jackblue]

This is why America in spite of all its flaws is the greatest country on earth because it is the only country where the authorities can't clap you in irons because you have an unpopular opinion.

[I-am-a-nobody]

54 / 40 or fight!
No wonder the Penguins beat the Senators 7-0!

[zagor]

What do you expect from a place that arrests publishers for reprinting the Danish cartoons depicting Mohammed? Or considers some Japanese Anime and Manga to be child pornography?

[Mexicoman101]

My response is that there are only two genders. Because fuck Canada.

[Bandit74]

Well if that's actually true then I am glad I don't live in Canada.

[CoolSky01]

So does that mean a dude can just go around saying he is an F-35 ?

[kickme]

I cant' fly fast enough to be an F-35, I had to settle for F-22, but at my age that's still good.

[CoolSky01]

@kickme oh well what can a dude do , we will have to settle for an f-18

[Kuraj]

You know your country is in deep shit when your government deals with such topics as catering to the delusional needs of mentally ill people.

[Anonymous]

Unless some alien species of hermaphrodites is upon us there are still only two genders in the human race , male or female.

[james807]

So ridiculous. gender should not be different from sex. trudeau is just catering to the mentally ill

[BlueCoyote]

Why do you even care? You're clearly not Canadian.

[Asker]

yes because this shit domino's likee the usa black lives matter crap

[Anonymous]

i used to love Canada but now it can fuck itself im moving

[Irishman45]

Is this real?

Damn it Canada you used to be cool.

[Asker]

yes very real, Canada are quite a long way into liberal cancer. especially under their current president

[Anonymous]

Humans are strange. Are there not more important problems?

[BCRanger10]

There. Are. Only. Two. Genders. Male and female.

[vishna]

I mean, science is on his side...

[Asker]

not really, scientists have been fighting the bill. Dr Jordan Peterson failed to make a change to the motion as a biologist and forced to teach. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o01ebidd1IU and Gaad https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOJmnkEv-5I&t=439s

[vishna]

Science is on the side of there are more than two biological sexes... depending on the culture there are more than two genders (apologies if I have those terms mixed up)
https://www.who.int/genomics/gender/en/index1.html
The most obvious case of outliers are intresex people... real people, real condition, not a clear cut sex.

[Iraqveteran666]

Sounds like 1984 thought police.

[mersteriosity]

Right? Seriously considering moving far away right about now. Honestly the states won't be like this thanks to the Republicans. Like, no wonder Trump wants to build a wall all our leftist countries are going crazy!

[Asker]

@mersteriosity new york, a liberal centre of the usa has actually already approved a similar bill for their state

[Iraqveteran666]

Is it a matter that if you state in public that you believe there is only two genders that it's a crime?
These extra genders could be good for any young white male applying for college. Define yourself as intersexed and pretend to be a diffrent race or ethnicity or race and your in. Rachael Donzali and Elizabeth Warren have shown is the way.

[TheFlak38]

and people still try to find "Nazis".

[Anonymous]

Omg this is going to destroy your life. 🙄

[MrMysteryMan]

Why is this a bill or even a political subject?

[rgb008]

Absurd.

[Peachman]

okay what the fuck happened to common sense

[JCT666]

Just another day in Trudeau's Canada. 👍

[TacosRAwesome]

What are the other 5?

[Asker]

currently Canada recognises
male
female
transabled
intersexed
twospirited
can't remember the rest, justin said he plans to include the third official gender of germany "x gender" into the official concensus too. facebook has 71 gender options

[Anonymous]

What are the other five? :/

[Asker]

currently Canada recognises
male
female
transabled
intersexed
twospirited
can't remember the rest, justin said he plans to include the third official gender of germany "x gender" into the official concensus too. facebook has 71 gender options

[springocelot]

Crazy.

[CorruptedDocument]

Oh Canada, home of morons

[mrkdvsn]

Total and complete INSANITY in Canada

[Lumberman53]

That is moronic that he actually passed that