Arguments vs. Gender-Based Rights
Here is an “in-a-nutshell” summary of the arguments against Bill C-16 and other gender-based rights legislation where gender is undefined, or is defined differently than sex. Under each of the argument titles I have put a question that becomes unanswerable in the light of gender legislation.
Protection of Women Against Violence
Why do separate showers and change-rooms exist?
Separate male and female facilities for changing, showering, or using the toilet exist because of sex-based differences between males and females. The commonality between each of these actions is that they involve nudity or intermediate states of undress. This not only places women in a vulnerable state physically and sexually, but they simultaneously become greater targets by males by virtue of being unclothed. These basic and intuitive realities are supported by objective studies and statistics. One out of every two women will be the victim of an unwanted sex act in their lives. 99% of sexual violence against females are perpetrated by males. There are well over a hundred documented cases of males perpetrating sexual violence against women in unisex and gender-neutral spaces. Video voyeurism is at epidemic levels.
As the transgender population is being defined very inclusively (and this is the case with Bill C-16) there is no objective measure for who is allowed to change, shower, or use the toilet with women. Women who regularly face sexual threats and advances from men will have no boundaries when they are at their most vulnerable and will be unable to tell that they are in danger.
Many people are unaware that the majority of transwomen still have male genitalia and that their most frequent sexual behaviour is to use their penises insertively into women’s vaginas. Regardless of whether or not they identify as women, these are sex-based realities, and females ought to have a sex-based right not to change, shower, or use the toilet with penises. There is no valid reason that these safe spaces ought to be based around gender instead of sex.
Women’s Diversity-Based Rights
What is unique about women?
Until now, women’s rights have been protected in the Human Rights Code under “sex”. By adding “gender” and making gender undefinable, Bill C-16, perhaps unintentionally, undermines all diversity-based women’s rights. Women’s rights can be divided into two spheres; those which relate to equality and those which relate to diversity. Equality-based rights include the right to vote and the right to equal pay for equal work. Equality-based rights recognize women as persons.
Diversity-based rights pertain to those things which are unique to women– menstruation, pregnancy, childbirth, breastfeeding, and physically diminutive stature and strength. Diversity-based rights recognize women as women. So, for instance, women’s sports exist partly to give opportunity for women to play which would not be afforded if they played with physically larger, taller, stronger, and usually faster, men. By allowing biologic males who identify as women to play with females, females will lose opportunities to play: roster spots, podium placements, and scholarship opportunities. Women’s sports are a sex-based diversity right.
Women’s movements, events, clubs, camps and marches are all undermined as diversity-based realities because there is no longer any way to define “women”. Pregnancy and childbirth are also associated with diversity-rights for women and there are many examples where the language of “women” is disappearing in educational and health contexts for fear of discriminatory language, and being replaced by “menstruators”, “people who are pregnant” and “chest-feeders”. This demeans women and removes the unique and biological reality of women.
How are the ends of the gender spectrum different?
The current mass-media trans-narrative, reflected in the Justice Department’s statement on gender identity and expression, is that there exists a “gender spectrum”. The statement clearly infers that the ends of the spectrum are woman and man and that gender identity is a sense of these binaries, or “both, neither, or anywhere along the gender spectrum”. Clearly, gender is undefined and this creates a logical problem: how can you have a gender spectrum if the ends of the spectrum are undefinable? How is being a woman different than being a man?
Furthermore, this legislation presents a lexical problem with defining “woman”. Basic lexical standards demand that a thing be defined without reference to itself. To say that the gender “woman” is defined by a “sense of being a woman” is to say nothing at all and actually far-worse, ridding the category of any meaningful content whatsoever. This kind of non-answer would not be accepted on any middle-school test. Why are otherwise intelligent officials proposing it in our laws?
Harm to Confused Children
Why are referrals to gender clinics rising exponentially and the ratio of referred children changing from more boys to more girls?
Gender clinics around the world are reporting enormous growth in the number of children being referred for gender identity disorder. This means more adolescents taking puberty blockers, hormones, and having sex-reassignment surgery. Just as disturbing is that the male to female ratio is skewing significantly towards girls in most places. As politically incorrect as it is, Tavistock & Portman (UK) cautiously suggest that social and body image factors among girls may be at play in this rise; “It could be argued that we live in a society where there is a disproportionate emphasis on physical appearance and huge pressure to attain an ideal body type. In this context it may be disproportionately young women who hate their bodies if they feel that cannot attain these ideals, and who wish to act on their bodies in some way, for example through restrictive dieting and body modification.” This is shocking and sobering.
The rise in both total referrals, and especially the high ratio of girls, virtually demands that societal factors be present. It may be that a normalization of gender nonconformity in addition to unhealthy media-driven pressures are creating gender confusion and chaos. Legislation like Bill C-16 will be used to further normalize transition, and will likely result in some people (but perhaps especially women) taking drugs, hormones and even removing healthy part of their bodies where this is not required. There is a burgeoning group of detransitioners appearing over the last couple years and this raises all sorts of questions and problems for the current trans-narrative.