This about sums this thread up. Come back when someone has actually been convicted of calling someone the wrong gender. Right now it is nothing but hyperbole.
Well... you know: consequences... This is all BS. If she hadn't recorded the interview, then what? She would have been reported by the University to the authorities? She would have been charged? Things would pretty much have ended up in exactly the same place: Public outcry, condemnation of the university's actions by parliament, university would have had to apologise and promise to do better.
Yeah I don't think you have any basis or justification to make that claim. I know transgender people who have fought long and hard against opinions like yours to have their rights recognised; refusing to recognise their gender and using the incorrect pronouns does cause harm.
The two highlighted parts are not compatible with each other, especially when done deliberately and or repeatedly it will be harmful because there is a direct link between what is essentially bullying and depression. http://www.bmj.com/content/319/7206/348
That is, quite objectively, not what you said. You simply said: And being transgender does not always involve gender reassignment surgery.
Again: she would have protested, public outcry, questions in parliament, University backs down and apologises. No charges, no conviction. Actually there are also hermaphrodites, androgen insensitivity, Klinefelter syndrome, Jacob's syndrome. So male and female are not straightforward binary traits, even in mammals. And when we include other animal lifeforms, things really get interesting. Sex switching, asexual reproduction...
Standard medical practice doesn't automatically translate into a sound practice. As for sex reassignment surgery it's only surface deep, it isn't possible to reassign someones sex from female to male or vice versa. You are the sex you are born with. They are, the mother is at home to raise and breastfeed the offspring whereas the man is working to provide for her and their mutual offspring, if he doesn't do his job she can't do hers. This is one example of the different roles the sexes have (and how they complement each-other) which are directly linked to their respective biological differences in the context I previously gave. It's also the structure that has made us so successful to begin with. The fact that this has come under increasing attack as well as being undermined in the west today, such as trying to take the mother out of the equation all together as it were, is for another discussion. They are messing with their minds which is having a negative effect on them and their development, as jrs77 rightly pointed out, it's indoctrination, I would add abuse.
@jrs77 They are trying to bring this mindset and these ideas into the collective consciousness, and if that wasn't bad enough, now also into the legal fabric. And' it's not gonna stop with 50 different ones either. The sky's the limit.
Doesn't mean your body is. You can be a male XY and end up with a practically totally female body and feel female. If you're one of the relatively rare people in Salinas, in the Dominican Republic, you are born an apparent girl and in puberty you suddenly grow a penis --although these children report that they always felt they were boys. You are the sex your brain is born with, and that can differ from that of your body and your genes. And then the best medicine can offer is some body modifications to align it a bit more with the sex of your brain. Whether you think it is sound medical practice or not has as much relevance as my opinion on, say, Except that it doesn't work like that in reality. In Africa, women breast feed and work on the fields. In some Amazon rain forest tribes, men share child care duties. In one Polynesian tribe, the women raise the girls and the men raise the boys, and the sexes live mostly segregated lives. None of that, by the way, is the reason for our relative success over other species. Our cognitive abilities are --specifically our ability to extrapolate and conceive hypotheticals from known information and develop and execute elaborate planned actions to realise them. This makes us not only highly adaptable to changing circumstances, but we can make the circumstances adapt to us. So many tasks and jobs don't rely on brute physical strength anymore and are done by both sexes equally well. Babies can be bottle fed by dads while wives are out at work (breast milk keeps in the fridge). Fact is, technological progress has made traditional gender roles less relevant; we are less and less bound by biological impositions. Just repeating your argument doesn't lend it force. Show me the evidence.
We've went over this one just recently at page 4 post #62 where I said, Quote: Your sexual identity, when everything works as intended, will be married to your sex. Your brain is not excluded from the marriage. It's included. ...and yes, you are the sex you are born with, it is a biological construct, as a woman you can bring a child into this world, you cannot do that as a man. Therefore, sex reassignment surgery is ONLY surface deep. It does not change your sex. Except that it does, it's also what has made us so successful historically, it has been paramount. Now if you wanna bring up less successful civilizations to try disprove what is a historical fact, and still in many ways a present reality. Knock yourself out. See the first part isn't exactly true at all Nexxo, as for the bottle it can't replace milk directly from the source (neither can formula) let alone give the child the interaction it needs with its mother during breastfeeding, and the interaction the mother needs with her child either, that bonding which is so vital. This is well known. I mean you're free to ignore it many do. Heck, breastfeeding increases the child's intelligence, gives it a healthy immune system, and reduces the risk of the child getting schizophrenic later in life just to name a few things, there's soooo much more good stuff with breastfeeding. That it's anno 2017 doesn't change any of it, you can pick any year you like. Edit. Speaking of breastfeeding, my mother breastfeed me until I was three-and-a-half-year-old, no side effects, other than I LOVE boobies. But that's a good thing.
Just so I'm clear, you're seriously trying to argue that teaching kids that the world isn't as simple as we previously considered, and that they should be free to express themselves as they feel, is indoctrination?
I think what's going on here is that there is no chance of a logical or rational debate in this thread, and that the opinions expressed in the OP were never really up for debate or discussion.
By the university not by the criminal or legal system, if the university has taken it upon themselves to reprimand someone that's on them and is not a reflection on how it would be dealt with in the real world. No, No it's not and if you understood the basics of how a legal system worked then you'd be able to understand why. Then take it up with the dean, the hyperbole exists because certain sections of society have ceased on this as a way of furthering their own politically motivated agendas. Historically we used to do a lot of things but that doesn't mean we should, or even want to, keep doing them just because well history, we used to live in caves and beat each other over the head with clubs, are you suggesting we should go back to doing that because it was so successful historically, we used to believe that people suffering from shell-shock were cowards, should we go back to believing that. The fact is human society is the sum of all its knowledge, it's constantly evolving and adapting, it's constantly learning about not only the world around it but itself, it's what's made humans successful as a species so to expect that to suddenly stop just because you don't happen to like one particular aspect seems to be in countenance of everything you've been suggesting.
Again, just repeating yourself does not make you more right. There is no "as intended" unless you believe in a Creator. Sorry, are we talking sex as in: chromosome pair, secondary sexual characteristics, ability to bear children, or the way your brain is wired? Are women born without a womb (e.g. MRKH syndrome) still female? Or would you argue they are male? Or neither? Are infertile men still male? What about a male born without a penis? Is a male brain in a female body, male or female? Sex reassignment surgery is not meant to change a body's sex; it is just meant to align the body appearance and experience more with a person's sexual identity. So let's put that straw man argument aside. What is a "successful" civilisation? By what criteria? Actually a father with a bottle of breast milk can provide the same attachment experience. I also think you are conflating the effects of the breast milk with the effects of the act of feeding and the effects of the act of being held (start with Renee Spitz' Failure to Thrive theory and read from there). The link between breast feeding and schizophrenia is not confirmed. Same in Dutch. But the words you use determine the way you think, so it is useful to consider different languages and linguistic concepts. It's ********. Sexual dimorphism is not what made us successful -- other animals mastered that trick long before us. What made us a successful species is our huge frontal lobes and not inconsiderable parietal lobes. No it is not. That C-section theory has been disproved (I mean, really?!?). Breast milk can be delivered by bottle through any loving caregiver to the same effect. Gender roles, as a sociocultural construct, are constantly changing. Show me the evidence or GTFO. You're conflating again. Show me the evidence that letting children decide their own sexual identity and gender roles leads to break up of their family structure. "Traditional family structure" also varies in different cultures. So explain to me what are the defining characteristics of a good family structure. And biology <-> psychology.
They sure seem like opinions as despite the law-professors and lawyers in the videos you posted giving their opinions on how they believe this bill could be misused there seem to be no evidence to backup theirs or your claims. In other words no one has cited any relevant cases where someone was charged, let alone tried, because they meet both the mens rea (mental element) and the actus reus (the act element) of hate propaganda and/or incitement to genocide, if you could provide some relevant case law then maybe stare decisis would apply and conceivably bill C-16 could be used in that way, however until either the law-professors and lawyers in the videos you posted, or yourself, can provide that evidence it's nothing more than an opinion, in my opinion.
Well I'm afraid I don't see much else happening here. Outside of one case - which was not a criminal prosecution and happened before any laws were passed - you have provided no evidence that a proposed anti-discrimination law is tantamount to fascism. You have also provided no evidence for your repeated assertions and claims about gender roles. In the absence of any supporting evidence I am left with the conclusion that the only argument you are putting forward is your opinion.
From what i can tell this whole thread boils down to a university being over zealous in applying a poorly understood human rights code and the belief that that same misunderstanding of the legal system will transpose over into the real world. I wonder if Wilfrid Laurier University teaches law because if they do maybe they should have consulted with them before diving in with both feet.
Well, you're certainly not expressing scientific fact, so by elimination I must conclude that you express belief = opinion.
