Canadian professor speaks out against bill c-16 and political correctness

a reply to: intrepid

ditto

The definition is too fking long in English. Get to the god dam point!! Half the courses are garbage. We need to go back to direct teaching instead of separate teaching. 3 years same good teacher = more stuff. 3 year separate teachers = stress and massive homework.

I don't like how people keep saying communism when we all know Communists didn't even like transgender, gay or lesbians to begin with.
www.advocate.com...

a reply to: makemap

Communism comes from Marxism which is what this is but in another form. It's the oppressed vs the oppressors except there aren't any oppressors other than the ones advocating against it. It's quite clever actually

a reply to: TheFlyOnTheWall

"A person's gender identity is fundamentally different from and not related to their sexual orientation" False. This line to be included in legislation is 1000% garbage. When 95% of sexual orientation is correlated with male>female, female>male then it is NOT fundamentally different. This crap is just absolutely staggering in its myopic limitations of the reality we actually live in. To be attracted to the opposite sex is NORMAL and is fundamentally correlated to their gender identity, ffs. This line of BS our government is trying to feed us is nothing but a flat out lie.

I don't think you've understood what you're objecting to, here. I'm putting it politely: It is unavoidably obvious that you don't understand what you're objecting to.

As for it being normal to be heterosexual (let's not argue over your 95% figure), well, it's normal for heterosexuals. It's not normal for bisexuals or homosexuals. But (and here's the kicker) being bisexual or homosexual isn't abnormal.

I was once excited by the prospect of some day becoming a transhuman, but now I'm completely unsure what it means anymore. I'll have to send a message to Ray Kurrzweil and ask him.

a reply to: audubon

(let's not argue over your 95% figure)

Because otherwise it wouldn't allow for your logical fallacy. Politely speaking. Why on heavens would you not want to argue about the percentage? It's the whole premise for the conclusion.

being bisexual or homosexual isn't abnormal

At the risk of being un PC, yes it is abnormal. But don't confuse my response as being intolerant. It's normal to be hetero not homo. Binary life could not sustain itself if homosexuality was the norm. Please use some common sense before telling me i don't understand what I'm objecting to.

a reply to: TheFlyOnTheWall

It frightens me that people would actually support this kind of regressive legislation.

This is essentially some NAZI stuff...think like us or pay the price.

originally posted by: TheFlyOnTheWall
Please use some common sense before telling me i don't understand what I'm objecting to.

Please just be honest and say you have a problem with the LGBT community. Not a problem under Homophobic Harper but the wind have changed. Right?

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: TheFlyOnTheWall

It frightens me that people would actually support this kind of regressive legislation.

This is essentially some NAZI stuff...think like us or pay the price.

He IS thinking like you. That's the problem. We're Canadian, not anti-not me.

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: TheFlyOnTheWall
Please use some common sense before telling me i don't understand what I'm objecting to.

Please just be honest and say you have a problem with the LGBT community. Not a problem under Homophobic Harper but the wind have changed. Right?

I'm thinking you 'wish' or hope I have a problem with the LBGT community because then you could neatly categorize my objection to the legislation. I'm sorry to tell you, you would be completely wrong in that regard. In order to maintain any bias you have towards others who don't subscribe to your ideology, you want to simply call me a homophobe to denounce any factual information I have which may contribute to your confirmation bias. Again, I won't repeat my OP, it's your duty to understand it.

a reply to: TheFlyOnTheWall

Gotcha. Complete BS. That's how bigots TRY to hide their bigotry.

Ho hum.

Non-issue.

The purpose of the legislation is to ensure 'legal-speak' definitions continue to support already existing discrimination laws in a forever changing and evolving society... it ensures that there isn't any "cracks" that one can slip through with regards to discrimination cases in a court of law.

Laws change and evolve, legal definitions change and evolve... as society changes and evolves.

Plain and simple.

One thing I noticed is that the definitions of gender identity and gender expression do ensure that someone can claim they are female and express as male, even physically, and go right into the locker room and shower with someone's 5-year-old daughter because that's what the definitions now say.

a reply to: CranialSponge

it ensures that there isn't any "cracks" that one can slip through with regards to discrimination cases in a court of law.

The definitions are as broad as a barn. I guess that's how they plan to "fill in the cracks" eh? Any astute Canadian citizen whom is particularity concerned with our human rights code would want to pay attention to this.

eta: It's not just about gender issues. It's everything. The word 'flip chart' is now racist for example.

a reply to: TheFlyOnTheWall

At the risk of being un PC, yes it is abnormal. But don't confuse my response as being intolerant. It's normal to be hetero not homo. Binary life could not sustain itself if homosexuality was the norm. Please use some common sense before telling me i don't understand what I'm objecting to.

The bit that I was pointing out has been misunderstood by you was the question of gender identity and sexuality. They are two different things.

As for the idea of homosexuality being 'abnormal', you are completely wrong. If you do a scad of research, you will find that homosexuality is so common in the animal kingdom as to be regarded as completely unsurprising. The whiptail lizard is probably the most unusual example. All whiptails are female, and they come 'into heat' by lesbian mating, and lay eggs via parthenogenesis ("virgin birth" to you and me).

So it's clear that homosexuality is a form of normality, as in it is normal for some animals to be homosexual. Obviously homosexuals cannot reproduce naturally, but nor can pre-pubertal children, sterile heterosexual people, or post-menopausal women - are they abnormal too? That question seems absurd, doesn't it.

Reasons why homosexuality persists are a bit more complex. No-one's really sure why this feature has appeared during evolution. It must confer some evolutionary advantage on a species (or it wouldn't be here, or so widespread). You can read some possible theories here: www.newscientist.com...

(FWIW I think the theory that homosexuality means a surplus of childless adults to look after children, thus boosting the survival chances of the overall 'pack' is probably along the right lines).

a reply to: ketsuko

No.

That's not what the definitions say.

That's just you reflecting your false logic thought processes (and completely irrelevant analogies) to try to justify your icky feelings towards the subject.

originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: ketsuko

No.

That's not what the definitions say.

That's just you reflecting your false logic thought processes (and completely irrelevant analogies) to try to justify your icky feelings towards the subject.

The definition of gender identity in the OP says that it is completely internal. It is your internal experience of your gender.

Meanwhile, your gender expression is your outward expression of gender, or how you physically express gender.

Nothing in either definition says that one is dependent at all on the other. Ergo, it is possible for a person to express one gender while identifying as another in legal terms in Canada.

So please explain to me where I am wrong.

a reply to: TheFlyOnTheWall

There's a huge push for this crap, I guess part of the problem is our lesbian premier and of course it doesn't help her co-writing of the sex ed curriculum with Levin, a convicted pedophile. I have to agree with the professor that the legislation proposed is nuts, poorly written and opens to many doors of legalized abuse and calling wolf. Of course the governments have to do something stupid to get people distracted from what's coming.

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: audubon

The bit that I was pointing out has been misunderstood by you was the question of gender identity and sexuality. They are two different things.

Show me a medical journal that accepts this. For now it's pseudo science and subjectivity with fancy acronyms. Give me an example of what you are specifically referring to. Say, a man who identifies as a woman but who is attracted to a ....?

As for the idea of homosexuality being 'abnormal', you are completely wrong. If you do a scad of research

I did, 2 seconds.

More specifically, 1.8 percent of men self-identify as gay and 0.4 percent as bisexual, and 1.5 percent of women self-identify as lesbian and 0.9 percent as bisexual. The results are generally in the same ballpark as past estimates — and far below the long-debunked 10 percent estimate.Jul 15, 2014 What percentage of the U.S. population is gay, lesbian or bisexual ...

www.google.ca...=percentage%20of%20homosexuality

So 98% of the population is straight, not 95%

homosexuality is so common in the animal kingdom as to be regarded as completely unsurprising. The whiptail lizard is probably the most unusual example. All whiptails... yada yada

What on earth are you talking about the animal kingdom for ? That's totally illogical; a non-sequitur. So my old lab would hump the other male dog. So? A seahorse male give birth. So? Are you seriously using this as an argument as a rule of measure to compare our human lives? I even saw a dog plowing a cat once. Seriously?? Next liberals will be advocating bestiality. No, really, don't use this anymore for an argument.

So it's clear that homosexuality is a form of normality, as in it is normal for some animals to be homosexual. Obviously homosexuals cannot reproduce naturally, but nor can pre-pubertal children, sterile heterosexual people, or post-menopausal women - are they abnormal too? That question seems absurd, doesn't it.

More non-sequitur arguments. Better look up that word because it seems to be a common practice of yours so far. Of course kids can't have kids or post menopausal. Those are natural biological functions which follow a natural cycle. Not chromosomal mishaps. And no, it's not clear homosexuality is normal. Just because it happens doesn't make it "normal'. I think you are misunderstanding the definition of normal. When 98 of the population are straight, that's normal. when it takes two opposing genders to procreate, that's normal.

a reply to: TheFlyOnTheWall

What on earth are you talking about the animal kingdom for ? That's totally illogical; a non-sequitur.

I think you'll find that humans are animals. Or we were last time I checked.

Anyway, I can tell from the appearance of the 'we'll be letting people commit bestiality next!' meme that you're impervious to argument, on this subject at least. It can only be a matter of time before the 'Adam and Steve' line comes out.

I'll leave you to your fearful world in which the human race is being degraded by some governments recognising the fact that homosexuals exist and have human rights. I think society will get along without your input.