Hearing on Canada's Bill C-16 regarding gender identity and gender expression(35 Posts)
You can hear Meghan Murphy’s testimony here:
She explains it so well. But its probably going to fall on deaf ears. Few seem to see how gender identity damage women's rights.
Few seem to see how gender identity damage women's rights
Oh fuck it ... they don't care or don't want to know because the whole trans discourbe helps to shore up male privilege and patriarchy.
The only thing I would like to have seen her done is to have a bit more of what people call the common touch.
So trying to get the general public to relate to what she was saying, rather than people who already understand feminism 101.
Maybe even use a few sensationalist examples that would strike a chord. Like the transman raped in the taxi, for instance.
Many people need a lightbulb moment.
I think she said everything she could possibly say, but I would have stuck the odd Daily Mail headline in it.
YetAnotherSpartacus, yes you are correct, it is about male privilege and the patriarchy. But why are women happy to see something like this passed? Why don't they see the damage it will do?
Fuck knows. I really don't. I see women acting in men's interests all the time and I don't get it beyond when there is enough trickle-down to somehow make it all worthwhile (i.e. a wife supporting a tacitly abusive husband because of some sort of material benefit).
Because women are socially conditioned to be patriarch compliant. Conditioned to accommodate.
Conditioned to sympathise with people who identify themselves into alleged oppression.
There are trickle-down benefits, yet but there are more punishments for non-compliance than there are benefits for compliance. (Compliance to rigid patriarchal gender roles such as hyper sexualisation of women and machismo of men)
Forcing children to trans is one of those punishments.
I agree women are both punished for going against the patriarchy, and can receive certain benefits from it.
I wonder also, if for some women, it just seems so unimportant because we are talking about such a small number of men? That is, the chance of coming face to face with a MTT is small, the chance of meeting a rapist mtt is even smaller, and the probability of meeting a rapist MTT who is in the position to rape is so, so tiny, its not worth worrying about? The number of MTT will be greater than the number of girls/women assaulted, so go with what makes the greater number happy?
Is voyeurism classed as a sexual assault or not? It is surely a sex crime.
A man who deliberately enters and remains in a space where women and girls are undressed is a sex offender, and the number of victims would be very great if he repeatedly carried out this offence.
I would have thought that, without filming, it would be virtually impossible to be charged with voyeurism? A MTT is just a women in a changing room wherever they look. And how do you prove a man is not a MTT?
We are just lucky that very few men are voyeurs, and even fewer would go to the trouble of pretending to be MTT.
Has anyone watched the full hearing? Purple sage has linked to it. I've not watched it myself.
But a lot of men are controlling bullies. And gender self ID doesnt need men to actually do anything other than make a statement.
The current situation (in the UK) is what I now call 'The Nordic Model' of toilets. Men are not supposed to be in there. Women let them in under tolerance, for example if they are with their children or using the baby changing station.
If they are acting maliciously we can just get them thrown out.
Gender self ID would change that and give all men the legal right to be in the toilets. I cant understand why anyone would need to support that.
I like this open letter.
What's involved in passing this bill then?
How many hearings do they have and what sort of timescale?
Is voyeurism classed as a sexual assault or not? It is surely a sex crime.
Voyeurism is a crime on its own. As far as I know, the law says you are not allowed to watch/film somebody doing something private. Private been the important word.
So standing under some open stairs and looking up a girl's skirt as she ascends, is not voyeurism as she is not doing something private.
But yes, being in a toilet with a woman effectively eliminates the crime of voyeurism, as they have a legitimate right to be there.
I did point that out to my MP. That voyeurism as a crime would cease to exist under those circumstances.
There was a thread in AIBU recently about transwomen going on a website called Mrs Gloss. The OP was saying she was uncomfortable by some of the things they were talking about.
I should imagine she had a load of AGP individuals getting off on being able to discuss tights and dresses.
I was trying to work out whether the fact that the OP would have been in the privacy of her own home, on her laptop could be construed as 'private'. I can't remember the exact wording of the crime, but it would seem to fit if what she was doing was private.
So, a whole raft of new legislation needs to be put in place.
Unfortunately you won't be able to apply it to a transwoman in a women's space.
The only thing I would like to have seen her done is to have a bit more of what people call the common touch
So trying to get the general public to relate to what she was saying, rather than people who already understand feminism 101
I think she managed to mention "the patriarchy" about half a dozen times. Just my personal opinion but I don't think people care about "the patriarchy"
But yes, being in a toilet with a woman effectively eliminates the crime of voyeurism, as they have a legitimate right to be there
No it doesn't.
Voyeurism would be trying to peer over or under a cubicle occupied by a woman. If any person is doing that it is voyeurism no matter what they call themselves. Trans women don't come equipped with x-ray specs.
Lass, what I was wondering about is this.
If women and girls were in states of undress in an open plan changing and shower area for females (my gym at the sports centre is like that), and a man came in while women and girls were naked, and would not leave, would that not be voyeurism or a similar crime? If he got undressed would it be indecent exposure?
But then under proposed laws of self ID, can he just walk in and do that?
If the person came in for no purpose other than ogling I can't see why that would not be treated as voyeurism. I have no idea how this works for a genuine user of the facilities who happened to be trans. Personally the thought of being naked in an open plan public changing room with other women would put me off going anyway but I appreciate that's not the point.
But claiming that the mere presence of a trans person in a public toilet means the crime of voyeurism no longer exists is a ridiculous exaggeration.
I agree about mentioning the word patriarchichy. It is one of those words that can still produce an eye roll and you lose half your audience.
In terms of voyeurism. Obviously the crime would still exist. I was taking my own advice and using a sensationalist comment to make a point to my MP.
The point being, for someone with AGP, being a voyeur is their modus operandi. Watching, listening to women going about their private business in an intimate space is what gets them off.
They would be committing a crime, but to all intents and purposes it would be a state sanctioned. Because women would have to ignore it on the basis of let's pretend you're a woman.
Brilliant testimony. Bill C-16 seems to be about the same as the leaked Labour manifesto pledge.
I found this good about the implications of the US banning "conversion therapy". This is the US not Canada but I thought I'd share it as it relates to gender identity.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now »
Already registered? Log in with:
Please login first.