Two Years in Prison for Transgender Hate Speech in Canada


#1

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has announced federal legislation that would expand hate speech laws to include gender identity and gender expression.

If passed, the legislation would also make it illegal to prevent an individual from getting a job or to discriminate in the workplace on the basis of gender identity or gender expression.

Mr. Trudeau, the leader of Canada’s Liberal Party, introduced the bill Tuesday marking the International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia. He said the proposed law would “help ensure transgender and other gender-diverse people can live according to their gender identity, free from discrimination, and protected from hate propaganda and hate crimes.”

Citing the need to make transgender people “feel safe and secure in who they are,” Canada’s Minister of Justice Jody Wilson-Raybould introduced legislation Tuesday that would prohibit discrimination on the basis of “gender identity” or “gender expression” and make anti-transgender “hate propaganda” punishable by up to two years in prison.


#2

Hate speech means actually publishing something in book or blog form. Can’t do anything about people posting on social media.


#3

The American College of Pediatricians (ACP) has released a position paper denouncing popular approaches to transgender, declaring that the current protocol is founded upon “unscientific gender ideology,” which lacks any basis in real evidence.

The physicians argue that the assumption that gender dysphoria (GD)—a psychological condition in which people experience a marked incongruence between their experienced gender and their biological sex—is innate contradicts all relevant data and is based on ideology rather than science.

Studies have shown, the authors contend, that the “perspective of an ‘innate gender identity’ arising from prenatally ‘feminized’ or ‘masculinized’ brains trapped in the wrong body is in fact an ideological belief that has no basis in rigorous science.”

“GD is a problem that resides in the mind not in the body. Children with GD do not have a disordered body—even though they feel as if they do,” the doctors note. “Likewise, although many men with GD express the belief that they are a ‘feminine essence’ trapped in a male body, this belief has no scientific basis.”

“Conditioning children to believe the absurdity that they or anyone could be ‘born into the wrong body,’ and that a lifetime of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex is normal and healthful is child abuse,” the paper argues.

The largest study ever of twin transsexual adults found that only 20 percent of identical twins both identified as transgender. Since identical twins contain 100 percent of the same DNA from conception, and develop in exactly the same prenatal environment, if gender identity were innate, the concordance rates would be close to 100 percent—rather than 20 percent.

Clinical case studies “suggest that social reinforcement, parental psychopathology, family dynamics, and social contagion facilitated by mainstream and social media, all contribute to the development and/or persistence of GD in some vulnerable children,” the paper states. Therefore, treating gender identity as if it were something to be “explored” and “discovered” is completely misguided, the doctors contend.

In point of fact, studies have shown that gender dysphoria among children is radically reduced when they are not encouraged to impersonate the opposite sex, the authors note. Encouraging gender fluidity and identity experimentation among children is one of the primary causes of gender dysphoria.

The new ACP paper, titled “Gender Dysphoria in Children,” elaborates on an earlier statement released in the spring, which sent shock waves through the medical community and earned the physicians the wrath of LGBT activists.

One LGBT advocacy group, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) in Montgomery, AL, placed the American College of Pediatricians on their extensive list of “hate groups,” a list that includes some 900 groups that do not share the SPLC ideology—such as the American Family Association, the Family Research Council and the Jewish Defense League.

The ACP’s chief crime has been to upset the apple cart by disputing ideologically based, politically correct positions regarding sexuality from the perspective of scientific fact and clinical studies.

For example, the ACP scientifically disputed the widely held belief that non-heterosexual attractions are inborn or innate, arguing instead the evidence-based position that these attractions develop from the interaction of a multitude of influences in an individual’s life.

The American College of Pediatricians (ACP) is a national organization of pediatricians and other healthcare professionals, with members in 47 states, and several countries outside of the US.

The College’s membership includes such luminaries as Dr. Paul McHugh, who was the director of the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Science at the Johns Hopkins University for 27 years, during which time Johns Hopkins was the leading hospital in transgender studies.


The next step
#4

Thank you for resurrecting this thread and posting this. I have been saying this for years. This is a choice! All of a sudden “gender identity” has come out of nowhere as a mainstream affliction that needs to be praised. It’s a mental disorder. Bottom line.


#5

I wouldn’t say it is a mental disorder… it is absolutely a choice. The problem with most of our politically correct discussions or lack of is that we are disallowed to use the word Preference because at the end of the day preference = discrimination and at the end of the day we all do it. While I am not a particular fan of the vast array of sexual preferences on display in society, our constitution allows for it. What the constitution never allowed for is for the state to prevent people from expressing that dislike by preventing a store owner to tell them, politely of course, to take their business elsewhere…


#6

Good points @Scott and I agree, once after the age of 18 then people can do whatever they want. I have a really serious problem with people putting their children through this process with hormone blockers, boosters, or both before they hit puberty. That is child abuse and there should be ZERO protection for that.


#7

The idea that a girl is protect until she is at least in her middle teens because she is somehow too emotionally incapable of assessing relationships and saying no doesn’t seem to fit with the idea that a juvenile of 6 has any possible understand of their sexuality and for a parent to interfere with natural growth is as you say child abuse and is, from a social engineering point of view, far worse than teaching a child learn the Lords Prayer regardless of where you stand on religion… regardless of where you stand on GMO’s… :grinning:


#8

Bravo Canada!

We will be passing a law for this soon as well because we sadly have shown we are incapable of doing the right thing on our own.

==========================

Some scientists have voiced concerns that ACPeds mischaracterized or misused their work to advance its political agenda.[2][15] Gary Remafedi, a pediatrician at the University of Minnesota, wrote ACPeds a public letter accusing them of fundamentally mischaracterizing his research in their publications to argue that schools should deny support to gay teenagers. Francis Collins, a geneticist and director of the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), issued a statement through the NIH accusing the ACPeds of misleading children and parents on its Facts About Youth website.[15] Warren Throckmorton, a therapist who specializes in sexual orientation issues, similarly stated that his research had been misused, saying of ACPeds: “They say they’re impartial and not motivated by political or religious concerns, but if you look at who they’re affiliated with and how they’re using the research, that’s just obviously not true.”[2]

======================================

more disturbing are the hate groups propagating this stuff.

astounding.


#9

What is actually astounding is people who use notoriously inaccurate Wikipedia as a source and insist that they are all about the science.

No one denies that people can show preference for almost an infinite variety of pleasures or for that matter a similar range of displeasures… that makes it no more that a preference. Of course if the source disagrees with a liberal position one most certainly can expect it to attack the source and not the facts… Southern Poverty Law Center (as mentioned in the article) is one such organization who frequently attacks the source on many subjects because they can’t engage in the facts.

It’s interesting how liberals bob and weave when it comes to ‘science’. They will of course use the most expedient path to their objective regardless of how valid it is… and if you disagree you are a hater… a bigot … oh forget it, the list is too long.

I seem to remember when the whole subject with respect to personal behavior and preference wasn’t any of that old hard wired genetic BS… it was ‘nurture’! Now… not about nurture so much.

I had some sympathy for the whole subject for a period of time until a lesbian told me that if she had 30 minutes alone with a women that she could ‘turn her’… her words… from then on, I pretty much knew it was about preference. Pedophiles it would seem develop in much the same way… childhood experience, rejection… family… creating a lifelong attachment to children… misguided choice… but choice none the less.

But I can guarantee you that it won’t be long before we hear that public school should teach this as science bit it will be presented this way… “gender is a spectrum,” and “gender identity” a state of mind, a social construct-and the only way to combat heterosexism and gender conformity.

So… which is it nature or just Dr. Spock and Dr. Phil on steroids?

See, I don’t deny the existence of the choice… but you deny me the right to reject your choice in my life…


#10

which part is untrue Scott?

the group cited are noted crackpots.

you have a right to think anything you want.

but the 14th Amendment was put in place to stop people seeking to enforce that same kind of thinking against any segment of our population.

frankly I am astounded in this day and age there are still people posting such things as serious news.

It just surprises me.


#11

It’s because whatever sources they post are factual, and whatever sources we post are questionable. It’s all a part of their obsession with the big bad “mainstream media” cabal against conservatives.


#12

That right.

I forgot about the cabal.


#13

Yes or no.

Do you believe children should be put on a path for gender reassignment prior to puberty?


#14

I am not an expert in childhood gender reassignment (and i am not going to do much searching here at work on it) but to the extent any such medical care is approved by qualified professional experienced in such childhood situations I would say it Depends. But in certain cases yes I would support it as the right thing to do.

Some people are simply questioning to find out who they are they will find their own way. They may experiment with different things and those I agree are making a choice of lifestyle.

Others however this is not a lifestyle choice this is their LIFE choice and they know when they know it and it wont change. I think medical consultations are certainly in order and it would be grossly criminally negligent to not take any child to COMPETENT Medical Professionals qualified to guide everyone through a change if that is deemed appropriate.

I would NOT consider those already against such counseling qualified. Only those under whose guidance have helped similar children through this would be qualified.

I would expect this to be fairly rare but if we say absolutely no then WE are the ignorant ones. We should be committed to doing what is in the best interest of the child. Period.

And if it is determined by competent medical professionals experts in this field that such treatment is in the best interest of the child, And under that commitment my answer is I support following the guidance of those qualified medical professionals.

I don’t know what the youngest child suicide is but children are smarter than we are many times and the tragedy is holding them hostage inside their own bodies when it is clear what the truth is.

Kids know themselves better than we do. What we know is FEAR and it is our duty to not raise our kids in our fear. That is our weakness.

good question.


#15

ps…the timing is pretty good NPR had a story on a couple weeks ago about a young child, who was going thru this and they were very aware of who they are.

now this doesn’t define it for all people but for this little child it did.


#16

Wikipedia is not considered a credible source. Wikipedia is increasingly used by people in the academic community, from freshman students to professors, as an easily accessible tertiary source for information about anything and everything. However, citation of Wikipedia in research papers may be considered unacceptable, because Wikipedia is not considered a credible or authoritative source.[1][2][3]
This is especially true considering anyone can edit the information given at any time, and although most errors are immediately fixed, some errors maintain unnoticed. However, it can be noted that Wikipedia’s Good Articles and Featured Articles are some degree more advanced, professional, and generally more credible than an article not labeled Good or Featured. It is because these articles are reviewed heavily and edited many many times, passing a lot of “tests” before being confirmed Good or Featured, that they can be used for some deeper research than usual. It is Wikipedia’s Featured Articles that are especially trustworthy in contrast to normal or even good articles, as they have to pass even harder “tests” to become featured, as they are to be “the best of Wikipedia”, “a model for other articles”, and thus, a much more reliable source than average articles.


#17

so in other words you found nothing untrue. so you attack the source.

thought so. that holds no water, Lou.

I find it to be highly credible when citations are used.

it exposed a bunch of crackpots doctors here well known to be such in the medical community. @Lou this group you are defending has been put forth on other boards and roundly laughed out of town. I am astonished you would support as one medical professional put it kindly…a bunch of QUACK’s.


#18

Wiki is not a credible source as they state. Why would I waste my time refuting your content when it isn’t credible which invalidates your comment.

p.s. At least I look at the links provided something your generally ignore.


#19

I would agree if you are using it for a thesis but for BB debate4 it is more than adequate.

again Lou you still found nothing untrue.

and you wont because you re chasing this one down a dead end. I am very comfortable with my source I find it highly accurate certainly more so than someone claiming ACP to be a legitimate physicians organization.

prepare to see it frequently from me.


#20

I’m confused. I just read this whole thread where you attacked the original source. Then when @LouMan attacked your source you say that he has no right because he found nothing untrue. What did you find to be untrue in the original source? Is there any scientific proof that supports transgender behavior as anything more than a lifestyle choice?