You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Bill C-16’ tag.
This is from a resource aimed at children and teachers to ‘educate’ them on the finer points of gender-woo. It is here the notion of the unfalsifiable gender-soul is born. This woo, because of Bill C-16 is a category. In the same list as “sex” in our Charter.
See the problem yet? Sex is based on physical observable reality. Gender Identity is nebulous at very best. I’m sure nothing can go wrong with these two aspects sharing the same priority in our Nations Charter or Rights and Freedoms…

The first ten minutes encapsulate so much of what is wrong with this legislation.
We need to get the word out and get C-16 repealed. Protect Canadian Women (adult human females).
Justin Trudeau refuses to release the Gender Based Analysis for Bill C-16
When Justin Trudeau became Prime Minister of Canada, he promised to do a Gender-Based Analysis (GBA) before passing any new legislation. A GBA is a study on the impact of new legislation on women and girls. It now appears that a GBA may not have been done on Bill C-16, the legislation that adds gender identity and expression to the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code.
Many women’s groups have requested a copy of the GBA for Bill C-16, and the government is still refusing to release it. A Twitter campaign called #ReleaseTheGba has brought many concerned Canadians together to petition the government to publish it. If the government cannot produce this GBA, it must admit that this protocol was never followed, which will further undermine the appropriateness of passing Bill C-16.
Finally, after a number of MPs turned down the opportunity to sponsor this petition, Derek Sloan courageously accepted the challenge. If you support government transparency and the rights of girls and women, please click on the link below, read the short description and sign this petition.
Canadians please follow the link and sign the petition, we need to fight the gender unreality that is currently codified in our laws.
Hey folks, it’s election time. Your MP has to pretend harder that they are listening the people they supposedly represent. Take the time and send this in. Courtesy of We The Females.
Dear <MP’s Name>
I am writing as a voter in your riding who supports human rights for all Canadians and with specific concerns about the impact of Bill C16 on women’s sex-based rights.
Bill C16 was enacted in Parliament in 2017 to amend the Canadian Human Rights Code and the Canadian Criminal Code in order to provide protection for the transgendered. Unfortunately, C16 does not explicitly protect transgendered individuals but instead protects “gender identity” and gender expression”, neither of which are given precise legal definitions but are instead subjective categories unlike biological sex.
Although sex remains as a separate protected characteristic, the enactment of Bill C16 has led to a massive conflation of sex and gender identity/expression (many women have found that to even discuss their sex based rights as separately protected from gender identity and gender expression leads to accusations of transphobia and bigotry) with the result that, currently in Canada, a women’s status is no longer based in objective biology but on a subjective “gender identity” and/or “gender expression”.
This is misogynistic and continues to have profound implications for women’s’ sex-based rights including the right to sex segregated spaces and activities including prisons, abuse and rape crisis centres, elder care facilities and sports and athletic opportunities.
Brief examples regarding Statistics Canada and the Correctional Service of Canada follow:
Statistics Canada
As a direct result of C16, Statistics Canada “has revised the variable “sex of a person” as well as creating a new variable “gender of a person”.
This means that but for an extremely limited purpose, data collection and analysis from Stats Canada is based on the “gender of a person” not their biological sex.
One of the most egregious examples of this obfuscation is that universal crime statistics in Canada are no longer collected based on sex but instead on gender identity. This has been confirmed by the Canadian Association of Police Chiefs and now results in crime committed by biological males who identify as transgendered falsely being recorded as committed by female Canadians.
Changes such as these also lead directly to wrongheaded policies like the recent announcement by OPP that they will no longer publicly report the sex or gender of either perpetrators of crimes or their victims. All at a time when violence against biological women is epidemic in Canada!
Corrections Canada
On January 9, 2017 Corrections Canada announced a policy for transgender inmates detailing that: “Pre-operative male to female offenders with gender dysphoria will be held in men’s institutions and pre-operative female to male offenders with gender dysphoria will be held in women’s institutions”. This policy was abruptly reversed only days later, on January 13th, 2017, following an off the cuff comment by Justin Trudeau at a town hall. As a result, biologically male inmates (both post and pre-operative) are being housed in female facilities, some with mother/child units.
In response to an ATIP, Corrections Canada has advised that between June 1, 2017 and December 3, 2018, 8 biological males who identify as transgendered were transferred to the women’s system. 7 of the 8 were convicted of violent crimes including murder and sexual assault. The total population of transgendered males in female facilities remains unknown.
Female inmates (who are disproportionally aboriginal, have previously been subjected to violence/abuse and are overwhelmingly convicted of nonviolent crimes) are being housed with male transgendered inmates such as:
-
Madilyn (formerly Matthew) Harks who was convicted of sexually assaulting girls under the age of eight three times and has been accused of harassment and assaulting female inmates while in custody. Current location unknown but thought to be held at the Fraser Valley Women’s Institute which contains a mother and child unit
-
Tara Desousa (formerly Adam Labucan), a dangerous offender convicted of sexually assaulting a three-month-old baby. While in custody, Desousa assaulted female inmates and a female correctional officer. Currently held at the Fraser Valley Women’s Institute which contains a mother and child unit
With the information I have provided in mind, please let me know your thoughts and position on the points below. Your response will be a very important consideration in my choice of candidate on October 21:
-
What is your position on women sex based human rights as separate from gender identity/expression?
-
Do you support the rights of women to organize, provide and receive services based on biological sex as separate from gender identity/expression?
-
Do you support the collection of date for social statistics programs (including crime stats) based on biological sex as separate from gender identity/expression?
-
What specific steps will you take to support and promote women’s sex-based rights including the right to organize, provide and receive services as separate from gender identity/expression?
Thank-you for earliest response,
<Your Name>
Bill C-16 is problematic for women. Go read the entirety of Megan Murphy’s article on the Feminist Current, I’ve excerpted a key bit here though. :)
Bill C-16 passed at the Senate on Thursday. Under this new Canadian legislation, which follows similar laws in a number of Western countries, a person can determine their gender or sex via self-declaration at any time and for any reason. It’s considered a human rights violation to question it. No criteria, physical markers, or tests have been identified to determine trans status. As an inherently individualistic idea, gender identity isn’t tethered to any external reality and is therefore considered immune from qualification or broader critical analysis.
If an individual’s identity doesn’t impinge on anyone, it’s easy to accept it at face value. But when an individual transitions into a group of people who face different challenges, questions will naturally arise about whether opportunities reserved for those who are marginalized in their own right will be inevitably claimed by these new members, once again making it more difficult for the original members to get ahead. Already, we’ve seen a handful of examples of males who transitioned later in life showered with praise and handed awards reserved for women, who have spent their entire lives enduring patriarchy as females.
Remarkably, troubling philosophical questions remain unaddressed. If gender identities are determined on an individual basis with no parameters around what they mean, it follows that there can be as many genders as there are human beings. If each individual has a purely self-determined identity, then, by definition, these inherently unique identities can’t be shared with anyone else. No one person can experience another person’s thoughts or feelings to verify that they are thinking or feeling the same things. How can males, or anyone for that matter, know that they feel like a woman? Even if, for the sake of argument, we accept the tautology that a woman is a person who identifies as a woman, the logical conclusion is that “woman” can mean anything and therefore means nothing.
And yet women exist.
Despite a lack of clarification and broad consensus on this, women are vilified simply for asking questions. We’re expected to abandon all prior experiences and notions of ourselves, most especially those that relate to our female embodiment and the oppression that stems from it. Sex-based protections have been effectively dissolved. When it comes to female-only facilities, human rights law is clear: a male who claims the identity of “female” or “woman” can’t be turned away. If a woman has concerns or is in a vulnerable position, her options are to somehow get over it or leave. What this tells women and girls who are survivors of male violence is that females’ right to refuge and privacy away from males is negotiable and that they come last. This is an insidious form of grooming that tells women and girls that they are hysterical for recognizing the epidemic of discrimination and violence directed at them and that they must prioritize the feelings of others over their own sense of self-preservation.
Though frequently twisted, the argument here isn’t that trans people in particular pose a threat. The issue is that as long as gender identity rests on self-declaration, it is impossible — and illegal — for females to distinguish between males who simply wish to live as transgender women and other males. This is an unwarranted burden to place on women and girls, who shouldn’t be obligated to have or divulge a history of trauma in order to justify maintaining independent spaces (not that it makes a difference when they do anyway).
Laws based on personally subjective, indescribable feelings are bad news, not only Canadian women, but the rest of society as well.
“The bill updates the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code to include the terms “gender identity” and “gender expression.” The legislation also makes it illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender identity or expression. It would also extend hate speech laws to include the two terms, and make it a hate crime to target someone for being transgender.
Critically, the bill also amends the sentencing principles section of the code so that a person’s gender identity or expression can be considered an aggravating circumstance by a judge during sentencing.”
As with much of queer politics, defining terms is pretty much up to who you happen to ask, or what day it is, or really how you feel about it at the time. So, let’s grab some terms from some lazy searches on google. These two categories are now included in the the Canadian Human Rights Act and Criminal Code.
Wikipedia – Gender identity – is one’s personal experience of one’s own gender.[1] Gender identity can correlate with assigned sex at birth, or can differ from it completely.
“Merriam Webster – Gender expression – : The physical and behavioral manifestations of one’s gender identity People vary greatly in the extent to which they hold and convey gendered thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. Gender expression refers to the way people convey their gender through mannerisms, behaviors, or expressions. — Robert C. Eklund and Gershon Tenenbaum (editors), Encyclopedia of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 2014 For most people, … gender expression occurs so naturally it’s unnoticeable. Except when gender expression doesn’t match traditional notions of the gender assigned at birth. — Will Dean, The Desert Sun (Palm Springs, California), 12 June 2015″
Perhaps we should try one more source. Another definition of gender identity this time from Canadian Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould, who introduced the legislation –
“Gender identity is a person’s internal or individual experience of their gender. It is a deeply felt experience of being a man, a woman, or being somewhere along the gender spectrum. Gender expression is how a person publicly presents their gender. It is an external or outward presentation through aspects such as dress, hair, makeup, body language, or voice.”
Luckily I also found a feminist response as well – Meghan Murphy responds –
“But these statements show a deep misunderstanding of what gender is and how it works. Gender is a product of patriarchy. Ideas around masculinity and femininity exist to naturalize men’s domination and women’s subordination. In the past, women were said to be too irrational, emotional, sensitive, and weak to engage in politics and public life. Men were (and often still are) said to be inherently violent, which meant things like marital rape and domestic abuse were accepted as unavoidable facts of life. “Boys will be boys,” is the old saying that continues to be applied to excuse the predatory, violent, or otherwise sexist behaviour of males.
The feminist movement began back in the late 1800s in protest of these ideas, and continues today on that basis. The idea that gender is something internal, innate, or chosen — expressed through superficial and stereotypical means like hairstyles, clothing, or body language — is deeply regressive.
Beyond misguided language there is the fact that we are very quickly pushing through legislation that conflicts with already established rights and protections for women and girls.
Women’s spaces — including homeless shelters, transition houses, washrooms, and change rooms — exist to offer women protection from men. It isn’t men who fear that women might enter their locker rooms and flash, harass, assault, abuse, photograph, or kill them… This reality is often left unaddressed in conversations around gender identity. This reality is sex-based, not identity-based. Men cannot identify their way out of the oppressor class so easily, neither can women simply choose to identify their way out of vulnerability to male violence.”
So here we be – enshrining more patriarchal norms into our laws – big surprise right? This legislation potentially represents a large step backwards for women.
“As unpopular as this fact has become, a man or boy who wishes to identify as a woman or girl, perhaps taking on stereotypically feminine body language, hairstyles, and clothing, is still male. He still has male sex organs, which means girls and women will continue to see him as a threat and feel uncomfortable with his presence in, say, change rooms. Is it now the responsibility of women and girls to leave their own spaces if they feel unsafe? Are teenage girls obligated to overcome material reality lest they be accused of bigotry? Is the onus on women to suddenly forget everything they know and have experienced with regard to sexual violence, sexual harassment, and the male gaze simply because one individual wishes to have access to the female change room? Because one boy claims he “feels like a girl on the inside?” And what does that mean, anyway?”
So which is more important male gender feelings or female safety? I would like to advocate here for gender neutral washrooms/changing area as the beginning of a compromise in this area. We still live in a patriarchy and sex segregated facilities are still necessary for the protection and safety of females in our society. The choice whether to co-mingle with men in washrooms or change rooms should be up to all those involved.
“We live in a time when women and girls are killed every day, across the globe, by men. Things like rape, domestic abuse, and the murder of Indigenous women and girls in Canada are still not considered hate crimes. Yet we have managed to push through legislation that may very well equate “misgendering” to hate speech.
Women are protected under the human rights code on the basis that we are, as a group, discriminated against on account of our biology. Employers still choose not to hire women based on the assumption that they will become pregnant. Women are still fighting to have access to women-only spaces (including washrooms and locker rooms) in male-dominated workplaces like fire departments, in order to escape sexual harassment and assault.”
I have serious misgivings about this legislation. The concerns raised by radical feminists such as Meghan Murphy, have mostly been brushed aside, unsurprisingly as her concerns focus on the female experience in society and how this legislation is going to impact females (thanks again patriarchy).
Critical analysis and more debate is necessary on contentious topics such as the now passed bill C-16 – I hope more discussions can be had and that so we can ensure the safety and security of females in our society.
So nice to see an actual feminist message getting out into the public sphere. Megan Murphy goes to town in a Canadian Senate hearing.
Today there was a hearing on Canada’s Bill C-16, which amends the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code to add gender identity and gender expression to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination.
Here is Meghan Murphy’s testimony:
As well, here is an article by Murphy explaining what is wrong with the bill.
To watch the full hearing:
- Go to this page: http://senparlvu.parl.gc.ca/XRender/en/View/Calendar/20170509/
- Click on May 10
- Click on LCJC meeting no. 67







Your opinions…