20 January, 2011

Canada: Transgender 'Bathroom bill' heads to third reading - Politics & Policy - Catholic Online

Canada: Transgender 'Bathroom bill' heads to third reading - Politics & Policy - Catholic Online
Posted by at

17 comments:

  1. Anonymous21 January, 2011

    Hi Tim,

    Not sure I can see the religious right's framing of this issue as a "bathroom bill" as being anything other than fear mongering. Quelle surprise!

    Unisex public washrooms are very common in Japan .... and I have seen no evidence of increased violence against women as a result. Interestingly (or perhaps not really) the religious right presents no actual statistical evidence to support their fear mongering.

    Lastly, might I point out some of the benefits of unisex washroom facilities to the general population:

    1. Men with young daughters will have a family friendly place to take their children when they have to "go"
    2. The disabled with assistants of a different gender will have a more comfortable place to use when a public washroom is needed

    Just a few thoughts...but we really know what the game plan of the religious right is on such issues: go for the ice factor whenever possible and press the fear button hard and often.

    Cheers...Martin

    ReplyDelete
  2. Fr. Tim Moyle21 January, 2011

    Martin: I had not heard of this bill before I found this post. I agree with you. It's not a big deal. When I was a small child, I remember my mother bringing me in with her to woman's washroom. For her it was a matter of prudent security.

    I just posted the story because I found it a touch bizarre and worthy of comment.

    Tim

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mary G21 January, 2011

    The gov't has gone mad...we have people without adequate housing...people going to bed hungry and they dare to spend our tax dollar on this kind of nonsense...if it were not so sad it would be almost funny

    ReplyDelete
  4. Small Town Guy21 January, 2011

    Mary G,

    This bill was not brought in by the government. It appears to be a private member's bill brought in by the NDP's MP, Bill Siksay, and is supported by all NDP, Bloc, most Liberals, and five Conservative MPs. It is opposed by a few Liberals and about 137 Conservatives. It could be defeated in the Senate where Conservatives now have a majority. But there is a chance it might slip through and become law.

    A coalition of family, christian groups, and a group called Real Women oppose it. It must be opposed. The people who support same-sex marriage, abortion on demand, and possibly euthanasia are supporting this bill. They are confused about gender issues and are trying to turn Canada into something bizzare.
    ____________________________________________

    As a general comment, not addressed to you, I will say gender is not something one chooses as an option. Gender is how God created us. This bill confuses the subject of gender and could have many unpredictable and harmful consequences.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Mary G21 January, 2011

    ty Small Town Guy for your comment...the nonsense involves government and it is our tax dollar paying them and it is a disgrace that they would waste 1 minute or $1 on such nonsense when we have people that legitimately need that money to be spent on them to provide affordable housing etc.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous21 January, 2011

    Hi Mary,

    The recognition and protection of human rights is the job of all governments. This bill does not represent a material fiscal program...it is simply a matter of protecting the rights of a vulnerable minority group. You may not like this minority group, but let me assure you that they are the subject of real and persistent discrimination. I know some transgendered people - and I have even hired one.

    Their stories may be alien to you, but they are real people who have usually struggled long and hard to make a way for themselves in this world. If you knew some of their stories you might better appreciate their struggles to access jobs, housing and personal security.

    As for the opposition to this bill, I will point out that Concerned Women of America has been named as a hate group in the US by the Southern Poverty Law Centre. I believe they are affiliated with Real Women of Canada.

    Mary - I have seen your comments on this blog many times in support of the unjust persecution of Christians. Do you not see the need to stand in solidarity with other minority groups if you are to be consistent in your claims that societies have an ethical/moral obligation to protect their vulnerable minorities? Frankly, I find your callous dismissal of the transgendered a bit hypocritical.

    Cheers...Martin

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous21 January, 2011

    Hi Mary,

    Remember- some of those fetuses you are so concerned about being born grow up to be transsexuals and transgendered.

    Seems your compassion for folks ends once they exit the uterus.

    Just sayin' .... :-)

    Cheers...Martin

    ReplyDelete
  8. Lady Janus21 January, 2011

    This is one of the stupidest wastes of time and money I can remember in recent history! And I am quite in agreement with Martin -- we don't segregate our bathrooms in our homes, so what's the big deal about unisex public bathrooms? We already have them in some places, so why not in all places?

    "The people who support same-sex marriage, abortion on demand, and possibly euthanasia are supporting this bill."

    No we don't, Wayne. Do everyone a favor, willya -- learn to ASK before you tell lies, and then you won't find yourself telling lies quite so often.

    "This bill confuses the subject of gender and could have many unpredictable and harmful consequences."

    Actually, it doesn't cofuse anything. It's an attempt to clarify gender issues, but it's a damned clumsy attempt, and it's going in the wrong direction. And that's why it's stupid. And a waste of time and money.

    Why do you care, anyway? Will the gender of the person next to you harm you in some way if it turns out you guessed wrong about it? How is anyone's gender of critical importance anymore?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Mary G21 January, 2011

    i am sorry that u see it as a dismissal of anyone and that was never my intent. i firmly believe that God creates everyone in His image and likeness and , if passage of this bill will protect rights that otherwise would not be protected i support it 500%. ty for pointing that out to me

    ReplyDelete
  10. Small Town Guy21 January, 2011

    Lady Janus,

    No, I wasn't telling lies.

    I have to confess I need to study this more. I am not sure what the need for legislation is because I thought everyone was already protected under the charter of rights and freedoms. I also understand there are some people born with sexual organs of both genders and some born which are not clear. There may also be physiological problems where some people are struggling with this. It is something that I would like to keep an open mind on and know more about and see the arguments from all sides.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous22 January, 2011

    "As for the opposition to this bill, I will point out that Concerned Women of America has been named as a hate group in the US by the Southern Poverty Law Centre. I believe they are affiliated with Real Women of Canada."

    Shocker! A far left wing organization has branded a right wing organization as a hate group. Lefties brand everyone that doesn't share their worldview as hate groups. Its on page one of the Lefty propaganda handbook. Nothing to see here folks.

    Cheers
    MacGuiver

    ReplyDelete
  12. Lady Janus22 January, 2011

    "No, I wasn't telling lies."

    Well, what DO you call it when you say things about people that are not true?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Small Town Guy22 January, 2011

    Lady Janus,

    ""No, I wasn't telling lies."

    Well, what DO you call it when you say things about people that are not true?"

    Oxford dictionary definition of a lie:
    "1 Intentionally false statement"

    I did not intentionally make a false statement; in fact I still think what I said is true. I said "The people who support same-sex marriage, abortion on demand, and possibly euthanasia are supporting this bill."

    That was a general statement. I think if you look at it more closely, you will find that it is true. The whole NDP, Bloc, and most Liberals supported this bill. They are generally the same people who voted in favour of same-sex marriage, and who are pro choice regardiing abortion. I assume most of their supporters in the public on this issue also support same-sex marriage and pro choice. Most people against same-sex marriage and against abortion, support the Conservatives with a small percentage voting Liberal. There may be a few exceptions.

    However, as I said earlier, I am keeping an open mind on this bill regarding transgender people because I know there are some factors that need to be considered, and I don't have all the facts.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous23 January, 2011

    Hi STG,

    There is absolutely nothing logically inconsistent between a traditional relligious POV and supporting the recognition of human rights for transexual and transgendered persons.

    Not unless you maintain that bigotry and transphobia are essential elements of traditional religious world views.

    Cheers...Martin

    ReplyDelete
  15. Small Town Guy23 January, 2011

    Martin,

    I am prepared to support human rights if that is demonstrated what is at stake concerning transexual and transgendered persons. Unfortunately this article does not give many details in that regard. I need to know what the exact reasons we need this bill and what the religious views and other reasons opposing it would be. However, I don't have a lot of time to spend on this issue, and I am not sure my own view will make any difference to how it goes anyway. If I see some articles on it, I will try to read them. Cheers.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Lady Janus24 January, 2011

    "I did not intentionally make a false statement; in fact I still think what I said is true."

    Even after having been told by onw of those of whom you are speaking that it is NOT TRUE?

    "I said 'The people who support same-sex marriage, abortion on demand, and possibly euthanasia are supporting this bill.'"

    I support same-sex marriage, freedom of choice, including access to abortion, and the right to choose the time and manner of one's own death. I DO NOT support this idiotic tripe of a bill!

    So, in essence, you are assigning to me intentions that are untrue, and you are doing it knowingly, and therefore, it is a LIE.

    "The whole NDP, Bloc, and most Liberals supported this bill."

    Do not confuse politics with the real world or political parties with people. Above all, do not engage in making generalizations when it comes to the supporting of proposed laws that affect individuals.

    Politics in this country is a team sport. Do not make the mistake of thinking that just because someone is on the team, he automatically thinks on a personal level the same way the rest of his teammates think. If they were allowed to speak on a personal level, I'll bet you could find a dozen members of Siksay's own party who think this bill is one huge time-wasting joke.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Small Town Guy24 January, 2011

    Lady Janus,

    "So, in essence, you are assigning to me intentions that are untrue, and you are doing it knowingly, and therefore, it is a LIE."

    No, I was not intentionally saying something which was untrue. I was speaking in general terms. It was a mistake, and I apologize to you for that. I did not mean to assign a belief to you which was incorrect.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Followers of this blog:

Blog Archive

Google Analytics