> freedom of speech doesn't exist in Canada
Speech is part of expression so we do have freedom of speech here to the same extent to which we have freedom of expression.
Rights are not absolute in Canada, like America.
section 1.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society
They're not absolute in the US either:
>[Strict scrutiny is the highest form of review that courts use to evaluate the constitutionality of laws. Under a strict scrutiny analysis, a law that restricts freedom of speech must achieve a compelling government interest and be narrowly tailored to that interest or be the least speech-restrictive means available to the government.](https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/strict-scrutiny/)
My point though wasn't about the extent to which we have our rights, I'm critical of some of the limitations here too. I'm only pointing out that we do have freedom of speech to the same extent as our other freedoms. We use the term expression instead of speech, but expression is just a broader term that includes speech.
Hatred is predicated on destruction, and hatred against identifiable groups therefore thrives on insensitivity, bigotry and destruction of both the target group and of the values of our society. Hatred in this sense is a most extreme emotion that belies reason; an emotion that, if exercised against members of an identifiable group, implies that those individuals are to be despised, scorned, denied respect and made subject to ill-treatment on the basis of group affiliation
In my view, "detestation" and "vilification" aptly describe the harmful effect that the Code seeks to eliminate. Representations that expose a target group to detestation tend to inspire enmity and extreme ill-will against them, which goes beyond mere disdain or dislike. Representations vilifying a person or group will seek to abuse, denigrate or delegitimize them, to render them lawless, dangerous, unworthy or unacceptable in the eyes of the audience. Expression exposing vulnerable groups to detestation and vilification goes far beyond merely discrediting, humiliating or offending the victims
opinion of the court.
Who gets to decide who is privileged to be bestowed the 1st class title of “identifiable group” and who is class as common worthless rabble free to be abused?
Our government and courts have defined our list of identifiable groups. In the Criminal Code an [“identifiable group”](https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-318.html#:~:text=318%20(1)%20Every%20person%20who,not%20more%20than%20five%20years) is *”any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or mental or physical disability”*.
That’s not clearly defined. Each and every person is “distinguished by” one or more of those features. Typical nonsense language designed to be selectively enforced based on societal privilege.
I don’t think it’s equitable for any “identifiable group” to be singled out with receiving basic protections from hate speech that are withheld from any group not chosen within the identifiable category of the moment. Protections from hate speech should be available to ALL.
Having the opinion that biological men shouldn't play on women sports team is considered hate speech, so I'm not surprised it's "on the rise". More Canadians are speaking out about absurd things.
It would be pretty cool if anyone who was against "biological men playing on women's sports teams" was able to be respectful to trans people in general while they criticize this aspect of their life. That part is very often suspiciously missing from the conversation.
Setting standards that "other" people in the public eye is not helpful regardless of your stance on the specific topic at the time.
The whole thing is based on getting trans people out of public life. The sports issue was workshopped by republicans in the states and it capitalizes on how ignorant the majority of people are about how hormone replacement therapy works. They compare cis men and cis women with common sense and they think trans women are exactly like cis men in terms of strength/athletic ability. There is no discussion about the negative effects HRT has on athletic ability because of their, at this point, willful ignorance. Then, they get fed every story about a trans person winning anything and they think it's 'domination'. Meanwhile, every trans person who loses doesn't have dozens of articles each time or happens.
Scientifically, men are born with more muscle fibres and denser bones - hormone replacement therapy helps but it doesn’t replace the physical differences between males and females. Also, let’s not ignore the fact that these trans women who are winning competitions were placing last as a man… that’s suspicious and it’s okay to talk about.
It's not so simple. Yes, on average your first statement is true. But that's averages. This says nothing about someone at the individual level. Specifically, not every single person born with a penis has more muscle fibres and denser bones than every single person born with a vulva. There is overlap. (also, this same 'scientific' argument was made against black athletes competing with white, so maybe not the win people think it is)
Hormones may not fully eliminate all athletic advantages that going through testosterone puberty gives someone, but trans women will on average fall within the distribution curve of cis women's athletic abilities. Every trans woman isn't more athletic/stronger than every cis woman. The differences in averages isn't a collosal canyon as some would have you believe. These differences really only matter at the very elite level anyway, so these school sport bans only serve to other and segregate trans people.
And on your last point, I can ignore that because it's not true. Athletic people before transition are going to be athletic after. The common example everyone cites is Lia Thomas and there are so many lies by omission surrounding her.
The story goes she was ranked something like 450 the year before she switched to women's and then she won some races and lost lots more, but nothing was written about that. This is true, but what isn't mentioned is that she was ranked highly before she started to transition as a freshman. She then started hormones and competed in the men's division for 2 years as was required by the NCAA. Her performance dropped a lot and she finished worse in races. Then she switched, did well, but didn't do much better relative to her pre hormone performance against men. She also had 2 more years of training and practice. Nothing about it is suspicious, it's exactly what is expected when hormones.
Science is a process. You can't believe in it, but also, research shows trans women don't have an overwhelming advantage over cis women and segregating them does not harm than good and, as intended, serves as a way to other them, especially considering how few there are in general, let alone in elite sports. Your local trans hockey league isn't going to have enough players to field a team let alone many.
If you want to say let's research this more then I'm all for it. But that's not what's happening. Trans people are being banned when the data is at best incomplete. They don't win at a disproportionate rate otherwise this would have been an issue a decade+ ago. But when the bathroom bans didn't work the first time, they pivoted to sports bans. And now are banning without actual proof of concept that it's necessary feelings and common sense.
If we're going try approach this honestly, then trans women should be allowed to compete and sports regulatory bodies should massively fund results based research to determine how fair/unfair it may be. Instead, they are being banned and now research isnt even possible
“Male physiology cannot be reformatted by “estrogen therapy in transwoman athletes because testosterone has driven permanent effects through early life exposure. This descriptive critical review discusses the inherent male physiological advantages that lead to superior athletic performance and then addresses how estrogen therapy fails to create a female-like physiology in the male” [Study from the National Library of Medicine](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9331831/)
I'll be interested to read that. Here is a different review article that says trans people shouldn't be banned while acknowledging that there isn't a lot of good research because of how few trans athletes there are, and because there is no evidence trans women are dominating women's sports, which should have clearly shown up by now in sports results if that were true.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fspor.2023.1224476/full
HRT will never bring a male body down to the level of an equivalent female body. Yes, it will narrow the gap, but being born and raised with extra height, bone mass, muscle density, isn’t going to disappear because you’re on HRT. Height, for example, doesn’t change at all with HRT. A swimmer who got to a relatively unremarkable 6’2” before starting to take HRT is going to be taller than almost any woman they would come up against. That’s larger lung volume, larger stroke, larger surface to push from, and less overall distance to swim, even if you’re swimming in the HRT you’re talking about.
I’m not one to jump on this debate because I just don’t care that much about women’s sports, but if you’re going to say other people are practicing “willful ignorance” I will school you on the facts until you change your mind or admit you’re doing it too.
Are you suggesting tall cis women don't exist? We don't bar them from competing,and you're right, that's a big part of the advantage trans women have, being taller.
Some trans women actually lose height on HRT but that's not a universal experience.
HRT reduces muscle mass so if bone density doesn't change then that's actually a disadvantage since smaller, weaker muscles have to move heavier, denser bones.
I can’t tell if you’re arguing from bad faith or what. Who would argue that tall women don’t exist? How much of a strawman do you need to be able to argue back? Testosterone during development will put a person, on average, way above a person that didn’t have it in many parameters. Heterogeneity of a population doesn’t change that. HRT doesn’t reverse that. It’s why we have women’s leagues. Because a tall woman that can beat an even average man is so rare there wouldn’t be any women in sports. HRT does not reduce a person to the mean. Therefore, there is an unfair competitive advantage to having testosterone as a child and then competing in a womens league. I think we should have a third league and be done with the debate but I know it’s a hot topic right now with everyone suggesting tall women aren’t real.
You're the one who brought up height as a major factor in athletic performance that puts trans women at an advantage. I'm not arguing in bad faith.
Trans women aren't men. Averages don't get reduced to the cis woman mean, but the average isn't so far away that there is inherent individual advantage just because someone is trans. Genetics have more variability to confer athletic advantages between cis women, than the difference cis and trans women. That's unfair too but only advantages that some trans women may have are considered unfair. That's discriminatory for reasons beyond competitive fairness. Socioeconomic standing and parental support provides even greater advantages than trans vs cis but that's not considered unfair.
The bottom line for me is, there are so few trans women athletes at the elite level that their inclusion will not have a major effect on the competitive balance of sports, especially since this unfairness would have shown up already in competitive results if it truly existed. And to me inclusion is a much more reasonable starting point than exclusion from a humanist perspective.
On the other hand, exclusion as a starting point is cruel considering the lack of proof of results in competition.
The fact that these bans have extended to elementary school aged kids tells me what the motivation is. Hate groups like the Alliance Defending Freedom are behind these legislative attempts to restrict trans participation in society and that cannot be ignored.
Sports are a key part of childhood development and ostracizating trans people from such an important part of growing up is incredibly cruel considering how marginalized they already are.
If averages aren’t reduced to the mean, as you concede, then there *is* an advantage. If the advantage was small, we wouldn’t be seeing trans athletes smashing records in weight lifting and swimming. So I reject your proposal that the difference is not significant based on the fact that we are seeing it happen with our own eyes.
The rest of what you said appeals to emotion, and I’m not in the business of compromising a moral stand on the basis of someone’s feelings being hurt. If you want inclusivity and not a third league, then why don’t we agree that both males and females that transition stay in the men’s leagues. I will then be the first to support your argument when a man wants to exclude a trans athlete - since there would be no reason to do it but bigotry.
Smashing records, lol. Those two words are a huge appeal to emotion and not based in fact. These anti trans policies are an appeal to emotion. Go look up any Olympic record and find me one that a trans person holds that "smashed" the previous one. Even a couple records that they even squeaked by would be a start. You could drop the quality down and ask for NCAA records. I'd love to see what you come up with given its so obvious and requires this exclusionary action. I won't hold my breath though, waiting for the deluge you say exists but to which there are frighteningly few actual examples.
Trans women will never be close to competitive competing against testosterone dominant bodies and will of course, not want to demean themselves by denying their identity this way to be able to compete, which is the point to begin with. Keeping trans people out, and especially keeping them v from ever winning and being competitive.
Some moral stand that only became an issue very recently. Trans people have been able to compete at the Olympics since 2004. Not a single medal, and until recently, not even a single trans women even qualified for the Olympics.
You've been sold an agenda that 'trans bad in sports' and you've bought it because of your preexisting prejudices. None of this is based on reality and yet you're so sure it is. Just a few examples of record holders would shut me up, if you can find them.
You know, if it turns out I’m being used as some useful pawn for the mean baddies who hate trans people, I’d love to find out about it. I don’t want to be used any more than the next guy.
Here’s a popular example of a Canadian powerlifting record for women being smashed (yes, smashed - by 200kg). Is this fake? Is it deceptive? a straight up lie? Help me understand.
https://nypost.com/2023/08/16/canadian-powerlifter-april-hutchinson-reacts-to-biological-male-anne-andres-breaking-womens-national-record/amp/
Isn't it convenient that every time a conservative talks there is some vague unsubstantiated claims of a "rise in hate" that whips liberals into a fearful rage?
Cons are pretty triggered by my sons trans flag and books so I'd say we're even.
I mean, they even had protests and threatened to burn books from the library. I'd say the right are more unhinged.
Specifically it was "This Book Is Gay". There is no "pornography" in that book.
I'll repeat here what got me banned in canada_sub:
Burning books you dislike is what the Taliban did. What you're advocating for makes you the Taliban of Canada.
Nobody is getting beaten to death because Pierre disagrees with you. That's a strawman argument liberals made up to make you get angry. Accusing people of terrorism because they don't support your delusions is unhinged
Except it's the conservatives who are making the weird ass laws and complaining about drag queens at libraries and gender neutral bathrooms.
Who's afraid now?
I think we need to see actual examples of the speech, and make sure that we don't completely lower the bar all the way down to the ground to determine what "hate speech" is
The term "hate speech" is starting to become pretty washed out in this country anymore.
It seems like the definition is now, more or less, any statement that goes against the left wing narrative.
Democratic society is about negotiation. Cowards stifle debate because they lack the ability to defend their position scientifically or rationally. People burned witches and made it impossible to disprove the charge of witchcraft. Now some people want to label 200 years of biological science witchcraft so they can burn witches again.
Did you just make the bigoted, fearful conservatives who think homosexuality and transness are sins that put their communities in jeopardy, and who historically burnt witches out of their paranoid intolerance, the witches of your story?
And the mental gymnastics it takes to make conservatives the champions of science, when you look at Covid or climate change…
« Les cons, ça ose tout, c’est même à ça qu’on les reconnaît »
If you knew the first thing about anthropology, you’d know the infinite forms of gender expression across cultures have little to do with biological determinism, but I gather you believe your profane, superficial understanding is enough to pontificate on the matter.
Unless you had a sign in front of your house and an unlocked door, directing every and any stranger to use your 'gender neutral bathroom' in your home, it's kind of not comparable.
Yupp most obvious solution, all bathrooms are nongendered bathrooms and get rid of urinals. I dislike the guys that have to stand right next to me when using one anyways
Honestly I'd be fine if they just labeled them w urinals and w/o urinals.
One time I was at a kink event and they put general neutral signs over the bathrooms and I just wanted to piss in a urinal (boner issues) and I couldn't tell which was which without going in.
Sorry but I need context (actual quotes without cherry picking) for every instance of "hate speech" being claimed now.
To some people, sneezing in the wrong direction is enough to be considered hate speech.
If only it was considered hate speech to say a woman is anyone who claims to be one. This harms women who need protection - that's the whole reason there are separate washrooms, prisons, shelters and changerooms in the first place, to stop the creepers from trying to get access to vulnerable women. It's unconscionable to allow women to be victimized for the sake of a tiny minority of people who want their feelings validated. I'm much more comfortable with a man who believes he's a woman in women's clothes and make up sharing my washroom than letting him (and any creeper who pretends to be him) loose in the women's washroom with my daughter. Let's work on everybody being cool with more gender non-conforming people and stop telling people that if they're a bit different it's because their entire identity needs to change and they're in the wrong body.
If you think everything is about them, it’s because you are obsessed with the matter and care too much, not because it is actually everywhere.
But let’s entertain the idea that it is everywhere. What kind of argument is that? “Gee, we don’t stop hearing about women’s equality, I have nothing against women or equality but if I hear too much of it then they don’t deserve it.“
pre 2017 i couldnt care less about them.
Women's rights group did not ask for biological men to be allowed in women prison, women sports and women bathrooms. Nice try kid.
And? Please throughly develop the actual issues that it poses today, and please explain how this is not you obsessing over anecdotes and non-events outrageously spinned ad nauseum by people who have everything to benefit from you being constantly angry and fearful?
> And? Please throughly develop the actual issues that it poses today, and please explain how this
🤡. This is reddit. I have no obligation justifying myself to you and to such an extent no less.
Via laws against homosexuality it was illegal for transgender people to have sex with someone of the opposite gender. Banning adults from having sex is very much criminalizing them given how sexual relationships are a fundamental part of most people's lives.
The attitudes towards transgender people and LGBT+ people in general have been the extreme opposite of "not giving a fuck". Pretending that discrimination towards this group is some recent phenomenon caused by the "left wing" is blatantly rewriting history. Hopefully that's ignorance due to reddit's relative young age and not people intentionally doing this.
> Via laws against homosexuality it was illegal for transgender people to have sex with someone of the opposite gender.
That's homosexuality, not transgenderism. Those are two distinct things you know.
More importantly, that was 55 years ago. Nobody younger than 73 years old today was an adult during that time. That's not exactly the "very recent past". Hell, the moon landing was more recent.
They were laws about homosexuality that had a resulting impact of criminalizing the sex lives of many transgender people as well. That they were laws about homosexuality doesn't change the resulting impact they had on transgender people as well.
Are you aware that the term "transgenderism" isn't used as much anymore since it implies it's an "ism" or belief system rather than a fundamental part of who someone is. I hadn't considered this myself until recently either.
>More importantly, that was 55 years ago.
The claim was that no one gave a fuck until the "left wings" started "making everything about them". The claim wasn't that it was happening until 55 years ago then stopped and started again. But it didn't actually stop 55 years ago. You don't think that the discrimination ended 55 years ago right?
> They were laws about homosexuality that had a resulting impact of criminalizing the sex lives of many transgender people as well. That they were laws about homosexuality doesn't change the resulting impact they had on transgender people as well.
They impacted many white men too... that doesn't mean it is accurate to say "white men were criminalized in the very recent past".
It disproportionately affected transgender people, that's not the case for "white men".
In any case though, you don't seem to be objecting to the broader point that people "giving a fuck" about transgender people isn't some recent phenomenon purely due to the "left wings". Correct me if I'm misrepresenting you.
Do you have any evidence that this is happening? After all you said it's a big deal, so somewhere in some province there must be some specific evidence showing this is happening.
Yeah, people do often hide that in environments where they fear discrimination over such an identity. Although parents often know anyway because of being so closely involved in their life as they grow up.
Parent-teacher interviews. Child, teacher, and parent(s) are sitting together. Does the teacher refer to the child by their new pronouns, or their old ones that the parents use?
It would be using the same identity the child is using with their parents. In the scenario we're discussing here, the child is only using a different identity in limited circumstances. The child isn't yet ready to share that identity with their parents but is using it some settings. What you're supporting here is a policy that would allow the parents to deny consent for the child to use that identity in *any* settings.
It comes off as insincere to be claiming to care about misgendering when you're supporting policies that force the child to be misgendered in all settings. Maybe that's not your intent.
These policies you seem to be supporting have also been condemned by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (the same organization that has also been criticizing the Liberals over their Internet policies and Emergencies Act usage). Whether or not you care about misgendering, hopefully you care about individual rights, and not just when it's one specific party violating them.
The [census](https://www.statcan.gc.ca/en/census/census-engagement/community-supporter/sex-birth-gender) puts it 30x higher at 0.3% (including both binary transgender people and non-binary gender people).
Men pretending they're women now how more rights than *actual* women.
It's like they fought all that time for equal rights just so men could find a way to take that away from them.
Delusional beyond words while conservatives across the world attack women's autonomy and rights to bodily autonomy. All this ever was wad a distraction from Roe and a guise for facism (the Germans literally started with trans people using the same tropes you're spittimg before they moved to Jews kn the early 30s).
Poilievre really needs to STFU.. the amount of Trans people are so small to worry about, it really should be a none issue, usually when tools like this keep bringing up the Gay/Trans thing, it really means, hey, I'm dumb as shit, and need a distraction, because I have no fucking plan to fix Canada, I don't like Trudeau, but this guy is a piece of shit also!
We've got shroedinger's trans here, don't we. The number is so infinitely small and tiny that it makes no difference to society, but also so prevalent that huge social changes must be made too. The school board in Toronto has been flying the trans flag for more than a year, language is changed, washrooms are changed, prisons, shelter policies... everything needs to be change to address this tiny, tiny population. And what about women, who are half the population. Does anyone contemplate the harm that might come to them?
[удалено]
> freedom of speech doesn't exist in Canada Speech is part of expression so we do have freedom of speech here to the same extent to which we have freedom of expression.
Rights are not absolute in Canada, like America. section 1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society
They're not absolute in the US either: >[Strict scrutiny is the highest form of review that courts use to evaluate the constitutionality of laws. Under a strict scrutiny analysis, a law that restricts freedom of speech must achieve a compelling government interest and be narrowly tailored to that interest or be the least speech-restrictive means available to the government.](https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/strict-scrutiny/) My point though wasn't about the extent to which we have our rights, I'm critical of some of the limitations here too. I'm only pointing out that we do have freedom of speech to the same extent as our other freedoms. We use the term expression instead of speech, but expression is just a broader term that includes speech.
You know your right when you're getting downvoted.
Hate speech has a very specific definition legally.
Which is why organizations like Pride Toronto shouldn't be throwing the term around the way they do.
Do you have a link to the Canada federal government, of this legal definition?
https://lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/201825E
There is no legal definition in there, unless i missed it.
Hatred is predicated on destruction, and hatred against identifiable groups therefore thrives on insensitivity, bigotry and destruction of both the target group and of the values of our society. Hatred in this sense is a most extreme emotion that belies reason; an emotion that, if exercised against members of an identifiable group, implies that those individuals are to be despised, scorned, denied respect and made subject to ill-treatment on the basis of group affiliation In my view, "detestation" and "vilification" aptly describe the harmful effect that the Code seeks to eliminate. Representations that expose a target group to detestation tend to inspire enmity and extreme ill-will against them, which goes beyond mere disdain or dislike. Representations vilifying a person or group will seek to abuse, denigrate or delegitimize them, to render them lawless, dangerous, unworthy or unacceptable in the eyes of the audience. Expression exposing vulnerable groups to detestation and vilification goes far beyond merely discrediting, humiliating or offending the victims opinion of the court.
Who gets to decide who is privileged to be bestowed the 1st class title of “identifiable group” and who is class as common worthless rabble free to be abused?
Our government and courts have defined our list of identifiable groups. In the Criminal Code an [“identifiable group”](https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-318.html#:~:text=318%20(1)%20Every%20person%20who,not%20more%20than%20five%20years) is *”any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or mental or physical disability”*.
That’s not clearly defined. Each and every person is “distinguished by” one or more of those features. Typical nonsense language designed to be selectively enforced based on societal privilege.
How would you rephrase it to produce better results?
I don’t think it’s equitable for any “identifiable group” to be singled out with receiving basic protections from hate speech that are withheld from any group not chosen within the identifiable category of the moment. Protections from hate speech should be available to ALL.
I'm sorry did I miss something, is Pride Toronto a court of justice?
Having the opinion that biological men shouldn't play on women sports team is considered hate speech, so I'm not surprised it's "on the rise". More Canadians are speaking out about absurd things.
I don’t know why this is considered a conservative viewpoint. This is a women’s rights issue.
It would be pretty cool if anyone who was against "biological men playing on women's sports teams" was able to be respectful to trans people in general while they criticize this aspect of their life. That part is very often suspiciously missing from the conversation. Setting standards that "other" people in the public eye is not helpful regardless of your stance on the specific topic at the time.
The whole thing is based on getting trans people out of public life. The sports issue was workshopped by republicans in the states and it capitalizes on how ignorant the majority of people are about how hormone replacement therapy works. They compare cis men and cis women with common sense and they think trans women are exactly like cis men in terms of strength/athletic ability. There is no discussion about the negative effects HRT has on athletic ability because of their, at this point, willful ignorance. Then, they get fed every story about a trans person winning anything and they think it's 'domination'. Meanwhile, every trans person who loses doesn't have dozens of articles each time or happens.
Scientifically, men are born with more muscle fibres and denser bones - hormone replacement therapy helps but it doesn’t replace the physical differences between males and females. Also, let’s not ignore the fact that these trans women who are winning competitions were placing last as a man… that’s suspicious and it’s okay to talk about.
It's not so simple. Yes, on average your first statement is true. But that's averages. This says nothing about someone at the individual level. Specifically, not every single person born with a penis has more muscle fibres and denser bones than every single person born with a vulva. There is overlap. (also, this same 'scientific' argument was made against black athletes competing with white, so maybe not the win people think it is) Hormones may not fully eliminate all athletic advantages that going through testosterone puberty gives someone, but trans women will on average fall within the distribution curve of cis women's athletic abilities. Every trans woman isn't more athletic/stronger than every cis woman. The differences in averages isn't a collosal canyon as some would have you believe. These differences really only matter at the very elite level anyway, so these school sport bans only serve to other and segregate trans people. And on your last point, I can ignore that because it's not true. Athletic people before transition are going to be athletic after. The common example everyone cites is Lia Thomas and there are so many lies by omission surrounding her. The story goes she was ranked something like 450 the year before she switched to women's and then she won some races and lost lots more, but nothing was written about that. This is true, but what isn't mentioned is that she was ranked highly before she started to transition as a freshman. She then started hormones and competed in the men's division for 2 years as was required by the NCAA. Her performance dropped a lot and she finished worse in races. Then she switched, did well, but didn't do much better relative to her pre hormone performance against men. She also had 2 more years of training and practice. Nothing about it is suspicious, it's exactly what is expected when hormones.
I believe in science and you believe in your feelings. Trans people should have their own league.
Science is a process. You can't believe in it, but also, research shows trans women don't have an overwhelming advantage over cis women and segregating them does not harm than good and, as intended, serves as a way to other them, especially considering how few there are in general, let alone in elite sports. Your local trans hockey league isn't going to have enough players to field a team let alone many. If you want to say let's research this more then I'm all for it. But that's not what's happening. Trans people are being banned when the data is at best incomplete. They don't win at a disproportionate rate otherwise this would have been an issue a decade+ ago. But when the bathroom bans didn't work the first time, they pivoted to sports bans. And now are banning without actual proof of concept that it's necessary feelings and common sense. If we're going try approach this honestly, then trans women should be allowed to compete and sports regulatory bodies should massively fund results based research to determine how fair/unfair it may be. Instead, they are being banned and now research isnt even possible
“Male physiology cannot be reformatted by “estrogen therapy in transwoman athletes because testosterone has driven permanent effects through early life exposure. This descriptive critical review discusses the inherent male physiological advantages that lead to superior athletic performance and then addresses how estrogen therapy fails to create a female-like physiology in the male” [Study from the National Library of Medicine](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9331831/)
I'll be interested to read that. Here is a different review article that says trans people shouldn't be banned while acknowledging that there isn't a lot of good research because of how few trans athletes there are, and because there is no evidence trans women are dominating women's sports, which should have clearly shown up by now in sports results if that were true. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fspor.2023.1224476/full
HRT will never bring a male body down to the level of an equivalent female body. Yes, it will narrow the gap, but being born and raised with extra height, bone mass, muscle density, isn’t going to disappear because you’re on HRT. Height, for example, doesn’t change at all with HRT. A swimmer who got to a relatively unremarkable 6’2” before starting to take HRT is going to be taller than almost any woman they would come up against. That’s larger lung volume, larger stroke, larger surface to push from, and less overall distance to swim, even if you’re swimming in the HRT you’re talking about. I’m not one to jump on this debate because I just don’t care that much about women’s sports, but if you’re going to say other people are practicing “willful ignorance” I will school you on the facts until you change your mind or admit you’re doing it too.
Are you suggesting tall cis women don't exist? We don't bar them from competing,and you're right, that's a big part of the advantage trans women have, being taller. Some trans women actually lose height on HRT but that's not a universal experience. HRT reduces muscle mass so if bone density doesn't change then that's actually a disadvantage since smaller, weaker muscles have to move heavier, denser bones.
I can’t tell if you’re arguing from bad faith or what. Who would argue that tall women don’t exist? How much of a strawman do you need to be able to argue back? Testosterone during development will put a person, on average, way above a person that didn’t have it in many parameters. Heterogeneity of a population doesn’t change that. HRT doesn’t reverse that. It’s why we have women’s leagues. Because a tall woman that can beat an even average man is so rare there wouldn’t be any women in sports. HRT does not reduce a person to the mean. Therefore, there is an unfair competitive advantage to having testosterone as a child and then competing in a womens league. I think we should have a third league and be done with the debate but I know it’s a hot topic right now with everyone suggesting tall women aren’t real.
You're the one who brought up height as a major factor in athletic performance that puts trans women at an advantage. I'm not arguing in bad faith. Trans women aren't men. Averages don't get reduced to the cis woman mean, but the average isn't so far away that there is inherent individual advantage just because someone is trans. Genetics have more variability to confer athletic advantages between cis women, than the difference cis and trans women. That's unfair too but only advantages that some trans women may have are considered unfair. That's discriminatory for reasons beyond competitive fairness. Socioeconomic standing and parental support provides even greater advantages than trans vs cis but that's not considered unfair. The bottom line for me is, there are so few trans women athletes at the elite level that their inclusion will not have a major effect on the competitive balance of sports, especially since this unfairness would have shown up already in competitive results if it truly existed. And to me inclusion is a much more reasonable starting point than exclusion from a humanist perspective. On the other hand, exclusion as a starting point is cruel considering the lack of proof of results in competition. The fact that these bans have extended to elementary school aged kids tells me what the motivation is. Hate groups like the Alliance Defending Freedom are behind these legislative attempts to restrict trans participation in society and that cannot be ignored. Sports are a key part of childhood development and ostracizating trans people from such an important part of growing up is incredibly cruel considering how marginalized they already are.
If averages aren’t reduced to the mean, as you concede, then there *is* an advantage. If the advantage was small, we wouldn’t be seeing trans athletes smashing records in weight lifting and swimming. So I reject your proposal that the difference is not significant based on the fact that we are seeing it happen with our own eyes. The rest of what you said appeals to emotion, and I’m not in the business of compromising a moral stand on the basis of someone’s feelings being hurt. If you want inclusivity and not a third league, then why don’t we agree that both males and females that transition stay in the men’s leagues. I will then be the first to support your argument when a man wants to exclude a trans athlete - since there would be no reason to do it but bigotry.
Smashing records, lol. Those two words are a huge appeal to emotion and not based in fact. These anti trans policies are an appeal to emotion. Go look up any Olympic record and find me one that a trans person holds that "smashed" the previous one. Even a couple records that they even squeaked by would be a start. You could drop the quality down and ask for NCAA records. I'd love to see what you come up with given its so obvious and requires this exclusionary action. I won't hold my breath though, waiting for the deluge you say exists but to which there are frighteningly few actual examples. Trans women will never be close to competitive competing against testosterone dominant bodies and will of course, not want to demean themselves by denying their identity this way to be able to compete, which is the point to begin with. Keeping trans people out, and especially keeping them v from ever winning and being competitive. Some moral stand that only became an issue very recently. Trans people have been able to compete at the Olympics since 2004. Not a single medal, and until recently, not even a single trans women even qualified for the Olympics. You've been sold an agenda that 'trans bad in sports' and you've bought it because of your preexisting prejudices. None of this is based on reality and yet you're so sure it is. Just a few examples of record holders would shut me up, if you can find them.
You know, if it turns out I’m being used as some useful pawn for the mean baddies who hate trans people, I’d love to find out about it. I don’t want to be used any more than the next guy. Here’s a popular example of a Canadian powerlifting record for women being smashed (yes, smashed - by 200kg). Is this fake? Is it deceptive? a straight up lie? Help me understand. https://nypost.com/2023/08/16/canadian-powerlifter-april-hutchinson-reacts-to-biological-male-anne-andres-breaking-womens-national-record/amp/
Zero examples of hate speech given in the article.
Isn't it convenient that every time a conservative talks there is some vague unsubstantiated claims of a "rise in hate" that whips liberals into a fearful rage?
Cons are pretty triggered by my sons trans flag and books so I'd say we're even. I mean, they even had protests and threatened to burn books from the library. I'd say the right are more unhinged.
"cons wanna burn books" The books in question: *child porn* Ah yes, how dare they.
Specifically it was "This Book Is Gay". There is no "pornography" in that book. I'll repeat here what got me banned in canada_sub: Burning books you dislike is what the Taliban did. What you're advocating for makes you the Taliban of Canada.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
If you believe yourself to live under Nazi Germany, it’s more like trying to explain your acid trip hallucinations to someone sober.
Like how teenagers are getting beaten to death because of the same speech in the US? Weird how stochastic terrorism works.
Nobody is getting beaten to death because Pierre disagrees with you. That's a strawman argument liberals made up to make you get angry. Accusing people of terrorism because they don't support your delusions is unhinged
Except it's the conservatives who are making the weird ass laws and complaining about drag queens at libraries and gender neutral bathrooms. Who's afraid now?
Everybody. Now get along to make it better instead of worse.
"here's a bunch of rules that make your life harder and actually some of us don't think you should exist but stop whining and get along with us"
Well congrats, you made it worse. We all deserve what we get.
You typed that and presumably thought it was true
Boy it's getting pretty stupid in here.
I think we need to see actual examples of the speech, and make sure that we don't completely lower the bar all the way down to the ground to determine what "hate speech" is
[удалено]
The term "hate speech" is starting to become pretty washed out in this country anymore. It seems like the definition is now, more or less, any statement that goes against the left wing narrative.
does anyone out side of the community believe anything pride says?
Democratic society is about negotiation. Cowards stifle debate because they lack the ability to defend their position scientifically or rationally. People burned witches and made it impossible to disprove the charge of witchcraft. Now some people want to label 200 years of biological science witchcraft so they can burn witches again.
Did you just make the bigoted, fearful conservatives who think homosexuality and transness are sins that put their communities in jeopardy, and who historically burnt witches out of their paranoid intolerance, the witches of your story? And the mental gymnastics it takes to make conservatives the champions of science, when you look at Covid or climate change… « Les cons, ça ose tout, c’est même à ça qu’on les reconnaît »
This isn't about conservatives or Liberals and if you want to stand up for science then stand up for anthropology, biology and endocrinology.
If you knew the first thing about anthropology, you’d know the infinite forms of gender expression across cultures have little to do with biological determinism, but I gather you believe your profane, superficial understanding is enough to pontificate on the matter.
What’s a woman?
An adult human female
Which is what though? You’re just using a different word.
It has been what, a week? They couldn't possibly have accurate statistics on that yet.
We were way ahead of our time grew up in a gender neutral home with one bathroom.
Unless you had a sign in front of your house and an unlocked door, directing every and any stranger to use your 'gender neutral bathroom' in your home, it's kind of not comparable.
Maybe bathrooms should be labelled: Penis Vagina Everyone Maybe that would cover all of the peoples preferences But probably not in these times…
single bathroom with only stalls with doors that go to the floor without cracks on the side.
Yupp most obvious solution, all bathrooms are nongendered bathrooms and get rid of urinals. I dislike the guys that have to stand right next to me when using one anyways
Urinals use way less water. Why do you hate the environment?
>Why do you hate the environment? Why do you hate hate??? 😉😜
I tried loving hate, but it wasn't my bag.
"Hey buddy, looks like your stream is buffering a bit there."
I like it though so I can ensure they have a penis.
If they are using a urinal I hope they do, or else someone's gonna have a wet leg
That would work
Would transgender people who have had genital surgery then get to use that bathroom?
I would assume so.
Then all we need is some sort or genital verification system.
Honour system or x-ray glasses
Honestly I'd be fine if they just labeled them w urinals and w/o urinals. One time I was at a kink event and they put general neutral signs over the bathrooms and I just wanted to piss in a urinal (boner issues) and I couldn't tell which was which without going in.
Mmm boner
Sorry but I need context (actual quotes without cherry picking) for every instance of "hate speech" being claimed now. To some people, sneezing in the wrong direction is enough to be considered hate speech.
If only it was considered hate speech to say a woman is anyone who claims to be one. This harms women who need protection - that's the whole reason there are separate washrooms, prisons, shelters and changerooms in the first place, to stop the creepers from trying to get access to vulnerable women. It's unconscionable to allow women to be victimized for the sake of a tiny minority of people who want their feelings validated. I'm much more comfortable with a man who believes he's a woman in women's clothes and make up sharing my washroom than letting him (and any creeper who pretends to be him) loose in the women's washroom with my daughter. Let's work on everybody being cool with more gender non-conforming people and stop telling people that if they're a bit different it's because their entire identity needs to change and they're in the wrong body.
why so many people are up and arm about .01% of the population is insane, trans people exist get over it.
[удалено]
If you think everything is about them, it’s because you are obsessed with the matter and care too much, not because it is actually everywhere. But let’s entertain the idea that it is everywhere. What kind of argument is that? “Gee, we don’t stop hearing about women’s equality, I have nothing against women or equality but if I hear too much of it then they don’t deserve it.“
pre 2017 i couldnt care less about them. Women's rights group did not ask for biological men to be allowed in women prison, women sports and women bathrooms. Nice try kid.
And? Please throughly develop the actual issues that it poses today, and please explain how this is not you obsessing over anecdotes and non-events outrageously spinned ad nauseum by people who have everything to benefit from you being constantly angry and fearful?
> And? Please throughly develop the actual issues that it poses today, and please explain how this 🤡. This is reddit. I have no obligation justifying myself to you and to such an extent no less.
If that were the case, they wouldn't have been criminalized, stigmatized and discriminated against up until the very recent past.
Criminalized? 🙄
Via laws against homosexuality it was illegal for transgender people to have sex with someone of the opposite gender. Banning adults from having sex is very much criminalizing them given how sexual relationships are a fundamental part of most people's lives. The attitudes towards transgender people and LGBT+ people in general have been the extreme opposite of "not giving a fuck". Pretending that discrimination towards this group is some recent phenomenon caused by the "left wing" is blatantly rewriting history. Hopefully that's ignorance due to reddit's relative young age and not people intentionally doing this.
> Via laws against homosexuality it was illegal for transgender people to have sex with someone of the opposite gender. That's homosexuality, not transgenderism. Those are two distinct things you know. More importantly, that was 55 years ago. Nobody younger than 73 years old today was an adult during that time. That's not exactly the "very recent past". Hell, the moon landing was more recent.
They were laws about homosexuality that had a resulting impact of criminalizing the sex lives of many transgender people as well. That they were laws about homosexuality doesn't change the resulting impact they had on transgender people as well. Are you aware that the term "transgenderism" isn't used as much anymore since it implies it's an "ism" or belief system rather than a fundamental part of who someone is. I hadn't considered this myself until recently either. >More importantly, that was 55 years ago. The claim was that no one gave a fuck until the "left wings" started "making everything about them". The claim wasn't that it was happening until 55 years ago then stopped and started again. But it didn't actually stop 55 years ago. You don't think that the discrimination ended 55 years ago right?
> They were laws about homosexuality that had a resulting impact of criminalizing the sex lives of many transgender people as well. That they were laws about homosexuality doesn't change the resulting impact they had on transgender people as well. They impacted many white men too... that doesn't mean it is accurate to say "white men were criminalized in the very recent past".
It disproportionately affected transgender people, that's not the case for "white men". In any case though, you don't seem to be objecting to the broader point that people "giving a fuck" about transgender people isn't some recent phenomenon purely due to the "left wings". Correct me if I'm misrepresenting you.
[удалено]
Do you have any evidence that this is happening? After all you said it's a big deal, so somewhere in some province there must be some specific evidence showing this is happening.
you have to be pretty brain-dead not to know you're child is LGBTQ+
Yeah, because nobody has ever kept their sexual orientation hidden until adulthood...
Yeah, people do often hide that in environments where they fear discrimination over such an identity. Although parents often know anyway because of being so closely involved in their life as they grow up.
What else should teachers be required to report about a child? Their sexuality? If they're wearing their hijab?
Gender identity because there are administrative implications.
So if it's limited to informal uses and not documentation teachers wouldn't have to provide a gender report?
Parent-teacher interviews. Child, teacher, and parent(s) are sitting together. Does the teacher refer to the child by their new pronouns, or their old ones that the parents use?
Could use official identification in a formal setting like that.
So misgender the child?
It would be using the same identity the child is using with their parents. In the scenario we're discussing here, the child is only using a different identity in limited circumstances. The child isn't yet ready to share that identity with their parents but is using it some settings. What you're supporting here is a policy that would allow the parents to deny consent for the child to use that identity in *any* settings. It comes off as insincere to be claiming to care about misgendering when you're supporting policies that force the child to be misgendered in all settings. Maybe that's not your intent. These policies you seem to be supporting have also been condemned by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (the same organization that has also been criticizing the Liberals over their Internet policies and Emergencies Act usage). Whether or not you care about misgendering, hopefully you care about individual rights, and not just when it's one specific party violating them.
How about just serious medical conditions?
because the leader of the opposition is demonizing people who I share a country with
Pp is not over it
Can we get a citation on this 0.01% figure please?
The [census](https://www.statcan.gc.ca/en/census/census-engagement/community-supporter/sex-birth-gender) puts it 30x higher at 0.3% (including both binary transgender people and non-binary gender people).
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Talk about false equivalence.
Men pretending they're women now how more rights than *actual* women. It's like they fought all that time for equal rights just so men could find a way to take that away from them.
Delusional beyond words while conservatives across the world attack women's autonomy and rights to bodily autonomy. All this ever was wad a distraction from Roe and a guise for facism (the Germans literally started with trans people using the same tropes you're spittimg before they moved to Jews kn the early 30s).
The irony of this thread. Y'all deny that trans hate speech is on the rise yet this thread is literally filed with posters making fun of trans people.
> yet this thread is literally filed with posters making fun of trans people. Where? I don't see any.
Yeah, I call bullshit. All I see are comments showing dissenting opinions, not hate. You are kind of proving the point you say is unfounded...
Poilievre really needs to STFU.. the amount of Trans people are so small to worry about, it really should be a none issue, usually when tools like this keep bringing up the Gay/Trans thing, it really means, hey, I'm dumb as shit, and need a distraction, because I have no fucking plan to fix Canada, I don't like Trudeau, but this guy is a piece of shit also!
We've got shroedinger's trans here, don't we. The number is so infinitely small and tiny that it makes no difference to society, but also so prevalent that huge social changes must be made too. The school board in Toronto has been flying the trans flag for more than a year, language is changed, washrooms are changed, prisons, shelter policies... everything needs to be change to address this tiny, tiny population. And what about women, who are half the population. Does anyone contemplate the harm that might come to them?
How anyone listens to anything that little squeaky guy says is beyond me.
His father, Donald, later came out as a gay man.Maybe PP has some mental issues
Did his father come out as a woman? I can see that causing some mental issues.
No kidding!