The Day 37 British Columbia MLAs Tried to Advance a Bill to Eliminate Your Basic Human Rights (donshafer1.substack.com)

submitted 1 day ago by streetfestival@lemmy.ca to c/canada@lemmy.ca

28 comments fedilink hide all child comments

(That day was February 26, 2026)

The vote was 50 against. 37 in favour.

Names, districts, and email addresses of all MLAs voting 'yea' included

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 4 points 22 hours ago

I'm pretty sure shariah isn't forcing anyone to respect trans rights.

BC fined a person in a position of authority for making harmful comments about a vulnerable minority.

If the mayor got fined for saying hateful things about black or indigenous people, would you be crying about "free speech"?

[-] maplesaga@lemmy.world -4 points 18 hours ago

Well it seems as though gender is a construct, forcing people to believe some spiritual and pseudoscientific jargon isn't the same as shariah?

[-] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 2 points 18 hours ago

Everything is a social construct, from the languages we speak to the base-10 numeral systems we consider standard, and the units of measurements we use to describe the universe and everything it contains.

And no, shariah is specifically a theocratic legal system based on the authority of muslim religious scholars called imams to write and enforce laws based on the Quran and the Hadith. It's not the same thing at all, no matter how many layers of mental gymnastics you pass it through in an effort to contort reality into some semblance of what you want it to be.

Using religion to justify pigeonholing everyone into one of two mutually exclusive categories and discriminating against anyone who doesn't fit within those norms is far closer to being "spiritual and pseudoscienctific jargon" than simply saying "everyone's choices for how to identify and present themselves relative to the social construct of gender should be respected, especially by the authorities," but since that conflicts with your preferred narrative I don't expect you to actually be able to see things from that broader perspective.

[-] maplesaga@lemmy.world -1 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

OK how many genders are there, what correct answer should not be a finable offense, answer me that and I'll relent. Perhaps I'm just unaware of the scientific consensus number, and I'll admit my ignorance and bigotry.

If its "anything but 2" then obviously that is ridiculous.

[-] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 5 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

You're asking the wrong questions in an attempt to make it sound more ridiculous than it is. It's not about reaching some scientific consensus of the exact number of genders that exist.

You said it yourself, gender is a social construct. So why limit it to just two and exactly two? Because you want to dictate who and what everyone else can be?

If gender is a social construct, and you want to be entirely objective, then there are zero genders. Gender is just a myth. From a subjective point of view, gender describes how a person identifies, presents, and expresses oneself, in which case there are as many genders as people identify as.

The "scientific consensus" is that there are at least three biological sexes, and that sex is a spectrum in which male and female provide the two polarities, and intersex describes anything in between. Gender, on the other hand, being a social construct, is more in the realm of sociology, and not the place for making concrete scientific assertions that impose extrinsic limitations on individual expression. From the perspective of psychology, an individual's gender identity should be respected, acknowledged, and affirmed, because this has been shown to have the best outcomes out of all the treatment options.

As far as "finable offense" goes, you're really missing the point. Average Joe Schmoe at the local dive bar isn't going to get a ticket for saying there's only two genders. He'd just be wrong, and people might avoid him, or maybe even argue with him, but he's not going to get fined over it.

If you're entrusted as a public servant in a position of authority, with potentially hundreds or even thousands of people whose day-to-day lives depend on your decisions, then you're responsible for the ways in which your words impact those people's lives, you should be held to a higher standard, and you have a duty to govern your personal conduct accordingly. Someone in such a position making comments that deliberately exclude a vulnerable minority group and invalidate their personal identities causes harm, and shouldn't be treated as protected political speech because it's not done in the capacity of a private citizen but as a representative of the state.

[-] maplesaga@lemmy.world -3 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

Anything but two you say. Great, let's make more ambiguous rules based on "your truth".

I'm fine if someone wants to call themselves a Ze or Zeh, but the ambiguity is silly and should never be codified into law. Let's not make a mockery of laws people need to follow based on peoples feelings.

[-] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 3 points 7 hours ago

You either didn't read my comment or you deliberately missed the point.

I didn't say "anything but two," I simply said something that wasn't "exactly two," and you apparently can't handle that because you seem to think your opinion is the only valid one (since you impose an arbitrary restriction such as "anything other than two is ambiguous").

It's not about how many genders there are. It's about not imposing arbitrary restrictions on how other people live their lives. No one in their right mind is trying to say "there are exactly [3, 8, 144, or however many] genders." You're the only one trying to say "there are exactly two."

You're acting like other people are trying to make laws to dictate how you live your life based on how they feel, but the truth is you are the one who wants laws dictating how other people live their lives based on how you feel.

No one is writing laws saying "you must recognize exactly eight genders." The only people trying to write laws like that are the ones who believe everyone must conform to one of exactly two genders, and that it must correspond to the sex they were assigned at birth.

Trans rights isn't about forcing you to recognize some arbitrary number. It's about being inclusive of people's identities instead of writing arbitrary rules about what they can and cannot be.

TL;DR, you're the only one trying to force your feelings about an arbitrary number of genders (in your case, two) on everyone else.

[-] definitemaybe@lemmy.ca 3 points 4 hours ago

He's sealioning you, not arguing in good faith.

It's more effective to call out the behaviour than to continue to engage, since continued engagement makes it seem like there's a "debate" or "two sides" and that his side is the rational one that's "just asking questions".

That's bullshit. He knows exactly what he's doing. Trolling and trying to shift the Overton window. It's bad faith manipulation, not a conversation. Treat it as such.

[-] maplesaga@lemmy.world 0 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

You’re acting like other people are trying to make laws to dictate how you live your life based on how they feel, but the truth is you are the one who wants laws dictating how other people live their lives based on how you feel.

Well sorry, its a lot to respond to, I was referencing the punishment of a 750k fine for wrongspeech. I'm not saying we should fine trans people or force them to put male/female on their birth certificate, I've got no qualms about how people view or define themselves, I'm of the belief people should even be able to go as far as to say they are any race they want. Though I also believe the government should be race/gender neutral as well, so identity would no role in our dealings with the government.