Oh, Canada: British Columbia may be removing gender from birth certificates

posted at 12:31 pm on May 31, 2015 by Jazz Shaw

Sometimes there just aren’t any words…

Fortunately this story is developing in Canada and not in the United States, at least for now. Katherine Timpf at National Review Online brings us a story of social justice or LGBT rights or… I have no idea what this is to be honest. But the elected representatives of the good people in British Columbia have apparently heard the plaintive cries of the oppressed and are set to consider removing gender classifications from birth certificates.

No… really.

The Human Rights Tribunal in British Columbia will consider completely eliminating gender designations from birth certificates in response to complaints from the Trans Alliance Society (TAS) and other transgender individuals, according to an article in the National Post.

According to the complainants, we need to stop acting as if doctors can tell the sex of a baby just by looking at the baby’s genitals:

Birth certificates [may] give false information about people and characterize them in a way that is actually wrong, that assumes to be right, and causes people . . . actual harm,” said transgender woman and TAS chair Morgane Oger.

According to attorney barbara findlay (who insists we not use capital letters in her name) the antiquated and unfair practice of nosy government busybodies assigning gender on a government document when you’re only a baby is wrong because:

1. Those are not the only two genders, and
2. A person’s “gender develops” over time.

The reason that I said this was only in Canada for now is that the trend is already gaining traction on the home front. The Los Angeles-based Granada Hills Charter High School is already allowing boys who “self-identify as girls” to use the female locker room, even though a (naturally born) girl complained that one such boy stared strangely at her and also peeked at girls over the stalls while they used the toilet. The same thing happened on the other coast in Virginia. It’s even happening in Kentucky.

To place the blame where it truly belongs, we should be honest enough that this all started with Allie McBeal. Even though producer David E. Kelley claimed that the unisex bathroom on the show was only used to save space on the studio lot, he clearly let the genie out of the bottle and should apologize to the nation.

If somebody wants to say that they are the opposite gender from that indicated by their original equipment, that’s up to them. You can dress however you want as long as you’re not endangering anyone else. But as with all other matters of free speech in our society, that doesn’t mean that everyone else has to play along or that you don’t risk being offended by people’s reactions. Or at least that’s how it should be. How it will actually turn out in our courts when a similar movement inevitably shows up in the United States is far from certain.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

great comments at national review:

“gender develops over time”

But I thought homosexuality was a hard-wired genetic trait!

Yes, I think the Big Gay lobby’s defining trait is “bi-sexual”, since they seem to like to have their gender facts both ways. One the one hand we are to understand that gender is a social construct, that it is artificial and unimportant and no laws or social traditions should take gender into account. But on the other hand we are told there are such things as homosexuals and that they identify with a certain and specific male or female gender. So now we must ask, if there is no such thing as gender, why do homosexuals so strongly identify with a specific gender? And are homosexuals born this way? If so, gender is not in fact a social construct but a very real biological polarity…

Typical liberal hypocrites who, like children, don’t even see their hypocrisy and will say anything to try to win an argument.

Precisely. It is hard-wired into you at birth that you’re attracted to women, but it’s up to you to decide if that makes you a man or a lesbian trapped in a man’s body.

Sachiko on May 31, 2015 at 3:12 PM

Yes, they do seem to to have it both ways at different times. Tlaloc tried to bring up the old “it’s a spectrum of behavior” argument yesterday, somehow missing that if it’s a spectrum of behavior, and you can move along that spectrum your entire life, that’s the exact opposite of an inborn and unchangeable “sexual orientation.”

(If I can recycle a comment from yesterday)

There’s the problem that you are using discrete terms to try and describe a spectrum.

What exactly does straight mean? Does it mean you prefer the opposite sex? Does it mean you’ve only ever been attracted to the opposite sex? Only ever had sexual contact with the opposite sex? Is it like the racist “one drop rule” where if you once kissed someone of your sex you are automatically not straight? Is it a measure of your current preferences or does it have to take into account preferences you may have had over the course of your entire life? If you mostly are attracted to the opposite sex but there’s that one member of your own sex you can’t stop thinking about are you gay, straight, or bi-?

It’s a spectrum, consequently terms like straight and gay are poor descriptors of where an individual falls on the spectrum.

Tlaloc on May 30, 2015 at 1:58 PM

The argument for ambiguity always seems to be made when it’s convenient. The Kinsey Institute argued it was a spectrum, which conveniently let them inflate the numbers of homosexuals by suggesting there were large groups of people who were maybe just a little bit gay, and that almost everyone might touch of homosexuality in them.

That whole argument was set aside when homosexuality started being pushed as an inborn and immutable orientation, because it obviously didn’t really fit that model very well. In the sexual orientation model, you were either gay or you weren’t.

Of course, even then, the concept remained, and was the basis for the invented epithet of homophobe, which linguistically means someone who fears homosexuality, not someone who hates it. The idea was that homophobes hated homosexuals because they feared their own latent homosexuality.

But you strangely never heard much about the spectrum of homosexuality any more. That’s probably because Kinsey speculated that there was not only a spectrum of homosexual behavior, but that people could move along that spectrum during their entire life. Which obviously undercut the claim that homosexuality was purely inborn and impossible to change.

But it’s interesting that the speculative spectrum gets brought back up when people’s answers on a survey don’t support the usual propaganda.

There Goes the Neighborhood on May 30, 2015 at 2:54 PM

There Goes the Neighborhood on May 31, 2015 at 9:00 PM

This insanity is spreading because we’re allowing it to spread.

darwin on May 31, 2015 at 12:56 PM

Some people are fighting back, but it’s like trying to get rid of kudzu.

AesopFan on May 31, 2015 at 4:14 PM

Like trying to get rid of kudzu while supposed conservatives are saying, “well, what difference does it make? Just leave it alone.”

A lot of conservative pundits and politicians are like the city elders asking the barbarians, “What will it take to make this go away?”

It’s just a modern-day equivalent of paying the Danegeld.

There Goes the Neighborhood on May 31, 2015 at 9:09 PM

Tlaloc tried to bring up the old “it’s a spectrum of behavior” argument yesterday, somehow missing that if it’s a spectrum of behavior, and you can move along that spectrum your entire life, that’s the exact opposite of an inborn and unchangeable “sexual orientation.”

Yes, many mental disorders do exist on a spectrum–or in other words, have different manifestations, like bipolar disorder (mostly depressive or mostly maniac) but these manifestations have been consistent throughout the person’s life.

But, yes, you’re correct: switching from homosexuality to heterosexuality contradicts an immutable characteristic.

An immutable condition would be a personality disorder that lends to the addiction of lust. And that excessively lustful person could manifest that through different ways…

DevilishSoda on May 31, 2015 at 9:29 PM

Tlaloc tried to bring up the old “it’s a spectrum of behavior” argument yesterday, somehow missing that if it’s a spectrum of behavior, and you can move along that spectrum your entire life, that’s the exact opposite of an inborn and unchangeable “sexual orientation.”

I didn’t say you could move along it. Being a spectrum merely means it is a continuum of states rather than discrete states.

That said I personally find it quite plausible that orientation is a mixture of various elements. Some of it is biological, some of it is likely experiential. And yes that means it can shift over time. Notice that’s not at all the same as saying a person chooses their orientation, though.

Tlaloc on May 31, 2015 at 10:30 PM

Yes, many mental disorders do exist on a spectrum–or in other words, have different manifestations, like bipolar disorder (mostly depressive or mostly maniac) but these manifestations have been consistent throughout the person’s life.

But, yes, you’re correct: switching from homosexuality to heterosexuality contradicts an immutable characteristic.

An immutable condition would be a personality disorder that lends to the addiction of lust. And that excessively lustful person could manifest that through different ways…

DevilishSoda on May 31, 2015 at 9:29 PM

Homosexuality hasn’t been considered a mental disorder for over 40 years now. You might want to catch up on recent history.

Tlaloc on May 31, 2015 at 10:32 PM

Homosexuality hasn’t been considered a mental disorder for over 40 years now. You might want to catch up on recent history.

I know that. It may not be a unique mental disorder, but it sure is a symptom of something else–and not really that good.

DevilishSoda on May 31, 2015 at 10:59 PM

Tlaloc tried to bring up the old “it’s a spectrum of behavior” argument yesterday, somehow missing that if it’s a spectrum of behavior, and you can move along that spectrum your entire life, that’s the exact opposite of an inborn and unchangeable “sexual orientation.”

I didn’t say you could move along it. Being a spectrum merely means it is a continuum of states rather than discrete states.

That said I personally find it quite plausible that orientation is a mixture of various elements. Some of it is biological, some of it is likely experiential. And yes that means it can shift over time. Notice that’s not at all the same as saying a person chooses their orientation, though.

Tlaloc on May 31, 2015 at 10:30 PM

No, you didn’t. But that’s okay, because I didn’t specifically say that you had said it.

But the “spectrum” of homosexuality argument was proposed by Kinsey, who came up with the scale that scored people according to where they were on the spectrum. And Kinsey did claim that people could move along that spectrum throughout their lifetime.

By using Kinsey’s spectrum of homosexuality argument without qualification, you at least implied approval of his theory that people could move along the spectrum as Kinsey claimed.

But it doesn’t really matter whether you intended that or not, since I was commenting on something bigger than just you: the way that “spectrum” claim gets used when it’s convenient to promote homosexual propaganda, even though it contradicts other claims used to promote homosexual propaganda. That is, it’s a binary and unchangeable and inborn orientation when you want to argue that homosexuality is normal because they are that way by nature, but then it’s suddenly a spectrum that includes far more people than just the obvious homosexuals when that argument is more convenient for you — as in, when you want to inflate the numbers, or suggest that some people hate gays because they fear their own homosexuality, or … people don’t answer survey questions according to the current model of “sexual orientation.”

There Goes the Neighborhood on June 1, 2015 at 4:03 AM

Yes, many mental disorders do exist on a spectrum–or in other words, have different manifestations, like bipolar disorder (mostly depressive or mostly maniac) but these manifestations have been consistent throughout the person’s life.

But, yes, you’re correct: switching from homosexuality to heterosexuality contradicts an immutable characteristic.

An immutable condition would be a personality disorder that lends to the addiction of lust. And that excessively lustful person could manifest that through different ways…

DevilishSoda on May 31, 2015 at 9:29 PM

Homosexuality hasn’t been considered a mental disorder for over 40 years now. You might want to catch up on recent history.

Tlaloc on May 31, 2015 at 10:32 PM

Of course, those who have been paying attention to recent history rather than just to the occasional headline already know both that homosexuality is not listed as a mental disorder, and that the reason had nothing to do with science, and everything to do with the bullying of the APA by gay activists.

If you had managed to get homosexuality removed from the DSM by proving it was not a mental disorder, then its removal would vindicate your claim. But by pursuing the political route of pressure, bullying, and intimidation, the removal from the DSM merely proves that the APA was not willing to stand up to the pressure.

There Goes the Neighborhood on June 1, 2015 at 4:13 AM

I read an article about ten years ago that said men will be extinct in about 200,000 years. I think it may be sooner.

djl130 on June 1, 2015 at 8:16 AM

Homosexuality hasn’t been considered a mental disorder for over 40 years now. You might want to catch up on recent history.

Tlaloc on May 31, 2015 at 10:32 PM

We also know the change was not made due to some new insight, but to the bullies who lobbied and forced the organization to change through internal pressure. And we continue to see this in recent history. (You might want to catch up on that!)

We now know that not only is homosexuality a mental disorder that results in a sinful behavior, we also know it causes normal thinking human beings to become barbaric bullies who desire to force their mental disorder on the rest of society so that those warped minds “feel” normal.

It’s almost like a zombie-outbreak. Normally thinking human beings become drooling barbaric creatures with only depravity on the mind. And just like zombies, they stop being individual humans but become creatures who identify themselves only by their depravity. It’s really a sad blight on humanity.

/sarc or not to sarc, that is the question…

dominigan on June 1, 2015 at 9:18 AM

I was driving down the main drag of our town last week around noontime when I noticed this tall (and not small-boned) figure walking in the same direction on the far side of the street. The short shorts (though I’m sure “hot pants” existed in his vocabulary) revealed long muscular smooth legs stuck in very large wedgie shoes. The top was tied off at the waist and the brown hair was nearly waist length. I didn’t get a good look at the face because of traffic, but its features were bold in profile. In short, “she” may have felt that “she passed” apparently even in broad daylight, but I’ve got news for “her”.

But the bottom line for this article’s relativity is that had she been attacked or gone missing, how would “she” like to be described in a police bulletin? What report form has enough space for “large-frame woman with bold manly features and long hair”? Or would she feel more secure if described as a “F, 6’2″, 200#”, or maybe “F, 44 Long who believes she “passes”?

The point is for government/official identification for your own benefit, not trying to get others to believe your “pass”; you may not have enough time for all that…

OCULUS on June 1, 2015 at 12:15 PM

It is a war on boys and all things masculine. The boy scouts are turning into a garden club. Pretty soon the Den Mothers will run the place and no one will want to go anymore.

We have all these celebration days for various alternative lifestyles at work now too.

Throwing out all male/female differences so that a tiny percentage of unfortunate people don’t feel different or singled out is the new rule and victims are the new heroes.

timoric on June 1, 2015 at 2:06 PM

I’m sick of these transgender freaks.

JackM on June 1, 2015 at 2:39 PM

If you’re so screwed up, your gender is the biggest issue in your life, then you shouldn’t be walking around loose.

JackM on June 1, 2015 at 2:41 PM

I don’t care if a bunch of transgender oddballs are oppressed.

That’s a small price to pay for a normal society.

JackM on June 1, 2015 at 2:45 PM

Homosexuality hasn’t been considered a mental disorder for over 40 years now. You might want to catch up on recent history.

Tlaloc on May 31, 2015 at 10:32 PM

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

It’s an obvious defect.

JackM on June 1, 2015 at 2:49 PM

I read an article about ten years ago that said men will be extinct in about 200,000 years. I think it may be sooner.

djl130 on June 1, 2015 at 8:16 AM

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

We all had better start bagging more chicks before it’s too late.

Transgender bastards excepted, of course.

JackM on June 1, 2015 at 2:58 PM