CIRCLING THE DRAIN

Friday, November 19th, 2010 | Uncategorized

Presented without comment:

The Vancouver City Council voted unanimously Tuesday to back a controversial federal private members bill seeking to criminalize “discrimination” against the gender-confused.

The motion, brought forward by Councillor Ellen Woodsworth, supported New Democrat MP Bill Siksay’s Bill C-389, which aims to add “gender identity” and “gender expression” as prohibited grounds for discrimination to the Canada Human Rights Act and as identifiable groups in the Criminal Code’s hate crimes legislation.

The motion was offered in support of the “transgendered and transsexual residents, cross-dressers, drag kings/queens, transsexuals, androgynes, Two-Spirit people, gender variant, gender queer, and people who are bi-gendered, multi-gendered or otherwise identified.”

24 Comments to CIRCLING THE DRAIN

Katherine
November 19, 2010

“Otherwise identified.” I would like to be a Japanese maple tree. Is that okay?

Toral
November 19, 2010

The motion was offered in support of the “transgendered and transsexual residents, cross-dressers, drag kings/queens, transsexuals, androgynes, Two-Spirit people, gender variant, gender queer, and people who are bi-gendered, multi-gendered or otherwise identified.”

Oh come on. The Liberal Party of canada is already doing quite well for itself without special protection.

Ba-dum-bum

Jean
November 19, 2010

What is “multi-gendered?” Are there more than 2? I guess I should be asking VGR.

Stephen
November 19, 2010

In other words, a certain gene determines whether I’m straight or gay, but a Y chromosome doesn’t necessarily make me a man?

Bill in Ottawa
November 19, 2010

The vast majority of private members bills in Canada never get past first reading. The ones that do are either unanimously supported, like changing the name of a district, or that win an internal lottery.

Even then it has to pass through two more readings in the House of Commons and then three readings in the Senate.

These bills are often used as trial balloons or as political statements. This particular one has about the same chance of survival as a snowball in Phoenix at noon on Independence Day.

Michael
November 19, 2010

Another great reason to not live in Canada.

The Little Myrmidon
November 19, 2010

On behalf of “Two-Spirit” people everywhere, I want you to know that you’re all just so mean.

Katherine
November 19, 2010

Good to know, Bill in Ottawa.

JustMe
November 19, 2010

“Multi-gendered”? “Otherwise identified”? Does that include robots ‘cuz I’ve heard that’s all the craze now; robot partners.

skeptic5
November 19, 2010

If THEY can’t tell who/what they are, how can I tell how to discriminate against ‘em? Or not?

Fuinseoig
November 19, 2010

I’m definitely gender confused, because for the life of me I cannot see the distinction between “bi-gendered” and “multi-gendered”.

What happens? How does that work? “On Monday, I’m a straight girl. On Tuesday, I’m a straight guy. On Wednesday, I’m a lesbian trapped in a man’s body. On Thursday, I’m a gay man in a woman’s body. On Friday, I’m bisexual. On Saturday, I’m neuter. And on Sunday, I have a lie-in.”

I can see someone being male convinced they’re really female; I can see someone being female convinced they’re really male; I can even, if I try hard enough, see someone incorporating both the animus and anima portions of the psyche, but for the life of me, I cannot see someone being more than two genders (either consecutively or simultaneously).

Or was this covered that day I missed biology class? Today, children, we learn about the three other human genders?

Don Janousek
November 19, 2010

Hey, I know just how these folks feel. I have been gender-confused for a long time and need help. Are there any 20-something blonde cheerleaders reading this thread who could travel out here to central Nebraska and help me decide which way to go? Anyone? Anyone?

J.M. Heinrichs
November 19, 2010

1. It’s just an excuse to hate the ‘tri-gendered community’.
2.”… 20-something blonde cheerleaders…” who look like Brad Pitt?

Cheers

The Pilgrim
November 19, 2010

As a representative of the quasi-gendered beings residing in Canada, I want to know why we were left out of this bigotted, exclusivist bill!

Don Janousek
November 19, 2010

J.M. Heinrichs: I was thinking more of the Megyn Kelly look from Fox. However, if Brad shows up, I’ll be glad to send him your way. No thanks needed. Enjoy.

midwestnorwegian
November 19, 2010

On the other hand, us fat, ugly people (speaking definitively only about myself) will continue to be a pariah to all.

bob
November 19, 2010

Are the multi/bi/otherwise gendered folks assumed to be set in stone? I mean, can that be re-decided from one day of the week to another? Can I use one restroom this week and the (perhaps an-other) other one next week? It must be discriminatory to say no, isn’t it? Really some things just deserve loud, prolonged laughter. Try and enforce something this stupid.

Baillie
November 20, 2010

Sounds to me as if they were having a right old boozy gender-bender.

Can anyone enlighten me on the meaning of ‘multi-gendered”?

Jim the Puritan
November 20, 2010

I wonder what the McKenzie Brothers think about this one, eh?

Smurf Breath
November 20, 2010

@bob,

I’d defy even the most hard core liberal to read that last paragraph Chris quoted without bursting into laughter. It reads like parody.

Smurf Breath
November 20, 2010

Aha! Maybe by multigendered and “otherwise identified” they’re referring to “objectum sexuality”. Remember that woman who married the Eiffel Tower? I believe another one married the Berlin Wall.

Fuinseoig
November 20, 2010

Pilgrim, wouldn’t “quasi-gendered” fall under “other identified”?

Smurf Breath, I imagine the Eiffel Tower is definitely male, so unless the woman who married it is either (1) not gender-identified as female or (2) the Eiffel Tower is gay (how do we know it’s not? Has anyone offered it counselling? Maybe Bishop Robinson can call into Paris on his retirement tour and offer guidance?) – if one of the parties is male and the other is female, then I don’t see “multi-gendered” as covering objectum sexuality.

But I am, as ever, open to correction. Of course, since “tower” in French is feminine (la tour), perhaps the Eiffel Tower is gender-confused itself or unsure about its sexuality (a male-identifed tower in a female declension?) so I do see your point.

bob
November 20, 2010

Since my gender is “invisible”, I can come right into the stall with you, OK? This Canadian idea does make things more convenient, as it means anyone anywhere can drop into the closest restroom without paying attention to what it says on the door. Or for that matter, I expect it doesn’t really have to be a “restroom” at all. My gender is “dog” and I go anywhere I like. I might be a housebroken dog or I might not. What day is it? I can think of several ways to protest this regulation, all of which would get a lot of attention really fast.

Ed the Roman
November 21, 2010

“In other words, a certain gene determines whether I’m straight or gay, but a Y chromosome doesn’t necessarily make me a man?”

If in doubt, see Dr. Frank N. Furter – in just sreven days, he can make you a man.

Support The MCJ

Search

Links

Meta