No Trans In The Military Says Trump

[Javaman]

Umm no. The bolded is flat out wrong. To borrow a quote from the Canadian Bar Association: "This is a misunderstanding of human rights and hate crimes legislation." I've got more quotes to demonstrate your wrongness should you be interested.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/16/canada...-pronouns/

The fact is that in Ontario, there is an arbitrating body, the Human Rights Commission, which serves not as a court but as a tribunal, meaning they can pretty much drum up whatever charges they want, without the accused being able to mount a legal defense.  It also has very great discretion to determine what constitutes a "hate crime," and given the current political climate, this is a dangerous thing.

Ontario Human Rights Code guidelines “mandate” the use of genderless pronouns on request, he said.

“Mandating use of pronouns requires one to use words that are not their own that imply a belief in or agreement with a certain theory on gender,” he added.

“If you try to disavow that theory, you can be brought before the Human Rights Commission for misgendering or potentially find yourself guilty of a hate crime. To sum up, on the subject of gender, we’re going to have government-mandated speech.”

A Canadian gym owner was brought up on charges for refusing to let a trans-gender "woman" use the women's changing room because she was walking around with her penis exposed.  The gym owner ended up saddled with $100k legal fees, which neither the Commission nor the penis-displaying woman were required to compensate.

See?  Special snowflake, special rules, real inconvenience to normal people.  It's a problem.

Your initial claim was that recent legislation made it a criminal offence in Canada to use the wrong gender pronoun when addessing transgendered people. I pointed out that the claim was false.

Rather than acknowledging the initial claim was wrong, you then shifted the goalposts to suggest there may be repercussions in civil legal jurisdictions, such as the Ontario Human Rights tribunal, if a private individual uses the wrong pronoun when addressing a trans person. Even when reading through the heavily biased sources you provide, it's so unlikely that a private individual would face any repercussions whatsoever for using the wrong pronoun, that it is frankly irrational to present them as cautionary examples. Both sources, LifeSite (Catholic) and The Daily Caller (conservative) are so blatantly obvious as propaganda sites that I'm genuinely surprised you used them to support your claims. The language they use to depict a worst case scenario for someone who dares to use the "incorrect" pronouns is so vague and wishy washy that it's hard to take them seriously, even if you're not aware of their biases in advance.

To me, it's still pretty clear that your interpretation is wrong, despite your changing of the criteria. You seem to be conflating a whole bunch of different issues to make your point.

Oh yeah, I nearly forgot to address this: "See?  Special snowflake, special rules, real inconvenience to normal people.  It's a problem"

Your anti-trans bias is showing by identifying them as "not normal". Not to mention your prior descriptions of such things as bullshit.