The Vast Bathroom Conspiracy, February 2013 edition

They're out to get you. That's what proponents of the Vast Bathroom Conspiracy would have you believe.

Bill C-279 is a federal Canadian bill that if passed, unamended, aims to add the terms "gender identity" and "gender expression" to the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code.

Explicitly affirming that Canada's equality rights actually apply to "everyone" doesn't necessarily make everyone happy. Even federal Members of Parliament have been known to participate in spreading the unhappiness on either current or previous iterations of the bill, one MP for this iteration going so far as to create a petition that tries to prevent some trans people from accessing washroom facilities (or, if one were to follow the actual language of the petition precisely, would affirm that people who have transitioned to male should continue to use non-female washrooms).

Unlike the Alberta Government's "CROTCHES KILL" campaign (featured above, slightly cropped), fearmongering propagandists have no evidence whatsoever that affirming Canada's equality rights do indeed extend to all Canadians will translate into terror in the toilets. Except, of course, in the fervid imaginations of those same fearmongering propagandists.

However, amendments to Bill C-279 appear highly likely. The bill possiblymaybeperhaps will be back in Parliament for third reading on February 27, 2013.


Note: See Alberta Transportation for the uncropped image (above) and full range of advertisements focused on trying to get people who text-and-drive to stop doing so. Alberta Transportation also has actual statistics of actual harm connected to distracted driving.

Trans air travel: this explains almost everything

Back in January 2012, trans Canadians were startled to learn transgender people weren't allowed to board airplanes in Canada through a detailed post by blogger Christin Milloy. The problem arose from changes to regulations governing the federal Aeronautics Act that had come in to effect in July 2011.

The Canadian Bar Association's Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Conference (SOGIC) wrote a letter urging the Minister of Public Safety to amend the regulations to be inclusive of transgender and gender non-conforming people.

A motion to repeal this portion of the Act was defeated 6 to 5 in a meeting of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Where does this strange animus against transgender and gender non-conforming travellers come from? Why do legislators and policy makers freak out at the notion of trans folk travelling? Perhaps this clip from The IT Crowd (Series 3, "The Speech") explains it all:

... starting @ 1:30 on the clip:

Douglas: Oh, poppet. To think, when we met, you were so worried that you came from Iran.

April: What?

Douglas: When we met. As if I'd be worried about something like that. I don't care where you're from-- Iran, France--doesn't bother me. I'm very modern.

April: I'm not from Iran.

Douglas: Well you said something along those lines.

April: No, no--not Iran, a man. I said I used to be a man.

Home, sweet home ...

Via Slashdot, the American Department of Homeland Security considers the border to be within a 100-mile thick zone, according to a Wired article by David Kravets, DHS Watchdog OKs 'Suspicionless' Seizure of Electronic Devices Along Border. This generous border interpretation allows for searches on people passing through American border points long after they may believe they have completed this process.

According to a prior Wired article, ACLU Assails 100-Mile Border Zone as 'Constitution Free', and an ACLU fact sheet on what is described as a U.S. "Constitution-Free Zone", this interpretation of the border is being demarcated inland from the outer edge of the US border.

While this isn't happy news for folks on the inland side of that border, this is fortunate for those folks residing in Canada, because a substantial amount of Canada's "population lives in a narrow corridor at the southern part of the country, near the American border."

The 2006 Atlas of Canada from Natural Resources Canada has a population distribution map. Note the proximity of Canadian population to American borders.

Future-perfect: the rationally designed human

A bioethicist suggests that genetically engineering babies along a "rational design" would benefit humanity.Professor Julian Savulescu of the University of Oxford is quoted as saying, "Indeed, when it come to screening out personality flaws, such as potential alcoholism, psychopathy and disposition to violence, you could argue that people have a moral obligation to select ethically better children."  

What else might be erased under the notion of a 'personality flaw'? Would humanity truly improve by removing perceived flaws or is there a net benefit to retaining diversity? As the professor notes, "routinely screening embryos and foetuses for conditions such as cystic fibrosis and Down's syndrome" results in "little public outcry."

Earlier this year, there was public outcry when it was discovered that an American reproductive clinic offering gender selection services was advertising its services in Canada. Sex-selective procedures are illegal in Canada under Section 5(1)(e) of the Assisted Human Reproduction Act. Advertising such services is also illegal under the Act.

Also under Section 5(1)(e), though, the Assisted Human Reproduction Act does allow for sex-selective procedures "to prevent, diagnose or treat a sex-linked disorder or disease ...". Under the DSM and it's proposed revisions, a substantial list of conditions fall under the broad category of Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders. How broadly applied might legislation allowing genetic manipulation actually be?

I think it's fair to state that Western culture remains heavily biased towards a sex binary and that as such, the dominant culture might consider eradicating the possibility of trans at a genetic level to be a perfectly acceptable and even non-contentious decision.

But is eradicating the trans experience from the human experience actually such an easy decision? Would those who have undergone this experience agree that the possibility of being trans is itself problematic?

Is there value to undergoing the trans experience? Does such an experience have lessons to share with those who haven't and won't undergo that experience? As trans people, would we be comfortable with trans identities never having the opportunity to exist? Is there some sort of intrinsic value to coming to know ourselves as not fitting our assigned identity and undertaking the journey to uncover and assert ourselves as who we are?

Telegraph article originally linked via Slashdot.

First provincial protection for gender identity

Ontario's Bill 33, Toby's Act (Right to be Free from Discrimination and Harassment Because of Gender Identity or Gender Expression), 2012, successfully passed third reading on June 13 and is now awaiting royal assent. The Act adds the phrases "gender identity" and "gender expression" as enumerated grounds for protection from discrimination and harassment. 

A similar bill is under consideration in Manitoba. Bill 36, The Human Rights Code Amendment Act, adds the phrase "gender identity" to the provincial human rights code among other changes. 

Toby's Act establishes Ontario as the first province to choose make protection for gender identity explicit. However, Canada's first regional legislative protection for gender identity was established by the Northwest Territories' Human Rights Act.

On disguises and lawful excuses

Bill C-309–the Preventing Persons from Concealing Their Identity during Riots and Unlawful Assemblies Act–has passed second reading and is now heading to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Bill C-309 will make "wearing a mask or other disguise to conceal [a person's] identity without lawful excuse" a criminal offence should such a mask or disguise happen to be worn during a riot.

Authorities have been known to accuse trans people of wearing a disguise or be suspicious based on apparent gender non-conformity (p. 53), sometimes for the purposes of engaging in prostitution. At least one elected official has suggested that Canadians who fail to have matching identification are a security threat to air travel.

The Preventing Persons from Concealing Their Identity during Riots and Unlawful Assemblies Act is sponsored by MP Blake Richards, who has previously claimed that granting explicit federal protection for gender identity and gender expression should not be allowed on the grounds that "gender identity is subjective ... ." Bill C-309 also appears to include subjective terminology: it does not define what counts as an "other disguise" nor does it explain what constitutes a "lawful excuse" for such a disguise.