Beginning to Untangle Gender Identity and the Law

            America is riddled with fear. We see it every day: Violence, apathy, confusion, and fear. It doesn’t matter where you’re from or who you are; in America, you’re afraid of something. There are intelligent people on both sides of every argument about policy. Whether you consider yourself liberal or conservative or somewhere in between, there’s something you’re afraid of. Some people would use this to your advantage. Others would use it to limit your freedoms and imprison you, whether in a facility or within yourself.

            We begin to untangle these issues by talking about both sides. Communication is a two-way street and I have witnessed first-hand, second-hand and third-hand how poor communication can ruin a perfectly good friendship. People can be friends no matter what side of the fence they are on, as long as they are willing to listen to each other’s points of view.  

            The gender identity debate seems to be strong, these days. The thing is, it’s not a very important argument. It doesn’t really matter what someone calls you as long as they treat you with dignity and respect—as you deserve based on your behaviour. It doesn’t matter what or who you say you are, or what or who you actually are. What matters is what you do with what you have. Are you making things around you better, or worse?

            When it comes to the gender identity debate, this question comes into play frequently. On the Left, the idea seems to be along these lines: “Anyone who doesn’t recognize my self-identity is making my life worse by disrespecting me.” On the right, the idea seems to be something along the lines of: “People who claim to be something they’re not are making my life worse by taking my attention away from things that matter.” Both of these ideas are expanded upon in many ways all over social media and society.

            Let’s start with the idea outlined above for the Left: “Anyone who doesn’t recognize my self-identity is making my life worse by disrespecting me.” It has been seen in some universities that there are people who believe this idea means that a person who uses the wrong pronoun when talking to another person is committing assault or harassment against the other person. This has legal implications and, if implicated, would have real ramifications in the legal world. People could be arrested for harassment or assault just for calling a transgender woman “he,” even if it was an accident. It implies that a transgender person would charge someone with such a crime just for using the wrong pronoun.

            To another degree, less extreme, the idea above simply means that everyone should make an active effort to use “proper pronouns” when addressing other people. The people who think this way and can articulate a reasonable argument tend to phrase their opinions in a way similar to: “Once you know someone’s preferred identity and pronouns, you need to use them when you’re talking to them. It’s disrespectful not to because you’re refusing to accept who they are. Centrists can also think of things this way.

            The Right tends to see things a little differently. “People who claim to be something they’re not are making my life worse by taking my attention away from things that matter.” Many intelligent people who think this way believe that gender identity isn’t even slightly important. They may believe there are only two sexes and only two genders; they may believe that sex and gender are the same thing, and they may even believe other things that have nothing to do with gender identity but are often seen by the Left as bigoted, prejudicial, and inaccurate. The point here is that with this argument, gender identity shouldn’t be a priority. It shouldn’t matter what someone calls you or what you think you are, and people on the Right tend to see those who prioritize pronouns and “special” identities as just wanting to be “special” and get special attention.

            Many reasonable people, Centrists and those on the Right, see bigger issues as more important. By “bigger issue,” I mean an issue that affects everyone, regardless of what, where, or who they are. These issues include climate change, corrupt government, capitalism, big banks, voter fraud, and pollution. Many people do not want to spend their time figuring out that their friend Jon wants to be called Catie now and doesn’t want to be referred to as “he” or “him,” anymore. They’d rather hang out with Jon, be free to make the mistake of using Catie’s old name and pronouns, and still have fun or get work done together.

            The universities are a place for concern for people who do not prioritize gender identity as a problem that needs to be fixed. I know many people who are more than happy to use Catie’s new name and stop calling her Jon. They might make a mistake sometimes, because Catie still looks like Jon and is pretty hairy and bulky, but these are genuine people who do what they can to be sure their friends are comfortable.

            It is a fact that gender and sex are not the same thing, even in science. This does not mean that gender and sex are completely separate, however. On Tumblr, there can be found more “genders” than an ordinary or reasonable person would want to count in a day. Many of them do not make sense and may include alien or animal qualities, or both. Tumblr is an insane spot of the Internet and the gender identity debate runs as deep as it gets unreasonable. Just because a person with a male body can have the mind and spirit of a girl, and a person with a male body can have the mind and spirit of a boy, does not mean they are not human, and “animalkin” genders and genders that “change” regularly are not acceptable in the world of law.

            So, we transition into our talk about legal consequences of ideas presented within the gender identity argument. This also brings hate speech into the discussion here, where we detangle the mess that is this whole debate when it comes to law.

            In many places, including universities, there’s an idea that “hate speech” should be considered a crime. There is some debate and discussion over whether to classify “hate speech” as harassment or assault, but make no mistake: harassment and assault are crimes. They are also torts (civil wrongs), which naturally have lighter implications of law, but when these discussions are being had at these high levels, they’re talking about crimes.

            First, a person must define “hate speech.” In this case, we’re talking about gender identity. In this case, the Left might say “hate speech” is when a person doesn’t use the “proper pronoun” while talking to another person. Therefore, by calling Catie by Jon and addressing her as “he” or “him,” Catie could theoretically charge the person with harassment or assault for “hate speech,” by not using Catie’s preferred pronouns.

            In the legal world, the ramifications of this limit free speech. It’s reasonable for a Centrist or someone on the right to worry about freedom of speech from government prosecution when people talk about enacting laws that would classify “hate speech” in such a way.

            An argument from the Left concerning free speech in terms of hate speech and gender identity is as follows: “Free speech can and should be limited.” They’re absolutely correct to say this, but that doesn’t mean it should be limited to the point of infringing on liberty—another Constitutional right wherein the interpretation is often debated.

            Law can be debated. Liberty can be debated. The definition of “hate speech” can be debated, and it can even be debated whether or not a person can be transgender. What is fact, however, is that gender identity is not something that should shape our laws. The Left is right to fear the slippery slope of infringements of rights that could easily come after a piece of legislation passes to condemn “hate speech” in an extreme way.

            This fear can be seen with the Canadian bill C-16. This bill is sometimes cited in debates about “hate speech” and “free speech.” Those who may not understand it very well think that this law, in Canada, allows a person to charge another with the crime of harassment or assault because that person uses the “wrong pronoun” when talking to them. This is false.

            First, you can read the bill C-16 at https://openparliament.ca/bills/42-1/C-16/. Here, it is described as an act that amends a previous statute and applies to propaganda. A reasonable person might then look up the word “propaganda.” Here is where even a reasonable person may be confused. If they go to Google first, the definition that comes up is as follows:

prop·a·gan·da

ˌpräpəˈɡandə/Submit

noun

1. derogatory

information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.

"he was charged with distributing enemy propaganda"

synonyms:       information, promotion, advertising, publicity, spin; More

2. a committee of cardinals of the Roman Catholic Church responsible for foreign missions, founded in 1622 by Pope Gregory XV.

            A legal definition for propaganda can be found at https://thelawdictionary.org/propaganda/. Someone who reads Google’s definition might think that it can apply to anything. This is especially true if someone doesn’t understand that propaganda must be published, or if they do not understand what a publication is. Essentially, a publication is anything put into written form, with or without pictures (but typically with pictures), and distributed to other people, or third parties. The legal definition at the link above explains that propaganda is a persuasive publication with a targeted message. I have used propaganda throughout this blog entry to influence how you take the information I present.

            Ultimately, I think gender identity has no real place in the law except for anti-discrimination laws. Beyond that, the idea that a person who calls a person by the “wrong pronoun” should be charged with assault or harassment seems like an extreme response to a social situation that could be handled with more effective communication. I think that we have bigger fish to fry. My goal here was simply to give some information that might help people understand that Canada is not, in fact, arresting people for using the wrong words.

Prioritizing Progress

Humans are an emotional bunch. We are volatile because we feel things very deeply and very intensely. When it comes down to it, though, I believe we all want the same thing: Peace and harmony. The question is, and always has been, how do we attain it?

            There are many ideas and many opinions surrounding what the primary priority should be for the future of humanity. Businessmen say we must focus entirely on the economy to ensure we have a future to look forward to. Environmentalists say we must take action to stop and reverse global warming. Social justice warriors say that we must focus most intensely on social issues and encourage people to treat each other with love, respect, and dignity, in order to move forward progressively. All of these ideas and opinions have merit—some more than others.

            Some of the most educated and intelligent people of our time will insist that climate change must be our first priority. After all, if we do not have an environment to live in, what kind of future are we propelling towards? Many organizations exist in the names of sustainability and reversing the damage already done by humans, such as 350.org (https://350.org/) and Greenpeace (http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/). Evidence of climate change can be seen in the Arctic, where sea ice melts more every day, starving more polar bears. The climate change has bees dying in numbers large enough to seriously threaten the ecosystem—along with our pollution. Climate change is only one issue environmentalists face. Pollution causes far more damage than just heating up the atmosphere or killing off a species or two; pollution can be seen in the millions of disposable plastic items filling our coastlines and waters, choking and suffocating increasingly more aquatic life and polluting the bloodstreams of entire food chains. How will humans survive climate change if the ecosystem is destroyed by our thoughtlessness and apathy?

            Others believe we must focus on economic well-being. Without a good economy, they say, there is no point in having a good environment. People who view economic interests as a higher priority than environmental concerns believe that environmentalists and actions people encourage others to take to help the environment only encourage people to move backwards—to live simpler lives and to stop doing things. Corporatists and economists believe that environmentalists want to return humanity to a prehistoric era of caveman-esque living, such as hunting and gathering and essentially acting as any other mammal on Earth. Most economists believe that the environment is worth fighting for and saving, as they recognize that this is our one and only Earth and if we want to survive, we must treat it well. However, views as to which environmental aspects should be prioritized vary greatly among economists, as can be seen by the above graphic.

            Still others believe that social issues are of the utmost importance and must be addressed immediately. Gallup.com (http://www.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx) conducted a number of surveys to determine what Americans see has the most important issues facing the country. Such topics as the environment, politics, and the legal system were covered. Social justice warriors view social issues and political issues as the highest priority facing humanity because they think that there is no point in having a good environment if humans continue treating each other poorly—with excessive cruelty and abuse. If we cannot unite as a race, social justice warriors may argue, how will we ever come together to save the environment or anything else? Social justice warriors recognize the importance of facts and research. They do not deny the importance of environmental issues or economic issues. Instead, they choose to focus on that which they feel is closest to home and of the utmost importance: Society.

            All this can seem confusing for someone who sees the merit in every point of view. With so many issues needing solutions, how should we choose our priorities and act on them? How can we band together and create fast, sustainable, positive change? Those who have asked this question have come up with multiple solutions, though today’s most evident seem to be memes. It is important to be informed on all subjects when considering how to take action or what action to take. Personally, I side with the environmentalists, but as someone who recognizes the importance of every issue, I think that environmentalism can be marketed to all demographics. I believe that we, as a race—as a species on planet Earth—can unite as a whole behind the right cause and I believe the right cause is finding a way to live with nature in a sustainable way. I do not believe we need to eliminate much, if any, of what we currently do as a species; instead, I think we should change the way we do things so that we are more efficient. The greenhouse gasses we emit into the air can be captured and reused and put into the Earth as nutrients. Our buildings can be made to act like organisms and maximize the efficiency of energy and water usage. Using science, we have united the people of America before with images of our planet from space—unprecedented images that showed us without a doubt that our borders are imaginary and we are one of many life forms inhabiting Earth. We need another event such as what we had at the height of the Space Age to bring people together behind the causes that affect us all.

            It is easy for a Christian to demonize a Muslim due to lack of understanding. It is easy for white people to disregard the struggles of people of color by thinking, “It doesn’t affect me.” People imagine borders between countries as real things of great importance that protect their ways of life and their well-being and consider interlopers to be threats to their safety. It is easy to forget to be kind when others in your life have shown you nothing but cruelty. In order to reach the hearts of others, we must put ourselves in their position and look through their eyes. See where they’re coming from and meet them on their side of the fence. It is not easy, but it is worth it. Not every mind will be changed. Not everyone appreciates politeness, courtesy, or information. But it cannot be denied that more hearts are reached through kindness and consideration than through bull-headedness and rudeness.