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.

The Newest Outrage

            Every time I look at my Facebook news feed, it’s like I’m gazing into a battlefield. On one side, we have people screaming—and I do mean that these people are doing everything in their power to be loud and be heard—about the inhumane treatment of children in family units coming to the American border to seek asylum and/or citizenship. On the other side, there are people saying, “Get over it.” It’s constant.

            I got a new phone and I am grateful for one thing about it: The Facebook app is not built in. I haven’t downloaded it, either, because it’s a large app and it takes up a lot of space. It takes a lot of time, too, as it’s a major distraction. I dislike working for free and I don’t like coming into a conversation and being the only level-headed person who uses real reason and logic to support the points I make.

            It’s important to me to make the distinction that most people in these arguments online have no idea what’s actually going on in the situation over which they’re crying for their perception of justice. I’m of the opinion that the Americas need an agreement similar to the European Union that allows citizens of these neighboring countries to enter and leave one another at will. In the European Union, a person can live in Germany while working in Belgium. I don’t see why someone close to the border shouldn’t be allowed to live in Mexico and work in America, or live in Canada and work in America, or vice versa for either place.

            At the same time, the enforcement of our laws is nothing new. It was the Clinton administration that put into place the policy that separates children from their families at the border, but now that Trump is in office and it’s somehow national news, everyone on the Left is in an uproar and a tizzy. Especially noted by those on the Left is the hypocrisy of the Right, wherein we marginalize and stereotype Latinxs and use them for cheap labor at the same time. We don’t want them in our country, but we take them and pay them under the table for jobs regular Americans don’t want.

            What happened to the uproar over gun laws? What happened to the rage over school lunches or the obesity epidemic? What happened to the rage over the anti-vax movement? Well, somehow, it’s all pretty well buried under the newest outrageous sensation: Border control. Now we’re focusing on the inhumane treatment of illegal immigrants and the putting of children into cages.

            Don’t get me wrong. People don’t belong in cages outside of the kink community. The Americas, in my opinion, should have a border agreement much like the European Union. But we don’t, and the policy that is on the chopping block now is not new.

            I’m tired of the smoke screens and distractions. I’m tired of being fed a line of shit, expected to get into a tizzy over it, and ostracized and belittled by those who are outraged when I remain calm. There are many more important things happening behind the scenes that nobody wants to look at. I’d rather go live with Tibetan monks.

A Letter to A Sperm Donor

Dear Biological Father to My Child:

            You vowed to eat me. You challenged me to bring my army, and I did, but I expected you to bring your pack, small as it is. You brought no one and stood alone, the true mark of a sickly wolf cub, unlike the “wolf” you call yourself. I walked into the room of battle fully prepared and equipped to handle any questions lobbed at me by the Judge, by you, or by anyone else for that matter. And I didn’t need any of it. I was so shocked, I forgot to ask the Judge to order you to pay back the money you stole from my daughter’s savings account.

            Of course, you’ll say you didn’t steal it, and you’ll have some excuse, some story to tell me about what that account is “really for,” as if you think I would have forgotten. But that gives you too much credit for forethought, I’ve come to realize. So I suppose I should take a step back and go through my perspective in its completion.

            I didn’t like you when I met you, but I saw some kind of goodness in you that I allowed to take root, and I chose to believe in you with my whole heart. Your coworkers and your NCOs told me that you couldn’t do anything right, that you broke everything you touched, that you were incompetent and refused to ask questions about how to do the job right. When I mentioned these things to you, your response was that you had gone through your career development courses faster than anybody else and that you had memorized them completely because you read each one more than once. I believed you; what reason had I not to do? I defended you against your coworkers and I talked to your NCOs on your behalf, urging them to get your paperwork in order, but they weren’t the ones failing on some front. I know this because you weren’t the only Airman I knew in your shop. You were neither the first nor the last newbie I met in your shop and I knew a little bit about how things ran there.

            And so, when the base mental health clinic gave your diagnosis and started your medication, I held my faith in you and I kept my belief. I decided that your lack of performance was due to the diagnosis and I kept talking to you. But you didn’t talk to me. You opened your mouth and words came out; you spoke, but you did not communicate.

            And you burnt bacon. Who burns bacon? I tell my friends this story to this day and every single time, the reaction is complete shock and horror. Who burns bacon?! Every time. But that wasn’t the real problem, after all; communication was.

            Some of your favourite things to say were bad things about your family, especially after we visited them for some holidays. We went home, and you held a grudge against everyone, especially your mother. Multiple times, over the course of years, I encouraged you to forgive your mother and re-establish contact. You refused, every time. But then you would suggest we separate; you said I should take our daughter and stay with my grandparents for a while; you suggested I go stay with my grandparents for a while on my own; you suggested that you find a hotel and stay in one alone for a couple of weeks. I always said that was not the solution; that we needed to work together. But you never wanted to work together with me, and over the last two years of our marriage, you said no less than three times to me: “If you just want to divorce me, get it over with.” The first two times, I said I never wanted that. The third time, I finally agreed that separation may be best for both of us.

            I talked to many people over the course of our marriage. I watched you deliberately act against my desires as a wife and as a mother. I told you how I wanted things to be and you failed to perform. The same thing happened when we were together in the house my grandparents own. My friends told me that what you did was deliberate, that you were an asshole. They were right on one count and wrong on the other.

            You are an asshole. But I do not think everything you do is deliberate. You posted online that you were prepared for trial. You acted really tough and you really made it out like I’m some villain and you’re a poor, wounded animal who has been kicked while he’s been down. You called me vindictive and spiteful. You claimed I was hateful against you, and when I was angry and hurt, I was quite hateful. I was quite spiteful. But I have not once been vindictive, and I have not once said a single untrue thing about you or your behaviour.

            When we were in the courthouse, you said you didn’t know who I am. It struck me strongly as the truest statement you had made in a whole five years. You certainly lied when you told me you’ve died. You certainly lied when you said I was your soulmate, that you had been searching the cosmos for my energy. You are a liar of pathological tendencies, sperm donor, and I am here to tell you what I see. I already know that if you read this, you won’t make a change, because you don’t really know what you’re doing. You demonstrated that in the room of battle.

            “I am prepared,” your status read. But when the Judge addressed you, you stuttered and stumbled over your words. You outright stated you did not know what your requests were. You vindictively demanded that I pay bills that you chose to take care of on your own volition. You cannot have realized how all of your actions leading up to that day were working against you, but I think your mother noticed it since she didn’t come to your defence. Or did you tell her to stay home? Regardless, I was better prepared. My paperwork was all together and my requests were simple. And the Judge ruled in my favour more completely than I had dared to hope.

            I overestimated you the way you have underestimated me for ages. I had thought, perhaps, you walked in thinking you would razzle dazzle me, throw me for a loop and win your way with sheer presence. But I realize now that gives you far too much credit, because you are a sick, sick man. I do not believe your initial diagnosis from the base mental health clinic was complete. If you do have that personality disorder, then I think you have a second or even third personality disorder, as well, among them Narcissistic Personality Disorder. A tall claim, perhaps, but characterized and standing out from regular narcissistic traits by a Narcissist’s absolute refusal to communicate.

            I expected you to have at least one witness. I expected you to come in with a residential plan requesting that our daughter live with you for part of the year, but rather than doing something so thoughtful and likely to succeed, you instead went in with a vindictive residential plan that asked the Judge to uproot the child from her life and withhold her from me for all but two weeks a year. I was shocked; how could you be so stupid? I expected you to have your paperwork together better. I thought you would demand that I pay for the World Books, and I thought you would have a better-organized case to plead wherein you would claim that I am abusive and horrible. But you didn’t. The Judge didn’t want to see your Facebook evidence and I didn’t offer mine, because social media was irrelevant to this case—except for the part where you threatened me in a status and your mother joined in.

            It’s adorable that your mother thinks I should be committed, because really, the one who should be committed and monitored closely is you. You claim to love your daughter, but you don’t show it.

            You send a message once or twice a week to ask “how she’s doing.” I have shared with you her school schedule and yet you send these messages while she is at school and you never ask any deeper questions. You show no interest in her development, in school or at home, and you show no interest whatsoever in my ability to care for her. I wouldn’t expect you to care about me at all, but I am the mother of your child and as such I deserve a minimal amount of consideration since I am the custodial parent and I have full control over her development—development that has accelerated significantly and is going so well, I wonder how I managed to let you hold us back for so long.

            I would give you a list of questions you should ask about your child, but they’re really common sense for fathers who want to be dads to their kids, a role you have repeatedly demonstrated a lack of interest in filling. I will not spoon-feed common sense to you when you have previously indicated a lack of ability to digest it.

            I look forward to this summer break, to see if you follow the court’s order for visitations. I look forward to our weekly video calls, because my daughter doesn’t want to hear you talk and she doesn’t want to see your bullshit. She doesn’t care what you’re doing, she just likes that she can boss you around and do what she wants when you’re around. This is demonstrated by our video calls lasting less than two minutes every time. This happens at home and in public, as I have tested multiple times now.

            When I was overwhelmed with emotion upon our separation, I thought perhaps I would always hold love for you. I can see now that such is not the case.

            Goodbye.

-A