Bill C16 is incoherent—and that's a concern
By Hendrik van
der Breggen
June 13, 2017
Canada's Bill
C16, a.k.a. Transgender Rights Bill, attempts to add gender identity and
expression to human rights and hate-crime laws. Below I argue (with Jordan
B. Peterson's help) that the bill is incoherent. I also show why, logically,
that's a concern—for everyone.
Jordan B.
Peterson, a psychology professor at U of Toronto and an outspoken critic of
Bill C16, appeared recently in a Senate hearing on Bill C16. He expressed
concern that the bill compels speech, and thus is a threat to free speech. He also
testified to Bill C16's incoherence—my interest here.
Peterson's
testimony correctly points out that the appropriate context of interpretation
for C16 is constituted by the policies of the Ontario Human Rights Commission
(OHRC), as was indicated by a link at the website of the Department of Justice.
(The link was later taken down, which is a discussion for another time, a
discussion having to do with this question: Are Bill C16 proponents hiding
something?)
In defence of
C16, to refute Peterson, a senator read from OHRC policies. The OHRC clearly allows
citizens not to use preferred pronouns—as an alternative we can always use the
person's chosen name. So preferred pronouns are neither necessary nor
mandatory.
Significantly,
however, Professor Peterson ALSO read from the OHRC policies, which just as
clearly state this: "Refusing to refer to a person by their
self-identified name and proper [preferred] personal pronoun constitutes
gender-based harassment."
See the
contradiction? You may use a chosen name only versus you must use the chosen
name AND personal pronouns.
Peterson goes
on to argue for several other contradictions within the legislation or implied via OHRC policies. For example: sexual preference is immutable, which
implies biological grounding, i.e., dependency on sexual identity, but also sexual
identity and gender identity and gender expression are entirely independent. (For
substantiation, check out YouTube: Jordan B. Peterson, Senate
Hearing on Bill C16.)
So Bill C16,
when interpreted correctly, is in fact incoherent.
At this
juncture, a reader might respond: So what? Why is it a concern that a piece of
legislation is logically incoherent? Especially if I get what I want.
Answer: Because
from a set of contradictory claims, anything follows validly.
That an
argument is logically valid (deductively valid) means that whenever the
premises are true the conclusion must be true too. Validity means it's not possible
for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. This is Logic 101.
If the claims
that constitute a properly interpreted piece of legislation are contradictory,
then these claims, when used as premises to infer some other legal conclusion—any
new legal conclusion—will always constitute a deductively valid argument. Why?
Because it's not possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false.
Think about it.
Because it's not possible for the premises to be true, because they're contradictory
(A and not-A can't be true at the same time and in the same sense), this means
that it's also not possible for the premises to be true AND the conclusion
false, which means that the definition of deductive validity is satisfied.
So, if Bill C16
is accepted (as is), it provides a precedent or grounding for ANY new and weird
piece of legislation—including what you might not want.
This should be
a concern for every one of us, whatever one thinks about gender identity,
gender expression, and preferred pronouns.
(Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is associate
professor of philosophy at Providence University College. The views expressed
in this column do not always reflect the views of Providence.)
For further reading: Transgender preferred pronouns?
For further reading: Transgender preferred pronouns?
No comments:
Post a Comment