C16 and Forcing Your Religion

APOLOGIA

By Hendrik van der Breggen
The Carillon, August 17, 2017

Note: The article below was a winner in Political Animal Magazine's writing contest: Battle of Ideas Op-ed on Freedom of Speech (November 2017).

C16 and Forcing Your Religion

Remember rock band R.E.M.'s song Losing my religion? In view of the passing of Bill C16 (a.k.a. the transgender rights bill), I think a new song should be sung. I title it “Forcing your religion.”

Consider this.

If we take U of Toronto psychologist Jordan B. Peterson's criticisms of C16 seriously (which I do, because I think they're strong logically and evidentially), then C16 will likely require Canadians to use a person's preferred pronouns.

We may have to say “she” instead of “he”; or “he” instead of “she”; or maybe “e” or “ey” or “hu” or “peh” or “per” or “sie” or “ve” or “xe” or “ze” or “zhe”—whatever is preferred as a label for however one self-identifies one's sex/ gender.

Interestingly, in discussions leading up to the passing of C16, Senator Grant Mitchell said the following in defence of C16:

“There is also the argument that transgender identity is too subjective a concept to be enshrined in law because it is defined as an individual’s deeply felt internal experience of gender. Yet we, of course, accept outright that no one can discriminate on the basis of religion, and that too is clearly a very deeply subjective and personal feeling.”

Here is Senator Mitchell's argument (in favour of C16) restated: Freedom to identify as transgender is like freedom of religion, so just as I am free to determine and live according to my religious identity, so too transgender persons are free to identify and portray themselves as such to the world.

Let's think about this. Here is an insightful reply.

Referring to the above argument at a later senate hearing, Dr. Bruce Pardy, professor of law at Queen's University, states this: “Those are the equivalents.”

“But,” Professor Pardy quickly adds, “here's the one thing that people who claim freedom of religion do not have: they do not have the right to demand that other people agree.”

In other words, in a free society religious people have the freedom to believe (and live as if) religion X is true, but they don't have the right to require others to say they agree X is true too. Similarly, transgender people have the freedom to believe (and portray) themselves as other than their biological sex, but they don't have the right to require others to say they agree with what they believe.

Significantly, however, such agreement is implied by the preferred pronouns C16 requires.

So, dear proponents of preferred pronouns, by using the force of law to require others to use preferred pronouns when they disagree with those pronouns, you are in effect pushing your religion onto those others.

Sheesh. Oh, sorry, I meant to say Zheesh.

“Oh no, I've said too much; I haven't said enough.” – R.E.M.

Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is associate professor of philosophy at Providence University College, Otterburne, Manitoba. The views expressed here do not always reflect the views of Providence.


For further thought:

• Bruce Pardy, Meet the new 'human rights'—where you are forced by law to use 'reasonable' pronouns, National Post, June 19, 2017.

Bill C16 is incoherent—and that's a concern

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?

Transgender preferred pronouns?

APOLOGIA

By Hendrik van der Breggen
The Carillon, June 15, 2017

Transgender preferred pronouns?

If passed by Canada's senate, Bill C16, a.k.a. the Transgender Rights Bill, will add "gender identity" and "gender expression" to Canada's human rights and hate-crime laws.

According to U of Toronto psychology professor Jordan B. Peterson, a staunch critic of Bill C16, this bill will require us to use pronouns preferred by transgender persons (e.g., hir, ve, ver, vis, xe, xem, xyr, ze/ zie, etc.). But others disagree with Peterson's interpretation.

If the law does require citizens to use "preferred pronouns," then I am inclined to follow Professor Peterson: I, too, will refuse.

Before I provide my reasons, let's get some clarity.

Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould sets out key concepts: "Gender identity is a person's internal or individual experience of their gender. It is a deeply felt experience of being a man, a woman, or being somewhere along the gender spectrum."

Moreover, "Gender expression is how a person publicly presents their gender. It is an external outward presentation through aspects such as dress, hair, makeup, body language, or voice."

So why will I refuse to use a transgender's preferred pronoun? Answer: Because I refuse to be compelled to speak falsely.

I think it's false that a man who feels he is a woman is in fact a woman and false that a woman who feels she is a man is in fact a man. Enter: gender dysphoria, formerly known as gender identity disorder.

Also, it seems to me that, aside from the small percentage of intersex people, the idea of a "gender spectrum" doesn't ring true to biological fact. So it seems to me that using a pronoun that is contrary to fact is like agreeing an anorexic is "fat" when she's not.

At this juncture, three objections might be raised.

Before I consider these objections, let me say this: All people—including people who identify as transgender—deserve respect, compassion, plus protection from bullying, violence, and unjust discrimination. God loves everyone.

Objection 1: My view should be dismissed because I am (allegedly) "transphobic."

Reply: This is an ad hominem fallacy (i.e., attacking the person rather than the ideas/ reasoning).

Objection 2: The freedom to identify as transgender is like freedom of religion, so just as I am free to determine and live according to my religious identity, so too transgender persons are free to identify and portray themselves as such to the world.

Reply: According to Dr. Bruce Pardy, professor of law at Queen's University, "Those are the equivalents."

"But," Professor Pardy quickly adds, "here's the one thing that people who claim freedom of religion do not have: they do not have the right to demand that other people agree."

In other words, in a free society religious people have the freedom to believe (and live as if) religion X is true, but they don't have the right to require others to say they agree X is true too. Similarly, transgender people have the freedom to believe (and portray) themselves as other than their biological sex, but they don't have the right to require others to say they agree with what they believe. (Such agreement is implied by preferred pronouns.)*

Objection 3: Oh, come on, just use the preferred pronouns for the sake of courtesy!

Reply, from American attorney and journalist David French: "I’ve encountered many well-meaning people who’ve told me that I should acquiesce to new pronouns because it’s the polite thing to do. I want to avoid hurting feelings, don’t I? I want to treat someone the way I’d like to be treated, right? What’s the harm in a little white lie?"

French answers: "But when your definition of manners requires that I verbally consent to a fundamentally false and important premise, then I dissent."

"You cannot use my manners to win your culture war. I will speak respectfully, I will never use a pronoun with the intent of causing harm, and if I encounter a person in obvious emotional distress I will choose my words very carefully. But I will not say what I do not believe."

(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.)

* Reasonable inference (drawn by me, after listening to Professor Pardy's response), an inference that may be of interest to public school boards: Just as our government shouldn't promote/ enshrine a particular religion, so too our government shouldn't promote/ enshrine transgenderism—thus just as our public schools shouldn't promote/ enshrine a particular religion, so too our public schools shouldn't promote/ enshrine transgenderism.

Further reading/ viewing:

● Transgender ideology (Apologia column)

● Phobic anti-phobia? (Apologia column)
● Why there are only two sexes (Public Discourse article)

● Senate hearing on Bill C16 with Jordan B. Peterson and D. Jared Brown (video)