Bill C-16 Does Not Have Loopholes. Bill C-16 IS the Loophole

And it should be repealed

Bill C-16 is the notorious federal bill that introduced the categories of gender identity and gender expression into the Canadian Human Rights Act and Criminal Code. It is rightly blamed for the fact that Canada transfers men who claim a female “gender identity” into women’s prisons, even if they have committed horrific sex crimes against women and children.

In my time writing and thinking about gender ideology, I have encountered more than a few people who insist that Bill C-16 has “loopholes” that allow predators to self-ID into the “female” category, and therefore into women’s spaces.

I think people tend to have an idea that Bill C-16 has some sort of stipulations or criteria for which men are “really” trans and therefore okay to go into women’s spaces, but that predators are taking advantage of loopholes in the wording of the bill.

This is, of course, not the case.

Bill C-16 actually didn’t change much, text-wise, in the Canadian Human Rights Act and Criminal Code. All it did was add the words “gender identity or expression” after “sexual orientation” in three sections. One was in the list of groups protected from discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act, the second was in the Section of the Criminal Code dealing with hate speech, and the third was in the section of the criminal code dealing with sentencing for hate speech (you can have a look at the bill for yourself).

There are no “loopholes” because there isn’t any guidance in the first place about which men who claim a “female” gender identity are genuine and should be treated as female, and which men are not.

(FYI, I don’t think the law should treat any man as “female” no matter how genuine he is, but I feel that some people have a sense that the law is able to somehow discriminate between the two and therefore provide a semblance of safeguarding.)

That lawmakers have chosen to interpret the bill in a way which allows men who say they are women into women’s prisons is entirely of their own choosing. The Act does say that protected groups must have their needs accommodated, yes, but that does not mean a man who claims a female gender identity can only have his needs accommodated in a prison system designed for women. In fact, I’d imagine it is a worse situation for any hope of rehabilitation. It also certainly means that the needs of the women inside are not being accommodated. (For a more in-depth exploration of this specific issue, have a look at a piece I wrote for Gender Dissent.)

It should be noted that the impact of Bill C-16 on the lives of most Canadians is actually quite small, as it is solely a federal act. In our day-to-day lives, Canadians are much more likely to be affected by the human rights acts of our provinces. As with Bill C-16 and prisons, similar amendments to the provincial human rights acts have caused problems at the provincial level.

Take, for example, the notorious case of Jonathan Yaniv, the British Columbia man who filed numerous human rights complaints against aestheticians who declined to perform a Brazilian wax on his genitals, which he claimed they weren’t allowed to do because he identified as a woman. Yaniv was not taking advantage of any loopholes. His case was taken seriously by the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal because the provincial Human Rights Code prohibits discrimination based on “gender identity and expression.” He was using the Code as intended.

Consider, as well, the more recent case of Mr. Lemieux, the Ontario shop teacher who insisted on making minors participate in his fetish by wearing massive prosthetic breasts to school. The Halton District School Board defended his actions on numerous occasions by citing the Ontario Human Rights Code, which also protects “gender identity” and “gender expression.”

Bill C-16 and its provincial counterparts don’t have loopholes. They are the loopholes, or, rather, the excuse that gives any man access to women’s spaces, services, sports, and prisons or the excuse to parade his fetish in public.

The myth that these bills were made to protect a small and harmless minority of men but have been taken advantage of by predators needs to die. These are terrible pieces of legislation that hinge on terms with no sensical definitions, and the fact that they give cover to predators was obvious to anyone who was paying attention in the very beginning. So obvious, in fact, that it’s hard not to think this was all done on purpose.

But, as they say, never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by absolute stupidity.

All of these bills need to be repealed. They rely on the nebulous concept of “gender” and do nothing but put women and children at risk. There is no salvaging them. There are no loopholes to close. They simply need to go.

Or help support my work with a one-time donation through PayPal!