Complicating matters even more is an amendment to the bill proposed by Conservative Sen. Nancy Ruth. Ruth complained that gender alone was not included in the Criminal Code section on hate, and she wants women to be specifically protected too.
So you mean to say that, as it currently stands, the transgendered would be specifically protected, but chicks, who comprise a far larger percentage of the population, would not?Should her amendment pass, the bill would have to go back to the Commons for a vote on the altered version.
How is that even remotely "fair"?
2 comments:
The old-fashioned notion that a zygotic XX chromosome pair determines a woman, while an XY one determines a man, is so . . . well, old-fashioned, Scaramouche. You need to get with the times!
(Myself, I'm content with the gender construct corresponding to my XY diploid biology, but I _would_ like to reconstruct n my socioeconomic status. Since visiting the throne room of the Pardo Palace in Madrid, in 1971, I have often fancied myself the King of Spain. Is that wrong?)
King of Spain? I LOVE that song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylaLG-DdT7E
Post a Comment