CO: You have said that you don’t believe that there is enough evidence that non-binary gender identities even exist?
JP: No. I didn’t say that actually. If I’m going to be accused of saying things I have to be accused of exactly what I said. There’s not enough evidence to make the case that gender identity and biological sexuality are independently varying constructs. In fact, all the evidence suggests that they’re not independently varying constructs. I can tell you that transgender people make the same argument. They make the argument that a man can be born in a woman’s body and that’s actually an argument that specifies a biological linkage between gender identity and biological sex. I’m also not objecting to transgender people. I’m objecting to poorly written legislation and the foisting of ideological motivated legislation on a population that’s not ready for it.
CO: Well, transgender people are ready for it and they have been feeling a great deal of discrimination and that’s why they were seeking this type of redress in the law. Do you appreciate that?
JP: I don’t believe that the redress that they’re seeking in the law is going to actually improve their status materially. I think, in fact, it will have the opposite effect. I believe that the principles on which the legislation is predicated are sufficiently incoherent and vague to cause endless legal trouble in a matter that will not benefit transgender people.
I have read elsewhere, over the years, of the terrifying power of Canadian human rights commissions to summon, try and judge people who have been insufficiently politically correct or even political incorrect ie have not conformed to the demands of the ever-changing multicultural bandwagon. Now this – if I read this correctly, Ontario law will punish anyone who uses binary pronouns. This is madness. It amounts to a new gnosticism, where the correct language and concepts are known to a select few who then punish the many for their transgressions. How did liberalism end up becoming so oppressive? And why do its cohorts not see this?
The “genius” of “civil rights commissions” in the U.S. is, ironically, they don’t have jurisdiction to entertain constitutional violations of the Bill of Rights, they can only enforce the “civil rights” laws. And so when you argue that their action would violate my right to free speech or violate my right to religious freedom or violate my right to free association, the response always is, “we are not a court, only an agency, we cannot consider constitutional issues and you cannot raise them here, only in court.” Of course, in order to even raise your claim in court you first have to pay the civil rights commission the $100,000 penalty they assessed you for not baking a cake for a gay wedding.