Manitoba Human Rights Adjudication Panel Orders Government to Pay out $50,000 in Damages for Failing to Validate Imaginary Genders
A ruling on November 4th from the Manitoba Human Rights Adjudication Panel has awarded $50,000 in damages to a complainant who had accused that province’s Vital Statistics Agency of discrimination on the basis of gender identity because they were refused an option of a non binary sex designation on their birth certificate. Due to a publication ban the complainant is known only as “T.A.”
In 2013 T.A. applied for a birth certificate. They maintain that this was important because they were experiencing hardships such as homelessness and ill health and having documents that reflect their pangender identity would help “ameliorate the situation”. This request was denied because the only available options are male or female.
Adjudicator Dan Manning maintained that:
“In my view, from an objective perspective, I find the seriousness of the conduct to be the high end. Gender identity is a part of our concept of selfhood. The Director’s practice to not allow non-binary designations of sex designation and only permit male or female designations was effectively the government refusing to acknowledge T.A.’s agency and personhood”
In addition to the payout Vitals Statistics has 180 days to revise its criteria for birth certificates in Manitoba and permit a third option in the category of sex designation.
The adjudicator maintains that a sex designation on a birth certificate “is simply a reference, marker, or category that is congruent to an applicant’s gender identity”. Mr. Manning cites the incoherent concept sometimes knows as legal sex (the ability to change your sex marker from male to female or vice versa so your desire, and not reality, is reflected) as evidence that sex designation itself is nothing more than a marker for gender identity.
This is quite extraordinary as the concepts of “pangender” and “non binary” are, in fact, spiritual beliefs that have no relationship whatsoever with the biological reality of whether one is male or female.
It is impossible to define “gender identity” without relying on sexist stereotypes. This is outlined quite well in the ruling when the complainants felt gender variation is described thus:
“T.A. may choose to wear clothing typically associated with male and female gender. T.A. pursues interests which may be considered stereotypically male and others stereotypically female. “
People can wear whatever clothes they wish to in Canada. People can pursue any interest they wish irrespective of sex role stereotypes in this country because it is a free country. As silly as this ruling may seem it is quite serious. It serves as a warning to the other 7 jurisdictions in Canada that have yet to make this change and get in line with the state’s new religion