Christin Milloy:

Rise up and seize equality

The True Nature of Opposition to Toby’s Act (Christin Milloy’s Committee Deputation on Bill 33)

What follows is the written version of the oral deputation I delivered this afternoon (Monday, June 11th) to the Ontario Legislature’s Standing Committee on Social Policy, at Queen’s Park in Toronto. The committee met today for one afternoon to discuss Toby’s Act (Bill 33) in advance of its third reading (and anticipated passing) this Wednesday June 13th.

Good afternoon, my name is Christin Milloy, and I have come to speak in support of Bill 33, Toby’s Act.

Thus far, two primary arguments have been made in support of this bill.

  • First, that the Human Rights Code exists with the stated purpose of protecting disadvantaged groups from discrimination on the basis of grounds which define those groups.
  • Second, that trans and gender variant Ontarians collectively represent such a disadvantaged group, one which continues to be harmed by the omission of Gender Identity and Gender Expression as protected grounds in the Code. This is an inequality, and Toby’s Act is portrayed as a method of settings things right.

In and of themselves, these arguments constitute sufficient justification for passing this bill. These points have been well made, and so I need not belabour them. Instead, I wish to take this opportunity to explore the nature of opposition to Toby’s Act in greater detail.

In our culture, the notion of gender is tied inextricably with notions of sex, and of power. Humans are obsessed with sex and power, and humans often use sex and power as tools of coercion and control. Those who presently enjoy a greater degree of power within an existing system have a vested interest in maintaining that system.

It has become impossible to deny that trans and gender variant identities are a reality of the human experience. Even in the mainstream media, we have witnessed the widespread realization of this fact dawn on our cultural awareness. Jerry Springer style marginalization and ridicule has given way to positive media coverage of our inclusion in reality television series, politics, and beauty contests, as well as mostly positive fictional portrayals in mainstream television series.

Too often, our trans and gender variant identities are made the primary focus of this media coverage, but that is understandable. Our culture has found a new concept, a new toy to play with, and wishes to thoroughly explore its novelty by examining it from every conceivable angle.

The introduction of trans and gender variant identities into one’s world view complicates earlier, simplistic notions of male and female. Scientists, once certain that light consisted of either particles or waves but not both, now work to construct a unified theory to explain empirical evidence contradicting that earlier, simplistic view of the universe. It’s clear that trans and gender variant identities are at the bleeding edge of an analogous cultural phenomenon, where empirical evidence has emerged that causes conceptual barriers delineating male and female to blur dramatically. We are living to witness the de-construction of the gender binary.

Detractors and opponents to this phenomenon threaten a bleak unpleasant future world, where boring homogeneous humans go about their lives with inexpressive uniform hairstyles, in featureless jumpsuits, speaking in monotone to one another. They also often speak passionately about the destruction of traditional values, and of course, won’t someone please think of the children.

Of course, we’re not talking about the destruction of gender, but merely the dissolution of artificial limitations traditionally imposed on gender identity and expression based on sex. The future is not a world with only one haircut, one outfit, one manner of speech. It is rather a world where any person can choose of their own free will that haircut, outfit, and method of self-expression which one finds truest to one’s self.

Growth and change are critical to survival, and each goes hand in hand. Rather than the wholesale destruction of tradition, we will witness instead a gradual expansion of tradition, necessary to incorporate these new identities which, again, one cannot deny are a part of the reality in which we live.

Who stands to gain by resisting the recognition of these identities?

Those who resist learning about and accepting trans and gender variant identities behave much like children who do not wish to do their homework, and they make many of the same arguments. “It’s too hard. I already know enough to get along. I will never use this in my real life.”

We are all aware there is an analogue bill to Toby’s Act making its way through Federal Parliament right now. In both legislatures, some have argued that explicit recognition of these grounds is not necessary, “because they are already implicitly covered.” If this is the primary argument, it is easily refuted: if the grounds are indeed sufficiently covered implicitly, what would be the harm, then, in adding the grounds explicitly to eliminate the confusion? Those making the argument are consistently unable or unwilling to furnish a response.

It stands, then, to reason that the purported lack of necessity is merely a smoke screen excuse for a lack of support which is truly motivated by other factors.

As traditional definitions of Man and Woman become less clear over time, it grows increasingly difficult for members of one group to continue to maintain power over the other. Because legislative protections against discrimination based on sex are already well entrenched in Canada, those who would openly endorse patriarchal oppression have all but lost their tenuous grasp on their ability to discriminate overtly. I consider this a great cultural victory for all people, and a point of pride as a Canadian.

The proposed dissolution of gender barriers imposed based on sex, and the inevitable continuation of the trend against the traditional gender binary, threatens to complicate even implicit forms of gender based discrimination; and some people don’t like that very much.

Entities opposing the passing of bills like Toby’s Act should acknowledge their true motivations. To oppose this change is to preserve a system of power that oppresses. Resistance to this change would preserve tradition purely for tradition’s sake, at the pain and expense of many.

In the context of our planet’s ecosystem, diversity within a species is universally recognized by scientists as being key to the survival of that species. And yet somehow culturally, we tolerate forces that combat diversity, and seek to maintain existing power structures by preventing change. We are the only species that seeks to legislatively limit our own continued evolution.

With bills to the effect of Toby’s Act and C-279 currently under consideration in multiple jurisdictions in Canada, we have reached a crossroads. The long persistent history of both bills, as well as the notable existence of similar laws and protections popping up all over the free world, should serve as a strong indication that this sentiment is not going away–the turning of the cultural tide cannot be suppressed, and it should not be oppressed.

The archetypical cultural identity that best fits my personality, my emotional values, and my inner sense of being, is “female.” You cannot deny that I am a woman simply because peg A fits slot B. That is simply foolishness.

The structure of our society places the burden of deciding this issue on the legislators, into whom the electoral system, and to a lesser degree the voting members of the public, have invested the awesome authority and power of law. On Wednesday, each Member of Provincial Parliament must decide whether or not to support this bill with a vote.

To all those legislators who are already planning on voting “Yea” on Wednesday, please accept my profound gratitude, and congratulations on participating in this historic moment for Ontario.

To those legislators who privately support Gender Identity rights, but who may have political obligations to socially conservative constituents, please take note. Doing the right thing when it is not politically convenient, fulfilling one’s higher duty as a legislator, is the bravest act a politician can undertake.

And finally, to those legislators whose personal motivations may leave them finding Toby’s Act viscerally upsetting, please recognize and rise above your own learned prejudice, in deference to the rising tide of cultural awareness. Consider how history might remember this event, and choose the side of liberator rather than oppressor.

Thank you.

Note: I also attached copies of a previous piece to this written submission, The Economic Case To Support Ontario’s Bill-33 (Toby’s Act).


  1. Marie
    Monday, 2012.06.11 at 20:25

    Here here Christin, Your words are perfection I whole heartedly support every word you have spoken.

  2. Sheela
    Sunday, 2012.06.17 at 21:20

    Well said,
    Sadly this is an attitude held by MPPs as well. What follows is a personal email sent by “my” MPP, for Northumberland, that demostrates the attitude you described quite well:

    ” I have spent time, today, discussing, with several of my colleagues, the merits and the potential challenges created by the passage of Bill 33. As you saw, in my previous email, my expectation, as with all Bills I’ve seen since I was elected last fall, that I would see the results of the “clause-by-clause” consideration of the Bill, in Committee. It is at the Committee stage where the public have an opportunity to offer their comments, positive and negative, and to offer suggested amendments to the Bill. It was my understanding that, as part of the deal struck with the NDP in order to get the Budget Bill passed, Bill 33 would be called for 3rd Reading, but only after adequate time spent in committee.

    I have just learned that, on the contrary, the motion limited committee time to four hours, with no advertising outside of Toronto, which means that there was virtually no opportunity for public input and, from my perspective, not one word of notice in our riding. Therefore, there was no chance to gain the appropriate perspective that I would hope you would always want me, and other MPP’s, to maintain before casting our votes. I have never abstained on a vote, but I have decided to do so, on this Bill, as a protest for the abrogation of the rights of MPP’s, and the public, to have meaningful input into the final content of the Bill. In deference to my earlier email to you, I will not vote against the Bill despite receiving over 150 emails expressing opposition to the Bill, in the last 24 hours, as word spread that it was coming up for a final vote. I should tell you, as well, that yours is the sole email that I have received, from inside my riding or beyond, in support of the Bill. I take being able to represent my riding, very seriously, and when you deny the people of Northumberland – Quinte West, and the rest of Ontario, the chance to comment on the Bill and deal with any concerns about the impact of passing the Bill, I simply won’t acquiesce.

    I know that this will come as a disappointment, but I also take seriously the need to respond, quickly, to my constituents and, in this case, I apologize for sending you my first impression before learning that there would, in fact, be no meaningful ability for the public to provide input to this Bill.”

    Sadly, my belief in the “Progressive” conservative party has been restored. I was surprised when this MPP replied to my first email that he would support the bill at 3rd reading. Now I know that was a complete ruse, since his perspective clearly indicates that there was never any intention to have his name associated with the passage of the bill.
    What a pretense to blame “lack of democracy” with a denial of human rights.

One Trackback

  1. By Doing the right thing | It's not about the clothes on Wednesday, 2012.06.13 at 11:00

    […] quote from the written version of The True Nature of Opposition to Toby’s Act, Christin Milloy’s oral deputation delivered to the Ontario Legislature’s Standing […]

Post a Comment

Your email is never published or shared. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Christin Milloy