Saturday, November 20th, was the Transgender Day of Remembrance. In Ottawa, this was celebrated with the unraveling of a flag at the headquarters of the Ottawa Police, followed by a march to Parliament Hill and a candlelight vigil.
NDP MP Bill Siksay, the man with the megaphone in the picture above, was there to speak about bill C-389. This private member’s bill, which he tabled, would “add gender identity and expression as prohibited grounds of discrimination to the Canadian Human Rights Act” (link).
All in all, the mood was very joyous. The crowd was supportive, and Jay and I ended up having a nice long discussion with a trans woman. Growing up in the sixties, she experienced some horrific treatment by those around her. Things have changed since, but laws like this would ensure that there would be no buts or ifs about it.
Canadians from all over came out for this event on Saturday. There was a solid contingent from Montreal (pictured above in the group photo), people from London and Toronto… it was just great to see.
Comments
3 responses to “Trans Day of Remembrance”
Ah, this is great! I’m so pleased! They’re having a big thing in Auckland for it this weekend, which is exciting, I wish I could go!
I’m not really interested in commenting on this article but the article on intelligence which actually “is” interesting was closed to comment.
You’re right … your view of “intelligence” as it applies to humanity and “possibly” to some entity in the far reaches of the universe is astonishingly bleak. Your stance is somewhat akin that of Christopher Hitchen’s claim that since there’s no evidence of the existence of God, he doesn’t exist … you know the campaign … “There is no God so forget about it and get on with your life”. Bleak … cold and stupid.
Want evidence of the existence of God? Listen to a well performed piece by J.S. Bach. There are thousands of them. Not convinced? Perhaps you think the amazement and pleasure experienced by the Bach listener or that invoked by the sight of a beautiful sunset or the aroma of a beautiful rose bush is simply an example of sophisticated programming. Perhaps a well tuned computer could be programmed to replicate those same experiences of satisfaction and pleasure. Krikey mate, it could likely replicate the rose (it’s “just” genetics after all), and the sunset? hells bells … we can chemically alter the atmosphere or perhaps our appreciation of what “is” there to simulate the experience and pleasure … what the heck … we’ll just create virtual sunsets to get hyped up about.
The Bach though…well I think it creates more of a problem. Computer’s capable of “recreating” Bach chorals, preludes etc. have existed for some time now. The question is, however, “if” they had existed at the time of Bach would they have been capable of the original composition, right from the inspiration through the creative process. I think not. Replication?, logical extensions of replications?, multi faceted permutations of replications of Bach?….? Sure, why not. The original composition, however. Not likely, and going back to Hitchen’s no evidence theory, well, the inspiration for many composers and artists has been God, whatever their concept of the term is or was and that continues to be the case. For me any number of pieces by Bach and a myriad of God inspired composers is more than enough evidence.
I have no doubt that a computer is capable of producing a mind blowing piece of art but whatever it produces will have it’s origins in human intelligence. In fact I have “faith” that the computer is capable of contributing to and producing an endless number of mind blowing discoveries in every field of “human” endeavor. Since human intelligence created, invented and developed the computer and computer applications, however, it seems logical to me to assume that “everything” the computer does remains and will remain an extension of human creativity and intelligence. The moral questions about how that form of intelligence is put to use are as interesting as the myriad of applications which are possible.
Speed, capacity and potential to discover permutations and possibilities is irrelevant when it comes to discussing the term intelligence in the sense of human intelligence. If anything the existence, development, applications and potential of the computer may be the ultimate example of human intelligence. Until recently I thought the hand held screwdriver was the prime candidate. Making human intelligence-computer intelligence links is like comparing the ability of a power drill to make a hole in a rock wall with the that of cave man holding a stick. Times change, sometimes for the worse but most often for the better. Incidentally, I say that as a person who has faith in the potential of human intelligence.
The self admittedly “bleak” interpretation of intelligence you put forth is similar to some of your other posted comments. They consistently reflect a dissatisfaction with the status quo and traditional views. The idea that human intelligence is supremely unique in the face of the superiority of a hand held calculator is difficult enough to swallow. Throw in a link to concepts such as faith, soul and spirituality and the thought barely stays afloat. Although you may see concepts such as the separation of human intelligence from computer intelligence to be weakened by such concepts I submit that those signs of human frailty are also signs of human intelligence. Would a computer be bothered with such drivel. I guess it’s possible to provide a computer with these types of vulnerabilities … perhaps, but why bother and regardless, it would ultimately depend on a decision which originated with the programmer.
If human intelligence is akin to a well tuned computer and we’d likely agree that computers probably didn’t exist at the time of the origins of humanity do you ever wonder about who or what programmed humans? Necessity? coincidence? confluence? Well … American no fly lists, trans-gender politics, and the power of a palm held technical device are of interest to some perhaps but if you seriously have difficulty telling the difference between human intelligence and that of a computer, no matter how sophisticated, perhaps it’s time for you to turn your attention, and open your mind to a few less tangible possibilities.
After 30 days, the site automatically disables comments on articles. This is an anti-spam measure, because this site unfortunately otherwise gets inundated with unwanted posts about appendage enhancing drugs and the like.
I think we’re talking about different things. You’re talking about can a computer compose music, or can a computer emulate human behaviour. I’m talking about can one replicate a human mind. The difference being that one can be achieved with current technology, using algorithms. You won’t end up with creative works such as that of JS Bach, or an intelligence you can genuinely talk to, but you might get some pleasing results. One cannot yet emulate the human mind, it’s complexity is at this moment too great, and our understanding of it too weak.
But as computers get faster and faster, and our understanding of the brain improves, the obstacles to emulate it will wither away. And in the end, we’ll be able to replicate the processes of a full human brain – it’s chemical alterations, it’s neuron connections – with a computer. And that virtual brain will operate in an indistinguishable manner to a biological human brain. It will love like you do, for the same reasons you do. It will fear like you do, for the same reasons you do. Once you emulate a full brain, it becomes a being onto its own.
At this point, yes, that digital brain will be able to compose music. Our brains aren’t powered by magic. They are biological machines. Nothing stops us from replicating the brain with due substitutes, just as nothing stops us on a much more basic level substitute a hip with a hip replacement. It’s bleak, but it’s true.
As for God, no, I don’t believe a magical being or creator is needed to explain any of this. JS Bach? Yes, he created incredibly beautiful music – but when you break it down, what is music? Vibrations of the air which reaches our ear drums. Why is it beautiful? Well the concept of “beauty” is a reaction out of our brains for evolutionary reasons.
As for our bodies, they are the product of a series of mutations through hundreds of millions of years. The mutations that worked lived on. Those that didn’t mostly did not, but some did. Through these mutations we acquired the facilities that we now enjoy. I wouldn’t say it was coincidence, or luck. Just a lot of time for events to take place.
Throw enough pasta on the wall, some of it sticks. Throw more on that which sticks and eventually more of it will stick on it. And then more.
But back to the initial point: our brains aren’t powered by magic. They’re biological machines. No more, no less.
This is all ancillary to the topic of the post, which was that what constitutes intelligence is a philosophical question. That in the absence of “little green men” with a comparable physiology to ours, that we must evaluate what intelligence is, and that we might not like what we find.