Linking to C-16 is not explaining how “his arguments against C-16” are “transphobia”. Of course it isn't, but it allows me to know what you are and aren't alre

Linking to C-16 is not explaining how “his arguments against C-16” are “transphobia”. Of course it isn't, but it allows me to know what you are and aren't already familiar with, so I can know whether I need to first explain that part of it or not. I have accused Peterson of 'fearmongering' regarding this bill, and a substantial part of that is a deeply misleading characterization of the bill. I am trying to understand "are you familiar with C-16 through Peterson's portrayals of it and secondary commentary, or are you familiar with the primary text of the bill itself". I am also curiou whether you've seen the primary text around the time of the controversy and, or whether you've seen the text of the bill only after seeing it linked here.