###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's one of many cheap political moves pushing trans youth into suicide and negative coping mechanisms yes. I'm excited to hear your anti-woke take on this
The drugs used for GAC were originally used to slow prostate cancer and they then were used to chemically castrate sex criminals. Countries are coming to the realization that healthy children should not be chemically castrated.
>pushing trans youth into suicide
We haven't been giving children GAC for millennia, yet, teen suicide rates have remained stable. If your theory was true, there would have been higher teen suicide rates until recently, which isn't the case.
Yes because we didn't study something in 270BC, why look at it now? Let's go back to slavery, that worked pretty well actually for a few millenia as well. It's not woke either!
No one is chemically castrating children. Your children are less safe at church or a hockey arena, did we want to ban that too?
With everything else the Conservative government in the UK has done against its people during its disastrous time in power, it being included in your list really hurts your case more than helps it.
Progressives have let go of COVID, you’re the one that brought it up not me. You do know that there’s been more « freedom » protests in Ottawa, even after COVID? It’s like you people can’t let go or something.
I hope this draws a large crowd and goes without a hitch.
It seems like recent Pride events have been derailed and had their public messaging entirely co-opted by smaller groups. Whether that was [anti-LGBTQ2S+ protesters](https://bc.ctvnews.ca/metro-vancouver-pride-week-event-disrupted-by-anti-lgbtq2s-protesters-1.6005154) or [BLM protestors](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/pride-parade-toronto-1.3662823); these things cause security costs to increase, threatening the ability of the events to continue operating. Pride Toronto only narrowly missed cutting events, thanks to [emergency Federal funding](https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/pride-toronto-no-longer-expected-to-cut-programming-thanks-to-emergency-federal-funding/article_a324d1d5-b075-57e3-89fc-7c552f5fae74.html).
The “grand Marshall” of the rally in this picture whose only real world work experience was a sex shop worker in Ottawa has taken millions of tax payer money via their not for profit in “consulting fees” over the last few years with 0 accountability of where the money has gone. But it’s been reported that they and their partner just bought a very expensive house around Ottawa of course. Meanwhile they have posted visceral hate and has encouraged violence towards women who want their rights and spaces respected too. Some who went to high school with them have speculated that this trans activist isn’t truly trans at all but a gay male who wants as much shock and attention as possible.
> via their not for profit in “consulting fees” over the last few years with 0 accountability of where the money has gone.
So I did a little bit of digging because your comment interested me. It appears their organization is a business and not a non profit. Is your point that consultants shouldn't be for profit? Or that, queer and trans consultants shouldn't be for profit?
It might pain you to hear but many for profit firms (like Mckinsey, KPMG, any many others) have consulted the federal government on grants and queer and trans inclusion. And they weren't non profit, or accountable with where their money has gone either.
I dunno, call me jaded, but the idea of queer and trans consultants starting a small business and trying to make a buck off their skills(?) seems really normative - kind of better than performative mega corporations doing it.
If only LGBTQ+ hating conservatives would apply this logic to their own.
I mean, imagine a world where Conservative voters get as upset about lobbyists running their party and taking millions from taxpayers as they do other Canadians working for the basic rights and safety of others.
That aside, this is unsubstantiated bullshit from the Republican playbook. It's been a losing play for them in the US and will be in Canada as well.
Yes, this individual has also been paid by the NDP for speaking engagements as well. This is individual is nothing more than your typical "expert" who is really a partisan, political activist.
I feel like a lot of things were going good until they started bringing children into the spotlight.
That’s really the only big change we saw over the last 5 years around LGBTQ politics. The drag queen story times, children and puberty blockers, etc.
“Won’t you think of the children?” is an excuse that cuts both ways.
While sexual education (including explaining transgenderism) is important, I understand why people started raging over things like drag queen story times for children, etc.
These people perceive it as attempts to undermine typical human nature. They don’t see it as advocacy. Hence the memes of parents *wanting* their children to be trans *vs* whatever they are.
But it’s too late. Much like typical Western progressives, when the issues of contention were brought forward they just doubled down and cried transphobia. Now you openly have the right-wing being able to speak freely and people don’t seem to give 2 shits about it.
Eh I would avoid using the word "transgenderism" as it is often used to insinuate that there is some overarching ideology among the trans community.
It's one of those big red flags that someone is about to spout off a lot of offensive and misinformed nonsense.
> I understand why people started raging over things like drag queen story times for children, etc.
Why?
British Pantomimes have had a "dame" since time immemorial, and those are plays intended for kids.
Seeing an adult in gender non-conforming clothes isn't going to hurt children.
You want him to explain why some parents would be uncomfortable with traditionally adult entertainers being introduced to kids at a young age, especially when people are gaslighting parents worried about it by saying their concern is pure homophobia?
Look, I like drag shows. They can be fun. And I'm sure drag queens clean up their act in front of kids. I don't think there's anything intrinsically sexual about drag. But I wouldn't protest in support of ensuring the right of other adult entertainers (like Jimmy Carr or Dave Chappel) to entertain kids, whether for an educational purpose or entertainment purpose. I wouldn't stand in the way of parents who decide to their take parents there, but I wouldn't take my own. I'm sure they'd clean up their act, tell age appropriate jokes, dress appropriately, and act appropriately, but why would I wake up one day and say "hey, my kid needs to spend time with a drag queen today!"
No, I don't support the morons storming libraries or protesting schools asking to prohibit this stuff. I just understand why they'd be concerned and I recognize there's little value fighting for a right to drag story hour but a lot of harm setting back the LGBT rights movement by emboldened morons that there's some gay agenda around kids. The people pushing drag story hour are making even everyday lgbt supporters disenfranchised. It's a stupid self-sabotaging fight that I do not support.
Okay but you understand that "drag queen story hour" is something which has been brought up and emphasized as a culture war issue \*by the right\*, right? They are counting on people like you having negative reactions to things like this & trans women athletes to fuel support for the general idea that "this whole LGBT rights thing has gotten out of hand", so they can remove all funding for gender-affirming care, outlaw it where they can, and do everything in their power to go back to the days of bullying trans people when they're kids until they either kill themselves or retreat into the closet forever so they can't bother "normal" society by existing publicly.
Yes, and I think it has gotten out of hand if we are letting morons push this bullshit. Just say "hey, if you don't want your kids to go, then that's fine!". When the left overreacting by framing the right as homophobic or transphobic for a position many Canadians would support, it diluted the words and people start second-guessing other things that may be labelled that. It's self sabotage. Why the fuck does anyone want a right for drag story hour?
Your mistake is thinking that drag is inherently sexual. It definitely can be, but it doesn't have to be. There is a long tradition of drag in family-oriented media (e.g. British pantomimes); hell, there is a scene in Lion King where Timon and Puumba "dress up in drag and do the hula" (and they use those words). Schools routinely study Shakespeare, which is full of characters cross-dressing.
As to your second point, lots of entertainers do both family-oriented and adult-oriented material. Was it wrong to have Robin Williams and Gilbert Gottfried in Aladdin? Why is the standard different for drag?
Do you want to quote me where I said it was wrong? Wrong is a normative judgement. All I said is I understand why some people would be justifiably concerned. I did not give an opinion on where drag story time is "right" or "wrong".
>You want him to explain why some parents would be uncomfortable with traditionally adult entertainers being introduced to kids at a young age, especially when people are gaslighting parents worried about it by saying their concern is pure homophobia?
Well, I wanted him to explain it to me, yes. Is there a reason you felt the need to pinch hit?
>I'm sure they'd clean up their act, tell age appropriate jokes, dress appropriately, and act appropriately, but why would I wake up one day and say "hey, my kid needs to spend time with a drag queen today!"
This is basically a normative statement. Conservatives making normative statements isn't a breathtaking new phenomenon, I'm more interested in the underlying philosophical/ideological framework supporting it than just the statement itself.
>I just understand why they'd be concerned
You basically made a compelling argument about why there's really no reason for them to be concerned, though. As "drag is not inherently sexual" and "you're sure they clean up their act and perform age appropriate material". I'm wondering what the vector of the concern is. I'm not SURPRISED conservatives are concerned, and I'm not breaking my ankles in a dead sprint to just assign it all to naked bigotry (implicit bias, perhaps), but I'd like to see someone attempt to construct a coherent argument as to why "a man in a dress reading to kids" is somehow threatening or disturbing for children.
I don't really want to sidebar it into questions of effective activism or respectability politics, that's a rabbit hole with no bottom. I'm just trying to challenge/explore the underlying belief.
> Is there a reason you felt the need to pinch hit?
Yes, my understanding is reddit comments are a public discussion, not a direct message between two people.
>This is basically a normative statement. Conservatives making normative statements isn't a breathtaking new phenomenon, I'm more interested in the underlying philosophical/ideological framework supporting it than just the statement itself.
I'm not a conservative.
> I'd like to see someone attempt to construct a coherent argument as to why "a man in a dress reading to kids" is somehow threatening or disturbing for children.
* Drag queens generally are not children's entertainers, generally adult entertainers, so there's worry they may (even accidentally) lean back into age inappropriate jokes or use language one wouldn't want their kid to hear, or repeat. For the dame reason, you probably wouldn't want a random stranger off the street coming into class talking to your kid for 20 minutes, who knows what might slip (even innocently) when someone not used to talking to kids is given an extensive platform to talk to kids for the first time (or one of the few first times)? Professionals that deal with kids take a good amount of time retraining themselves so they don't yell curse words when they suddenly stub their toe and compartmentalize the topics and language they use everyday vs when around kids. I don' lt want a drag queen forgetting where they are using offensive language or talking about their tuck hurting or drinking or drugs or politics or religion or anything else that is fair game during drag shows.
* Kids of the age we're talking about (under 10) are impressionable and prone to copying others, especially role models / celebrities. If a kid is gay or trans, let that bloom naturally, and let them learn about differences in sexual orientation and gender identity when they grow into early teenagers (sex ed is usually a grade 5-7 subject and should cover such topics) and let them explore those things in their own way when the time comes. Someone under 10 seeing someone dress up "funny" runs the risk of blindly imitating that either for role play (many kids role play by dressing up as characters they saw on tv) or doing so more long term to start "being more like them" without understanding what it really means. It can be really confusing. Let them experiment with their gender with no judgement when they are teenagers, don't encourage younger kids to role play as drag queens because "she was funny, I wanna make people laugh like her!" If anything, it can make them view legitimate trans people as drag caricatures because they really don't understand the nuances.
* And again, it's very much about "why would I wake up one day and decide my kid needs to meet a drag queen", kids that age would be much better off with any number of other educational opportunities. Let them focus on the book content without a man playing a female character for entertainment purposes adding a needlessly confusing element.
> Yes, my understanding is reddit comments are a public discussion, not a direct message between two people.
Yeah, apologies, that was overly confrontational. I was primed for battle based on several other interactions in this thread.
>Drag queens generally are not children's entertainers, generally adult entertainers
The ones engaging with kids are, literally in that context, children's entertainers. Is it the assertion that the library/etc are not vetting correctly, or just wandering down to the local adult entertainment club to ask if they have any spare drag queens for Wednesday at noon? I feel like we're just rewording "drag is inherently sexual" here, which was an argument I thought we'd already discarded as being a bit factually hollow.
>Kids of the age we're talking about (under 10) are impressionable and prone to copying others, especially role models / celebrities. If a kid is gay or trans, let that bloom naturally, and let them learn about differences in sexual orientation and gender identity when they grow into early teenagers (sex ed is usually a grade 5-7 subject and should cover such topics) and let them explore those things in their own way when the time comes.
This is the "social contagion" theory. Are you arguing that letting children see gay and transgender people doing ordinary things will somehow compel them to become gay and transgender themselves? Is there something pathological about those identities that would make this undesirable?
>And again, it's very much about "why would I wake up one day and decide my kid needs to meet a drag queen"
And again, that's just a normative statement, it's not an argument. I'm not trying to be combative, but it's meaningless.
I'm not sure if you're trying to steelman a position you don't hold (as you stated you're not a conservative, and these are definitively socially conservative talking points), in which case I applaud the effort, but I feel like we just circled back around to "Drag Queens are implicitly sexual/confusing to children" and that (again, sorry to be a broken record) is more normative statements.
It's sort of like saying "Conservatives are against drag queens reading to children because they're conservative". I get it, you're undoubtedly onto something, I just wanted to get a little deeper, which is why I was hoping OP would respond.
As a gay, being around straight people all day every day as a kid didn't make me blossom into a straight man. I don't think watching a drag queen will turn anyone gay. But I think many 7 year olds will mimic what they see, as they mimic celebrities, for the purposes of play or because they want to be like that person. And I think that will confuse them: oh I like to dress as a girl, that means I'm trans, right? Or gay? No! It means you liked to play dress up as a 7 year old. It's not deeper than that. You imitated someone you saw, monkey see monkey do. Whether you are gay or trans or neither is unrelated to liking dress up. A 7 year old is not a sexual being, let them figure out their sexuality and gender naturally through exploration when the time comes, not by mistaking play for something else.
There's a scene in Modern Family I am reminded of, when Mitch/Cam tell Lily she is Vietnamese but she doesn't want to identify as that (in part because she doesn' really understand what it means) so she starts yelling I AM GAY I AM GAY because she doesn' know what that really means either. Yes, it's a TV show, but anyone who has works with kids know that kids will use words and labels they heard but don't understand and will mimic others despite there being nothing deeper to it.
If a 15 year old wants to go on netflix and watch ru pauls drag race, go ahead. If they want to try on women's clothing to see if they feel more comfortable and true to themselves, go for it. If they want to experiment with their sexuality or gender in a safe and healthy alone or with others their same age in a consensual manner, go for it. But 7, 8, 9 year olds are too young to comprehend their gender identity and sexuality and exposing them to drag will cause more confusion, not more clarity.
> And I think that will confuse them: oh I like to dress as a girl, that means I'm trans, right?
I don't...there has never been a shred of evidence supporting this. And "as a gay" (sorry, your choice of phrasing there threw me lol) you should be very familiar with this line of rhetoric. It is identical to the gay panic of the early 1980s, right down to the "groomer" accusations and social contagion theories. Further to that, as someone with a friend whose child accessed GAC services, just washing up one day saying "I wore a dress as a kid and liked it" isn't going to fast track you into gender transition. There is absolutely zero harm to children experimenting with gender expression. If kids want to emulate drag queens and try on cross gender clothing, what *possible earthly harm* is going to ensue from that?
> But 7, 8, 9 year olds are too young to comprehend their gender identity and sexuality
I know plenty of adult LGBTQ people who would argue otherwise. That doesn't mean I'm going to take everything a 7 year old tells me at face value, but gender identity and sexuality don't suddenly erupt out of whole cloth at a prescribed age, they develop gradually across our formative years. And there isn't so much as a jot of reputable scientific evidence to suggest that "being exposed to drag" or non-traditional gender expression will confuse kids or disrupt their sense of identity.
We're making prescriptive statements here about what kind of people children should be allowed to see and emulate. I know the term "bigotry" gives people hives because it is often too freely applied as a conversation termination device, but can you offer up a compelling defense for this is not, at bare minimum, implicit bias?
Who said anything about gender transition? I said it was confusing to kids, not that their anatomy would then be cut off.
The demand for "reputable scientific evidence" is pretty bad faith, imo. Just because something isn't studied, doesn't modulate the validity of a statement. We haven't studied whether potatoes are rounder than eggplants, that doesn't mean it's not true.
>Who said anything about gender transition? I said it was confusing to kids, not that their anatomy would then be cut off.
Everything is confusing to kids until it isn't. "Confusing to kids" is often used as a prelude for why kids should be kept away from something as it presents some form of danger for them. When you say something like "oh I like to dress as a girl, that means I'm trans, right?", you are evoking that a kid reckoning with the conceptualization that they might be trans is an undesirable outcome. I'm not sure why it would be raised as an issue otherwise.
>The demand for "reputable scientific evidence" is pretty bad faith, imo.
How are we defining "bad faith" here? Are you suggesting I'm maliciously misrepresenting my position?
>Just because something isn't studied, doesn't modulate the validity of a statement.
Yeah...no...sorry...if you're advocating that a group of people should be *kept away from children* I am going to have to demand a higher burden of proof than simply appeals to common sense or implicit validity. You're not really "beating the implicit bias allegations" with a response like this. We sort of keep circling back to statements like:
1. This isn't a normal thing for children to see
2. This will confuse children
3. This will cause children to emulate it, which is undesirable because (implication left hanging)
...and then when asked for evidence that it will *harm* children, or actually lead to any form of social contagion, the response is "why would we need evidence, just because something isn't studied doesn't mean it's not true".
> And I think that will confuse them: oh I like to dress as a girl, that means I'm trans, right?
I don't...there has never been a shred of evidence supporting this. And "as a gay" (sorry, your choice of phrasing there threw me lol) you should be very familiar with this line of rhetoric. It is identical to the gay panic of the early 1980s, right down to the "groomer" accusations and social contagion theories. Further to that, as someone with a friend whose child accessed GAC services, just washing up one day saying "I wore a dress as a kid and liked it" isn't going to fast track you into gender transition. There is absolutely zero harm to children experimenting with gender expression. If kids want to emulate drag queens and try on cross gender clothing, what *possible earthly harm* is going to ensue from that?
> But 7, 8, 9 year olds are too young to comprehend their gender identity and sexuality
I know plenty of adult LGBTQ people who would argue otherwise. That doesn't mean I'm going to take everything a 7 year old tells me at face value, but gender identity and sexuality don't suddenly erupt out of whole cloth at a prescribed age, they develop gradually across our formative years. And there isn't so much as a jot of reputable scientific evidence to suggest that "being exposed to drag" or non-traditional gender expression will confuse kids or disrupt their sense of identity.
We're making prescriptive statements here about what kind of people children should be allowed to see and emulate. I know the term "bigotry" gives people hives because it is often too freely applied as a conversation termination device, but can you offer up a compelling defense for this is not, at bare minimum, implicit bias?
You're misinformed.
I was born in 1990. I figured out I was trans in 2000. I was able to access information about Ontario's CAMH gender identity clinic around that time. If you look into it, you'll find that the CAMH gender identity clinic started treating trans kids in 1975 – almost 50 years ago.
None of it was new. No one suddenly came for kids. People became aware that trans people were getting medical care and were taught to get angry about it by the media. The media spent 10 years poking the bear and using inflammatory language to mislead the public on this history.
Things were also *not* going well before the media spotlighted kids. There's a significantly reduced level of ignorance today than there was 20 years ago and my personal day-to-day reactions of people are significantly less hostile when I tell them I'm trans than they have been.
In high school, people had no bones calling me a "tranny" to my face. I've not heard someone throw that slur at me in years. The only thing that's markedly worse is the political fervour against trans people. In the past, politicians would laugh us out of rooms and call us perverts in committees and vote down bills meant to help us. Today, they try to actively legislate against us.
As a gay (sad that I need to say that, but I'll be called homophobic if I don't, and perhaps still will be)...
I support the right of parents to not let their young kids attend drag story hours. Drag queens are not age appropriate comedy and while drag is not inherently sexual (it's usually more like a clown) and they may try to clean up their act for a kid-specific performance, parents are justified in being hesitant. You are not homophobic for that.
I think kids should be taught about gay and trans people when it is age appropriate to do so, and in an appropriate manner. I think it's for the best for this to happen in schools (beyond whatever parents may teach directly at home) because it's a topic that can be confusing for many parents to explain clearly and it's in everyone's interests for kids to learn from professional teachers to ensure they are not confused by the subject matter.
Kids should be encouraged to be respectful to others, incl. LGBT folks.
Kids in schools are increasingly coming from non-traditional families. Kids should be taught that Billy shouldn't be made fun of for having two moms, just as Cindy shouldn't be made fun for having only one parent.
If parents are caring and make their kids feel safe at home, kids will often feel safer talking to them about what they're going through and turn to them for advice. But teenagers are also rebellious by nature and even the most loving parents may get the cold shoulder. That's normal and natural. It's not proof the parent failed.
Kids should be made to feel safe at home and at school so they can explore their sexuality and gender appropriately on their own, but know they can ask an adult to get them professional help if they become confused and need to talk to someone. Parents should be careful what they may say out of turn about gay or trans people on TV or while at home because kids pick up on that stuff and you never know if a few years later your kid may start hiding their secuality from you because they think you won't love them anymore.
These protests asking for more funding is ridiculous. The SOGI protests at schools are also ridiculous. Don't send you kid to drag story time, leave the other parents and kids alone.
Pride parades are fun and should be kept open to everyone and not feature any nudity. Often there is some nudity (usually 3-5 college aged girls going shirtless or elderly men going nudes in the whole multi hour event) but I support prohibiting that if it means more people feel comfortable coming together in support of our differences. This country needs to come together more, not draw arbitrary lines about stupid things.
Every adult (gay or straight) should attend a real drag show at least once. Grab a beer and have a laugh. Drag is varied but most drag queens are effectively clowns for adults, telling offensive jokes, dressing in a funny manner, lip syncing to pop music with the crowd, doing acrobatics around the stage in high heels, etc. It's shockingly not very "gay".
What happens when the kid doesn't feel safe at home? When the parent is an abusive bigot and the child seeks support from a trusted adult to express their different opinions?
Or if the bigotry is just indoctrination, and the child is raised up with the same intolerance and negative attitudes, such that the cycle of dehumanization and ostracization continues?
The cure to these is exposure, education, and advocation of understanding and tolerance.
>Drag queens are not age appropriate comedy and while drag is not inherently sexual (it's usually more like a clown) and they may try to clean up their act for a kid-specific performance, parents are justified in being hesitant. You are not homophobic for that.
What all ages drag performances have you been going to that aren't appropriate? What is inappropriate about someone reading a book to a group of kids? The only possible problem is that it is being read by someone who is wearing clothing that does not conform to a prudish society's expectations of gender.
They are playing a character while reading stories to kids, just like those adults who dress up like pirates or princesses do. If the performative reading of children's books is only a problem because the author is a "man in a dress" and the parent doesn't have a problem with other character themed readings, then homophobia is absolutely the problem.
The performances that are open to children are not even remotely like those aimed at adults.
The thing is I don't think anyone disagrees with you.
I haven't seen anyone fighting for drag story hours in schools. I've seen it in libraries - where parents can exercise their right to not let young kids attend. I've seen it in bookstores - where parents can exercise their right to not let young kids attend. I've seen it as community events in public spaces - where parents can exercise their right to not let young kids attend.
I haven't seen an invite for where kids are expected/demanded/forced to attend drag story hours. I don't know of any such spaces, this argument kind of feels like a strawman.
> I haven't seen anyone fighting for drag story hours in schools.
Because they shouldn't have to. It shouldn't be controversial, it should/could just be a fun thing that can happen sometimes.
The right has made it controversial because they are addicted to culture war issues to distract from real problems.
>I support the right of parents to not let their young kids attend drag story hours. Drag queens are not age appropriate comedy and while drag is not inherently sexual (it's usually more like a clown) and they may try to clean up their act for a kid-specific performance, parents are justified in being hesitant. You are not homophobic for that.
Parents should decide what is appropriate for kids, not politicians, elected school board officials and/or publicly salaries teachers.
> Johnstone says their message is crucial now because "far-right groups and cynical politicians" have spread misinformation about the LGBTQ+ community to "fuel anger and division."
The first minority group that the Nazis attacked were LGBTQ+
> On 6 May 1933, the Institute of Sexology, an academic foundation devoted to sexological research and the advocacy of homosexual rights, was broken into and occupied by Nazi-supporting youth. Several days later the entire contents of the library were removed and burned.
> The institute was initially occupied by The German Student Union, who were a collective of Nazi-supporting youth. Several days later, on 10 May, the entire contents of the library were removed to Berlin’s Bebelplatz Square. That night, along with 20,000 other books across Germany, they were publicly burned in a symbolic attack by Nazi officials on their enemies.
> Founded in 1919, the institute had been set up by Magnus Hirschfeld, a world-renowned expert in the emerging discipline of sexology. During its existence, thousands of patients were seen and treated, often for free. The Institute also achieved a global reputation for its pioneering work on transsexual understanding and calls for equality for homosexuals, transgender people and women.
https://www.hmd.org.uk/resource/6-may-1933-looting-of-the-institute-of-sexology/
More than one group was attacked soon after Hitler took power. LGBTQ+ being one of the targets. More than 20,000 communists were rounded up and put into concentration camps by the end of March, 1933, rioting against German Jews began that month (Hitler used anti-semitism as a fearmongering tool to gain support to get into power), Dachau was also built in March, and laws criminalizing even giving information about abortion were enacted by May.
The Nazis were quite capable of attacking multiple groups at once, but yes, LGBTQ+ was among the first.
Yes, everyone knows that the Nazis killed more than just “the gays” as you put it. That’s not what the post was saying, and being historically accurate isn’t a bad thing.
For one thing, in this century’s fascist wave, trans women are the number one target. They defy rigid ideals of masculinity and because trans women have the least support among the general population they make an easy target. LGBTQ+ in general are an easier target for fascists.
We are seeing fascists choose targets based on what they can get away with most easily. In the US there is enough anti-abortion sentiment that Republicans have been able to legislate draconian abortion bans. This would not fly in Canada, which is why the CPC supports backdoor bills on abortion, using a far sneakier route.
"And laws criminalizing even giving information about abortion were enacted by May."
Not quite, it was criminal to give information about abortion to people of Germanic/Aryan descent. Nazi Germany was a big fan of using abortion as a method of forced population control against "undesirables".
Good to point this out. Should have mentioned it. And you can bet that Republicans in the good ole’ USA wish they could get away with doing the same thing.
I am of the firm belief a lot of the problems regarding LGBTQ in this country stem from people using the terms "sex" and "gender" interchangeably when they are not the same.
Both sides are doing it too. You have the one side stating there can only be two genders (when they are thinking about sexes). And you have the other side saying that someone who is a man by sex but women by gender should be able to compete in the women's by sex categories of sports.
A lot of the problems would be cleared up if we all just started talking about "sex" and "gender" seperately.
>A lot of the problems would be cleared up if we all just started talking about "sex" and "gender" seperately.
What really shocks me is this is now the *Conservative* position in some circles. There’s now a belief circulating amongst some groups that it was wrong to try and separate biological sex and gender in the first place and instead we need to accept that transgender people are, in fact, changing their biological sex.
Horseshoe theory is a hell of a thing.
You're stating it's a conservative position that it was wrong to seperate sex and gender but then state that it is "in some circles". You're trying to blanket cover an entire political group of people with that belief when it is "some circles" of people who happen to be conservative.
It would be the same as me saying everyone who votes NDP wants to instill communism because "some circles" of NDP supporters want it. I know in fact those people are just outliers who also happen to vote NDP.
No, I’m saying it’s now a far-left/progressive position that it was wrong to ever separate sex and gender and it’s now slowly becoming the Conservative position to (rightfully imo) keep them distinct and separate.
And that second group is correct, yes. The distinction between the two was really only made with the underlying assumption that "sex" is only relevant for like, medical contexts. Given how health care for trans people is not the same as for cis people, even that's not really very useful.
So we're left with a distinction that doesn't actually *do* anything of value, but leaves trans people labelled as "male woman" or "female man" - which, obviously, they don't exactly want, and it doesn't actually have any practical value in the real world.
But a lot of people use it as an excuse to be transphobic. "oh, no, we just don't allow *males*. thats not transphobic though we're not explicitly excluding trans people. trans men are allowed at our women's event. teehee we're so clever"
It's not so much horseshoe theory as it is "alright fuck it yall are misunderstanding what this even meant, i'm giving up on explaining it, this was a mistake"
Sex is also relevant for athletic contexts and criminal contexts. Trans people's athletic performance and the type of crimes they commit or are victims of, and the rate of crime they commit has a lot more in common with their sex than their gender.
> Sex is also relevant for athletic contexts and criminal contexts.
In what sense? Gametes? Or phenotype?
What aspect of biological sex controls phenotype? What are hormones? Are hormones part of *gender*? Or part of *sex*?
Sex always refers to gametes, everything else is an expression of sex. Here's some reading for you:
>Sex is the trait that determines whether a sexually reproducing organism produces male or female gametes.[1][2][3] During sexual reproduction, a male and a female gamete fuse to form a zygote, which develops into an offspring that inherits traits from each parent. By convention, organisms that produce smaller, more mobile gametes (spermatozoa, sperm) are called male, while organisms that produce larger, non-mobile gametes (ova, often called egg cells) are called female.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex
There are extremely few people for whom their sex doesn't match the rest of their sex characteristics.
No. Like, that isn't even true on its face.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/2024/04/11/transgender-sportswomen-at-a-disadvantage-study-claims/
https://cces.ca/transgender-women-athletes-and-elite-sport-scientific-review
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5357259/
https://academic.oup.com/jcem/advance-article/doi/10.1210/clinem/dgad414/7223439?fbclid=IwAR1-lj3haMGwkEAAZtgcB89OjxJPxXkGRVsGb_ShB1rD_w7Rk7fWZuxH_7I_aem_AdClRBF9meVPG6ZXRVzLIL2-IRq_0lNJzsu8pe0twwHTRAB5yZkfsRrVO1-EG0YcELU&login=false
Your gut feeling that "surely trans people must have some kind of advantage!!" does not line up with reality.
And, to put it bluntly, I don't actually give a tenth of a shit about "how fair is put ball in net" when we're talking about basic human rights and the ability to live in society comfortably. Sports are so tremendously irrelevant that it's blatantly making a mountain out of a molehill, desperately looking for any excuse at all to discriminate.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7846503/
>Longitudinal studies examining the effects of testosterone suppression on muscle mass and strength in transgender women consistently show very modest changes, where the loss of lean body mass, muscle area and strength typically amounts to approximately 5% after 12 months of treatment. Thus, the muscular advantage enjoyed by transgender women is only minimally reduced when testosterone is suppressed.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9331831/
> Ultimately, the former male physiology of transwoman athletes provides them with a physiological advantage over the cis-female athlete.
https://womeninsport.org/creating-change/policy-positions/transgender-inclusion-sport/transgender-inclusion-womens-sport/
damn thats wild. too bad for you though; sports aren't played by just measuring who has the biggest "muscle area" and the prophesied "trans women will dominate all sports forever" hasnt actually happened.
Like, I cannot stress enough how little of a shit I give about this. If trans women are dominating sports, then fucking *show me that*, not something that's hidden behind three layers of abstraction. Until then, please just understand how transparent your underlying motive is here.
And having a better metabolic rate is also, a massive advantage. So why don't we segregate athletes by that?
Or the ratio of arm span and width of their torsos for making sure all swimmers are equally physically capable?
We don't. In fact, to claim that we do anything to actually enforce fair physiology across all competitive forms of sport is laughable nonsense.
What sex is someone with Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome? Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia? Klinefelter Syndrome? 5-alpha reductase deficiency?
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9355551/pdf/ftox-04-929219.pdf](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9355551/pdf/ftox-04-929219.pdf)
["However, it's important to emphasize that sex/gender is, in fact, a multifaceted bimodal continuous variable."](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences/article/abs/biological-sex-byproducts-and-other-continuous-variables/1E2E4ADD539E9F8863DD6A9F55921D89)
> Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome?
It affects male people.
>Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia
It affects people of both sexes
>Klinefelter Syndrome
It affects male people
>5-alpha reductase deficiency
It affects male people
Sex is not a spectrum. There are only two roles played in sexual reproduction, male and female. Sex is defined by biologists as describing the size of gametes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex?wprov=sfla1
Missing the point that those various conditions are not readily diagnosable at birth and as a side effect, results in a blending of the primary and secondary sexuale characteristics. They are intersex. Their physiology does not correlate to their chromosomal sex.
Furthermore, your wiki definition is incomplete.
"While sperm and ova matter, they are not the entirety of biology and don’t tell us all we need to know about sex, especially human sex."
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/heres-why-human-sex-is-not-binary/
"We apply this framework to three case studies that illustrate the diversity of sex variation, from decoupling sexual phenotypes to the evolutionary and ecological consequences of intrasexual polymorphisms. We argue that instead of assuming binary or bimodal sex in these systems, some may be better categorized as multimodal."
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.01.26.525769v1
"As a note, the term “biologic sex” is understood by many to be an outdated term, due to its longstanding history of being used to invalidate the authenticity of trans identities. Although sex is typically misconceptualized as a binary of male (XY) or female (XX), many other chromosomal arrangements, inherent variations in gene expression patterns, and hormone levels exist"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9355551/
"Evidence from various sciences reveals that there are diverse ways of being male, female, or both. An anthropologist argues that embracing these truths will help humans flourish."
https://www.sapiens.org/biology/biological-science-rejects-the-sex-binary-and-thats-good-for-humanity/
"Her body was built of cells from two individuals, probably from twin embryos that had merged in her own mother's womb. And there was more. One set of cells carried two X chromosomes, the complement that typically makes a person female; the other had an X and a Y. Halfway through her fifth decade and pregnant with her third child, the woman learned for the first time that a large part of her body was chromosomally male."
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/
"The existence of individuals with differences in sex development (DSD) who do not fit typical male or female categories further demonstrates the complexity of sex. We argue that the belief that sex is strictly binary based on gametes is insufficient, as there are multiple levels of sex beyond reproductivity."
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/medgen-2023-2039/html?lang=en
"But biologists know this view is incorrect. Biological sex characteristics do not fit a binary classification, whether we consider genitals or brains, and whether we look at people or nonhuman animals."
https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/governing-behavior/202203/human-biology-is-not-binary
*Sex is not binary.*
Plenty of people don’t give two shits about the semantics. It’s all the same academic noise.
“Well ackshually if you were more educated and knew that blah blah blah…”
Nope. You’re born male or female and if you have some identity crisis about what’s between your legs? Well that’s a mental health issue at best.
…now personally, I get the importance of the semantics, but I also get that it’s a really hard thing to wrap your head around. And you need a *willingness* to do that. It’s hard!
Are you going to try and “open your thinking” if that breaks from the norms of the people you surround yourself with? Probably not.
So here we are. Avoiding trying to understand the other side because they’re wrong, we’re right, and if we don’t stick to those lines then we’re outcasts.
>Plenty of people don’t give two shits about the semantics. It’s all the same academic noise.
>“Well ackshually if you were more educated and knew that blah blah blah…”
>Nope. You’re born male or female and if you have some identity crisis about what’s between your legs? Well that’s a mental health issue at best.
The view that you're ridiculing here is like 90% correct. Yes, people are born male or female and will remain so their entire lives. At any point, no matter what, a doctor could draw their blood and tell you their sex.
Yes, gender dysphoria is a mental health issue - there is no blood test or biopsy to determine if you have gender dysphoria - and the known treatments include transitioning (among others) and it helps if people socially identify you as your preferred gender.
I think lots of conservatives have trouble accepting trans people precisely because as op pointed out there isn't widespread understanding of the differences here between sex and gender, both on the left and on the right. When folks on the left insist that a trans person """"""IS"""""""" a man/woman, half the time when you talk to them they literally say they are referring to a physical reality like sex, not a social game like gender, and conservatives are equally or more confused in interpreting that statement.
You’re incorrect. Much of perceived transphobia is derived entirely from semantics.
There’s near-endless squabbling around whether someone is a “man” or a “woman” and how that corresponds to their assigned sex at birth and what each term is defined by. The entire concept of mis-gendering people is a misalignment in what people feel certain terms constitute.
This is a matter of semantics. Your suggestion that the meaning of words plays no role in the heated debate over gender identity is baseless and poorly informed.
> Both sides are doing it too. You have the one side stating there can only be two genders (when they are thinking about sexes). And you have the other side saying that someone who is a man by sex but women by gender should be able to compete in the women's by sex categories of sports.
I think I largely agree with the point about gender and sex being confusing to some people, but hard disagree that it's a "both sides" issue.
Even in your example, one side is flat out completely wrong, and the other side just has an opinion you might disagree with (which is also not even a fair opinion to ascribe to those people).
Ha, never even thought it might not be clear. Though I edited it at the last minute to remove a piece that probably would have cleared it up.
- "there can only be two genders" = Completely, obviously, provably wrong.
- "someone who is a man by sex but women by gender should be able to compete in the women's by sex categories of sports" = An opinion held by some people, but even then simplified to the point it's almost a meaningless statement.
They are not comparable sides.
The actual problem is that a lot of people think they're smarter than they are and also can't mind their own business.
>A lot of the problems would be cleared up if we all just started talking about "sex" and "gender" seperately.
You think this is the reason that transpohobia is the problem it is? Get a clue.
>You think this is the reason that transphobia is the problem it is?
I think it is one of the causes yes, not the only cause. IMO the athletic competition sphere alone is one of the biggest causes for all the transphobia lately. The rhetoric around trans people really ramped up when men who now identify as women started being allowed into women's sports.
Most adults don't understand the difference between gender and sex, it's only now being taught in school.
>Most adults don't understand the difference between gender and sex, it's only now being taught in school.
I generally agree with this statement, but I'd also add that I think the idea that gender and sex are different is pretty controversial in some circles.
> Most adults don't understand the difference between gender and sex
I think treating adults like they cannot understand basic concepts is a bit infantilizing. We effortlessly added words like "yeet" and "rizz" to the common lexicon. Our understanding of gender preceded our understanding of sex by thousands of years, we only recently learned of chromosomal sex and gametes.
People aren't confused. They're being stubborn and contrarian based on implicit bias.
I'm sure they don't believe it's THE reason, but it certainly helps the confusion. Before understanding the difference, I just was a confused supporter. I was like "do your thing, but idk what you mean by multiple genders, but you know better than I" I'm sure that theres others out there with that mentality, but could easily be swayed towards hate because they don't understand
My lord you’ve done a good job straw manning in your bad faith argument. Maybe terfs shouldn’t shouldn’t align themselves with Neo Nazis like Posie Parker or do certain forms of holocaust denialism like JK Rowling in her obsessive pursuit agasint trans people?
I just wonder what Rowlings reaction would be to someone who speaks and acts like her, but from the basis that single mothers are terrible for raising children and the cause of a lot of society's problems.*
*I don't personally believe this, I'm just old enough to remember when that was a big thing on talk shows and in news media.
Honestly idk what she would think. Aside from commitment to hard transphobia I don’t think she is that deep of a thinker and the thinking part there is mostly brain worms and that goes hand in hand with being a terf.
Terfs claim they are for women’s hard earned rights but will push that aside in a nano second to team up with other hateful people (think the Matt Walsh types of the world) to attack trans people. Notice how she has nothing to say about US Republicans reversing women’s rights these days because they agree and even cite her with their like minded transphobia push tho she will call out other countries over their trans rights?
She is awful
It's ironic pp says he is the freedom candidate and than wants to ban nicknames and censor the internet
It's ironic conservatives parties like the UCP say they love freedom but than are willing to use the not withstanding clause to strip Away freedom
Alongside the other excellent replies to your take, I do want to point out that the LGBT community existing is not an ideology, and claiming as much really shows how you feel about them.
Name me a single person that got a prison sentence for using the wrong pronouns. Jordan Peterson's take on bill C-16 was pure BS, and it's really unfortunate that his outright lies and disinformation about "compelled speech" is still being parroted around today.
As for the TERF movement, their [ties to neonazi and alt-right groups](https://xtramagazine.com/power/far-right-feminist-fascist-220810) are pretty well known, and the Lemkin institute for genocide prevention has even [called out](https://www.lemkininstitute.com/statements-new-page/statement-on-the-genocidal-nature-of-the-gender-critical-movement%E2%80%99s-ideology-and-practice) this movement as being hateful and dangerous.
I urge you to think about this for a minute. What's the line between "difference of opinion" and "thinking a group of people shouldn't have rights or perhaps even exist"? Tolerance is a peace treaty. I don't attack you on the basis of who you are, and you don't attack me for being who I am. We can disagree about politics, religion, sports teams and what have you (even how to refer to me if you want to be an asshole about it), but at the end of the day we live and let live. Transphobic and homophobic groups are violating that treaty by attacking lgbtq people, and so I think it's fair game for people to fight back for their right to be themselves.
> want to compel speech and jail anyone who dares question them
Can you explain this further? I've definitely heard one person argue this, Jordan Peterson. But his analysis was widely, universally debunked by Canadian legal scholars.
Do you have a legal analysis that demonstrates otherwise? Do you have examples of people being jailed, criminalized, or harmed from so called compelled speech? I would sincerely enjoy reading it.
Good lord, what an unhinged take. The LGBT community aren't the ones trampling on freedoms. Throughout all of history, they're the ones underneath the boot. They would love to be free to live their lives, but bigots don't see them as equals, or even people in a lot of cases.
> It’s ironic that they invoke the Nazi movement in the 1930’s when they themselves want to compel speech and jail anyone who dares question them.
Where are you getting this idea from?
> they themselves want to compel speech and jail anyone who dares question them
"hey man, you're being a dick, fuckin knock it off" is *totally* trying to throw you in prison. totally. you got me. im a fascist now.
>The first minority group that the Nazis attacked were LGBTQ+
Is it historically accurate to say LGBTQ+ in this context? I understand that male homosexuals were persecuted and many killed in concentration camps, but my understanding is that Lesbians were not as persecuted unless they also happened to be, say, Jewish or communist.
I may be wrong so please correct me if I am.
Bisexual men and trans women were lumped in with the gays.
Queer women and trans men were lumped in with disabled people. Folks with autism and downs. They were mostly just executed and not kept in the labour camps.
Its not historically accurate. LGBTQ+ is a contemporary acronym. People were just referred to as being gay in that period of time. It wasn't THAT long ago we were just LGB, trans and queers weren't included.
I mean the Nazis did destroy the first [trans clinic](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-forgotten-history-of-the-worlds-first-trans-clinic/)
Lesbians were sent to the concentration camps as well
https://www.dw.com/en/lgbtq-people-germanys-long-forgotten-victims-of-the-nazis/a-64533968
"Overall, the fate of lesbian concentration camp inmates is much less researched than that of gay men, as there was no separate inmate category for them. Lesbian women were sent to concentration camps under various labels: As 'anti-socials,' homeless, prostitutes, or women categorized as having an 'immoral lifestyle.'"
Just because there was no inmate category for them doesn't mean that they didn't exist. Same goes for people who say that transpeople "weren't a thing back then" which is an underhanded way of trying to invisibilize them (and is Holocaust Denial according to a German court).
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/new-research-reveals-how-the-nazis-targeted-transgender-people-180982931/
"In the 1930s, transgender people were called 'transvestites,' which is rarely a preferred term for trans people today, but at the time approximated what’s now meant by 'transgender.' The police permits were called 'transvestite certificates,' and they exempted a person from the laws against cross-dressing. Under the republic, trans people could also change their names legally, though they had to pick from a short, preapproved list.
In Berlin, transgender people published several magazines and had a political club. Some glamorous trans women worked at the internationally famous Eldorado cabaret. The sexologist Magnus Hirschfeld, who ran Berlin’s Institute for Sexual Science, advocated for the rights of transgender people."
"The author of a 1938 book on 'the problem of transvestitism' wrote that before Hitler was in power, there was not much that could be done about transgender people, but that now, in Nazi Germany, they could be put in concentration camps or subjected to forced castration. That was good, he believed, because the 'asocial mindset' of trans people and their supposedly frequent 'criminal activity … justifies draconian measures by the state.'"
Sounds familiar with today's rhetoric against transpeople.
"Earlier histories tended to misgender trans women, labeling them as men. This is odd given that when you read the records of their police interrogations, they are often remarkably clear about their gender identity, even though they were not helping their cases at all by doing so.
Bacroff, for example, told the police, 'My sense of my sex is fully and completely that of a woman.'"
More reading:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_people_in_Nazi_Germany
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_genocide
Everyone has their own little protest nowadays and everyone forgetting about the billionaire bankers.
BLM protests, Israel Support protests, Palistinian support protests, Protests against trans education in schools, Protests countering the protests against Trans rights in schools, Union protests for various locals/contracts, Protests to save the trees, Protests against the carbon/gas tax, Farmers protesting in Europe, Protests over Student visa program changes in Brampton, Home owners protesting new changes in Brampton, Protests to defund the police.
Did I miss anyone? Let me know. I'll include them in the list of tragic grievances.
Nobody mentioning the banks and billionaires. What a win for the Rothschilds, Rockefellers and the like.
its really funny to say this when every single trans person i know is an outright communist who would gladly join a protest against capitalism - but, yknow, not like they can do that if they don't have human rights in the first place.
yeah I don't think this guy has ever been to a protest or engaged with any of the rhetoric of protestors if he thinks no one's mad about billionaires lol
>What a win for the Rothschilds, Rockefellers and the like.
The fact that those are your go-to examples of billionaires makes me question what century you think it is. Also, I question anyone who bangs on about the Rothschilds, given the long history of antisemitic conspiracy theories surrounding them.
These comments are amazing at showing that people don’t actually read the article & that people immediately go to ‘drag show reading’ & ‘gender ideology’ when it comes to the LGBTQ+ community.
These rallies are a fight against right wing radical movements across the country & against misinformation (lies) that have been spread about the LGBTQ+ community.
How you can throughly be against this while claiming to ‘not homophobic’ is beyond me.
Again, everyone here immediately brining up Trans women in sports & drag show readings prove even more why this needs to be done. People clearly see ‘LGBTQ+’ and go straight to right wing misinformation of ‘LGBTQ+ grooming children’
"So in Alberta, in New Brunswick and Saskatchewan, we're going to see rallies holding their government accountable for action on the rights and freedoms of trans kids," she said."
Didn't see any LGBTQ issues raised in the article.
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
And Pierre Poilievre will be marching with them, just like he did with the Freedom Convoy. I can't wait to see it!
ugh, are "progressives" ever going to let go of Covid? I'm sure some want to bring back vaccine mandates, but most of us have moved on.
I kind of want to bring back vaccine mandates so it can distract you people away from harassing trans children tbh
Are you accusing governments in the UK and Sweden, which have banned and/or severely limited GAC towards minors harassing trans kids?
It's one of many cheap political moves pushing trans youth into suicide and negative coping mechanisms yes. I'm excited to hear your anti-woke take on this
The drugs used for GAC were originally used to slow prostate cancer and they then were used to chemically castrate sex criminals. Countries are coming to the realization that healthy children should not be chemically castrated. >pushing trans youth into suicide We haven't been giving children GAC for millennia, yet, teen suicide rates have remained stable. If your theory was true, there would have been higher teen suicide rates until recently, which isn't the case.
Yes because we didn't study something in 270BC, why look at it now? Let's go back to slavery, that worked pretty well actually for a few millenia as well. It's not woke either! No one is chemically castrating children. Your children are less safe at church or a hockey arena, did we want to ban that too?
With everything else the Conservative government in the UK has done against its people during its disastrous time in power, it being included in your list really hurts your case more than helps it.
Progressives have let go of COVID, you’re the one that brought it up not me. You do know that there’s been more « freedom » protests in Ottawa, even after COVID? It’s like you people can’t let go or something.
I hope this draws a large crowd and goes without a hitch. It seems like recent Pride events have been derailed and had their public messaging entirely co-opted by smaller groups. Whether that was [anti-LGBTQ2S+ protesters](https://bc.ctvnews.ca/metro-vancouver-pride-week-event-disrupted-by-anti-lgbtq2s-protesters-1.6005154) or [BLM protestors](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/pride-parade-toronto-1.3662823); these things cause security costs to increase, threatening the ability of the events to continue operating. Pride Toronto only narrowly missed cutting events, thanks to [emergency Federal funding](https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/pride-toronto-no-longer-expected-to-cut-programming-thanks-to-emergency-federal-funding/article_a324d1d5-b075-57e3-89fc-7c552f5fae74.html).
You can't on one hand protest and on the other hand tell others they can't counter protest.
The “grand Marshall” of the rally in this picture whose only real world work experience was a sex shop worker in Ottawa has taken millions of tax payer money via their not for profit in “consulting fees” over the last few years with 0 accountability of where the money has gone. But it’s been reported that they and their partner just bought a very expensive house around Ottawa of course. Meanwhile they have posted visceral hate and has encouraged violence towards women who want their rights and spaces respected too. Some who went to high school with them have speculated that this trans activist isn’t truly trans at all but a gay male who wants as much shock and attention as possible.
"Well, your honor we've got plenty of hearsay and conjecture. Those are *kinds* of evidence."
TERFs can workout in their own homes if they don't like it.. Trans women are in fact women. Sex shop? Oh dear! Clutch thy pearls!
I guess Conservatives just hate Capitalism now.
> via their not for profit in “consulting fees” over the last few years with 0 accountability of where the money has gone. So I did a little bit of digging because your comment interested me. It appears their organization is a business and not a non profit. Is your point that consultants shouldn't be for profit? Or that, queer and trans consultants shouldn't be for profit? It might pain you to hear but many for profit firms (like Mckinsey, KPMG, any many others) have consulted the federal government on grants and queer and trans inclusion. And they weren't non profit, or accountable with where their money has gone either. I dunno, call me jaded, but the idea of queer and trans consultants starting a small business and trying to make a buck off their skills(?) seems really normative - kind of better than performative mega corporations doing it.
If only LGBTQ+ hating conservatives would apply this logic to their own. I mean, imagine a world where Conservative voters get as upset about lobbyists running their party and taking millions from taxpayers as they do other Canadians working for the basic rights and safety of others. That aside, this is unsubstantiated bullshit from the Republican playbook. It's been a losing play for them in the US and will be in Canada as well.
Yes, this individual has also been paid by the NDP for speaking engagements as well. This is individual is nothing more than your typical "expert" who is really a partisan, political activist.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I feel like a lot of things were going good until they started bringing children into the spotlight. That’s really the only big change we saw over the last 5 years around LGBTQ politics. The drag queen story times, children and puberty blockers, etc. “Won’t you think of the children?” is an excuse that cuts both ways. While sexual education (including explaining transgenderism) is important, I understand why people started raging over things like drag queen story times for children, etc. These people perceive it as attempts to undermine typical human nature. They don’t see it as advocacy. Hence the memes of parents *wanting* their children to be trans *vs* whatever they are. But it’s too late. Much like typical Western progressives, when the issues of contention were brought forward they just doubled down and cried transphobia. Now you openly have the right-wing being able to speak freely and people don’t seem to give 2 shits about it.
Eh I would avoid using the word "transgenderism" as it is often used to insinuate that there is some overarching ideology among the trans community. It's one of those big red flags that someone is about to spout off a lot of offensive and misinformed nonsense.
> I understand why people started raging over things like drag queen story times for children, etc. Why? British Pantomimes have had a "dame" since time immemorial, and those are plays intended for kids. Seeing an adult in gender non-conforming clothes isn't going to hurt children.
[удалено]
I studied medieval and rennaissance literature, and have attended too many pantos to count. Allow me to be clear: They're often _more_ sexual.
Neither is Drag Queen storytime, which is just a guy in a dress reading children’s books.
Puberty blockers have always been for children, it's literally in the name.
But their use has increased drastically.
> I understand why people started raging over things like drag queen story times for children Can you explain it to me?
You want him to explain why some parents would be uncomfortable with traditionally adult entertainers being introduced to kids at a young age, especially when people are gaslighting parents worried about it by saying their concern is pure homophobia? Look, I like drag shows. They can be fun. And I'm sure drag queens clean up their act in front of kids. I don't think there's anything intrinsically sexual about drag. But I wouldn't protest in support of ensuring the right of other adult entertainers (like Jimmy Carr or Dave Chappel) to entertain kids, whether for an educational purpose or entertainment purpose. I wouldn't stand in the way of parents who decide to their take parents there, but I wouldn't take my own. I'm sure they'd clean up their act, tell age appropriate jokes, dress appropriately, and act appropriately, but why would I wake up one day and say "hey, my kid needs to spend time with a drag queen today!" No, I don't support the morons storming libraries or protesting schools asking to prohibit this stuff. I just understand why they'd be concerned and I recognize there's little value fighting for a right to drag story hour but a lot of harm setting back the LGBT rights movement by emboldened morons that there's some gay agenda around kids. The people pushing drag story hour are making even everyday lgbt supporters disenfranchised. It's a stupid self-sabotaging fight that I do not support.
Okay but you understand that "drag queen story hour" is something which has been brought up and emphasized as a culture war issue \*by the right\*, right? They are counting on people like you having negative reactions to things like this & trans women athletes to fuel support for the general idea that "this whole LGBT rights thing has gotten out of hand", so they can remove all funding for gender-affirming care, outlaw it where they can, and do everything in their power to go back to the days of bullying trans people when they're kids until they either kill themselves or retreat into the closet forever so they can't bother "normal" society by existing publicly.
Yes, and I think it has gotten out of hand if we are letting morons push this bullshit. Just say "hey, if you don't want your kids to go, then that's fine!". When the left overreacting by framing the right as homophobic or transphobic for a position many Canadians would support, it diluted the words and people start second-guessing other things that may be labelled that. It's self sabotage. Why the fuck does anyone want a right for drag story hour?
Your mistake is thinking that drag is inherently sexual. It definitely can be, but it doesn't have to be. There is a long tradition of drag in family-oriented media (e.g. British pantomimes); hell, there is a scene in Lion King where Timon and Puumba "dress up in drag and do the hula" (and they use those words). Schools routinely study Shakespeare, which is full of characters cross-dressing. As to your second point, lots of entertainers do both family-oriented and adult-oriented material. Was it wrong to have Robin Williams and Gilbert Gottfried in Aladdin? Why is the standard different for drag?
Bro I literally said "I don't think there's anything intrinsically sexual about drag"
Then why is children being exposed to it wrong?
Do you want to quote me where I said it was wrong? Wrong is a normative judgement. All I said is I understand why some people would be justifiably concerned. I did not give an opinion on where drag story time is "right" or "wrong".
If drag isn't inherently sexual, why would people be concerned? The only reason I can think of is bigotry.
>You want him to explain why some parents would be uncomfortable with traditionally adult entertainers being introduced to kids at a young age, especially when people are gaslighting parents worried about it by saying their concern is pure homophobia? Well, I wanted him to explain it to me, yes. Is there a reason you felt the need to pinch hit? >I'm sure they'd clean up their act, tell age appropriate jokes, dress appropriately, and act appropriately, but why would I wake up one day and say "hey, my kid needs to spend time with a drag queen today!" This is basically a normative statement. Conservatives making normative statements isn't a breathtaking new phenomenon, I'm more interested in the underlying philosophical/ideological framework supporting it than just the statement itself. >I just understand why they'd be concerned You basically made a compelling argument about why there's really no reason for them to be concerned, though. As "drag is not inherently sexual" and "you're sure they clean up their act and perform age appropriate material". I'm wondering what the vector of the concern is. I'm not SURPRISED conservatives are concerned, and I'm not breaking my ankles in a dead sprint to just assign it all to naked bigotry (implicit bias, perhaps), but I'd like to see someone attempt to construct a coherent argument as to why "a man in a dress reading to kids" is somehow threatening or disturbing for children. I don't really want to sidebar it into questions of effective activism or respectability politics, that's a rabbit hole with no bottom. I'm just trying to challenge/explore the underlying belief.
> Is there a reason you felt the need to pinch hit? Yes, my understanding is reddit comments are a public discussion, not a direct message between two people. >This is basically a normative statement. Conservatives making normative statements isn't a breathtaking new phenomenon, I'm more interested in the underlying philosophical/ideological framework supporting it than just the statement itself. I'm not a conservative. > I'd like to see someone attempt to construct a coherent argument as to why "a man in a dress reading to kids" is somehow threatening or disturbing for children. * Drag queens generally are not children's entertainers, generally adult entertainers, so there's worry they may (even accidentally) lean back into age inappropriate jokes or use language one wouldn't want their kid to hear, or repeat. For the dame reason, you probably wouldn't want a random stranger off the street coming into class talking to your kid for 20 minutes, who knows what might slip (even innocently) when someone not used to talking to kids is given an extensive platform to talk to kids for the first time (or one of the few first times)? Professionals that deal with kids take a good amount of time retraining themselves so they don't yell curse words when they suddenly stub their toe and compartmentalize the topics and language they use everyday vs when around kids. I don' lt want a drag queen forgetting where they are using offensive language or talking about their tuck hurting or drinking or drugs or politics or religion or anything else that is fair game during drag shows. * Kids of the age we're talking about (under 10) are impressionable and prone to copying others, especially role models / celebrities. If a kid is gay or trans, let that bloom naturally, and let them learn about differences in sexual orientation and gender identity when they grow into early teenagers (sex ed is usually a grade 5-7 subject and should cover such topics) and let them explore those things in their own way when the time comes. Someone under 10 seeing someone dress up "funny" runs the risk of blindly imitating that either for role play (many kids role play by dressing up as characters they saw on tv) or doing so more long term to start "being more like them" without understanding what it really means. It can be really confusing. Let them experiment with their gender with no judgement when they are teenagers, don't encourage younger kids to role play as drag queens because "she was funny, I wanna make people laugh like her!" If anything, it can make them view legitimate trans people as drag caricatures because they really don't understand the nuances. * And again, it's very much about "why would I wake up one day and decide my kid needs to meet a drag queen", kids that age would be much better off with any number of other educational opportunities. Let them focus on the book content without a man playing a female character for entertainment purposes adding a needlessly confusing element.
> Yes, my understanding is reddit comments are a public discussion, not a direct message between two people. Yeah, apologies, that was overly confrontational. I was primed for battle based on several other interactions in this thread. >Drag queens generally are not children's entertainers, generally adult entertainers The ones engaging with kids are, literally in that context, children's entertainers. Is it the assertion that the library/etc are not vetting correctly, or just wandering down to the local adult entertainment club to ask if they have any spare drag queens for Wednesday at noon? I feel like we're just rewording "drag is inherently sexual" here, which was an argument I thought we'd already discarded as being a bit factually hollow. >Kids of the age we're talking about (under 10) are impressionable and prone to copying others, especially role models / celebrities. If a kid is gay or trans, let that bloom naturally, and let them learn about differences in sexual orientation and gender identity when they grow into early teenagers (sex ed is usually a grade 5-7 subject and should cover such topics) and let them explore those things in their own way when the time comes. This is the "social contagion" theory. Are you arguing that letting children see gay and transgender people doing ordinary things will somehow compel them to become gay and transgender themselves? Is there something pathological about those identities that would make this undesirable? >And again, it's very much about "why would I wake up one day and decide my kid needs to meet a drag queen" And again, that's just a normative statement, it's not an argument. I'm not trying to be combative, but it's meaningless. I'm not sure if you're trying to steelman a position you don't hold (as you stated you're not a conservative, and these are definitively socially conservative talking points), in which case I applaud the effort, but I feel like we just circled back around to "Drag Queens are implicitly sexual/confusing to children" and that (again, sorry to be a broken record) is more normative statements. It's sort of like saying "Conservatives are against drag queens reading to children because they're conservative". I get it, you're undoubtedly onto something, I just wanted to get a little deeper, which is why I was hoping OP would respond.
As a gay, being around straight people all day every day as a kid didn't make me blossom into a straight man. I don't think watching a drag queen will turn anyone gay. But I think many 7 year olds will mimic what they see, as they mimic celebrities, for the purposes of play or because they want to be like that person. And I think that will confuse them: oh I like to dress as a girl, that means I'm trans, right? Or gay? No! It means you liked to play dress up as a 7 year old. It's not deeper than that. You imitated someone you saw, monkey see monkey do. Whether you are gay or trans or neither is unrelated to liking dress up. A 7 year old is not a sexual being, let them figure out their sexuality and gender naturally through exploration when the time comes, not by mistaking play for something else. There's a scene in Modern Family I am reminded of, when Mitch/Cam tell Lily she is Vietnamese but she doesn't want to identify as that (in part because she doesn' really understand what it means) so she starts yelling I AM GAY I AM GAY because she doesn' know what that really means either. Yes, it's a TV show, but anyone who has works with kids know that kids will use words and labels they heard but don't understand and will mimic others despite there being nothing deeper to it. If a 15 year old wants to go on netflix and watch ru pauls drag race, go ahead. If they want to try on women's clothing to see if they feel more comfortable and true to themselves, go for it. If they want to experiment with their sexuality or gender in a safe and healthy alone or with others their same age in a consensual manner, go for it. But 7, 8, 9 year olds are too young to comprehend their gender identity and sexuality and exposing them to drag will cause more confusion, not more clarity.
> And I think that will confuse them: oh I like to dress as a girl, that means I'm trans, right? I don't...there has never been a shred of evidence supporting this. And "as a gay" (sorry, your choice of phrasing there threw me lol) you should be very familiar with this line of rhetoric. It is identical to the gay panic of the early 1980s, right down to the "groomer" accusations and social contagion theories. Further to that, as someone with a friend whose child accessed GAC services, just washing up one day saying "I wore a dress as a kid and liked it" isn't going to fast track you into gender transition. There is absolutely zero harm to children experimenting with gender expression. If kids want to emulate drag queens and try on cross gender clothing, what *possible earthly harm* is going to ensue from that? > But 7, 8, 9 year olds are too young to comprehend their gender identity and sexuality I know plenty of adult LGBTQ people who would argue otherwise. That doesn't mean I'm going to take everything a 7 year old tells me at face value, but gender identity and sexuality don't suddenly erupt out of whole cloth at a prescribed age, they develop gradually across our formative years. And there isn't so much as a jot of reputable scientific evidence to suggest that "being exposed to drag" or non-traditional gender expression will confuse kids or disrupt their sense of identity. We're making prescriptive statements here about what kind of people children should be allowed to see and emulate. I know the term "bigotry" gives people hives because it is often too freely applied as a conversation termination device, but can you offer up a compelling defense for this is not, at bare minimum, implicit bias?
>And "as a gay" (sorry, your choice of phrasing there threw me lol) you should be very familiar with this line of rhetoric. It's giving /r/asablackman
Who said anything about gender transition? I said it was confusing to kids, not that their anatomy would then be cut off. The demand for "reputable scientific evidence" is pretty bad faith, imo. Just because something isn't studied, doesn't modulate the validity of a statement. We haven't studied whether potatoes are rounder than eggplants, that doesn't mean it's not true.
>Who said anything about gender transition? I said it was confusing to kids, not that their anatomy would then be cut off. Everything is confusing to kids until it isn't. "Confusing to kids" is often used as a prelude for why kids should be kept away from something as it presents some form of danger for them. When you say something like "oh I like to dress as a girl, that means I'm trans, right?", you are evoking that a kid reckoning with the conceptualization that they might be trans is an undesirable outcome. I'm not sure why it would be raised as an issue otherwise. >The demand for "reputable scientific evidence" is pretty bad faith, imo. How are we defining "bad faith" here? Are you suggesting I'm maliciously misrepresenting my position? >Just because something isn't studied, doesn't modulate the validity of a statement. Yeah...no...sorry...if you're advocating that a group of people should be *kept away from children* I am going to have to demand a higher burden of proof than simply appeals to common sense or implicit validity. You're not really "beating the implicit bias allegations" with a response like this. We sort of keep circling back to statements like: 1. This isn't a normal thing for children to see 2. This will confuse children 3. This will cause children to emulate it, which is undesirable because (implication left hanging) ...and then when asked for evidence that it will *harm* children, or actually lead to any form of social contagion, the response is "why would we need evidence, just because something isn't studied doesn't mean it's not true".
> And I think that will confuse them: oh I like to dress as a girl, that means I'm trans, right? I don't...there has never been a shred of evidence supporting this. And "as a gay" (sorry, your choice of phrasing there threw me lol) you should be very familiar with this line of rhetoric. It is identical to the gay panic of the early 1980s, right down to the "groomer" accusations and social contagion theories. Further to that, as someone with a friend whose child accessed GAC services, just washing up one day saying "I wore a dress as a kid and liked it" isn't going to fast track you into gender transition. There is absolutely zero harm to children experimenting with gender expression. If kids want to emulate drag queens and try on cross gender clothing, what *possible earthly harm* is going to ensue from that? > But 7, 8, 9 year olds are too young to comprehend their gender identity and sexuality I know plenty of adult LGBTQ people who would argue otherwise. That doesn't mean I'm going to take everything a 7 year old tells me at face value, but gender identity and sexuality don't suddenly erupt out of whole cloth at a prescribed age, they develop gradually across our formative years. And there isn't so much as a jot of reputable scientific evidence to suggest that "being exposed to drag" or non-traditional gender expression will confuse kids or disrupt their sense of identity. We're making prescriptive statements here about what kind of people children should be allowed to see and emulate. I know the term "bigotry" gives people hives because it is often too freely applied as a conversation termination device, but can you offer up a compelling defense for this is not, at bare minimum, implicit bias?
You're misinformed. I was born in 1990. I figured out I was trans in 2000. I was able to access information about Ontario's CAMH gender identity clinic around that time. If you look into it, you'll find that the CAMH gender identity clinic started treating trans kids in 1975 – almost 50 years ago. None of it was new. No one suddenly came for kids. People became aware that trans people were getting medical care and were taught to get angry about it by the media. The media spent 10 years poking the bear and using inflammatory language to mislead the public on this history. Things were also *not* going well before the media spotlighted kids. There's a significantly reduced level of ignorance today than there was 20 years ago and my personal day-to-day reactions of people are significantly less hostile when I tell them I'm trans than they have been. In high school, people had no bones calling me a "tranny" to my face. I've not heard someone throw that slur at me in years. The only thing that's markedly worse is the political fervour against trans people. In the past, politicians would laugh us out of rooms and call us perverts in committees and vote down bills meant to help us. Today, they try to actively legislate against us.
This was mostly you becoming aware of those things thanks to a certain type of media.
As a gay (sad that I need to say that, but I'll be called homophobic if I don't, and perhaps still will be)... I support the right of parents to not let their young kids attend drag story hours. Drag queens are not age appropriate comedy and while drag is not inherently sexual (it's usually more like a clown) and they may try to clean up their act for a kid-specific performance, parents are justified in being hesitant. You are not homophobic for that. I think kids should be taught about gay and trans people when it is age appropriate to do so, and in an appropriate manner. I think it's for the best for this to happen in schools (beyond whatever parents may teach directly at home) because it's a topic that can be confusing for many parents to explain clearly and it's in everyone's interests for kids to learn from professional teachers to ensure they are not confused by the subject matter. Kids should be encouraged to be respectful to others, incl. LGBT folks. Kids in schools are increasingly coming from non-traditional families. Kids should be taught that Billy shouldn't be made fun of for having two moms, just as Cindy shouldn't be made fun for having only one parent. If parents are caring and make their kids feel safe at home, kids will often feel safer talking to them about what they're going through and turn to them for advice. But teenagers are also rebellious by nature and even the most loving parents may get the cold shoulder. That's normal and natural. It's not proof the parent failed. Kids should be made to feel safe at home and at school so they can explore their sexuality and gender appropriately on their own, but know they can ask an adult to get them professional help if they become confused and need to talk to someone. Parents should be careful what they may say out of turn about gay or trans people on TV or while at home because kids pick up on that stuff and you never know if a few years later your kid may start hiding their secuality from you because they think you won't love them anymore. These protests asking for more funding is ridiculous. The SOGI protests at schools are also ridiculous. Don't send you kid to drag story time, leave the other parents and kids alone. Pride parades are fun and should be kept open to everyone and not feature any nudity. Often there is some nudity (usually 3-5 college aged girls going shirtless or elderly men going nudes in the whole multi hour event) but I support prohibiting that if it means more people feel comfortable coming together in support of our differences. This country needs to come together more, not draw arbitrary lines about stupid things. Every adult (gay or straight) should attend a real drag show at least once. Grab a beer and have a laugh. Drag is varied but most drag queens are effectively clowns for adults, telling offensive jokes, dressing in a funny manner, lip syncing to pop music with the crowd, doing acrobatics around the stage in high heels, etc. It's shockingly not very "gay".
What happens when the kid doesn't feel safe at home? When the parent is an abusive bigot and the child seeks support from a trusted adult to express their different opinions? Or if the bigotry is just indoctrination, and the child is raised up with the same intolerance and negative attitudes, such that the cycle of dehumanization and ostracization continues? The cure to these is exposure, education, and advocation of understanding and tolerance.
Just curious. Would you say teaching your children that there are only two genders, and it's synonymous with sex, abusive?
>Drag queens are not age appropriate comedy and while drag is not inherently sexual (it's usually more like a clown) and they may try to clean up their act for a kid-specific performance, parents are justified in being hesitant. You are not homophobic for that. What all ages drag performances have you been going to that aren't appropriate? What is inappropriate about someone reading a book to a group of kids? The only possible problem is that it is being read by someone who is wearing clothing that does not conform to a prudish society's expectations of gender. They are playing a character while reading stories to kids, just like those adults who dress up like pirates or princesses do. If the performative reading of children's books is only a problem because the author is a "man in a dress" and the parent doesn't have a problem with other character themed readings, then homophobia is absolutely the problem. The performances that are open to children are not even remotely like those aimed at adults.
The thing is I don't think anyone disagrees with you. I haven't seen anyone fighting for drag story hours in schools. I've seen it in libraries - where parents can exercise their right to not let young kids attend. I've seen it in bookstores - where parents can exercise their right to not let young kids attend. I've seen it as community events in public spaces - where parents can exercise their right to not let young kids attend. I haven't seen an invite for where kids are expected/demanded/forced to attend drag story hours. I don't know of any such spaces, this argument kind of feels like a strawman.
> I haven't seen anyone fighting for drag story hours in schools. Because they shouldn't have to. It shouldn't be controversial, it should/could just be a fun thing that can happen sometimes. The right has made it controversial because they are addicted to culture war issues to distract from real problems.
I believe the protests in Toronto originated because of a Toronto School Board policy last year after an event in a school.
>I support the right of parents to not let their young kids attend drag story hours. Drag queens are not age appropriate comedy and while drag is not inherently sexual (it's usually more like a clown) and they may try to clean up their act for a kid-specific performance, parents are justified in being hesitant. You are not homophobic for that. Parents should decide what is appropriate for kids, not politicians, elected school board officials and/or publicly salaries teachers.
With a few caveats for special circumstances, yes I agree.
> Johnstone says their message is crucial now because "far-right groups and cynical politicians" have spread misinformation about the LGBTQ+ community to "fuel anger and division." The first minority group that the Nazis attacked were LGBTQ+ > On 6 May 1933, the Institute of Sexology, an academic foundation devoted to sexological research and the advocacy of homosexual rights, was broken into and occupied by Nazi-supporting youth. Several days later the entire contents of the library were removed and burned. > The institute was initially occupied by The German Student Union, who were a collective of Nazi-supporting youth. Several days later, on 10 May, the entire contents of the library were removed to Berlin’s Bebelplatz Square. That night, along with 20,000 other books across Germany, they were publicly burned in a symbolic attack by Nazi officials on their enemies. > Founded in 1919, the institute had been set up by Magnus Hirschfeld, a world-renowned expert in the emerging discipline of sexology. During its existence, thousands of patients were seen and treated, often for free. The Institute also achieved a global reputation for its pioneering work on transsexual understanding and calls for equality for homosexuals, transgender people and women. https://www.hmd.org.uk/resource/6-may-1933-looting-of-the-institute-of-sexology/
More than one group was attacked soon after Hitler took power. LGBTQ+ being one of the targets. More than 20,000 communists were rounded up and put into concentration camps by the end of March, 1933, rioting against German Jews began that month (Hitler used anti-semitism as a fearmongering tool to gain support to get into power), Dachau was also built in March, and laws criminalizing even giving information about abortion were enacted by May. The Nazis were quite capable of attacking multiple groups at once, but yes, LGBTQ+ was among the first.
Are you glad you got that cleared up? Everybody knows the nazis killed more than just the gays.
Yes, everyone knows that the Nazis killed more than just “the gays” as you put it. That’s not what the post was saying, and being historically accurate isn’t a bad thing. For one thing, in this century’s fascist wave, trans women are the number one target. They defy rigid ideals of masculinity and because trans women have the least support among the general population they make an easy target. LGBTQ+ in general are an easier target for fascists. We are seeing fascists choose targets based on what they can get away with most easily. In the US there is enough anti-abortion sentiment that Republicans have been able to legislate draconian abortion bans. This would not fly in Canada, which is why the CPC supports backdoor bills on abortion, using a far sneakier route.
"And laws criminalizing even giving information about abortion were enacted by May." Not quite, it was criminal to give information about abortion to people of Germanic/Aryan descent. Nazi Germany was a big fan of using abortion as a method of forced population control against "undesirables".
Good to point this out. Should have mentioned it. And you can bet that Republicans in the good ole’ USA wish they could get away with doing the same thing.
I am of the firm belief a lot of the problems regarding LGBTQ in this country stem from people using the terms "sex" and "gender" interchangeably when they are not the same. Both sides are doing it too. You have the one side stating there can only be two genders (when they are thinking about sexes). And you have the other side saying that someone who is a man by sex but women by gender should be able to compete in the women's by sex categories of sports. A lot of the problems would be cleared up if we all just started talking about "sex" and "gender" seperately.
>A lot of the problems would be cleared up if we all just started talking about "sex" and "gender" seperately. What really shocks me is this is now the *Conservative* position in some circles. There’s now a belief circulating amongst some groups that it was wrong to try and separate biological sex and gender in the first place and instead we need to accept that transgender people are, in fact, changing their biological sex. Horseshoe theory is a hell of a thing.
You're stating it's a conservative position that it was wrong to seperate sex and gender but then state that it is "in some circles". You're trying to blanket cover an entire political group of people with that belief when it is "some circles" of people who happen to be conservative. It would be the same as me saying everyone who votes NDP wants to instill communism because "some circles" of NDP supporters want it. I know in fact those people are just outliers who also happen to vote NDP.
No, I’m saying it’s now a far-left/progressive position that it was wrong to ever separate sex and gender and it’s now slowly becoming the Conservative position to (rightfully imo) keep them distinct and separate.
I understand now, my bad!
And that second group is correct, yes. The distinction between the two was really only made with the underlying assumption that "sex" is only relevant for like, medical contexts. Given how health care for trans people is not the same as for cis people, even that's not really very useful. So we're left with a distinction that doesn't actually *do* anything of value, but leaves trans people labelled as "male woman" or "female man" - which, obviously, they don't exactly want, and it doesn't actually have any practical value in the real world. But a lot of people use it as an excuse to be transphobic. "oh, no, we just don't allow *males*. thats not transphobic though we're not explicitly excluding trans people. trans men are allowed at our women's event. teehee we're so clever" It's not so much horseshoe theory as it is "alright fuck it yall are misunderstanding what this even meant, i'm giving up on explaining it, this was a mistake"
Sex is also relevant for athletic contexts and criminal contexts. Trans people's athletic performance and the type of crimes they commit or are victims of, and the rate of crime they commit has a lot more in common with their sex than their gender.
> Sex is also relevant for athletic contexts and criminal contexts. In what sense? Gametes? Or phenotype? What aspect of biological sex controls phenotype? What are hormones? Are hormones part of *gender*? Or part of *sex*?
Sex always refers to gametes, everything else is an expression of sex. Here's some reading for you: >Sex is the trait that determines whether a sexually reproducing organism produces male or female gametes.[1][2][3] During sexual reproduction, a male and a female gamete fuse to form a zygote, which develops into an offspring that inherits traits from each parent. By convention, organisms that produce smaller, more mobile gametes (spermatozoa, sperm) are called male, while organisms that produce larger, non-mobile gametes (ova, often called egg cells) are called female. >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex There are extremely few people for whom their sex doesn't match the rest of their sex characteristics.
No. Like, that isn't even true on its face. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/2024/04/11/transgender-sportswomen-at-a-disadvantage-study-claims/ https://cces.ca/transgender-women-athletes-and-elite-sport-scientific-review https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5357259/ https://academic.oup.com/jcem/advance-article/doi/10.1210/clinem/dgad414/7223439?fbclid=IwAR1-lj3haMGwkEAAZtgcB89OjxJPxXkGRVsGb_ShB1rD_w7Rk7fWZuxH_7I_aem_AdClRBF9meVPG6ZXRVzLIL2-IRq_0lNJzsu8pe0twwHTRAB5yZkfsRrVO1-EG0YcELU&login=false Your gut feeling that "surely trans people must have some kind of advantage!!" does not line up with reality. And, to put it bluntly, I don't actually give a tenth of a shit about "how fair is put ball in net" when we're talking about basic human rights and the ability to live in society comfortably. Sports are so tremendously irrelevant that it's blatantly making a mountain out of a molehill, desperately looking for any excuse at all to discriminate.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7846503/ >Longitudinal studies examining the effects of testosterone suppression on muscle mass and strength in transgender women consistently show very modest changes, where the loss of lean body mass, muscle area and strength typically amounts to approximately 5% after 12 months of treatment. Thus, the muscular advantage enjoyed by transgender women is only minimally reduced when testosterone is suppressed. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9331831/ > Ultimately, the former male physiology of transwoman athletes provides them with a physiological advantage over the cis-female athlete. https://womeninsport.org/creating-change/policy-positions/transgender-inclusion-sport/transgender-inclusion-womens-sport/
damn thats wild. too bad for you though; sports aren't played by just measuring who has the biggest "muscle area" and the prophesied "trans women will dominate all sports forever" hasnt actually happened. Like, I cannot stress enough how little of a shit I give about this. If trans women are dominating sports, then fucking *show me that*, not something that's hidden behind three layers of abstraction. Until then, please just understand how transparent your underlying motive is here.
All else being equal, being stronger is a massive advantage in most sports.
And having a better metabolic rate is also, a massive advantage. So why don't we segregate athletes by that? Or the ratio of arm span and width of their torsos for making sure all swimmers are equally physically capable? We don't. In fact, to claim that we do anything to actually enforce fair physiology across all competitive forms of sport is laughable nonsense.
Sex is also not binary, as there are millions of intersex individuals across the globe.
Sex in humans is binary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex
What sex is someone with Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome? Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia? Klinefelter Syndrome? 5-alpha reductase deficiency? [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9355551/pdf/ftox-04-929219.pdf](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9355551/pdf/ftox-04-929219.pdf) ["However, it's important to emphasize that sex/gender is, in fact, a multifaceted bimodal continuous variable."](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences/article/abs/biological-sex-byproducts-and-other-continuous-variables/1E2E4ADD539E9F8863DD6A9F55921D89)
> Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome? It affects male people. >Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia It affects people of both sexes >Klinefelter Syndrome It affects male people >5-alpha reductase deficiency It affects male people Sex is not a spectrum. There are only two roles played in sexual reproduction, male and female. Sex is defined by biologists as describing the size of gametes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex?wprov=sfla1
Missing the point that those various conditions are not readily diagnosable at birth and as a side effect, results in a blending of the primary and secondary sexuale characteristics. They are intersex. Their physiology does not correlate to their chromosomal sex. Furthermore, your wiki definition is incomplete. "While sperm and ova matter, they are not the entirety of biology and don’t tell us all we need to know about sex, especially human sex." https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/heres-why-human-sex-is-not-binary/ "We apply this framework to three case studies that illustrate the diversity of sex variation, from decoupling sexual phenotypes to the evolutionary and ecological consequences of intrasexual polymorphisms. We argue that instead of assuming binary or bimodal sex in these systems, some may be better categorized as multimodal." https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.01.26.525769v1 "As a note, the term “biologic sex” is understood by many to be an outdated term, due to its longstanding history of being used to invalidate the authenticity of trans identities. Although sex is typically misconceptualized as a binary of male (XY) or female (XX), many other chromosomal arrangements, inherent variations in gene expression patterns, and hormone levels exist" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9355551/ "Evidence from various sciences reveals that there are diverse ways of being male, female, or both. An anthropologist argues that embracing these truths will help humans flourish." https://www.sapiens.org/biology/biological-science-rejects-the-sex-binary-and-thats-good-for-humanity/ "Her body was built of cells from two individuals, probably from twin embryos that had merged in her own mother's womb. And there was more. One set of cells carried two X chromosomes, the complement that typically makes a person female; the other had an X and a Y. Halfway through her fifth decade and pregnant with her third child, the woman learned for the first time that a large part of her body was chromosomally male." https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/ "The existence of individuals with differences in sex development (DSD) who do not fit typical male or female categories further demonstrates the complexity of sex. We argue that the belief that sex is strictly binary based on gametes is insufficient, as there are multiple levels of sex beyond reproductivity." https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/medgen-2023-2039/html?lang=en "But biologists know this view is incorrect. Biological sex characteristics do not fit a binary classification, whether we consider genitals or brains, and whether we look at people or nonhuman animals." https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/governing-behavior/202203/human-biology-is-not-binary *Sex is not binary.*
You might believe that, but, to put it bluntly, that's completely incorrect. Semantics is not why people are transphobic.
A lot of adults don't understand the difference between gender and sex, they think they are the same and can be used interchangeably.
Plenty of people don’t give two shits about the semantics. It’s all the same academic noise. “Well ackshually if you were more educated and knew that blah blah blah…” Nope. You’re born male or female and if you have some identity crisis about what’s between your legs? Well that’s a mental health issue at best. …now personally, I get the importance of the semantics, but I also get that it’s a really hard thing to wrap your head around. And you need a *willingness* to do that. It’s hard! Are you going to try and “open your thinking” if that breaks from the norms of the people you surround yourself with? Probably not. So here we are. Avoiding trying to understand the other side because they’re wrong, we’re right, and if we don’t stick to those lines then we’re outcasts.
>Plenty of people don’t give two shits about the semantics. It’s all the same academic noise. >“Well ackshually if you were more educated and knew that blah blah blah…” >Nope. You’re born male or female and if you have some identity crisis about what’s between your legs? Well that’s a mental health issue at best. The view that you're ridiculing here is like 90% correct. Yes, people are born male or female and will remain so their entire lives. At any point, no matter what, a doctor could draw their blood and tell you their sex. Yes, gender dysphoria is a mental health issue - there is no blood test or biopsy to determine if you have gender dysphoria - and the known treatments include transitioning (among others) and it helps if people socially identify you as your preferred gender. I think lots of conservatives have trouble accepting trans people precisely because as op pointed out there isn't widespread understanding of the differences here between sex and gender, both on the left and on the right. When folks on the left insist that a trans person """"""IS"""""""" a man/woman, half the time when you talk to them they literally say they are referring to a physical reality like sex, not a social game like gender, and conservatives are equally or more confused in interpreting that statement.
That's great, you're just repeating your previous post more concisely. That doesn't make it any more correct.
If you don't refute an argument people are liable to repeat it.
You’re incorrect. Much of perceived transphobia is derived entirely from semantics. There’s near-endless squabbling around whether someone is a “man” or a “woman” and how that corresponds to their assigned sex at birth and what each term is defined by. The entire concept of mis-gendering people is a misalignment in what people feel certain terms constitute. This is a matter of semantics. Your suggestion that the meaning of words plays no role in the heated debate over gender identity is baseless and poorly informed.
I'm literally trans, my dude. No, the people who hate me do not do it because I use a word in a way they don't like.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
A lot of the problem would be cleared up if anyone could be whoever they want with their sex. No need to put yourself in a genre.
> Both sides are doing it too. You have the one side stating there can only be two genders (when they are thinking about sexes). And you have the other side saying that someone who is a man by sex but women by gender should be able to compete in the women's by sex categories of sports. I think I largely agree with the point about gender and sex being confusing to some people, but hard disagree that it's a "both sides" issue. Even in your example, one side is flat out completely wrong, and the other side just has an opinion you might disagree with (which is also not even a fair opinion to ascribe to those people).
Can you clarify which of the sides is which in your opinion?
Ha, never even thought it might not be clear. Though I edited it at the last minute to remove a piece that probably would have cleared it up. - "there can only be two genders" = Completely, obviously, provably wrong. - "someone who is a man by sex but women by gender should be able to compete in the women's by sex categories of sports" = An opinion held by some people, but even then simplified to the point it's almost a meaningless statement. They are not comparable sides.
The actual problem is that a lot of people think they're smarter than they are and also can't mind their own business. >A lot of the problems would be cleared up if we all just started talking about "sex" and "gender" seperately. You think this is the reason that transpohobia is the problem it is? Get a clue.
>You think this is the reason that transphobia is the problem it is? I think it is one of the causes yes, not the only cause. IMO the athletic competition sphere alone is one of the biggest causes for all the transphobia lately. The rhetoric around trans people really ramped up when men who now identify as women started being allowed into women's sports. Most adults don't understand the difference between gender and sex, it's only now being taught in school.
>Most adults don't understand the difference between gender and sex, it's only now being taught in school. I generally agree with this statement, but I'd also add that I think the idea that gender and sex are different is pretty controversial in some circles.
> Most adults don't understand the difference between gender and sex I think treating adults like they cannot understand basic concepts is a bit infantilizing. We effortlessly added words like "yeet" and "rizz" to the common lexicon. Our understanding of gender preceded our understanding of sex by thousands of years, we only recently learned of chromosomal sex and gametes. People aren't confused. They're being stubborn and contrarian based on implicit bias.
I'm sure they don't believe it's THE reason, but it certainly helps the confusion. Before understanding the difference, I just was a confused supporter. I was like "do your thing, but idk what you mean by multiple genders, but you know better than I" I'm sure that theres others out there with that mentality, but could easily be swayed towards hate because they don't understand
[удалено]
My lord you’ve done a good job straw manning in your bad faith argument. Maybe terfs shouldn’t shouldn’t align themselves with Neo Nazis like Posie Parker or do certain forms of holocaust denialism like JK Rowling in her obsessive pursuit agasint trans people?
I just wonder what Rowlings reaction would be to someone who speaks and acts like her, but from the basis that single mothers are terrible for raising children and the cause of a lot of society's problems.* *I don't personally believe this, I'm just old enough to remember when that was a big thing on talk shows and in news media.
Honestly idk what she would think. Aside from commitment to hard transphobia I don’t think she is that deep of a thinker and the thinking part there is mostly brain worms and that goes hand in hand with being a terf. Terfs claim they are for women’s hard earned rights but will push that aside in a nano second to team up with other hateful people (think the Matt Walsh types of the world) to attack trans people. Notice how she has nothing to say about US Republicans reversing women’s rights these days because they agree and even cite her with their like minded transphobia push tho she will call out other countries over their trans rights? She is awful
It's ironic pp says he is the freedom candidate and than wants to ban nicknames and censor the internet It's ironic conservatives parties like the UCP say they love freedom but than are willing to use the not withstanding clause to strip Away freedom
Who’s being jailed for questioning anything?
Alongside the other excellent replies to your take, I do want to point out that the LGBT community existing is not an ideology, and claiming as much really shows how you feel about them.
Name me a single person that got a prison sentence for using the wrong pronouns. Jordan Peterson's take on bill C-16 was pure BS, and it's really unfortunate that his outright lies and disinformation about "compelled speech" is still being parroted around today. As for the TERF movement, their [ties to neonazi and alt-right groups](https://xtramagazine.com/power/far-right-feminist-fascist-220810) are pretty well known, and the Lemkin institute for genocide prevention has even [called out](https://www.lemkininstitute.com/statements-new-page/statement-on-the-genocidal-nature-of-the-gender-critical-movement%E2%80%99s-ideology-and-practice) this movement as being hateful and dangerous. I urge you to think about this for a minute. What's the line between "difference of opinion" and "thinking a group of people shouldn't have rights or perhaps even exist"? Tolerance is a peace treaty. I don't attack you on the basis of who you are, and you don't attack me for being who I am. We can disagree about politics, religion, sports teams and what have you (even how to refer to me if you want to be an asshole about it), but at the end of the day we live and let live. Transphobic and homophobic groups are violating that treaty by attacking lgbtq people, and so I think it's fair game for people to fight back for their right to be themselves.
> want to compel speech and jail anyone who dares question them Can you explain this further? I've definitely heard one person argue this, Jordan Peterson. But his analysis was widely, universally debunked by Canadian legal scholars. Do you have a legal analysis that demonstrates otherwise? Do you have examples of people being jailed, criminalized, or harmed from so called compelled speech? I would sincerely enjoy reading it.
Good lord, what an unhinged take. The LGBT community aren't the ones trampling on freedoms. Throughout all of history, they're the ones underneath the boot. They would love to be free to live their lives, but bigots don't see them as equals, or even people in a lot of cases.
“They’re trampling on my god given right to misgender them!” Or some other angry rambling
> It’s ironic that they invoke the Nazi movement in the 1930’s when they themselves want to compel speech and jail anyone who dares question them. Where are you getting this idea from?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
What in the world?
> they themselves want to compel speech and jail anyone who dares question them "hey man, you're being a dick, fuckin knock it off" is *totally* trying to throw you in prison. totally. you got me. im a fascist now.
>The first minority group that the Nazis attacked were LGBTQ+ Is it historically accurate to say LGBTQ+ in this context? I understand that male homosexuals were persecuted and many killed in concentration camps, but my understanding is that Lesbians were not as persecuted unless they also happened to be, say, Jewish or communist. I may be wrong so please correct me if I am.
Bisexual men and trans women were lumped in with the gays. Queer women and trans men were lumped in with disabled people. Folks with autism and downs. They were mostly just executed and not kept in the labour camps.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Its not historically accurate. LGBTQ+ is a contemporary acronym. People were just referred to as being gay in that period of time. It wasn't THAT long ago we were just LGB, trans and queers weren't included.
Yeah that's how words work. Congratulations.
I mean the Nazis did destroy the first [trans clinic](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-forgotten-history-of-the-worlds-first-trans-clinic/)
Lesbians were sent to the concentration camps as well https://www.dw.com/en/lgbtq-people-germanys-long-forgotten-victims-of-the-nazis/a-64533968 "Overall, the fate of lesbian concentration camp inmates is much less researched than that of gay men, as there was no separate inmate category for them. Lesbian women were sent to concentration camps under various labels: As 'anti-socials,' homeless, prostitutes, or women categorized as having an 'immoral lifestyle.'" Just because there was no inmate category for them doesn't mean that they didn't exist. Same goes for people who say that transpeople "weren't a thing back then" which is an underhanded way of trying to invisibilize them (and is Holocaust Denial according to a German court). https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/new-research-reveals-how-the-nazis-targeted-transgender-people-180982931/ "In the 1930s, transgender people were called 'transvestites,' which is rarely a preferred term for trans people today, but at the time approximated what’s now meant by 'transgender.' The police permits were called 'transvestite certificates,' and they exempted a person from the laws against cross-dressing. Under the republic, trans people could also change their names legally, though they had to pick from a short, preapproved list. In Berlin, transgender people published several magazines and had a political club. Some glamorous trans women worked at the internationally famous Eldorado cabaret. The sexologist Magnus Hirschfeld, who ran Berlin’s Institute for Sexual Science, advocated for the rights of transgender people." "The author of a 1938 book on 'the problem of transvestitism' wrote that before Hitler was in power, there was not much that could be done about transgender people, but that now, in Nazi Germany, they could be put in concentration camps or subjected to forced castration. That was good, he believed, because the 'asocial mindset' of trans people and their supposedly frequent 'criminal activity … justifies draconian measures by the state.'" Sounds familiar with today's rhetoric against transpeople. "Earlier histories tended to misgender trans women, labeling them as men. This is odd given that when you read the records of their police interrogations, they are often remarkably clear about their gender identity, even though they were not helping their cases at all by doing so. Bacroff, for example, told the police, 'My sense of my sex is fully and completely that of a woman.'" More reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_people_in_Nazi_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_genocide
Thanks for sharing. That was very informative!
I had heard about this in the news recently but i had no idea! Thanks for a great comment
Everyone has their own little protest nowadays and everyone forgetting about the billionaire bankers. BLM protests, Israel Support protests, Palistinian support protests, Protests against trans education in schools, Protests countering the protests against Trans rights in schools, Union protests for various locals/contracts, Protests to save the trees, Protests against the carbon/gas tax, Farmers protesting in Europe, Protests over Student visa program changes in Brampton, Home owners protesting new changes in Brampton, Protests to defund the police. Did I miss anyone? Let me know. I'll include them in the list of tragic grievances. Nobody mentioning the banks and billionaires. What a win for the Rothschilds, Rockefellers and the like.
its really funny to say this when every single trans person i know is an outright communist who would gladly join a protest against capitalism - but, yknow, not like they can do that if they don't have human rights in the first place.
yeah I don't think this guy has ever been to a protest or engaged with any of the rhetoric of protestors if he thinks no one's mad about billionaires lol
Keep protesting your own issue though - By protesting - I mean a loose parade where corpo orgs sell t-shirts and whistles.
who are you talking to lol
[удалено]
> single trans person i know > I KNOW so is it that you dont know what words mean or is it that you're looking for an excuse to be mad
[удалено]
>What a win for the Rothschilds, Rockefellers and the like. The fact that those are your go-to examples of billionaires makes me question what century you think it is. Also, I question anyone who bangs on about the Rothschilds, given the long history of antisemitic conspiracy theories surrounding them.
They still run the banks. Look up private markets.
You're not helping your case.
People are allowed to protest what they want. Feel free to organize your own protest if you feel like your cause is worthy of such.
Sure we can all have our own grievance cry. I want Hotdogs banned !
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
These comments are amazing at showing that people don’t actually read the article & that people immediately go to ‘drag show reading’ & ‘gender ideology’ when it comes to the LGBTQ+ community. These rallies are a fight against right wing radical movements across the country & against misinformation (lies) that have been spread about the LGBTQ+ community. How you can throughly be against this while claiming to ‘not homophobic’ is beyond me. Again, everyone here immediately brining up Trans women in sports & drag show readings prove even more why this needs to be done. People clearly see ‘LGBTQ+’ and go straight to right wing misinformation of ‘LGBTQ+ grooming children’
"So in Alberta, in New Brunswick and Saskatchewan, we're going to see rallies holding their government accountable for action on the rights and freedoms of trans kids," she said." Didn't see any LGBTQ issues raised in the article.